Insect Spy Drone
Is this a mosquito? No. It's an insect spy drone for urban areas, already in production, funded by the US Government. It can be remotely controlled and is equipped with a camera and a microphone. It can land on you, and it may have the potential to take a DNA sample or leave RFID tracking nanotechnology on your skin. It can fly through an open window, or it can attach to your clothing until you take it in your home.  One of the current areas of research reportedly being undertaken in the scientific/military field is the development of micro air vehicles (MAVs), tiny flying objects intended to go places that cannot be (safely) reached by humans or other types of equipment. One of the primary military applications envisioned for MAVs is the gathering of intelligence (through the surreptitious use of cameras, microphones, or other types of sensors); among the more extreme applications posited for such devices is that they may eventually be used as "swarm weapons" which could be launched en masse against enemy forces. Some efforts in MAV research have involved trying to mimic birds or flying insects to achieve flight capabilities not attainable through other means of aerial propulsion. In 2007 a bug-like MAV model with a 3-cm wingspan was displayed at a robotics conference, in 2008 the U.S. Air Force released a simulated video showing MAVs about the size of bumblebees, and in 2012 engineers at Johns Hopkins University were studying the flight of butterflies to "help small airborne robots mimic these maneuvers." birds displayed video butterflies The specific mosquito-like object pictured above is, however, just a conceptual mock-up of a design for a MAV, not a photograph of an actual working device "already in production." And although taking DNA samples or inserting micro-RFID tracking devices under the skin of people are MAV applications that may some day be possible, such possibilities currently appear to be speculative fiction rather than reality. Some have claimed the U.S. government has not only researched and developed insect-like MAVs, but for several years has been furtively employing them for domestic surveillance purposes: The US government has been accused of secretly developing robotic insect spies amid reports of bizarre flying objects hovering in the air above anti-war protests. No government agency has admitted to developing insect-size spy drones but various official and private organisations have admitted that they are trying. But official protestations of innocence have failed to kill speculation of government involvement after a handful of sightings of the objects at political events in New York and Washington. Vanessa Alarcon, a university student who was working at an anti-war rally in the American capital [in September 2007], told the Washington Post: "I heard someone say, 'Oh my God, look at those.' "I look up and I'm like, 'What the hell is that?'. They looked like dragonflies or little helicopters. But I mean, those are not insects." Bernard Crane, a lawyer who was at the same event, said he had "never seen anything like it in my life". He added: "They were large for dragonflies. I thought, 'Is that mechanical or is that alive?'" The incident has similarities with an alleged sighting at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York when one peace march participant described on the internet seeing "a jet-black dragonfly hovering about 10 feet off the ground, precisely in the middle of 7th Avenue". Entomologists suggest that the objects are indeed dragonflies. Jerry Louton, an expert at the National Museum of Natural History, said Washington was home to large, impressively-decorated dragonflies that "can knock your socks off". Others maintain the technical obstacles involved in creating flying insect-sized robots have yet to be overcome: The technical challenges of creating robotic insects are daunting, and most experts doubt that fully working models exist yet. "If you find something, let me know," said Gary Anderson of the Defense Department's Rapid Reaction Technology Office. Getting from bird size to insect size is not a simple matter of making everything smaller. "You can't make a conventional robot of metal and ball bearings and just shrink the design down," said Ronald Fearing, a roboticist at the University of California at Berkeley. For one thing, the rules of aerodynamics change at very tiny scales and require wings that flap in precise ways  a huge engineering challenge. Scientists have only recently come to understand how insects fly. Even if the technical hurdles are overcome, insect-size fliers will always be risky investments. "They can get eaten by a bird, they can get caught in a spider web," Professor Fearing said. Leonard, Tom.  "US Accused of Making Insect Spy Robots."   The Telegraph.  10 October 2007. Weiss, Rick.  "Washington Abuzz with Talk of Dragonfly Spies."   The Sydney Morning Herald.  12 October 2007.
