Did Stalin Pluck a Live Chicken as a Lesson to His Followers?
A common item of interest on social media is a rather gruesome anecdote attributed to Soviet leader Josef Stalin, which describes him purportedly plucking a live chicken in order to demonstrate "how easy it is to govern stupid people":  We found no sources for this anecdote that were contemporaneous with Stalin's life (he died in 1953), nor from the next few decades afterwards. The earliest recountings of it seem to date from the early 1990s or late 1980s, which is consistent with the following excerpt from a 1988 New Yorker article that attributes it to the mid-1980s writings of anti-Stalinist Soviet/Kyrgyz author Chingiz Aitmatov: With the new Party line established, editors around the country unleashed an extraordinary torrent of articles damning Stalin. A novelist named Chingiz Aitmatov wrote one of the most powerful. Aitmatov has a distinguished history as an anti-Stalinist. In the early nineteen-eighties, when discipline of all kinds was lax, he managed to get past the censors a novel called "The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years," which in elliptical, allegorical ways, attacked the Stalinist legacy, and sold five million copies. Now Aitmatov was free to use language as blunt as he liked. He began with an anecdote: Stalin called together his closest comrades-in-arms. "I understand you're wondering how I govern the people so that every last one of them ... thinks of me as a living god. Now I'll teach you the right attitude toward the people." And he ordered a chicken brought in. He plucked it live, in front of them all, down to the last feather, down to the red flesh, until only the comb was left on its head. "And now watch," he said, and let the chicken go. It could have gone off where it wished, but it went nowhere. It was too hot in the sun and too cold in the shade. The poor bird could only press itself against Stalin's boots. And then he tossed it a crumb of grain, and the bird followed him wherever he went. Otherwise, it would have fallen over from hunger. "That," he told his pupils, "is how you govern our people." Aitmatov appears to be the source of this tale, but as noted in the above New Yorker article and a 2008 Reuters obituary for Aitmatov, he wrote in "elliptical, allegorical ways," and his works "often interwove popular myths and folktales to create allegorical themes populated with down-to-earth characters." Aitmatov acknowledged that of himself as well, writing in the introduction to his novel "The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years": obituary As in previous works, here I also draw on legends and myths handed down to us from former generations; together with these, for the first time in my writing career I also use fantasy to form part of the story. But, for me, neither is an end in itself, simply a method of expressing thoughts, a means of identifying and interpreting realities. Given that Aitmatov is the apparent source for this anecdote, that it did not first appear until some 30 years after Stalin's death, and that Aitmatov was known for his use of allegory, most likely the tale is not a literal account of something Stalin did, but rather an illustrative sketch that Aitmatov either invented himself or heard elsewhere and subsequently attributed to Stalin. We therefore rate this claim "Legend." Cullen, Robert.  "Letter from Moscow."
  The New Yorker.  17 October 1988  (p. 100). Aitmatov, Chingiz.  The Day Lasts More than a Hundred Years.
  Indiana University Press, 1988.  ISBN 0-253-20482-8. Reuters.  "Kyrgyz Writer, Perestroika Ally Aitmatov Dies."
  10 June 2008.
A viral tweet posted on Jan. 23, 2022, claimed to show "the last photo taken of Genepil, the last Queen of Mongolia, moments before she was executed as part of the Stalinist repressions in Mongolia in 1938." In our research, we soon found that this caption was inaccurate. tweet The picture in question showed two men pointing guns at a woman in a field:  The tweet was shared tens of thousands of times.  The first picture on the left side of the tweet was not in question. According to various sources, the close-up photograph was believed to perhaps show Genepil posing in Mongolia in the 1920s. (We also found references to the notion that her appearance inspired the costume design for the character Queen Amidala in "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.") various sources references notion Two days after the viral tweet, a Reddit user posted the same photograph of the men with pointed guns and claimed it showed "The last photo of the last queen of Mongolia, just before she was killed in 1938": posted same photograph  The Reddit thread was upvoted nearly 50,000 times in the first few hours after it was posted.  One Reddit user asked in a comment: "Do you have a source for this photo that you could share? I don't think I've ever seen this photo of Genepil. Very interesting." comment Twitter and Reddit users mentioned a Wikipedia entry for Genepil as their source. The Wikipedia page cited two sources for the line that mentioned her death. They were watson.ch (German) and ugluu.mn (Mongolian). Neither of these two sources mentioned the picture of the two men pointing guns at a woman who was said to be Genepil. Wikipedia entry for Genepil watson.ch ugluu.mn Buried deep in the replies to the viral tweet was a clue. "Sources claim it's from a movie called '  ,'" @pacific_blues tweeted. After we did a little digging, we found that the tweet was correct. tweeted  Without this tip, we may not have found the answer to debunk the claim from Reddit and Twitter.  We found the full version of the Mongolian-language film on Facebook. According to the closing credits, it was released in the year 2000 and appeared to have been shot in Mongolia. The title, "  ," was roughly translated to mean, "The Last Queen of the King." The picture that was said to be "the last photo of the last queen of Mongolia" was simply a screenshot from the 1:55:24 mark in the movie: on Facebook  This scene takes place at the end of "  ." The three characters continue walking into the direction of the sun before the movie fades to black. The character is not shot onscreen.  According to a synopsis on mongol-kino.mn, the story was indeed about Genepil. Roughly translated into English, it reads: "A historical tragedy about the last emperor of Mongolia, Genenpil, the queen of the 8th Jebtsundamba. The last emperor, Eight Bogd Tseenpil, was renamed the Great Fairy and renamed Genenpil." (Several references described her as a former queen consort, which may have been more accurate.) mongol-kino.mn Jet Set Times previously published that Genepil was believed to have been "shot and killed at the age of 33 when she was five months pregnant" after being "charged with conspiring with the Japanese." She and her father were executed, according to the reporting. (We were unable to definitively confirm various details about her life, as her name didn't appear to show up in many history books.) published In sum, no, a viral picture did not show the last photograph before the last queen of Mongolia was executed in 1938. While records do show that Genepil was killed in 1938, the photograph in question was a screenshot from a movie that was released in the year 2000. Notices purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) make good phishing bait for a number of reasons:     A March 2006 mass phish e-mailing took advantage of those points, spamming millions of Internet users with phony notices that included the IRS logo, advised recipients they were eligible to receive tax refunds (of $63.80 or $163.80), and invited them to click on a link which took them to an IRS web site form through which they could claim those refunds.   IRS Notification - Please Read This . After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $163.80. Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days in order to process it. A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline. To access the form for your tax refund, please click here here Regards,Internal Revenue Service  Copyright 2006, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved.   Of course, the links included in the messages didn't actually send users to the genuine IRS web site; they redirected claimants to impostor IRS sites (hosted on servers in a variety of countries) and instructed them to enter all sorts of sensitive personal information (credit card number, expiration date, CVV code and ATM PIN) into an on-line form so that the putative refunds could be posted directly to their debit/credit card or bank accounts. Any information entered into such forms can be harvested by scammers and used for identity theft and other financial crimes. The IRS never offers refunds through e-mail or sends out unsolicited e-mails to taxpayers. When the IRS needs to contact a taxpayer, they send notice via U.S. Mail, and every such notice includes a telephone number that the recipient can call for confirmation. Should you need to visit the IRS web site for any reason, go there directly (by entering the www.irs.gov URL into your web browser) rather than following links in e-mail messages. Miller, Anita.  "Internet Scammers Using IRS Logo for Bait."
  San Marcos Daily Record.  17 March 2006. Speier, Drew.  "E-Mail Scam Uses Fake IRS Web Site."
  WFIE-TV.  2 March 2006. KPHO-TV.  "Consumers Warned of IRS 'Phishing' Scam."
