The Stolen Biscuits
This legend has circulated in Great Britain at least since 1972. Author Douglas Adams tells the "packet of biscuits" tale in his 1984 novel So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. He has since recounted it on numerous occasions, claiming it happened to him in 1976 at a station in Cambridge. His claim is doubted by many who point out the self-same tale was around years prior to that, but it is not impossible for events in real life to mimic those of lore. (Indeed, the actual folkloric term for such an event is ostension.) In any case, whether the incident happened to him or not, it is clear the legend did not begin with him: ostension Examples: [Brunvand, 1986] An elderly woman, traveling by bus, had a layover during her journey. She purchased a package of Oreo cookies from a vending machine in the bus terminal and located a table. She placed her cookies on the table, sat down, and proceeded to read her newspaper She was joined by a young man, who, to her surprise, opened the package of Oreo cookies and began to eat them. The woman, saying nothing, but giving him an icy stare, grabbed a cookie. The young man, with a funny look on his face, ate another cookie. The woman again glared and grabbed another cookie. The young man finished the third cookie and offered the last to the woman. Completely appalled, she grabbed the cookie and the young man left. Outraged, the woman threw down her paper only to find her unopened Oreos on the table in front of her.  [Collected on the Internet, 1994] A friend of my aunt was going shopping at the mall, and stopped in a snack bar to rest her feet. She bought a Kit Kat bar, a candy bar which breaks into several pieces. The place was crowded, so the friend was forced to share a table with a meek-looking gentleman. (That's just the way some malls are, I guess.) The expected business happened with the two of them sharing the Kit Kat, but since the Kit Kat had an odd number of pieces, she made sure she got the last one. The man got up without saying a word, went over to the counter and bought a couple of donuts. The friend was working herself into a rage because this guy had eaten her Kit Kat. She imagined that he had bought two donuts to give one to her in apology, and so you can imagine how she got even more angry when he had the gall to go sit by himself at a table far away from her. So, in the strength of her fury, she stalked over to his table, picked up one of the donuts, took a BIG CHOMP out of it, and set it back in front of him. Then she glared at him, said "And a VERY GOOD DAY to you, too!" and stormed out. She got to her car, opened up the purse to get her keys, and you know the rest. [Ann Landers, 1997] A Ferry Story My aunt and uncle own a business in Kamloops, B.C. Here is a true story that happened to one of the women in their office: The woman was taking the car ferry from Victoria to Vancouver. She sat on the deck. Beside her in an empty chair were her newspaper and her chocolate bar. A man sat next to the little pile. He picked up the chocolate bar, ate it, picked up the newspaper, read some of it, threw the candy bar wrapper away, tucked the newspaper under his arm and then walked off. The woman was too shocked to say anything. Having nothing to read, eat or munch on, she decided to go to the cafeteria. There, at a table, sat the man, flipping the pages of the newspaper with one hand, holding a submarine sandwich in the other. Still angry, the woman strode over to him, grabbed the sandwich out of his hand, took a big bite and then put the sandwich back in his hand. She marched off, saying nothing and not looking back. She then decided to go to her car. On the passenger seat were her newspaper and her chocolate bar. She had never taken them out of the car! Variations: Numerous stories about unwitting thieves abound in the realm of contemporary lore, with the "victim turned thief" motif appearing in such tales since the early 1900s. (Visit our Pocket(ed) Watch, Gun-Toting Grannies, and Jogger's Billfold pages for other legends of this type.) Pocket(ed) Watch Gun-Toting Grannies Jogger's Billfold As folklorist Jan Harold Brunvand put it, "All variations on the theme of unwitting theft portray a plausible situation in which we ourselves might act in such an uncharacteristic threatening manner because of a simple misunderstanding." In this legend, the "plausible situation" impels a woman one presumes would not normally make a spectacle of herself to angrily glare at a stranger, screech at him, lecture him, or even defiantly grab a food item she knows is his and tear a bite out of it. Because of the way the characters are presented (the woman exudes a faintly aristocratic aura while the man is described as a leather-clad punk, a foreigner, or an insolent-appearing young person), the woman's social lapse is more glaring. We forgive her outburst at the time ... but afterwards have a chance to reflect on how she handled the situation and conclude there had to have been a better way. Her lapse and the awareness of how she must have appeared to others serves as a caution against our taking similar action in any potentially confrontational encounter that occurs in public. We might not always have all of the facts we think we do. Moreover, even if we do have all the facts, we're going to look like a right idiot to anyone looking on. Sightings: Both the 1990 film The Lunch Date and the 1989 film Boeuf Bourgignon make use of this legend. In both, a well-dressed white woman goes off to fetch silverware and returns to find a Black man eating her lunch. Only after she shares her dinner with the stranger (at one point he fetches coffee for the two of them) and the man leaves does she notice her own meal sitting on another table. The 2010 Ian McEwan novel Solar contains an interesting sighting of the legend, where it is both related as a true story undergone by the book's protagonist and afterwards challenged by a folklorist he encounters on its basis as an urban legend of long standing. Denton. Lisa.  Chewing Gum Keeps the Hearing Aids In.
 The Chattanooga Times. 30 July 1997  (p. C1).  Kaelber, Randy.  The Biscuit Bullet: Is It My Fault?