In the aftermath of the 1 October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, the American public attempted to come to grips with the scale of gun violence in the United States. One oft-cited statistic posted in social media by "The Other 98%" maintained that 1.3 million Americans had been killed in all the wars in U.S. history, while 1.5 million Americans had been killed by firearms (in non-military use) since 1968 alone: The Other 98%   NBC News reported similar figures: NBC News More Americans have died from gunshots in the last 50 years than in all of the wars in American history. Since 1968, more than 1.5 million Americans have died in gun-related incidents, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By comparison, approximately 1.2 million service members have been killed in every war in U.S. history, according to estimates from the Department of Veterans Affairs and iCasualties.org, a website that maintains an ongoing database of casualties from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. iCasualties.org Different versions of this claim have been prominently offered in recent years by sources such as New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof in 2015, and PBS Newshour contributor and commentator Mark Shields in 2012. All these claims contain casual uses of the qualifier "Americans" in reference to gun deaths, which is somewhat confusing because not everyone who has been killed by firearms in the United States was an American citizen, and official sources for gun death statistics do not offer breakdowns by nationality. Therefore, we assume that "Americans" is used here for rhetorical effect, rather than as a functional statistical category, and deal with the total number of gun deaths occurring in the United States since 1968.  Similarly, according to the historian Don H. Doyle, the U.S. Civil War saw around 543,000 foreign-born (i.e., immigrant) soldiers fighting on the Union side alone, so a significant number of Civil War deaths might have involved non-American citizen combatants, but we'll count them all as "Americans."  (Indeed, non-U.S. citizens have likely served and died fighting for the U.S. side in every American military conflict since the Revolutionary War, but probably in much greater numbers during the Civil War than any other.) Don H. Doyle Support for this claim often uses sources that relate only to combatant deaths in wars and do not include civilian or other non-combatant deaths (the latter being figures which might also include non-U.S. citizens). One could argue that civilian deaths in wars should be included (although estimates of these deaths are much less reliable than for fatalities among military personnel), but we are limiting our analysis to include only combatant deaths in military conflicts. We'll break this analysis into two parts: the total number of deaths in the United States involving firearms since 1968, and the number of deaths in  the U.S. and among American combatants across all wars in American history. Gun deaths The estimated total number of firearms-related deaths from 1968-2016 is 1.58 million. The official number for 1968-2015 is 1.55 million, and we have assumed the number of deaths in 2016 as being the mid-point between the two previous years (2014 and 2015). In most cases, the source of these figures is the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). For figures from 1968 to 1991, we consulted the CDC directly WISQARS Deaths in wars For combatant fatalities, our main source is an April 2017 summary published by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which lists the following figures: summary The Civil War Trust, a non-profit organisation primarily dedicated to preserving American battlefields, estimates that around 6,800 people died in battle during the Revolutionary War, with an additional 17,000 deaths caused by disease, and between 8,000 and 12,000 more deaths occurring among those held as prisoners of war. The upper end of this estimate range, then, would put the total number of deaths associated with the American Revolutionary War at 26,800. estimates Similarly, the Civil War Trust estimates that around 15,000 Americans died during the War of 1812, a significantly higher number than the 2,260 battle deaths estimated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. estimates The Civil War is an interesting case. Based on from the work of two late 19th and early 20th century historians, the widely accepted figure for deaths in this conflict was reckoned as 618,222 for about a century. In 2011, however, J. David Hacker ( then of Binghamton University) published a significant upwards revision of that total, estimating that the likely death toll was between 650,000 and 851,000. Taking the mid-point in this estimate range assumes about 750,000 combatant deaths for the Civil War.  Because of the enhanced statistical sophistication involved in Hacker's research, and what appears to be acceptance and support of his estimate among historians, we are going to use 750,000 as the estimated death toll among combatants in the Civil War. late 19th early 20th century combatant deaths acceptance and support Figures for the Global War on Terror are taken from the Department of Defense's Defense Casualty Analysis System and are valid as of October 2017. Defense Casualty Analysis System Afghanistan war: Iraq war:  If we rely on the Department of Veterans Affairs summary, while accepting J. David Hacker's 750,000 estimate for the Civil War, the total number of deaths among American combatants in all U.S. military conflicts, using high estimates for each, is thus 1,481,862  about 100,000 less than the total number of firearms-related fatalities in the U.S. between 1968 and 2016.   So even using the higher end of available estimates for war deaths throughout American history, the grand total of those deaths is still lower than the total of firearms-related fatalities since 1968, a period of just 49 years. Although this disparity between war deaths and gun deaths is smaller than the gap claimed by the Other 98% (200,000) or NBC News (300,000), the imprecision of casualty estimates (especially for the Civil War era) allows for a considerable margin of error. Bailey, Chelsea.  "More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars  Combined."