  2 March 2006. KXAN-TV.  "New E-Mail Scam Promises Money From the IRS."
  17 March 2006. WFSB-TV.  "Latest Scam Targets Tax Returns."
  2 March 2006. WHEC-TV.  "IRS Warning Taxpayers About Fake E-Mail Scam."
  2 March 2006. WLNS-TV.  "Beware of Tax Scam."
  7 March 2006. Claim:  The 'Codex Alimentarius' will eliminate U.S. consumers' rights to purchase and use vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements.     : In June 2005 the U.S. was forced to accept Codex Alimentarius regulation of vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements.  OUTDATED: Bills proposing the regulation of dietary supplements are currently before Congress.  : In June 2010, President Obama signed Codex Alimentarius regulations into law by Executive Order. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 2005] Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may end in June of this year (2005). After that U.S. supplements will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (Food Code) is setting the supplement standards for all countries in the WTO. They will be enforced by the WTO and will over ride U.S. laws. The U.S. President and Congress agreed to this take-over when the WTO Treaty was signed. Violations are punished by WTO trade sanctions. CODEX drastically restricts vitamins, minerals, herbs and other supplements. CODEX met secretly in November, 2004 and finalized "Step 8 (the final stage)" to begin implementation in June, 2005. The CODE includes:(1) No supplement can be sold for preventive or therapeutic use.(2) Any potency higher than RDA (minimal strength) is a "drug" requiring a prescription and must be produced by drug companies. Over 5000 safe items now in health stores will be banned, terminating health stores as we now know them.(3) CODEX regulations become binding internationally.(4) New supplements are banned unless given very expensive CODEX testing and approval. CODEX now applies to Norway and Germany, among others, where zinc tablets rose from $4 per bottle to $52. Echinacea (an ancient immune-enhancement herb) rose from $14 to $153 (both examples are now allowed by prescription only). They are now "drugs". Vitamin C above 200 mg, niacin above 32 mg, vitamin B6 above 4 mg  all are banned over-the-counter as drugs. No amino acids (arginine, lysine, carnitine, etc. = essential amino acids!), essential fatty acids (omegas 3, 6, 9, etc.), or other essential supplements such as DMEA, DHEA, CoQ10, MSM, beta-carotene, etc. are allowed. The CODEX rules are not based on real science. They are made by a few people meeting in secret (see web sites below), not necessarily scientists. In 1993 the FDA and drug corporations tried to put all supplements under restriction and prescription. But over 4 million Americans told Congress and the President to protect their freedom of choice on health supplements. The DSHEA Law was passed in 1994, which does so. But this will be over ruled by CODEX and the World Trade Organization. Virtually nothing about it has been in the media. What the drug corporations have failed to do through Congress they have gotten by sneak attack through CODEX with the help of a silent media. What can be done at this late hour? (1) Spread the word as much as possible. Inform yourselves fully at https://www.ahha.org, www.iahf.com and www.alliance-natural-health.org.(2) Oppose bills S. 722 and H.R. 3377. These support the CODEX restrictions with U.S. laws, changing the DSHEA law.(3) Support H.R. 1146 which would restore the sovereignty of the U.S. Constitution over CODEX, etc.(4) Express your wishes to the President, Senators and Representatives (They got us into this!) ASAP.(5) Contact multi-level health marketing groups that can get their members to inform the government.(6) Send donations, however small, to the British Alliance for Natural Health (see web site above). It has succeeded in challenging the CODEX directives in World Court later this month or next. They need helpfinancially, having carried the fight effectively for everyone. CODEX and the FDA wish to protect us by controlling supplements in the same way they do prescription drugs. A study of the latter by three medical scientists was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998  Vol. 279, No.15, p. 1200 "Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR's) was found to beextremely high." Covering 30 years (1966 to 1996) it was found that in the U.S. an average of 106,000 hospitalized patients per year (290 per day) die from ADR's and 2,200,000 need more hospitalization for recovery. These were FDA approved drugs, properly administered by competent professionals in hospitals  none were considered malpractice. This is the number four cause of death in the U.S. When combined, these account for 7% of all hospitalized patients. This is equivalent to a 9-11 attack every ten days. There are very few fatalities from supplements or the news would be on every front page. There is no need for more FDA control of supplements than is already in place, which is substantial. Instead of drastically restricting supplements, why doesn't the FDA better control and restrict the extremely dangerous pharmaceutical drugs which are now killing us at the rate of a major airline crash per day? Wallace G. Heath, Ph.D.1145 Marine Drive Bellingham, WA 98225www.pulseplus@earthlink.net Origins:  This e-mailed alert began circulating on the Internet in January 2005. Although the call to arms is worded in such a way as to convince those who receive that their right to purchase vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements in the U.S. is about to be lost to them unless they act decisively in defense of it, it is outdated and the facts of what is being considered by American lawmakers and why are radically dissimilar from the red cape being waved.  First of all, this is another case of an issue that is now largely moot due to outdated information. Back in 2003, two versions of a bill that proposed the regulation of dietary supplements (S. 722, the "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003," and H.R. 3377, the "Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act") were introduced to Congress.  Neither of these bills was ever voted upon, much less passed.  They both expired with the end of the 108th Congress in 2004 and have not been reintroduced to the currently sitting 109th Congress. S. 722 H.R. 3377 Moreover, neither of these items of potential legislation was forced on the U.S. by an outside regulatory body, nor did they say anything about restricting the American public's access to vitamins and minerals. Their sole target was dietary supplements, a class of products that has been unregulated since 1994, when Congress passed legislation that exempted them from federal regulation. Claims that your right to take vitamins and minerals is about to be impaired or that you will require doctors' prescriptions to obtain such products should be regarded as attempts at rabble-rousing, deliberate moves to spur you into action against one thing by convincing you that something very different and far closer to your heart is at stake. Vitamins and minerals are not under the gun. Dietary supplements are. And no outside regulatory body is behind this move: the proposed legislation is the work of American lawmakers looking to safeguard the public from the unscrupulous and the hazardous. If you take nothing else from this article, take the preceding three sentences. Despite their presence on store shelves, not all dietary supplements are safe for consumers to use, let alone are beneficial to their health. Products can be 100% natural yet deliver a deadly payload, as have some in the past. Lacking regulation of such ingestibles, there is no protection afforded consumers, and  authoritative-looking labels are no guarantee that what is being vended in those bottles they envelop is not harmful. Under current law, dangerous supplements get onto the market and stay there, with serious physical harm resulting among those who use them, as was the case with ephedra, which caused strokes, heart attacks, and upwards of 150 deaths before the Food and Drug Administration was finally able to get it out of the stores. In 2004, according to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, almost one in five Americans (19%) reported using a supplement, which means the pool of folks at risk is great. Yet the incentives are there for the dietary supplement industry to keep on doing what it has been doing: in 2002, it reported $18.7 billion in sales. With so much profit at stake, there is little desire on the part of manufacturers to police themselves or their products all that carefully.  It's not just about inherently dangerous substances being sold to the unwary as the latest miracle answer for what ails them  even when dietary supplements contain nothing obviously harmful, the current lack of regulation results in improperly manufactured or contaminated products reaching the public. Quality control is missing. Absent regulation, consumers have little reason to trust they are getting the dosage they believe they are taking. ConsumerLab.com, an independent laboratory that tests dietary supplements, found that some name-brand products contain only small quantities of the active ingredient on their label. "Some have none, some have 80 percent, some have 20 percent," Dr. Tod Cooperman, president of the lab, told ABC News. Also, some contaminated supplements reach the market and thus fall into the hands of unknowing consumers. In December 2004, pesticide was found in ginseng being vended on the East Coast, and heavy metals such as mercury and arsenic were discovered in herbal supplements. Two bills put before Congress in 2003 looked to regulate dietary nostrums by imposing quality and safety standards on them, and giving the FDA the ability to take them off the market before a great number of folks have been harmed by them. In March 2003, Senator Richard Durbin introduced bill S. 722, the "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003" in the U.S. Senate. The purpose of this legislation was to "protect consumers from dangerous dietary supplements such as ephedra and other stimulants by requiring manufacturers to submit