 FOAFTale News. June 1996  (p. 8). Kreck, Dick.  A Biscuit with Her Name on It.
 The Denver Post. 6 April 1996  (p. D8). McEwan, Ian. Solar.
  Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010.  ISBN 978-0-385-53341-6. 
  (pp. 117-8, 119, 121-7, 154-5, 157-8, 179-80). Owens, Gene.  Doughboy Gets Around.
 [Greensboro] News & Record. 11 July 1995  (Food; p. A7). Rose, Allen.  Story of Biscuit Dough Explodes in My Face.
 The Orlando Sentinel. 31 May 1996  (p. D1). Rose, Allen.  Biscuit Dough Makes Impact on Shopper.
 The Orlando Sentinel. 30 May 1996  (p. D1). Sandstrom, Karen.  Joke Telling Done Well Gives Audience More Than Laughs.
 The Plain Dealer. 19 June 1994  (p. B5). Setencich, Eli.  City Shoots First, Asks Questions Later.
 The Fresno Bee. 22 January 1996  (p. B1). Truly, Pat.  The Unthinkable Is Becoming Less So Every Day.
 The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer. 19 January 1994  (p. B5). Venable, Sam.  Highway Shooting Incident Turned Out to Be Poppin Fresh.
 The Knoxville News-Sentinel. 19 April 1998. Viets, Elaine.  The Half-Baked Biscuit Bullet Story Wont Die.
 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 13 December 1995  (Food; p. 3). Wikipedia.  "Ostensive Definition; Ostension in Folklore."
  Accessed 14 November 2018.
Claim:  A provision of Obamacare allows federal agents to conduct forced home inspections and remove children from the custody of their parents.  Examples:  [Green, September 2013] Grassfire's Liberty News team is reporting on a little-known aspect of ObamaCare  FORCED HOME INSPECTIONS. Simply put, provisions of ObamaCare allow federal agents to activate forced home inspections. The inspections are being sold as a simple act to ensure eligibility, but upon digging deeper we find the agents will have broad authority in using the new tool to clamp down on privacy and violate American rights. Homeschool your kids? Smoke a cigar from time to time? Have a member who was at one time active duty military? ObamaCare enables agents to force a home inspection upon you. And no state will be off limits to the ObamaCare inspections.  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] DID YOU KNOW... Even your children belong to the government. Under Obamacare, on October1, 2013, CPS field agents, armed with a manual published by Human Healthand Services and codified under Obamacare will begin operating under thepower granted to them by Obamacare. Subsequently, they will be able toconduct forced home visits without a warrant. Things such as a (yetundefined) bad grade, missing more than 5 days in school in any one month,can get a parent to be declared guilty of educational neglect. Having agun or beer in your house can get your children removed from your custody.Even the traditional act of grounding your child for misbehavior will getyou declared to be guilty of "isolation neglect" and subject your childfor removal from your authority and your home. If you are a parent and youhave not heard of this provision of Obamacare, I would suggest you readthe 110 page manual that was created by the United Nations. This is theHHS/CPS field manual that goes into effect this week! Origins:  This alarmist warning about a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPACA] (commonly known as "Obamacare") supposedly authorizing federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections" under the guise of ensuring eligibility began in August 2013 as a blog post that was picked up and uncritically spread via other blogs and web sites.  The original entry claimed, in part, that: blog post According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted. The Health and Human Services' website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the "high-risk" categories below:  Families where mom is not yet 21. Families where someone is a tobacco user. Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities. Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be "eligible." In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to "help parents and children." Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to "enhance program sustainability." Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states, "This is not a 'voluntary' program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to 'intervention' in 'school readiness' and 'social-emotional developmental indicators.' A farm family may be subject to 'intervention' in order to 'prevent child injuries' The sky is the limit." No provision of the PPACA authorizes federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections."  What this item (erroneously) references is the PPACA's creation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV), which "facilitates collaboration and partnership at the federal, state, and community levels to improve health and MIECHV development outcomes for at-risk children through evidence-based home visiting programs" by awarding development grants to states that "currently have modest home visiting programs and want to build on existing efforts." The grant program is intended to assist states (not the federal government) in conducting voluntary in-home visits to high-risk households with children younger than the age of five to help match those families with government services related to issues such as maternal and child health, child development, school readiness, economic self-sufficiency, and child abuse prevention.  (These home visiting programs are not something new created by Obamacare; there were  extant home visiting programs in nearly every state prior to the passage of the PPACA.) extant  As noted in a September 2011 press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): press release "Home visiting programs play a critical role in the nation's efforts to help children get off to a strong start. Parenting is a tough job, and helping parents succeed pays big dividends in a child's well-being and healthy development," said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  Both the formula and competitive grants will be used by state agencies to support home visiting programs that bring nurses, social workers, or other health care professionals to meet with at-risk families that agree to meet with them in their homes.  