  NBC News.  4 October 2017.
 Doyle, Don H.  "The Civil War Was Won by Immigrant Soldiers."
  Time.  29 June 2015. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.  "America's Wars."
  April 2017. Fox, William F.  "Regimental Losses in the American Civil War, 1861-1865."
  Hathi Trust, 1898. Livermore, Thomas L.  "Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America, 1861-1865."
  Retrieved from Archive.org, dated 1900. Hacker, J. David.  "Recounting the Dead."
  The New York Times.  20 September 2011. 
 Gugliotta, Guy.  "New Estimate Raises Civil War Death Toll."
  The New York Times.  2 April 2012. McPherson, James.  Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era.
  Oxford University Press, 1988.  ISBN 0-195-03863-0. Claim:  Princess Cruises has ceased making stops in Israel.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2010] Yesterday, 6/2/2010, the Pacific Princess, carrying 700 passengers, canceled a stop at Ashdod, Israel . Instead, they informed the passengers they would stop in Egypt as an alternative. Princess is now bowing to pressure and boycotting Israel . Please pass this on to all Jewish Americans in order to let them know that there are alternatives to Princess.  Origins:  On 31 May 2010, Israeli commandos stormed the six-ship Freedom Flotilla in international waters off the coast of the Gaza Strip as it carried some 10,000 tons of aid and up to 700 human rights activists to the Palestinian enclave. In that melee, nine activists were killed and dozens were injured. Hundreds of those being conveyed on the flotilla were jailed and then deported. The attack on the Gaza-bound humanitarian aid convoy served to heighten tensions in that area of the world. In response to the potential for retaliatory attacks on Israel, Princess Cruises canceled the 2 June 2010 Pacific Princess call on the port of Ashdod, Israel. The 1 June 2010 call upon the Israeli port of Haifa went ahead as scheduled, providing passengers the opportunity for a full day of touring Galilee and Nazareth. Princess Cruises said of their decision that: Based on careful review of the situation and information provided by the US State Department and other sources, we were concerned about potential violence in Ashdod in reaction to the incident.  We made the decision strictly in the best interest of the safety of our passengers and crew, to cancel the call in Ashdod the following day. Azamara Club Cruises also canceled a planned visit to that city, routing its Azamara Quest directly to Haifa rather than making the planned 7 June 2010 call upon Ashdod. Pacific Princess is scheduled to visit the ports of Haifa and Ashdod at the end of June 2010 during its 12-day Mediterranean East cruise (which departs from Venice on 20 June 2010). The line fully expects to maintain the published itinerary. Additional information:     Statement from Princess Cruises   (Princess Cruises)  Last updated:  14 June 2010    Sloan, Gene.  "Princess Cruises Cancels Call in Israel in Wake of Attack on Aid Flotilla."   USA Today.  1 June 2010.    JTA.  "Princess Cruises Boycott Tale Is Debunked."   14 June 2010. During the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, social media postings repeatedly warned readers that Democratic candidate Joe Biden was planning to slap a 3% federal tax on the value of homes, above and beyond any property taxes homeowners were already paying:   However, this warning about a Biden-backed federal property tax was specious. Property taxes in the U.S. are set and collected at the state, county, and city levels, and the announced Biden Tax Plan includes nothing that could be remotely construed as imposing an additional federal property tax on privately-owned homes. announced Biden Tax Plan The Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit, summarizes the Biden tax plan as including the following primary elements applicable to individuals (rather than businesses): summarizes Imposes a 12.4 percent Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (Social Security) payroll tax on income earned above $400,000, evenly split between employers and employees. This would create a donut hole in the current Social Security payroll tax, where wages between $137,700, the current wage cap, and $400,000 are not taxed. Reverts the top individual income tax rate for taxable incomes above $400,000 from 37 percent under current law to the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act level of 39.6 percent. Taxes long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at the ordinary income tax rate of 39.6 percent on income above $1 million and eliminates step-up in basis for capital gains taxation. Caps the tax benefit of itemized deductions to 28 percent of value for those earning more than $400,000, which means that taxpayers earning above that income threshold with tax rates higher than 28 percent would face limited itemized deductions. Restores the Pease limitation on itemized deductions for taxable incomes above $400,000. Phases out the qualified business income deduction (Section 199A) for filers with taxable income above $400,000. Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for childless workers aged 65+; provides renewable-energy-related tax credits to individuals. Expands the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) from a maximum of $3,000 in qualified expenses to $8,000 ($16,000 for multiple dependents) and increases the maximum reimbursement rate from 35 percent to 50 percent. For 2021 and as long as economic conditions require, increases the Child Tax Credit (CTC) from a maximum value of $2,000 to $3,000 for children 17 or younger, while providing a $600 bonus credit for children under 6. The CTC would also be made fully refundable, removing the $2,500 reimbursement threshold and 15 percent phase-in rate. Reestablishes the First-Time Homebuyers Tax Credit, which was originally created during the Great Recession to help the housing market. Bidens homebuyers credit would provide up to $15,000 for first-time homebuyers. Expands the estate and gift tax by restoring the rate and exemption to 2009 levels. Similar analysis of Biden's tax plan by other entities include no mention of a federal property tax. analysis Watson, Garrett et al.  "Details and Analysis of Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Bidens Tax Plan/
  Tax Foundation.  22 October 2020. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.  "Understanding Joe Biden's 2020 Tax Plan."
  30 July 2020. Calls to boycott the National Rifle Association intensified in the days following a school shooting in Parkland, Florida that left seventeen people dead on 14 February 2018. In response, a number of companies responded by ending partnership programs that provided discounts to NRA members: ending   Shortly after Delta announced that it would stop offering discounts to NRA members, some argued that Planned Parenthood should be the actual subject of nationwide boycotts, despite not being involved directly or indirectly with the Parkland, Florida shooting in any way. One meme summed up that argument by stating without attribution that Planned Parenthood kills hundreds of babies a day, while the NRA has never directly killed anyone: meme   This number appears to be derived from figures provided by the organization in 2015, which said that Planned Parenthood offices had performed 323,999 abortions in total the year before. However, that interpretation is dependent on subjective interpretations of when life supposedly begins; abortions are not counted as a "cause of death" by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. performed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Georgia State Senator Michael Williams took issue with Delta's decision (the company is headquartered in Atlanta) and during an appearance on CNN said that the airline should also rescind its discounts for other organizations: If they're going to pull the discount for NRA members, why not pull it for Planned Parenthood or some of the left organizations out there? When CNN host Brianna Keilar asked Williams what evidence he had that Delta Air Lines offered discounted rates to Planned Parenthood members, adding that the network had examined these allegations and found no information to verify the claim, Williams explained that he "looked it up on Google" and did not know of the exact source  but that he would provide it at a later date:  We searched for any credible sources to back the claim that Delta Air Lines offers a discount to members of Planned Parenthood (along with the official definition of what a member of Planned Parenthood might be: Did he mean donors to the nonprofit? Patients who do not donate? Some combination of the above? Is there a membership card?) but all we found were unverified claims in the comment sections of various articles and in random social media messages: comment sections social media   Shortly after Williams appeared on CNN, Planned Parenthood denied his claims: Being a Planned Parenthood supporter doesn't come with corporate perks and discounts. People stand with Planned Parenthood because they support reproductive health and rights. https://t.co/RcHKSxI9As https://t.co/RcHKSxI9As  Planned Parenthood Action (@PPact) February 28, 2018 February 28, 2018    On 28 February 2018, Williams released a statement on Twitter: released   This statement offers no supporting evidence and, in fact, does nothing to address the original claim Williams made during his CNN appearance. Instead, it moves the goalposts completely by saying that while Delta does not contribute directly to Planned Parenthood, it indirectly supports the organization instead, by donating to groups such as the Susan G. Komen Foundation. However, we found some holes in this argument too. For example, American Airlines, not Delta Air Lines, is the official partner of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Delta does host an annual fundraiser for breast cancer research, but the airline donates the proceeds to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, not