proof that their product is safe prior to bringing it to market." The bill would require manufacturers of the most dangerous types of dietary supplements (stimulants) to submit proof of their products' safety prior to bringing them to market. The bill also expands the FDA's authority to require from any dietary supplement maker proof of its product's safety if that agency has received information suggesting the product is causing death or other serious adverse health effects. It would also require manufacturers to report serious adverse health events (e.g.; heart attack, seizure, stroke, death), to the FDA no later than 15 calendar days after they learn of them. The bill also looks to close a loophole in current law that, according to Senator Durbin, "has been exploited by many dietary supplement manufacturers, allowing anabolic steroids to be sold widely as dietary supplements" by clarifying that anabolic steroids are not dietary supplements and are subject to regulation that restricts their availability under the Controlled Substances Act. S. 722 In October 2003, Representatives Susan Davis (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA) and John Dingell (DMI) introduced bill H.R. 3377, the "Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act" in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation would increase the FDA's authority over dietary supplements, enabling that agency to monitor the health risks of dietary supplements and take appropriate action if problems develop. The proposed law was not intended to have any impact on the regulation of vitamins and minerals, which are specifically excluded from the bill. In addition, for dietary supplements that contain herbs, amino acids, and other botanicals, the bill will ensure that FDA has basic information about who makes them and the products' ingredients. It would also require dietary supplement manufacturers to provide FDA with information about all adverse events, so that the agency could spot warning signs and investigate if necessary. It further allows the FDA to prohibit sales to minors of supplements that may cause significant harm to children. Finally, it allows the FDA to demand safety information from a manufacturer if the FDA has evidence that a particular supplement may pose serious risks.  H.R. 3377 Getting back to the e-mail's claim that a foreign regulatory body is behind all this, we address the claim that: Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may end in June of this year (2005). After that U.S. supplements will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. It is the body of government representatives and non-governmental organizations charged by the United Nations with establishing a reference for  international guidelines on food law.  However, it has no power to force its will on any nation. Codex standards are voluntary; no country is obligated to adopt them. In November 2004, the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) reached agreement on the definitions and regulatory guidelines for the worldwide use of vitamins and minerals in food supplements and presented its "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements" to the Codex annual meeting in Rome in July 2005.  The Codex guidelines form a reference point that may be used in cases of international trade disputes in the area of food supplements. That, in a nutshell, is the extent of its teeth. Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements In the latter half of 2010, erroneous claims began to circulate claiming that President Obama had signed Codex Alimentarius regulations into law via Executive Order.  In fact, the referenced order simply  in accordance with recently passed health care reform legislation (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)  established the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council within the Department of Health and Human Services in order to provide federal coordination and leadership of "prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices, the public health system, and integrative health care in the U.S."  The council so established has no specific power or mandate to regulate the sales of vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements. Executive Order Barbara "vitaminimized" Mikkelson Additional information:      Codex Alimentarius  (World Health Organization)  Last updated:  15 August 2010    Sumner Burstyn, Barbara.  "Conventional Medicine Far Riskier Than Supplements."   The New Zealand Herald.  16 July 2003.    Community Pharmacy.  "Ruled Maximum Levels for Vitamins and Minerals."   12 August 2004.  (p. 5).    Europe Agri.  "International Agreement Reached on Guidelines for Vitamins and Minerals."   16 November 2004.    Lincoln Journal Star.  "Regulation Needed for Supplements."   31 January 2005.  (p. B4).    Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  "Judge Allows FDA Ban of Dietary Supplement."   13 April 2004.  (p. A6).    Nutraceuticals World.  "Reps. Davis, Waxman & Dingell Introduce Legislation."   December 2003.  Vol. 6, No. 12, p. 8.    Nutraceuticals World.  "Senator Durbin Introduces Bill to Amend DSHEA."   May 2003.  Vol. 6, No. 5, p. 8. FACT CHECK:  Are the claims made in an e-mail titled "New American Way of Life" accurate?  Claim: An e-mail titled "New American Way of Life" accurately describes a generous safety net available to Americans who opt not to work.     Examples: [Collected via Facebook and e-mail, August 2015] Do you have any info on this article? I find a lot of it to be wrong, and no sources are cited. From what I understand less than 5% of the population abuses welfare, Pell grants barely cover college tuition and books. Who gets free cell phones? Does a mother of 2 really get $600 a month in food stamps? I've seen this posted 3 times today in my FB feed and feel it needs to be dispelled  ------------------------  The Key to Success for Those Who Are Inheriting America in 13 Easy Steps! How to get $75,000 in benefits every year from the US Government for you and your girlfriend? Follow these proven and simple steps. First ... get a girlfriend         1. Don't marry her.         2. Use your mom's address to receive your mail.         3. The guy buys a house.         4. Guy rents out house to his girl girlfriend who has 2 of his kids.         5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom home.         6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn't have to pay for family insurance.         7. Being a single mother, Girlfriend gets to go to college for free!         8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps        9. Girlfriend gets free cell phone from US Government       10. Girlfriend get free utilities.       11. Guy moves into home but still uses mom's house to receive mail.       12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes.  Now you both get to claim head of household at $1,800 credit.       13. Girlfriend gets disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1,800 a month and never has to work again.         This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay at home mom yields $0 dollars. An unmarried couple with stay at home mom nets $21,600 disability + $10,800 free housing + $6,000 free obamacare + $6,000 free food + $4,800 free utilities + $6,000 Pell Grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell Grant + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits. Any idea why the country is 18 + trillion in debt? Welcome to the new multicultural diverse, fundamentally changed America, thanks to the ever popular and exciting, everyone is entitled to everything world. Origins: The item reproduced above has been circulating online since at least April 2015, and after it was published the Miller County Liberal of to Colquitt, Georgia, on 19 August 2015 it received a boost in popularity due to the implied authority of appearing in print. (Although it was attributed to "John Tabb," an earlier version was credited to "Jeffery Rightmire.") published credited As is often the case with e-mail polemics focused on purported welfare abuse and taxpayer outrage, the "New American Way of Life" offers an implausible, far-fetched scenario to condemn those who use public assistance to make ends meet: polemics welfare abuse taxpayer assistance   1. Don't marry (your girlfriend).  2. Use your mom's address to receive your mail.  3. The guy buys a house.  4. Guy rents out house to his girlfriend who has 2 of his kids.  5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom home. Points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the forward pertain to the imagined generosity of the housing program colloquially called "Section 8," the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) assistance program that provides very low-income families with subsidized vouchers they can use towards paying a portion of their monthly rent. Section 8 HUD While Section 8 is frequently derided in the fashion referenced above, it's very difficult to play the system in the manner described due to the low supply versus tremendous demand for housing and vouchers among those in need of it.  Applicants typically have to spend years on waiting lists before Section 8 housing becomes available, and in many cases it takes years to even get one's name on a waiting list in the first place.  Waiting lists for the program close to new applicants for years at a time on a not-infrequent basis, as a 24 August 2015 article in the Albuquerque Journal reported: close years The waiting list for Section 8 subsidized housing will re-open on Sept. 1, after closing 28 months ago, the Bernalillo County Housing Department announced Friday. But getting onto that waiting list is no assurance that a person will move into Section 8 housing anytime soon. According to Housing Department senior administrative assistant, Craig Smith, the waiting list will re-open with 600 people still on the list, and we expect to add thousands by the time the list is closed back down, though there is no tentative date when that will happen. The wait list was shut down on May 1, 2013, because of sequestering of funds and budget cuts from the federal government, in particular the federal department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD. So it's extremely unlikely the baby daddy landlord in this hypothetical scenario could simply make a residence available for the Section 8 program and then immediately rent it to the tenant of his choosing.  