They work with families to evaluate their circumstances, help parents gain the skills they need to succeed in promoting healthy development in their children, and connect families to the kinds of help that can make a real difference in a child's health, development, and ability to learn.  Research has shown that home visiting programs can improve outcomes for children and families, including improving maternal and child health, reducing child maltreatment, increasing parental employment, and improving the rate at which children reach developmental milestones. HHS undertook an exhaustive review of the research evidence on different home visiting programs to identify the models that have been shown to work. The PPACA defines high-risk households as: Low-income eligible families. Eligible families who are pregnant women who have not attained age 21. Eligible families that have a history of child abuse or neglect or have had interactions with child welfare services. Eligible families that have a history of substance abuse or need substance abuse treatment. Eligible families that have users of tobacco products in the home. Eligible families that are or have children with low student achievement. Eligible families with children with developmental delays or disabilities. Eligible families who, or that include individuals who, are serving or formerly served in the Armed Forces,including such families that have members of the Armed Forces who have had multiple deployments outside of theUnited States. However, nothing in the PPACA authorizes federal or state agents to "target" and conduct forced inspections at such households.  The PPACA requires that MIECHV grant recipients give priority to such households (because that's where the return on money spent is highest), but as stated in the press release quoted above, the MIECHV grant program brings "nurses, social workers, or other health care professionals to meet with at-risk families that agree to meet with them in their homes.  Likewise, the relevant section (p. 251) of the PPACA specifically states that MIECHV grant recipients must provide "assurances that the entity will establish procedures to ensure that the participation of each eligible family in the program is voluntary."  PPACA Last updated:  5 October 2013 On 17 April 2018, Dennis Kucinich, a former U.S. representative from Ohio who is seeking to become the Democratic nominee for the state's upcoming gubernatorial election, filed paperwork disclosing he had received thousands of dollars in speaking fees from an organization that supports Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who is widely considered a war criminal. war criminal According to a supplemental disclosure filed with the Ohio Ethics Commission, Kucinich received $20,000 from the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees, a California-based non-profit organization that operates several projects including the Syria Solidarity Movement.  That organization describes itself as dedicated to "Syrian sovereignty" and opposes military intervention in the ongoing civil war in which hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died. died The Ethics Commission sent us a copy of the disclosure, which was signed by Kucinich:   The Syria Solidarity Movement's web site contains a range of stories that promote the talking points of the Assad regime and its Russian allies, including stories that seek to raise doubts about a deadly 7 April 2018 attack on civilians in which it is widely suspected chemical weapons were used, and that cast unfounded suspicions upon the camera-toting rescue organization broadly known as the White Helmets, who regularly document war crimes in rebel-held regions. doubts suspicions White Helmets Articles about the payment spread on social media, prompting some readers to ask whether this blurb taken from the liberal news site Huffington Post and shared on Facebook alongside the story was true (it is): "The former congressman is seeking the Democratic nomination in Ohios gubernatorial race and recently revealed he accepted $20,000 from a pro-Assad group." Huffington Post In response, Kucinich's spokesman, Andy Juniewicz, told the Associated Press that the event at which Kucinich spoke was pro-peace, and that the former congressman, who has personally met Assad several times, has pressured the embattled Syrian president to admit he used chemical weapons on civilians and to abide by international law. told met The bloody Syrian civil war is now in its seventh year. On 13 April 2018, the U.S., France and the U.K. launched a missile strike against the Assad regime in response to their attack on Douma, where scores of people died and hundreds were injured. The aftermath shed light on an ongoing and disorienting disinformation campaign promulgated by so-called Western "anti-imperialists" who support the Assad regime and help spread propaganda to an English-speaking audience. launched disinformation anti-imperialists According to the Syria Solidarity Movement's "About" page, the organization has its roots in a 2012 email listserve started by Eva Bartlett, a Canadian blogger who regularly makes reality-challenged statements such as claiming that child war victims are actors being "recycled" in attacks staged by the White Helmets, and that Al Quds, a hospital in Aleppo which was bombed in 2016, was in fact never bombed  citing only false Russian government statements as proof. About reality-challenged bombed false Smyth, Julie Carr."Kucinich Was Paid $20K by Pro-Syrian Government Group."
  Associated Press.  17 April 2018. Schladen, Marty."Group That Gave Kucinich $20K Praises Putin, Accuses US of War Crimes."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  18 April 2018. Solon, Olivia."How Syria's White Helmets Became Victims of an Online Propaganda Machine."
  The Guardian.  18 December 2017. Claim:  Kraft Macaroni & Cheese products carry a warning label due to their use of GMO wheat.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2013] On Facebook, there is a claim that Kraft Mac and cheese imported from the UK had to have a warning label stating that the product may adversely effect activity and attention in children and that it is made from genetically modified wheat. However the claim is unclear as to whether the issue is due to the modified wheat.   Origins:  In May 2013, an image of an ingredients labels from a package of Kraft brand Mac & Cheese imported to the UK from the U.S. was circulated widely via social media:  This image, originally posted to Facebook (without the added text) by Flo Wrightson Cross, who bought the pictured package at a Tesco store in Ponders End, was of particular interest because the "Allergen Information" section of the ingredients label cautioned  that "This product may have adverse effect on activity and attention in children" and included a GMO (genetically-modified organism) declaration stating "Made from genetically modified wheat" (may contain GMO)."   Flo Wrightson Cross That wording was touted as seemingly confirming the convictions of critics of GMO foods,  demonstrating that Kraft uses "illegal GMO wheat" (genetically modified wheat is not currently authorized for planting or commercial sale in any country) and that the government (in the UK, at least, if not yet in the U.S.) has acknowledged the dangers of GMO foods and requires them to be labeled in a way indicating their potential harm to children. However, the legitimacy of the "GMO Declaration" section of the pictured label was highly suspect, if not outright nonsensical.  Since GMO wheat is neither legal to grow or sell anywhere, how could Kraft have obtained a supply of that substance to use in manufacturing their Mac & Cheese?  And why would Kraft furtively create an illegal product and then openly label it in a way that proclaimed it was illegal? Suspicions about the legitimacy of the label were confirmed by Kraft Foods, who told us that the label did not originate with them and was inaccurate, as neither their Mac & Cheese nor any other Kraft food product contained GMO wheat: Genetically engineered wheat is not available for commercial use. We do not use GE wheat in Mac & Cheese or any other Kraft product. So anyone who is saying or implying there is GE wheat in Kraft Mac & Cheese or any other Kraft product is wrong. We don't export Mac & Cheese to the UK and have no authorized distributor there. The company that has applied this sticker is not authorized by Kraft to sell our products.  They are not a customer of Kraft. They are getting the product from someone else and reselling our product in the UK. We're continuing to investigate, but because we are not dealing with authorized distributors of our products, we may not get to the bottom of this issue anytime soon.  Additionally, even if the label shown here were genuine, the commonly suggested interpretation of it would still be inaccurate.  European Union regulations require foodstuffs containing GMOs to be clearly labeled as "genetically modified" or "produced from genetically modified [ingredients]," but those regulations do not require such products to be tagged with a warning that they "may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children."  That wording is specific to a different European Union regulation implemented in 2010, one which requires foods containing certain artificial colorings to bear such a warning due to a possible connection between the consumption of those substances and ADHD symptoms in children. regulations regulation colorings The appearance of the statement "may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children" on food packaging, therefore,does not reference the putative presence any GMO substances in that product, but rather its inclusion of synthetic food dyes. Food products sold in the U.S. are not required to bear similar labels, as U.S. federal regulatory agencies maintain there is currently insufficient evidence that GMO foods or synthetic dyes pose any health risks to consumers.   Although Kraft Macaroni & Cheese products have included the synthetic dyes E102 and E110 (known in the U.S. as Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6), used to impart a bright orange coloring to food, in October 2013 the company announced they would removing those dyes from some of their macaroni and cheese varieties: E102 E110 announced Kraft says it plans to remove artificial dyes from three macaroni and cheese varieties that come in kid-friendly shapes, a move that comes as people increasingly reach for foods they feel are natural. The change doesn't affect Kraft's plain elbow-shaped macaroni and cheese with "original flavor." Kraft's new recipes, which begin shipping early [in 2014], will be for its macaroni and cheese varieties that come in the SpongeBob Squarepants, Halloween and winter shapes. Two new shapes will also be added. Triona Schmelter, Kraft Food Group Inc.'s vice president of marketing for meals, said the company was looking to improve the nutritional profiles of the three macaroni and cheese varieties more broadly. The new recipes will also add whole grains and reduce the amount of sodium and saturated fat, she said. She declined to specify whether Kraft would eventually make similar changes to its other macaroni and cheese lines. But she noted the company already offers options that only use natural colors, such as several of its "Homestyle" varieties. "We'll continue to make improvement where we can," Schmelter said, noting that the company tries to cater to evolving customer preferences. Last updated:  18 March 2015 Public employee pensions have been a hot topic in the 2014 primary race for governor because two of the Democratic candidates have had to deal with underfunded plans. During theAug. 26, 2014 Providence Journal - WPRI debatebetween Democrats Clay Pell, General Treasurer Gina Raimondo and Providence Mayor Angel Taveras, Raimondo and Taveras swapped barbs about who has administered their respective pension funds most effectively. Taveras, who got concessions from the city's unions, said the state pension fund is underperforming and paying excessive fees. Raimondo, whose changes in the state fund sparked a lawsuit that remains unresolved, countered that we have great returns with lower risk, and she fired back at Taveras. The pension fund in the city of Providence is only 30-percent funded, about the same level as when he [Taveras] took office, she said. [I] fixed a system for the long term. He made small changes and the pension system in Providence is still in crisis. (The U.S. Government Accountability Office recommends that  public pension plans should be atleast 80 percent funded.) We were curious about what the trend has been in Providence and whether the funding has gone down. We asked the Raimondo campaign for its evidence. Spokesman Eric Hyers sent us links to two documents. The first wasa Jan. 19, 2012 reportfrom Providence's pension adviser, Buck Consultants, which tracks funding going back to 1994, when the city had 57.4 percent of the pension money it needed. Since then, the overall trend has been down. The funded ratio had plummeted to 39.3 percent by the last full fiscal year Vincent A. Buddy Cianci Jr. was in office. It had dropped to 34.1 percent by June 30, 2010, when David Cicilline, now a U.S. representative,  was in his last year. A year later, when Taveras had been in office for six months, the funded ratio had dropped to 31.94 percent. The second document was theJan. 