He'd typically have to wait years for his preferred renter (i.e., his girlfriend) to get on a Section 8 waiting list, then more years for her to work her way to the top of the list, before he could double-dip by getting the government to subsidize his girlfriend's paying him rent to live in a house he owns.  The baby daddy in this scenario (one who can afford to buy his own house) would probably be far better off financially if he simply lived in the house with his girlfriend, or rented it out to someone other than his girlfriend. 6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn't have to pay for family insurance. There is a persistent misperception that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as PPACA, the ACA, or "Obamacare") somehow allows low-income Americans to "sign up" for free medical care and/or free health insurance.  It doesn't.  It does provide lower-income households with tax credits/subsidies for the purchase of health insurance, but one would generally have to be at the very lower end of the ACA income scale and select the least expensive type of health insurance plan available to avoid paying anything at all for insurance.  (And even then, the family would still have to pay out of pocket for all the costs not necessarily covered by insurance, such as copays for office visits, diagnostic tests, lab work, prescriptions, hospital stays, etc.) PPACA  7. Being a single mother, Girlfriend gets to go to college for free! If there is any guaranteed way for a "single mother" to obtain a college education for free, we've yet to locate it.  Yes, federal Pell Grants can provide qualifying students with up to almost $6,000 per year towards the cost of attending college (depending upon financial need), but they aren't tied to one's status as a single mother.  There are some grants and scholarships available for single parents to both help them afford school while they are in and and help them pay it off once they have graduated, but those types of programs are scant, and very, very few unpartnered mothers could get a free ride to any college on the basis of their status as single parents alone. Pell Grants single parents scant 8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly known as "food stamps") is an often criticized assistance program aimed at combating hunger by financially struggling families. Eligibility for SNAP varies based on household size, but the maximum monthly allotment ranges from $194 for a family of one to $1,169 for a family of eight. Each additional family member after that can qualify a household for up to $146 more each month in benefits, or just under $5 per person per day.  The household size posited here (a single mother with two children) wouldn't qualify for $600 per month in SNAP benefits. food stamps criticized Eligibility The Department of Agriculture (under which the program operates) estimates a total annual program "loss" of about four percent.  Despite widespread belief that the SNAP program is rampantly abused with little oversight, fraud in the program is aggressively investigated and prosecuted where applicable. estimates investigated 9. Girlfriend gets free cell phone from US Government The Lifeline program (commonly known as "Obamaphones," even though the program was actually initiated long before the Barack Obama took office) requires phone service providers to offer monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service to eligible low-income consumers.  The program does not require those providers to issue "free cell phones" to anyone (although some cellular providers choose to do so at their own expense). Obamaphones 10. Girlfriend get free utilities. Various programs administered at the state level provide low-income families with financial assistance to offset the costs of essential utilities, but often only in emergency situations. utilities emergency 11. Guy moves into home but still uses mom's house to receive mail. One might theoretically do this, but the person who deliberately falsified his residence address in order to live in self-owned housing that he was being paid to rent to another party under the Section 8 program would be committing a crime, not simply taking legitimate and legal advantage of government assistance programs. 12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes.  Now you both get to claim head of household at $1,800 credit. Whether or not taxpayers are setting out to craftily claim tax deductions to which they are not entitled, the IRS's head of household tax filing status indeed entitles the person filing to a higher deduction ($9,250 in 2015 versus $6,300 for taxpayers filing as Single or Married Filing Separately). It's important to bear in mind that that dollar amount is what taxpayers may deduct from their taxable income, and not necessarily an amount that they will receive back in the form of a tax refund. head of household status entitles And of course, if each parent is claiming one of the two children as a dependent, than the mother can't be legally collecting benefits (such as SNAP) for both children. Girlfriend gets disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1,800 a month and never has to work again. For starters, one cannot simply declare herself to be mentally ill or have back problems, then sit back and collect disability payments for the rest of her (working) life.  Such claims have to be documented by medical professionals as genuinely disabling conditions, and even then those living with disabilities find that securing benefits isn't quite so easy. Presuming the woman in this anecdote is fairly young, she would have to have accrued sufficient work credits to qualify for lifelong disability payments (an unlikely scenario), and then she would still have to meet separate criteria for a qualifying condition (which precludes having earned more than $1,090 per month in that year). The condition under which a person qualifies also must be one that limits ability to do any other work: easy accrued work credits criteria If you cannot do the work you did in the past, we see if you are able to adjust to other work. We consider your medical conditions and your age, education, past work experience and any transferable skills you may have. If you cannot adjust to other work, your claim will be approved. If you can adjust to other work, your claim will be denied. According to data from the agency, more than half of disability claims are denied, and the wait for hearings has increased (partly due to an aging pool of applicants). The anecdotal claimant's purported plundering of disability benefits also conflicts with her concurrent sponging of educational grants, as the usefulness of the latter is negated by the former: A full-time student wouldn't  qualify for lifelong disability payments, and college would be unnecessary for the matriarch of a household who intended to remain home for life collecting benefits for her fabricated disability. denied aging This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay at home mom yields $0 dollars. An unmarried couple with stay at home mom nets. $21.600 disability + $10,800 free housing + $6,000 free   obamacare +$6,000 free food + $4,800 free utilities + $6,000 Pell Grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell Grant + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits. Any idea why the country is 18 + trillion in debt? As the excerpt above concludes, the figures bandied about in the e-mail encompass virtually all programs available to low-income Americans and extrapolates the fictional family described routinely accesses all of them. Some of the benefits described (such as free college for single mothers or free utility programs) don't seem to exist, and several of forms of assistance (such as Section 8 or disability) are not administered in the simplistic manner suggested by this item. Furthermore, while this item asserts that the complex welfare hustling plan described here is "perfectly legal," several aspects of it involve defrauding the system in an expressly prohibited (and largely criminal) fashion. Were any family to hide assets or lie about household income on application forms, they would be subject to severe penalties and prosecution should their perfidy be unraveled. The scheme also rests upon the (fallacious) notion that access to assistance programs is easy to both maintain and retain. fallacious Finally, the causes of the national debt are fairly complex. However, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense broadly account for most government spending. account Last updated: 31 August 2015 Originally published:  31 August 2015 Claim:  Burying a statuette of St. Joseph on the property will help speed the sale of a home.  LEGEND Example:  [Cohen, 1997] Many realtors have their "Believe It or Not" stories.  Such was the case of a woman who moved from Maryland to Arizona.  After eight months of paying the mortgage on her unsold home in Baltimore, she sent her agent a statue and burial instructions.  Within two weeks, the house sold.  Another case involved a couple moving because of a new job. But their house, which was in a very active neighborhood, wasn't doing anything, even with St. Joseph in the ground. But St. Joseph's presumed inattention turned out to be for the better. The husband got a better job offer, and that's when the house sold.  