31, 2014 valuation reportby the city's new pension adviser, Segal Consulting. It reports that as of June 30, 2013, with Taveras in office two and a half years, the funded ratio was virtually the same -- 31.39 percent. And this was after Taveras won union concessions to reduce pension costs. By comparison, the funded ratio for the state employees plan went from48.4 percentin June 2010, before Raimondo took office, to56.2 percentas of June 30, 2013 in the most recent audit. Michael D'Amico, Taveras' former director of administration who is now a budget consultant for the city, said it was a complete oversimplification to imply that the changes were small because the funded ratio didn't change significantly. The actual cost of the pension system was reduced substantially by negotiating changes such as a 10-year suspension of cost-of-living raises and the elimination of 5- and 6-percent compounded cost of living adjustments, DAmico said. We got just about as much as we possibly could have without cutting pensions, said Taveras spokesman David Ortiz. In a sense, the administration faced a choice: do we push Providence into bankruptcy to give a receiver the ability to cut pensions? The mayor believed the cost and collateral damage of pushing Rhode Islands capital city into bankruptcy was not worth extra pension savings we would have been able to pursue, Ortiz said. Said D'Amico: If we hadn't done anything, the funded ratio would have been much lower. Our ruling When Raimondo said, The pension fund in the city of Providence is only 30 percent funded, about the same level as when he [Taveras] took office, she was only off by one percentage point, according to the most recent audit of the fund. That funded ratio has not increased since Taveras was sworn in on Jan. 3, 2011. But that percentage was on a downward spiral at the time, so having it stabilize at 31 percent doesn't necessarily reflect small changes, as Raimondo claimed in the debate. And the changes negotiated between Taveras and the citys unions are intended to gradually increase the funding ratio. Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate itMostly True. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) Claim:  Target stores with optical departments are offering free eyeglasses to children 12 and under. WAS PARTLY Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2009] PLEASE PASS ON! THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSIST THOSE IN OUR COMMUNITIESWHO WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REPAIR OR PURCHASE GLASSES FOR CHILDREN. In case you have a child or know of someone who does (ages 12 and under),they can get a FREE pair of eyeglasses from Target: Target is doing a special promotion for their optical service. It couldend any time but will definitely end no later than April 29th. Children12 and under can get a free pair of glasses. They need to bring in a validprescription for glasses from their doctor and Target will let the childpick from about 40 different frames. They will place their best lenses inthe frames which are non-glare and scratch resistant and normally sell for$200.00. There are no income guidelines. Any child 12 or under iseligible. You can find stores with optical departments at www.target.com to confirmthey are participating before making a trip to their store. Please pass this information on to anyone who can benefit from thispromotional offer. If you know someone with lost or broken glasses pleaseshare this information with them ASAP, as the promotion could end at anytime.They would like families to come in as soon as they can. Origins:  Unfortunately, during troubled economic times ordinary (i.e., non-urgent) health care is one of the first things many families have to eliminate from their budgets  not just routine doctor visits, but also regular dental and optical checkups may go by the wayside, especially among families who have no insurance to cover such services. The claim that Target stores with optical departments are offering free eyeglasses (frames and lenses) to children 12 and under would therefore seem to be a  welcome announcement to many parents: It would mean they could get their children's existing eyeglasses replaced for free, and even if they had to pay for optical exams to obtain new or updated eye prescriptions for their children, they could rest assured that those prescriptions would be filled free at Target for children 12 and under. Sounds too good to be true?  That's what we thought, especially when we noted that the Optical section of Target's web site makes no mention of any such promotion. (They merely offer coupons for discounts on glasses, contacts, and premium lenses.)   Optical coupons So, we contacted Target's Customer Relations department to ask about this promotion and were told that they were offering such a deal, but only in a very limited sense.  The "free eyeglasses to children 12 and under" promotion was a pilot program currently available only in a few stores in select areas (e.g., Kansas City, Kansas).  However, that pilot program has now ended, as a Target Optical marketing manager communicated to us on 10 April 2009: Free Kids Eyeglasses Promotion At Target Optical, we believe strongly in our value, product and services and wanted to introduce Target Shoppers to the unique shopping experiencethat we offer.  So, to introduce more Target Shoppers to our stores, during the month of March we offered families a way to try Target Opticalfor free through our Free Kids Eyeglasses promotion. The Free Kids Eyeglasses promotion is now over.  It was a limited time offer in seven stores within the greater Kansas City area. We were pleasedto distribute over 1,000 pairs of free children's eyeglasses during this event. Last updated:  10 April 2009 On July 27, 2022, we reviewed a scam email that claimed to come from "McAfee Support," presumably the tech troubleshooting arm of the company that's best known for providing antivirus software. The message had an unofficial email address as its sender, and the body of the message read, "Device at risk, hurry up and update your license." The bottom of the email displayed the words, "Click here to remove yourself from our emails list." All of the links in the message, including the one for unsubscribing, led to the same web page. Clearly, this email did not really come from McAfee. We ran the link to the web page through two malicious website scanners. According to IPQualityScore, the URL was part of a phishing scam. Email Veritas' URL Checker also dubbed the link unsafe. IPQualityScore Email Veritas' URL Checker  official correspondence We strongly advise readers to never click links in suspicious emails and texts, as they can possibly lead to phishing. The same goes with phone numbers that appear in these kinds of messages, as they often will link you directly with scammers. phishing scammers The scammers' goal with sending these kinds of emails and texts is likely to compromise users' online accounts, personal and financial information, credit and debit card numbers, Social Security numbers, and, perhaps, other sensitive data. AgingCare.com published tips for users who accidentally click phishing links. According to the article, it's best to disconnect your device from the internet, back up your files, scan your device for malware, change your passwords, and set up fraud alerts. article malware We notified McAfee of the above-displayed phishing email and asked if the company had additional information regarding the scammers' motives. This story will be updated if we receive further details. McAfee EmailVeritas. URL Checker. https://www.emailveritas.com/url-checker. Fraud Prevention. IP Quality Score, https://www.ipqualityscore.com. Kerskie, Carrie. 5 Steps to Take After Clicking on a Phishing Link. AgingCare.com, 24 Sept. 2021, https://www.agingcare.com/articles/5-steps-to-take-after-clicking-on-a-phishing-link-178044.htm. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Phishing. Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/technology/phishing. You Get Fake Emails from Scammers Posing as McAfee. McAfee KB, https://www.mcafee.com/support/?articleId=TS103285&page=shell&shell=article-view. Claim:  Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said Obamacare only passed due to the "stupidity" of the American voter and a lack of "transparency," and video footage of his remarks was deleted from the Internet in an attempt to hide it. :   : Jonathan Gruber said Obamacare only passed due to the "stupidity" of the American voter and a lack of "transparency.     UNDETERMINED: Video footage of his remarks was deleted from the Internet in an attempt to hide it.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, November 2014] Hey Media, is UPenn pulling the Gruber video where he says ObamaCare passed by Democrats lying to the public a newsworthy event? Just askin'  Jonathan Gruber, an Obamacare's architect admitted that lack of transparency/stupidity of electorate helped pass the bill   Origins:  In November 2014, a 52-second long excerpt from a video of a 2013 conferenceinvolving Jonathan Gruber, a consultant who served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration and Congress during the creation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as the ACA or "Obamacare"), began to circulate on the internet. Gruber made the remarks captured in that excerpt during the 24th Annual Health Economics Conference at the University of Pennsylvania's Leonard Davis Institute (LDI) of Health Economics in October 2013. Gruber's remarks became controversial when video of the conference was posted online thirteen months after the LDI panel on health economics took place. panel Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of economics, was speaking at a panel titled "The Role of Economics in Shaping the ACA and How Economics Can Inform Inevitable Mid-Course Corrections." The footage from which the comments originated ran for nearly an hour and covered issues tangential to Obamacare, such as its classification as a tax, subsidies, and how the bill came into law. Gruber's controversial remarks come at around the 18-minute mark in the video shown below:  During the portion of the video in question, Gruber said: This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? So it's written to do that. In terms of risk-rated  subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in  you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money  it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. Look, I wish ... we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not. After video of the conference was put online, Gruber elaborated on what he meant by his attention-garnering remarks and apologized for them, saying that he "spoke inappropriately": elaborated Gruber's comments were part of a broader public conversation between him and economist Mark Pauly on the economics of health care reform. Gruber was responding to a remark by Pauly about financing transparency in the law and the politics surrounding the ACA's individual mandate. The political process, he said, striking a critical tone, resulted in inefficiencies in the law which should be corrected. "In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which explicitly said that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed," he said. "You can't  do it politically, you just literally cannot do it. It's not only transparent financing but also transparent spending." In the video, Gruber appeared to be speaking specifically about the political environment in 2010 and its impact on the law's funding mechanisms. Gruber takes a critical stance on some of those outcomes, calling them "irrational." "I wish Mark was right and we could make it all transparent but I'd rather have this law than not," Gruber said. "That involves tradeoffs that we don't prefer as economists but are realistic." Gruber apologized for his comments during an on-air interview with MSNBC's Ronan Farrow. "The comments in the video were made at an academic conference," Gruber said. "I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately and I regret having made those comments." Although Gruber apologized for the language he used, Gruber said that the larger point he was trying to make centered on the political pressures that shaped the law. He added that those pressures "led to an incomplete law with some typos." "It would have made more sense to do Obamacare the way we did in Massachusetts, which would be to just give people money to offset the cost of their health insurance," Gruber said. "That was politically infeasible and so instead it was done through the tax code." The full video of the 2013 Health Economics Conference was published by PennLDI on YouTube, and when the excerpt video of Gruber's remarks began to circulate online, many viewers assumed the comments to be recent (they were not), and others maintained PennLDI then removed the clip from the Internet due to the political controversy. On the latter point, several Twitter users posted screenshots of a YouTube error page that indicated the source video had been (at least briefly) removed by the University after Gruber's remarks became a focus of attention: recent  However, it isn't yet clear whether the PennLDI video was deliberately pulled from the Internet due to the political controversy it created, or whether it was made unavailable at some point after it was initially posted for unrelated reasons (e.g.,  error, copyright issues, technical problems).   It appears the comments made by Gruber entered the stream of social media hot topics when they were spotted and excerpted from the longer PennLDI video by Philadelphia investment adviser Rich Weinstein, then posted to the YouTube channel of the American Commitment 501(c)(4) (i.e., a politically active nonprofit organization), whose Phil Kerpen tweeted: Rich Weinstein American Commitment My wife texts to say the latest Gruber video we posted is lighting up her Facebook feed... excellent... Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 My wife texts to say the latest Gruber video we posted is lighting up her Facebook feed... excellent...  Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 November 10, 2014  The claim that the University of Pennsylvania deliberately tried to scrub the clip from the Internet may also have stemmed from Kerpen or the PAC: Um, hey, University of Pennsylvania: Pulling the Gruber video now really doesn't help your cause. https://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 Um, hey, University of Pennsylvania: Pulling the Gruber video now really doesn't help your cause. https://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb https://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb  Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 November 10, 2014  Last updated:  12 November 2014 In early January 2017 a rumor swept Facebook asserting that "Facebook security" people were being paid to watch individual accounts:  According to that rumor, entering the term "Facebook Security" into Facebook's "block users" field would reveal a list of people whom the social network had engaged to furtively monitor your activity, and each of whom had to be individually blocked by you to prevent them from spying on you: rumor [D]id you know there are people literally watching your Facebook account? Yes. There are people who have a specific duty to monitor your posts and activity. While there are many Facebook secrets, for those who enjoy privacy, this one is for you! Here is what you need to do to block the majority of the accounts that monitor your Facebook: 1. > Log into Facebook 2. > Account Settings 3. > Click on blocking 4. > In the search field where it says Block Users type in: Facebook Security 5. > A new window will pop up. The list you see is a list of [most likely] Facebook employees, spies, and private accounts that are paid to shill for who knows who (sarcasm (kind of)). 6. > Go down the list, and if you dont like being monitored, just hit the block button. Some of the accounts are unable to be blocked. While this is somewhat disturbing, you must remember that Facebook owns everything Facebook, so in essence, you agreed to be monitored. (I know. What moral and reasonable organization needs to hire people to monitor you? Right?) However, following these instructions does nothing to uncover or block the (non-existent) Facebook security personnel who are supposedly monitoring your online activities. Entering the term "Facebook Security" into "Block Users" search box simply returns "profiles of [users] who have used those particular words somewhere on their profile [or] in a place thats visible to the individual, as in a public post." The list returned by this search neither includes people who are furtively following you, nor persons employed to spy on you by Facebook security. In September 2017, this rumor took on a slightly new form (one which eliminated the paranoid reference to "Facebook security"): Again, following these instructions simply produces a list of Facebook users with the string 'Me' somewhere in their screen names or profiles, not a list of accounts of people who are secretly following you: An image purportedly showing a screenshot from a Russian state TV news program featuring eight Republican U.S. senators -- Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), John Cornyn (R-TX), Richard Burr (R-NC), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and John Thune (R-SD) -- made its way online in January 2019, along with the claim that the pictured American lawmakers were being "honored" or "thanked" for lifting sanctions against three companies controlled by Russian oligarch Oleg V. Deripaska:   This image has been posted to social media accompanied by a variety of descriptive captions: posted social media This image is a genuine screenshot from the news program "60 " (60 Minutes) aired on Channel 1 Russia on 17 January 2019. The graphic featuring the 8 GOP lawmakers originally appeared on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show (the MSNBC logo is visible in the bottom right hand corner of the graphic) the day prior during a segment concerning the lifting of sanctions that had been imposed on three companies controlled by oligarch Oleg V. Deripaska. sanctions The graphic appears at the 9:30 mark of the following video, while a transcription from Maddow's report on these sanctions appears below the video: transcription  Shortly before Christmas, the Trump administration quietly released plans to lift U.S. government sanctions on companies connected to Deripaska. Deripaska is sanctioned because of the U.S. -- because of the Russian government interfering in the U.S. presidential election in 2016. Now, the sanctions on Deripaska's companies are consequential. The companies linked to Deripaska happen to be huge companies. So, even if you set aside the sanctions' effects on Deripaska personally, unsanctioning these huge Russian companies will also be really substantially economically beneficial to the Russian economy as a whole. Under American law governing sanctions like this, Congress has 30 days to review any decision by the administration to lift these kinds of sanctions. Within that 30-day window, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer brought forward legislation to in fact challenge that decision by the Trump administration, to block the lifting of the Deripaska-related sanctions. As we reported last night, every Democrat in the Senate chamber voted with Schumer on this, as did 11 Republican senators, a heterogeneous bunch of Republican senators, who broke ranks with Mitch McConnell and sided with the Democrats to stop the Trump administration from lifting these Deripaska-related sanctions. That's a big number of Republican senators breaking ranks, especially after the Trump administration lobbied the Senate and the House really aggressively on this issue. Well, today, this afternoon, despite those 11 Republican senators breaking ranks and being willing to side with the Democrats on this, it turned out to be not enough because today there was a crucial vote on this matter which came with not a 50-vote threshold, but a 60-vote threshold to stop the Trump administration from lifting these Deripaska-related sanctions. Schumer and the Democrats and the breakaway Republicans were able to put together 57 votes, but 57 isn't 60, and so you can thank top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell. You can thank all of these other Republican senators who get all of this public credit for supposedly being so hawkish and so realistic on Russia. You can thank them all for voting today to give Vladimir Putin's government in Russia a huge big economic present and voting to give Oleg Deripaska the biggest break of his life, even while his potential role in the Russian attack on our election remains a critical matter that is under ongoing investigation related to multiple criminal cases. Julia Davis, an investigative journalist and Russian media analyst, was one of the first to notice Maddow's graphic being featured on Russian State TV. Davis shared this screenshot on Twitter along with a brief message explaining its context. Twitter Davis wrote: "#Russia's state TV reports that for the first time since 2014, the US is lifting sanctions from Russian companies [#Deripaska's Rusal et al.] The host laughs out loud about the Democrats not getting enough votes to block the effort, expresses hope that this is just the beginning." We've included the relevant segment below from the "60 " broadcast, which starts around the 31-second mark (00:31) below: A rough translation of the video via Google shows that the host says at one point: "Thank all these people who have always been known for their irreconcilable attitude towards Russia. Thank them all, for today they voted and made big economic gift to the government of Putin."  A rough translation of the video via Google shows that the host says at one point: "Thank all these people who have always been known for their irreconcilable attitude towards Russia. Thank them all, for today they voted and made big economic gift to the government of Putin." MSNBC.  "Transcript: 1/16/19, The Rachel Maddow Show."