In 1995, Betsy Moyer was determined to sell her house on Lake Avenue in Baltimore at a premium. She listed it for $15,000 more than other sellers in the same neighborhood. After seven quiet months a friend recommended that Moyer plant St. Joseph. The next week a group of nuns arrived to look at the house. Three months later, the house was sold at the highest price ever in that area, according to her agent. Origins:  Those trying to sell a home often feel in need of a miracle when a quick sale fails to materialize. Folklore purports to have the remedy: Bury a plastic statue of St. Joseph in the yard, and a successful closing won't be long in the offing. Realtors across the nation swear by this. The reputed origins of the practice vary. Some say an order of European nuns in the Middle Ages buried a medal of St. Joseph while asking   the saint to intercede in its quest for a convent. Others claim it may be connected to a practice of German carpenters who buried the statues in the foundations of houses they built and said a prayer to St. Joseph. Yet others trace the connection to a chapel building effort in Montreal in the late 1800s. Brother Andre Bessette wanted to buy some land on Mount Royal in Montreal to construct a small chapel called an oratory. When the landowners refused to sell, Bessette began planting medals of St. Joseph on the property. In 1896 the owners suddenly relented and sold, and Bessette was able to build his oratory.  But these theories may well be instances of retrofitting lore to a custom because mentions older than contemporary times have failed to materialize in standard folklore references. That the custom now has an interesting backstory does not mean its backstory is valid or even that old. The practice of burying a plastic St. Joseph to help speed the sale of a home dates at least to 1979 in the U.S.A. In 1990 it seemingly became all the rage, with realtors buying plastic saints' statues by the gross. The standard practice calls for the statue to be dug up once the property has sold and placed on the grateful seller's mantel or in another place of honor. Some, however, who have trouble remembering where they interred their statues prefer to leave the buried saints where they've been placed to help protect the properties for the new owners. (Which may not work all that well  some believe leaving the statue underground will cause the land to continue changing hands.)  But why Joseph, you ask? Why not another saint  say, St. Jude, patron saint of lost causes? Joseph, Jesus' earthly father, is the patron saint of home and family in the Roman Catholic religion. According to one of the hottest new customs, the statues are buried upside down and facing the road in front of a house for sale.1 Actually, different realtors quote different placements of the statue:   Upside down, near the 'For Sale' sign in the front yard. (An upside down St. Joseph is said to work extra hard to get out of the ground and onto someone's mantel.)  Right side up.  In the rear yard, possibly in a flower bed.  Lying on its back and pointing towards the house "like an arrow."  Three feet from the rear of the house.  Facing the house.  Facing away from the house. (One who tried this reported the house across the street sold, and it hadn't even been up for sale.)  Exactly 12 inches deep. The custom of burying St. Joseph has become so widespread that some retailers even offer a Home Sale Kit, which includes a plastic statue, a prayer card, and an introduction to the St. Joseph home sale practice.  Home Sale Kit Prudent realtors also recommend the following advice in addition to burying Joe: "For this practice to be fully effective, the seller must, of course, first do such  practical yet all important chores as completing all necessary fix-ups, properly staging the home and finally, adjusting the price so as to exactly reflect market value."  Many who have experienced difficulty selling their homes have reported seemingly miraculous sales shortly after burying a statue of St. Joseph on their property. Stephen Binz's 2003 book, Saint Joseph, My Real Estate Agent, is replete with many such examples. However, one tale included in the book (which might well be apocryphal)  indicates that everything doesn't always go as planned. One impatient man moved his statue from the front yard to the backyard to the side of the house and finally threw it in the trash. A few days later the frustrated seller opened the newspaper and saw the headline "Local Dump Has Been Sold." Barbara "joe work" Mikkelson Last updated:  11 June 2011    1.  Beard, Betty.  "Answer to Special Prayers."   The Arizona Republic.  16 May 1998  (p. EV1).    Binz, Stephen.  Saint Joseph, My Real Estate Agent.   Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2003.   ISBN1-569-55361-0.    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Baby Train.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1993.   ISBN 0-393-31208-9   (p. 181-184). The Baby Train   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be .  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 246-247). Too Good To Be     Cohen, Charles.  "And He Does It All Upside Down."   The [Baltimore] Sun.  30 March 1997  (p. M1).    Galletta, Jan.  "Believing that Faith Not Only Moves Mountains . . ."   Chattanooga Times.  8 April 2000  (p. E1).    Ivey,  James.  "Gregory With Statue of St. Joseph."   Omaha World-Herald.  9 December 1984.    Shea, Jim.  "Home Sellers Tap a Saint as Dealmaker."   The Washington Post.  16 August 1997  (p. E5).    Vigue, Doreen Iudica.  "St. Joseph Sells."   The Boston Globe.  7 December 2003.    Chicago Sun-Times.  "A New Compass Aims to Please."   14 January 1986  (p. 71).    Los Angeles Times.  "Desperate Sellers Dig That Saint."   25 November 1990  (p. K1).    Omaha World-Herald.  "Priest Doesn't Buy Story . . ."   21 November 1985  (p. K1).   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 193). The Big Book of Urban Legends You Bet Your Life was the post-World War II vehicle that provided Groucho Marx with a career apart from his brothers and introduced him to a generation of viewers too young to remember him from his stage or film work. The interview-quiz show, featuring the famous $100 bonus paid to any contestant who said the "secret word" (displayed on a cartoonish stuffed duck that dropped from above if a contestant uttered the word of the day) debuted on radio in 1947, aired on both radio and television through 1960, and continued on television only for its final season in 1960-61  all in all, an amazing fourteen-year run for a quiz show with a tiny budget, a plain set, and a small jackpot (even by 1950s standards).   Although You Bet Your Life was structured to make it appear as though every show was completely ad-libbed by Groucho (who issued a steady stream of impromptu questions, off-the-cuff remarks, and cutting put-downs to contestants he had met only moments earlier), a good deal of preparation went into each episode. Potential contestants were selected and interviewed in advance, scripts for each week's show were prepared by writers and reviewed by Groucho, and the comedian used a mechanical teleprompter to read his lines during the recording of the program. (In early telecasts of You Bet Your Life, Groucho can be seen reading off sheets of paper propped up in front of him on something resembling a music stand.) It was true, however, that Groucho didn't actually meet the contestants until they walked onstage, and he certainly had plenty of latitude to depart from the prepared gags and questions (as did the contestants), with the result that much of the show's banter was indeed improvised on the spot. About a hour's worth of material was recorded for each half hour program so that flubs, uninteresting segments, and any troublesome or offensive remarks by Groucho could be edited out. The most notable remark of Groucho's You Bet Your Life years, that one that has gone down in legend as one of pop culture's most notorious comeback quips, supposedly occurred when Grouch was interviewing a Mrs. Story, a contestant with a remarkably large number of children (a number that varies anywhere from 10 to 21 in different tellings of the legend): GROUCHO: "Why do you have so many children? That's a big responsibility and a big burden." MRS. STORY: "Well, because I love my children and I think that's our purpose here on Earth, and I love my husband." GROUCHO: "I love my cigar, too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while." But did Groucho really say this, or is it a remark that (like so many other infamous quips) originated elsewhere and was later attributed to the notable figure deemed most likely to have said it?   Since You Bet Your Life was taped in advance, heavily edited, and not aired live, this remark (if it truly occurred) would certainly have been cut from the finished program as too offensive for the standards of the times; so we can state definitively that (claims to the contrary notwithstanding) nobody ever actually heard it broadcast. If Groucho had really made this quip, the only people who would have heard it would have been the people present during the recording of the program (i.e., the cast, crew, contestants, and studio audience). So, did Groucho in fact utter this risqu remark, even if his bon mot never made it onto the airwaves? The one person who would undoubtedly know the truth is Groucho himself, and he maintained in a 1972 interview with Roger Ebert for Esquire magazine that he never said it: I got $25 from Reader's Digest last week for something I never said. I get credit all the time for things I never said. You know that line in You Bet Your Life? The guy says he has seventeen kids and I say: "I smoke a cigar, but I take it out of my mouth occasionally"? I never said that. This debate really should end here, based on a complete lack of evidence that Groucho ever said any such thing, coupled with his unequivocal statement affirming that he did not (and Groucho had no motive to disclaim one of the most famous lines associated with his celebrity if he really had said it). Instead, the legend persists in large part because misinformation about it is propagated over and over. Take, for example, the following account, presented as a first-person telling in a 1976 book often touted as a Groucho Marx autobiography, The Secret Word Is Groucho: Wherever I go, people ask me about a remark I purportedly made to Mrs. Story. Folklore about the encounter has been so broadly disseminated that it has been variously described as occurring with a mother having any number from ten to thirty children. The story, however, is not apocryphal. It did happen. "Why do you have so many children?" I asked Mrs. Story. "That's a big responsibility and a big burden." "Well," she replied, "because I