  16 January 2019. Vogel, Kenneth.  "Democrats Fall Short in Russia Sanctions Vote."
  The New York Times.  16 January 2019. On Dec. 27, 2023, readers emailed Snopes to ask if it was true that former U.S. President Donald Trump had written a post on Christmas Day that included the words, "May they rot in hell." A check of Trump's posts on his social media platform, Truth Social, showed dozens of new posts ("Truths") and reposts ("Retruths") in the previous two days. Buried below all of the more recent shared posts was a "trending" post in which Trump had offered a "Merry Christmas" message on Dec. 25. That post truly did include the words, "May they rot in hell," which appeared in all capital letters. The imprecation was aimed at so-called "thugs" Trump claimed were "looking to destroy our once great USA."  The full post (archived) read as follows: post archived Merry Christmas to all, including Crooked Joe Bidens ONLY HOPE, Deranged Jack Smith, the out of control Lunatic who just hired outside attorneys, fresh from the SWAMP (unprecedented!), to help him with his poorly executed WITCH HUNT against TRUMP and MAGA. Included also are World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and sick as the THUGS we have inside our Country who, with their Open Borders, INFLATION, Afghanistan Surrender, Green New Scam, High Taxes, No Energy Independence, Woke Military, Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, All Electric Car Lunacy, and so much more, are looking to destroy our once great USA. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS! Snopes has previously published a wealth of reporting about claims mentioned in the above post: "open borders," worldwide inflation, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Green New Deal, U.S. President Joe Biden's plans for taxes, Biden's record on energy independence, the idea of the U.S. military being "woke," Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the war in Israel and Gaza and electric-powered vehicles. open borders worldwide inflation U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan Green New Deal taxes energy independence woke Russia's invasion of Ukraine war in Israel and Gaza electric-powered vehicles On the same day that Trump posted his Christmas message on Truth Social, a Biden-Harris campaign spokesperson named Seth Schuster responded by calling it an "erratic Christmas Day rant," according to reporting from Washington Examiner. Washington Examiner We reached out to the Trump campaign by email to ask about the statement and will update this story if we receive a response. In addition to the Truth Social post on Christmas Day, Trump also released a video message on Christmas Eve that did not include the words, "May they rot in hell." Rather, the video simply showed Trump offering positive, forward-looking sentiments about Christmas, U.S. military servicemembers and the upcoming 2024 U.S. presidential election.  Dapcevich, Madison. Does Biden Support the Green New Deal? Snopes, 1 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Datoc, Christian. MSN.MSN.Com, Washington Examiner, 26 Dec. 2023, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-campaign-rebukes-trump-s-rot-in-hell-christmas-wish/ar-AA1m43Pg. Electric Vehicles Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/electric-vehicles/. Huberman, Bond. About That Biden Tax Plan Meme. Snopes, 29 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/collections/about-that-biden-tax-plan-meme/. Ibrahim, Nur. Do Democrats Want Open Borders? Snopes, 17 June 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/17/do-democrats-want-open-borders/. Inflation Is Spiking Around the World  Not Just in US. Snopes via The Conversation, 1 Aug. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/01/inflation-us-world/. Israel Hamas War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/israel-hamas_war/. Kasprak, Alex. Did Biden Set US Back 50 Years on Energy Independence Progress? Snopes, 15 Feb. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-energy-independence/. Liles, Jordan. Did the Trump Admin Agree to Free 5,000 Taliban Prisoners? Snopes, 12 Dec. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-5000-taliban-prisoners/. Palma, Bethania. Top General Blasts Rep. Matt Gaetz for Offensive Comment About Military Being Woke. Snopes, 24 June 2021, https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/06/24/matt-gaetz-mark-milley-woke/. Ukraine War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/russia-ukraine/.