love children, and I think that's our purpose here on earth, and I love my husband." "I love my cigar too," I shot back, "but I take it out of my mouth once in a while." That kind of remark can have one of two reactions. It will either cause a sharp intake of breath at having crossed some forbidden frontier or it will bring the house down. The studio audience loved it, but the people out there in Radioland never got a chance to react. The exchange was clipped out by Dwan, the house censor. But even though Groucho is credited as the primary author of The Secret Word Is Groucho, it isn't really an "autobiography." The book was actually put together in the waning years of the comedian's life by freelance writer Hector Arce, who ostensibly obtained input from Groucho; and it's unlikely that Groucho's declining health and memory allowed him to contribute much (if anything) to the finished work, leaving Arce to rely on secondary sources. Arce consulted various personnel associated with You Bet Your Life in producing the book; almost certainly one (or more) of those people proffered the "cigar" story as true to Arce, who rewrote it in Groucho's voice and inserted it into the book, unaware that his subject had denied it just a few years previously. Arce's account doesn't sound like Groucho's speaking or writing style at all, and it presents a Groucho who has suddenly "remembered" details he was previously unfamiliar with in his Esquire few years earlier (i.e., he's corrected the gender of the person he was addressing from male to female, he now recalls the contestant's name, and he's fixed the wording of the remark from "I smoke a cigar, but I take it out of my mouth occasionally" to the pithier "I love my cigar too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while"). While the 1972 Esquire interview in which Groucho discussed this quip unideniably contained Groucho's own words, the same can't be said for what was presented in Arce's book.  The Secret Word Is Groucho account quoted above also has Groucho asserting that the purported exchange with Mrs. Story was "clipped out by Dwan, the house censor." Groucho of course would have known that Robert Dwan was not a "house censor"; he was one of the producers who worked on You Bet Your Life for its entire run, staging the weekly performances and supervising the editing of each episode for broadcast. In his own book about the program (As Long As They're Laughing: Groucho Marx and You Bet Your Life), Dwan wrote: Last summer in Maine, a respectable New York dealer in rare books sidled up to me and said, conspiratorially, "Is it true Groucho made that crack about his cigar?" I knew immediately what he meant. For a long time, I, too, believed it was a figment of the mass libido. But, after discussions with my late partner, Bernie Smith, I am convinced that it did happen. I now believe that Groucho said it, but that he didn't mean what the dirty joke collectors think he meant. That remark, taken at its burlesque show level, was simply not his style. But outside of that studio audience and the 200 people who laughed that night, no one else ever heard that joke, because the exchange was never broadcast. It was never heard beyond the confines of NBC Studio C in Hollywood, and yet the story has spread to become an underground legend. This account is even more curious: Robert Dwan, the man who was onstage for every performance of You Bet Your Life and who supervised the editing of the show, didn't remember hearing Groucho make such a remark, yet he came to "believe" the legend was real because someone else told him so many years after the fact. And although Dwan noted that he consulted "20 volumes of the original scripts" and a "collection of acetate recordings of the unedited performances and tapes of the edited broadcasts" and four reels of 16mm film consisting of "the funniest and most audacious of the sequences which we were required to delete from the broadcasts as being unsuitable for viewing in the 1950s" in the preparation of his book, he made nary a mention of turning up anything supporting the "cigar" story. Steve Stoliar, who worked as a secretary in Groucho's household during the last few years of the comedian's life, also made an affirmative case for this legend in his 1996 book, Raised Eyebrows: My Years Inside Groucho's House: You may have heard about a legendary line concerning a certain cigar that Groucho was alleged to have uttered during one program. Some say it never happened; others swear they've seen it on TV. As it turns out, the truth is somewhere inbetween. One of the unexpected pleasures of spending time with the people behind the scenes was getting to the bottom of this infamous incident. For the record, it was [You Bet Your Life head writer] Bernie Smith who provided us with the details. To our amazement, Bernie had kept a chart throughout the life of the show, in which he had meticulously recorded the names of the contestants, what the secret word was and how much they ended up winning. There was, it seems, a sign painter named Mr. Story who lived in Bakersfield, California. He and his wife had what was reputed to be the largest family in America. Originally there were twenty-two children, but three had died. During the first season of "You Bet Your Life," when it was broadcast on radio only, the Story family was bused in from Bakersfield to be contestants on the show. After a bit of small talk, the conversation went like this: Groucho: "How many children do you have?" Mrs. Story: "Nineteen, Groucho." Groucho: "Nineteen?! Why do you have so many children? It must be a terrible responsibility and a burden." Mrs. Story: "Well, because I love my children  and I think that's our purpose here on Earth  and I love my husband." Groucho: "I love my cigar, too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while!" The studio audience went wild, but director Bob Dwan ordered the exchange deleted before it could be aired because it was obviously too racy for 1947 sensibilities. So the Story story is true, but anyone who claims to have seen that program is either mistaken or lying because it occurred three years before the show's 1950 television debut and it was edited out of the radio show before anyone but the studio audience had a chance to hear it. Unfortunately, no copies of that legendary outtake are known to have survived. Although the imagined dialogue between Groucho and the female contestant is lifted directly from The Secret Word Is Groucho, this account does at least introduce some detail to the story (e.g., a specific number of children, the hometown of the contestants, the father's occupation, the year of the interview) indicating actual research rather than mere repetition of legend. As we'll see shortly, however, some of this detail is inaccurate. The most recent presentation of the "cigar" legend we're aware of is the background booklet enclosed with the 2003 DVD release You Bet Your Life: The Lost Episodes (a collection of some of the show's preserved TV episodes), which contained the following information about an audio bonus feature included on one of the discs: In December 1950 DeSoto distributed a twelve inch 78rpm recording featuring highlights from You Bet Your Life and a holiday message from Groucho to their dealers. The nine minute recording includes an excerpt from Groucho's November 17, 1947 radio interview with Mr. and Mrs. Story of Bakersfield, California, the parents of twenty children. This interview has become legendary for a portion of it that never aired. Groucho: "Why do you have so many children? It must be a terrible responsibility and a burden." Mrs. Story: "Well, because I love my children and I think that's our purpose here on Earth, and I love my husband." Groucho: "I love my cigar, too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while." Considering how many people have claimed to have seen or heard that exchange over the years it would seem likely that it must exist somewhere. But of the ninety-nine radio episodes of You Bet Your Life that aired prior to the show's television debut, fewer than half of them survive. And the show with Mr. and Mrs. Story is not among them. The famous exchange would certainly have been edited out anyway. The brief clip from Season's Greetings from DeSoto  Laughs with Groucho is all that remains of this episode. And the only people who witnessed that legendary moment were in the studio audience that fateful night in 1947. (Note that the imagined dialogue between Groucho and Mrs. Story is lifted directly from the book The Secret Word Is Groucho, another indication that it came from someone associated with the You Bet Your Life program and not Groucho himself.) It is true that Marion and Charlotte Story of Bakersfield, California, the parents of twenty children, were once featured as contestants on You Bet Your Life. According to announcer George Fenneman's introduction, Mr. and Mrs. Story were selected to participate because the producers thought it would be interesting to go through the audience and find the couple with the largest number of offspring for Groucho to interview, and as the parents of twenty children (not nineteen, as stated in Raised Eyebrows), Mr. and Mrs. Story qualified for that honor. (Since You Bet Your Life was a well-planned show that interviewed and prepped its contestants in advance, Mr. and Mrs. Story likely appeared on the program by invitation and were not merely present in the audience by happenstance, with George Fenneman's introduction of them probably stretching the truth a little to create an exaggerated sense of spontaneity for the listening audience.) It is also true that this interview took place during You Bet Your Life's days as a radio-only program (it didn't begin airing on television in addition to radio until October 1950); so even if the "cigar" quip had sprung from this encounter, anyone who now claims to have seen Groucho make the remark on television is clearly mistaken.   As usual, however, the DVD booklet's account is rife with misinformation. A complete audio recording of (the broadcast portions of) Marion and Charlotte Story's appearance on You Bet Your Life does indeed exist (and is linked below). Moreover, that recording couldn't possibly date from 17 November 1947, as claimed, because Groucho can be heard making promotional references to DeSoto-Plymouth, who did not become sponsors of You Bet Your Life until partway through the 1949-50 season. (External evidence indicates this recording actually dates from the broadcast of 11 January 1950, the first show aired after DeSoto-Plymouth took over sponsorship of You Bet Your Life from Elgin-American.)  What do we find in this recording? It does not include anything like the infamous "cigar" quip, Groucho's only mention of stogies coming when he inquires of Mr. Story, "With each new kid, do you go around passing out cigars?" ("I stopped at about a dozen," Mr. Story responds.) And for those who would claim that the "cigar" remark was indeed uttered by Groucho but excised from the aired version of the show, we note that none of the claimed dialogue ancillary to that remark is present in the recording, either: Groucho does not ask Charlotte Story why she has so many children, neither Mr. nor Mrs. Story professes to thinking that having children is "our purpose here on Earth," nor does Mrs. Story proclaim that she loves her husband. As we touched on earlier in this article, it's a common phenomenon of urban legendry that amusing stories involving clever repartee often retroactively place words into the mouths of the famous people deemed most likely to have said them. Sometimes, however, the designated mouths don't really match up with the words assigned to them. Johnny Carson's image has long been saddled with the claim that he made a risqu remark to a cat-carrying starlet on the Tonight Show, even though he was never known for employing that sort of crude sexual humor in his TV talk show host role. Likewise, although it might seem that no one would fit a sexual double entendre involving a cigar better than Groucho Marx, even You Bet Your Life producer Robert Dwan acknowledged (as quoted above) that it was too burlesque and not really Groucho's style. It was the kind of dirty put-down Groucho might blurt out in private, but not to a kindly couple on a national radio program. Groucho's style on You Bet Your Life was typically much gentler, as exemplified by the following exchange made under similar circumstances (i.e., when he questioned a female contestant who came from a family of seventeen children): remark Groucho: How does your father feel about this rather startling turn of events? Is he happy or just dazed? Daughter: Oh, my daddy loves children. Groucho: Well, I like pancakes, but I haven't got closetsful of them ... It's not inconceivable that the infamous "cigar" quip might have originated with this very exchange, when someone later misremembered or deliberately "naughtied up" the dialogue to better fit Groucho's public image and changed "pancakes" to "cigar." NOTE: Various "blooper" records purport to offer an "actual recording" of Groucho's remark. However, those record makers typically employed recordings they made themselves using sound-alikes in order to "re-create" events for which no actual recording existed (in most cases because the events were apocryphal ones that never took place). blooper  Brooks, Tim and Earle Marsh. The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network TV Shows.
New York: Ballatine Books, 1999. ISBN 0-345-42923-0 (p. 1138-1139). Dunning, John. On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998. ISBN 0-19-507678-8 (pp. 732-734). Dwan, Robert. As Long As They're Laughing: Groucho Marx and You Bet Your Life.
Baltimore: Midnight Marquee, 2000. ISBN 01-887664-36-X (p. 129). Ebert, Roger. "A Living Legend, Rated R." 
Esquire. July 1972 (p. 143). Kaltenbach, Chris. "Also 20 Years Dead: Groucho."
The Baltimore Sun. 19 August 1997 (p. E1). Kanfer, Stefan. Groucho.
New York: Vintage Books, 2000. ISBN 0-375-70207-5. Marx, Groucho and Hector Arce. The Secret Word Is Groucho.
New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1976. ISBN 0-399-11690-7 (pp. 43-44). Stoliar, Steve. Raised Eyebrows: My Years Inside Groucho's House.
Los Angeles: General Publishing, 1996. ISBN 1-881649-73-3 (pp. 124-125). In May 2021, the UfoChannel TikTok page posted a video that supposedly showed a UFO that had been spotted in Irvine, California: TikTok page   This video does not show a UFO, nor was it taken in California. This video was taken in the parking lot of a Minnesota Walmart and shows the light display of a nearby casino.  Outside of the Mystic Lake Casino are several bright spotlights the project a circular display in the night sky. The casino uses this display as part of an advertising campaign which informs Minnesotans to "follow the lights" to the venue. Here's an illustration of this display:      This display is also featured on the casino's YouTube page:  These lights have fooled a few people into thinking that they were witnessing a UFO -- which may just be the intent. In 2018, a similar video went viral as a person expressed befuddlement over this strange sighting. A screenshot from that video (available via the local Minnesota news outlet SWNewsMedia) shows a nearly identical scene to that the video that went viral in May 2021: SWNewsMedia   SW News Media wrote at the time: wrote at the time Death, taxes and someone thinking the beaming lights drawing masses to Mystic Lake Casino are, in-fact, proof of a pending alien invasion. These are the certainties of life in the Land of Big Fun. Last week, a visitor to the Shakopee Wal-Mart on a cloudy Thursday evening looked up and saw lights forming a perfect circle hovering above the store. While its easy to see why someone might think there is a UFO dropping in to buy a gallon of milk, underwear, a big screen TV and a new pair of glasses, most area residents know enough to recognize the lights as the illuminated tipi for Mystic Lake Resort and Casino on the nearby Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community reservation. The video that went viral on TikTok in May 2021 did not show a UFO in Irvine, California. This video actually showed a casino's light display in Minnesota. In May 2018, survivors of the Parkland school shooting massacre, and many others both on and off social media, responded with horror at reports of a video game in which players could assume the role of a school shooter. Jaclyn Corin, a survivor of the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, called the game (which is titled Active Shooter) "disgusting" in a tweet and urged others to sign a petition calling for the game not to be released. (The online petition garnered almost 100,000 signatures within four days.) tweet petition Ryan Petty, whose 14-year-old daughter Alaina was killed in the shooting rampage, accused Valve Corporation (the Bellevue, Washington, company that runs the Steam platform on which the game would be distributed and run) of "trying to profit from the glamorization of tragedies affecting our schools across the country" and also called the game "disgusting." accused Steam The game was indeed real: it was published by a Russian company called Acid and developed by Revived Games (featuring games such as Furry, Tyde Pod Challenge, and White Power: Pure Voltage. which carries the following description: "The Underworld is an alternate dimension existing in parallel to the human species world. It contains the same parts of the Universe as humanity does, but much more in a darker, colder and hostile manner.") Acid Revived Games Furry  Tyde Pod Challenge  White Power: Pure Voltage Active Shooter' s descriptive entry on Steam's web site read as follows: entry Pick your role, gear up and fight or destroy! Be the good guy or the bad guy. The choice is yours! Only in "Active Shooter", you will be able to pick the role of an Elite S.W.A.T member or the actual shooter. A video preview of the game showed a shooter armed with a rifle, handgun, and knife stalking the classrooms and corridors of a school, shooting at both police and civilians while a "kill counter" shows the number of "cops" and "civ" (civilians) the player had murdered. Every civilian shown in the preview video appeared to be female:   In a difficult-to-follow post on May 23, 2018, the game's publisher claimed that Active Shooter "does not promote any sort of violence, especially any soft [sic] of a mass shooting." The publisher went on to note that the game will probably not allow players to assume the role of the shooter by the time the game is released: post After receiving such high amount of critics and hate, I will more likely remove the shooters role in this game by the release, unless if it can be kept as it is right now. We asked Valve Corporation whether Active Shooter would still be released on June 6, 2018, and if so, whether it would still feature the shooter mode. We did not receive a response to our query, but shortly afterwards we noticed that Acid's games were no longer listed among Steam's offerings. listed Subsequently, the gaming news web site PC Gamer reported that both the publisher and developer of the game -- Acid and Revived Games -- had been removed from the Steam platform. PC Gamer quoted what it called a "Valve rep" as saying that the publisher and developer were the same person: reported This developer and publisher is, in fact, a person calling himself Ata Berdiyev, who had previously been removed last fall when he was operating as '[bc]Interactive' and 'Elusive Team'. Ata is a troll, with a history of customer abuse, publishing copyrighted material, and user review manipulation. His subsequent return under new business names was a fact that came to light as we investigated the controversy around his upcoming title. We are not going to do business with people who act like this towards our customers or Valve. In mid-June, Acid announced plans to offer Active Shooter for purchase via its own platform. On June 26, they posted a notice to that effect on the Steam community board, noting that Active Shooter had been renamed Standoff. As of September 2019, Active Shooter was still listed among Acid's offerings and a sequel, Standoff: Lockdown, was also available for sale. announced notice listed sequel Collins, Dan. ""Active Shooter" Developer Plans to Continue Selling Video Game Despite Victim Complaints."
 Associated Press. 14 June 2018. Stuart, Keith. "Active Shooter Video Game Condemned by Parents of Parkland Victims."
 The Guardian. 29 May 2018. Updated [30 September 2019]: Added information about the game's developer offering it for purchase on its own platform under a new name ("Standoff"), and a sequel being produced in 2019. Status revised from "Outdated" to In the crowded Republican primary to replace U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera says he has evidence that he takes care of taxpayers wallets. I've cut the budget of the office by more than half, reduced the staff, he said in aninterviewon the April 30Money, Power, Politicsshow on Fox 13 in Tampa. I'm the only lieutenant governor to not take a security detail. He hasdeclined his security detail, breaking from his predecessors. Lopez-Cantera has also cut the budget and reduced staff positions. But he is leaving out some context. The only official role of the lieutenant governor is to replace the governor if he leaves offices or dies. What he or she does in the meantime varies with the governor and his or her vision. Lopez-Cantera is not as active or in the public eye as much as some of his predecessors, rarely posting official events on his public calendar and not tasked with any special assignments from Gov. Rick Scott. Scotts first lieutenant governor,Jennifer Carroll,resigned in March 2013 after she was questioned by law enforcement about her ties to a charity group that was the subject of probes. (She was not charged with wrongdoing.) She chaired a task force about Floridas Stand Your Ground law afterTrayvon Martins deathand chaired the Space Florida Board. Scott tapped Lopez-Cantera, a former state legislator and Miami-Dade property appraiser, to replace her almost a year later in February 2014. Lets see how the budget changed. Reducing budget and staff The lieutenant governors budget has ranged from about $245,000 to $540,000 in recent years. Lopez-Canteras office does not have its own budget like other state agencies. Scott proposes a budget that includes the lieutenant governor. It is then up to the Legislature to pass a budget, which Scott then signs into law. The amount of money below includes the $125,000 annual salary for the lieutenant governor. Year Allotment Expenditure 2009-10 $439,646 $433,006 2010-11 $540,440 $537,664 2011-12 $504,169 $587,389 2012-13 $509,806 $471,091 2013-14 $245,016 $156,435 2014-15 $485,160 $415,522 2015-16 $240,693 $242,875 2016-17 Not announced yet NA So for a few years the lieutenant governors budget was about $500,000. The it was chopped in half to $245,016 for the 2013-14 budget year that started July 1, 2013, a few months after Carroll resigned. Its no surprise that the allocation dropped since the office was vacant. Since Lopez-Cantera took office in February 2014, it is also not surprising the allotment nearly doubled to $485,160 for the 2014-15 budget year. The next year, the budget allotment dropped to slightly less than when Lopez-Cantera started to $240,693  a 50 percent decrease. Most of the budget is staff salaries. Employee Count (excluding LG) As of January 1, 2010* 3 As of January 1, 2011** 5 As of January 1, 2012** 5 As of January 1, 2013** 5 As of February, 2014*** 4 As of January 1, 2015*** 2 As of January 1, 2016*** 1 *     Kottkamp **   Carroll *** Lopez-Cantera Lopez-Cantera cut the staff, but its worth noting that the size of the staff was small for starters. It's also worth keeping in mind that Lopez-Cantera has access to the full weight of the governor's office for his needs, including the press office, legislative aides and budget analysts. Under Carroll, there were five employees in the lieutenant governors office each year, which included a chief of staff and assistants. When Lopez-Cantera started in February 2014, there were four staffers. Then the number dropped to two, and now he just has one employee whose title is a special assistant. The governors office said no one was laid off. We asked if that meant that Lopez-Cantera cut empty positions or shifted jobs to the governors office or elsewhere. The governors office didnt answer that question. Our ruling Lopez-Cantera said, I've cut the budget of the office by more than half. He omits some context about how his office budget works. Scott recommends a budget, which is then approved by the Legislature. Lopez-Cantera's own resources may be limited, but he downplays the access he has to Scott's vast governing operation for assistance. Months after Lopez-Cantera started, the budget rose by roughly double to bring it more in line to where it was when a lieutenant governor in the office. But after that increase, the budget allotment dropped the next year to slightly less than when Lopez-Cantera started to $240,693  a 50 percent decrease. The budget largely pays for Lopez-Canteras salary as well as a special assistant. We rate this claim Mostly True. On 25 May 2017, the South Texas Hunting AssociationFacebook page posted two images of a man holding an unusually large bullfrog: Facebook  Markcuz Rangel - Wanted to share a monster bull frog we got yesterday afternoon at one of our fishing ponds in South texas ranch located in Batesville tx 13lb monster frog!!! #stxha Although theSouth Texas Hunting Association claimed that this image showed a real 13pound bullfrog, we're skeptical about the creature'ssize. For one, 13 poundsis simply too big for a frog. AdultAmerican Bullfrogs, the largest frogs in the United States, only weigh about 1.5 pounds. The largest frog in the world, the Goliath Frog, is also too small to meet the requirements of this claim. The Goliath Frog, which has a relatively small habitat range in Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea(and not South Texas), only weighs about 7 pounds. American Bullfrogs Goliath Frog In addition to its exaggerated weight,we suspect this picture makes the frog appear larger than it actually is by using forced perspective. The hunter is most likely using a gig pole to hold the frog closer to the camera. This places the frog in the foreground, making it appear much larger in comparison to the man, now standing in the background. Photographs showing people "holding up" the Leaning Tower of Pisa are good examples of forced perspective photography. The man in the following image, for instance, is not nearly as tall as the famous Italian structure: image Chron.com that the image was real, but said that forced perspective was used to to make the frog appear unusually large: Chron.com "It's not as bigly as it appears," Lightfoot said video." [sic] [It's an] optical illusion created by extending frog toward the camera -- similar to what you see with fishermen holding up fish to make them appear larger. Still a big bullfrog, though." A very similar claim, featuring a very similar photograph, which used a very similar optical trick, was circulated in November 2015. That image purportedly showing a 42-pound bullfrogwas also fake. 42-pound bullfrog  Arkansas Frogs and Toads.  "American Bullfrog."   Retrieved 26 May 2017. American Museum of Natural History.  "Goliath Frog."   Retrieved 26 May 2017. Hlavaty, Craig.  "Giant Texas Bullfrog Photo is Real... But Don't be Fooled by What You See."   Houston Chronicle.  26 May 2017.