Susan G. Komen: Last month, Delta celebrated its 12th anniversary of the Breast Cancer One survivor flight, kicking off the airlines Breast Cancer Awareness month throughout October and continuing the tradition of building awareness and raising funds for the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. This years flight honored 140 breast cancer survivors who flew from New York to Los Angeles. Festivities began with an event at the gate in JFK before the pink plane made its way to LAX, where survivors and attendees enjoyed another gatehouse event and an overnight stay, including dinner, hotel accommodations and a meet-and-greet with one of BCRFs world-renowned researchers, Dr. Sofia Merajver from the University of Michigan. It is entirely possible that Delta has contributed to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, but this group is not a "Delta partner," nor is it the main benefactor of their cancer research fundraiser.  Williams doubled down on his claim that Delta was partnered with the Susan G. Komen Foundation when he shared a photograph of a Delta plane painted with pink ribbons and linked to a set of images on the web site FlashPointAgency: shared FlashPointAgency   FlashPointAgency does say that this plane was designed as part of Delta's work with the Susan G. Komen Foundation. However, these images appear to be mislabeled. Another image in this set of photographs shows two women standing in front of a wall of logos for the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. As we noted above, Delta does frequently host fundraisers to support BCRF:   Regardless of Delta Air Lines' relationships with the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, or anyone else, these groups have little to do with the senator's original claim, which is that Delta Air Lines provided discounts to Planned Parenthood members. Our examination of this rumor resulted in a chain of unfounded social media posts, but absolutely no supporting evidence. Aued, Blake.  "Georgia Prospers When Businesses Don't Discriminate."
  Flagpole.  28 September 2016. Goldschmidt, Debra.  "Planned Parenthood: Fast Facts and Revealing Numbers."
  CNN.  1 August 2017. Wattles, Jackie.  "More Than a Dozen Businesses Ran Away From the NRA. How it Went Down."
  CNN.  26 February 2018. Wattles, Jackie.  "More Than a Dozen Businesses Ran Away From the NRA. How it Went Down."
  CNN.  26 February 2018. Reports about big bonuses for Wall Street executives have struck a nerve with people who wonder how the executives can justify large payments when their firms are in shaky condition or are seeking federal help. It's drawn the ire of President Obama, who called it the height of irresponsibility. It's shameful. On Feb. 4, 2009, he said top executives at firms receiving federal aid will have their compensation capped at $500,000 and that bonuses would have to come as stock that they can't receive until the government is reimbursed. The New York State Comptroller reported in late January that Wall Street firms in 2008 handed out $18.4 billion in cash bonuses to employees who live in New York City, the sixth-largest amount on record. Critics have said the employees don't deserve the rewards because the firms lost more than $35 billion in 2008 and the federal government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out many of them. Fred Smith, chief executive of FedEx and supporter of George W. Bush, John McCain and other Republicans, tried to cool down the heated discussion with a bit of perspective on ABC'sThis Weekon Feb. 1, 2009. Host George Stephanopoulos noted that Smith actually took a pay cut in December. You announced a 20 percent pay cut because of the performance of FedEx over the last year, because of the tough economic times. And I wonder ... what do you think of the bonus structure now on Wall Street? Smith replied that compensation on Wall Street is built on bonuses much more so than in the industrial sector. As I understand it, the average bonus in that $18 billion is about $100,000 a year. The bonuses on Wall Street are down about 44 percent. Smith was not far off when it came to the average cash bonus. It was $112,000 in 2008, according to New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli's Jan. 28, 2009, report. And indeed bonuses were down 44 percent in a sense: The total amount given out in bonuses, $18.4 billion, was a decline of 44 percent from the $32.9 billion handed out in 2007. But due to job losses on Wall Street, there were fewer employees to split the pie in 2008. So the average bonus was down a slightly more modest 37 percent from the previous year's average. Also, it might have been worth pointing out that while bonuses were well below the 2007 level, that average of $112,000 was still the fifth-highest since the comptroller's office started keeping records in 1985. And the total haul of $18.4 billion was the sixth highest on record. Both were around the same as 2004, a vastly better year for the securities industry and its investors. And although it's true that bonuses generally make up a substantial portion of the compensation on Wall Street, $112,000 is still more than twice the average salary in the United States. But Smith is free to use statistics selectively  and the statistics he chose were off by just $12,000 and a few percentage points. We find his statement Mostly True. Claim:  Letter to the Wall Steet Journal responds to a "Where's the Outrage?" editorial. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2009] This letter was sent to the Wall Street Journal on August 8, 2008 by Alisa Wilson, Ph.D. Of Beverly Hills, CA, in response to the Wall Street Journal article titled "Where's The Outrage?" that appeared July 31, 2008. Really. I can tell you where the outrage is. The outrage is here, in this middle-aged, well-educated, upper-middle class woman. The outrage is here, but I have no representation, no voice. The outrage is here, but no one is listening for who am I? I am not a billionaire like George Soros that can fund an entire political movement. I am not a celebrity like Barbra Streisand that can garner the attention of the press to promote political candidates. I am not a film maker like Michael Moore or Al Gore that can deliver misleading movies to the public. The outrage is here, but unlike those with money or power, I don't know how to reach those who feel similarly in order to effect change. Why am I outraged? I am outraged that my country, the United States of America, is in a state of moral and ethical decline. There is no right or wrong anymore, just what's fair. Is it fair that millions of Americans who overreached and borrowed more than they could afford are now being bailed out by the government and lending institutions to stave off foreclosure? Why shouldn't these people be made to pay the consequences for their poor judgment? When my husband and I purchased our home, we were careful to purchase only what we could afford. Believe me, there are much larger, much nicer homes that I would have loved to have purchased. But, taking responsibility for my behavior and my life, I went with the house that we could afford, not the house that we could  not afford. The notion of personal responsibility has all but died in our country. I am outraged, that the country that welcomed my mother as an immigrant from Hitler's Nazi Germany and required that she and her family learn English now allows itself to be overrun with illegal immigrants and worse, caters to those illegal immigrants. I am outraged that my hard-earned taxes help support those here illegally. That the Los Angeles Public School District is in such disarray that I felt it incumbent to send my child to private school, that every time I go to the ATM, I see "do you want to continue in English or Spanish?", that every time I call the bank, the phone company, or similar business, I hear "press 1 for English or press 2 for Spanish". WHY? This is America, our common language is English and attempts to promote a bi- or multi-lingual society are sure to fail and to marginalize those who cannot communicate in English. I am outraged at our country's weakness in the face of new threats on American traditions from Muslims. Just this week, Tyson's Food negotiated with its union to permit Muslims to have Eid-al-Fitr as a holiday instead of Labor Day. What am I missing? Yes, there is a large Somali Muslim population working at the Tyson's plant in Tennessee. Tennessee, last I checked, is still part of the United States. If Muslims want to live and work here they should be required to live and work by our American Laws and not impose their will on our long history. In the same week, Random House announced that they had indefinitely delayed the publication of The Jewel of Medina, by Sherry Jones, a book about the life of Mohammed's wife, Aisha due to fear of retribution and violence by Muslims. When did we become a nation ruled by fear of what other immigrant groups want? It makes me so sad to see large corporations cave rather than stand proudly on the principles that built this country. I am outraged because appeasement has never worked as a political policy, yet appeasing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is exactly what we are trying to do. An excellent article, also published recently in the Wall Street Journal, went through over 20 years of history and why talking with Iran has been and will continue to be ineffective. Yet talk, with a madman no less, we continue to do. Have we so lost our moral compass and its ability to detect evil that we will not go in and destroy Iran 's nuclear program? Would we rather wait for another Holocaust for the Jews  one which they would be unlikely to survive? When does it end? As if the battle for good and evil isn't enough, now come the Environmentalists who are so afraid of global warming that they want to put a Bag tax on grocery bags in California; to eliminate Mylar balloons; to establish something as insidious as the recycle police in San Francisco. I do my share for the environment: I recycle, I use water wisely, I installed an energy efficient air conditioning unit. But when and where does the lunacy stop? Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map, the California economy is being overrun by illegal immigrants, and the United States of America no longer knows right from wrong, good from evil.. So what does California do? Tax grocery bags. So, America , although I can tell you where the outrage is, this one middle-aged, well-educated, upper middle class woman is powerless to do anything about it. I don't even feel like my vote counts because I am so outnumbered by those who disagree with me. Alisa Wilson, Ph.D.Beverly Hills, California Origins:  On 31 July 2008, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, entitled "Where's the Outrage? Really."  The gist of Mr. Brooks' commentary was to note that"virtually every group in the [U.S.] population [was] less angry" in 2008 than in 1996 with the exception of those who identify themselves as "very liberal," and to question why "folks outside their ranks (including moderate liberals) are failing so miserably to muster up much rage in the current environment." editorial In response to Mr. Brooks' opinion piece, Beverly Hills, California, resident Dr. Alisa Wilson penned the above-quoted letter, which was submitted to (but not published by) the Wall Street Journal.  As Dr. Wilson told us: a) I did indeed write that letter in August 2008.  Please note, however, that although I submitted the letter to the Wall Street Journal, the Wall Street Journal did not publish my letter.   b) The thoughts and sentiments in that article are my own, but apparently have resonated with many people.   c) I have seen some people in the "blog-o-sphere" question whether I am a real person.  Yes, indeed, I exist. Last updated:  19 May 2009 Amid tense talks between Congressional Republicans and Democrats over the 2018 federal budget, the attention of many observers turned to each side's record on government spending, benefits and entitlements, and fiscal priorities.  In that vein, a widely-shared Facebook meme took aim at Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, accusing him of supporting a modified version of a long-standing liberal bte noire  drug-testing for welfare recipients.  On 21 January 2018, Facebook user Ken Stanley wrote: wrote Tom Cotton calls for every person who receives Social Security to be drug tested those who test positive will lose benefits.     This claim is false. We searched Cotton's speeches, op-eds, and press releases, as well as the Congressional Record and news archives, and found no evidence of the Senator ever having advocated such a policy. In an e-mail, a spokesperson for Cotton told us the meme was "completely false": Senator Cotton does not support (nor has he ever supported) drug testing for Social Security recipients.  Indeed, even those who call for drug-testing for welfare recipients do not typically propose the same policy for Social Security. This is because Social Security is more widely regarded as an earned benefit (workers contribute to it through payroll taxes), while programs such as housing assistance or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) are regarded as welfare. Senator Cotton does, however, have a record of making statements and advocating policies around welfare assistance which have raised eyebrows.  In 2015, Salon and Raw Story headlines accused Cotton of "blaming" drug addiction on Social Security benefits, and claiming that receiving Social Security disability benefits causes individuals to "spiral" into drug addiction. The articles, as well as Cotton's actually comments were more nuanced.  blaming spiral In a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think thank, Cotton advocated for reform of the Social Security disability system, and drew a link between population decline and social ills (including drug addiction) in certain counties and regions, and rates of Social Security disability insurance uptake:  It's hard to say what came first or caused the other: population decline or increased disability usage. Or maybe economic stagnation caused both. Regardless, there seems to be  at least at the county and regional level  something like a disability tipping point. When a county hits a certain level of disability usage, disability becomes a norm. It becomes an acceptable way of life and an alternative source of income to a good-paying, full-time job...After a certain point, when disability keeps climbing and becomes endemic, employers will struggle to find employees, or begin  or continue  to move out of the area.  Population continues to fall, and a downward spiral kicks in, driving once-thriving communities into further decline. Not only that, but once this kind of spiral begins, communities could begin to suffer other social plagues as well, such as heroin or meth addiction and associated crime. In 2014, while running for the Senate, a Huffington Post writer accused Cotton of "calling food stamp recipients addicts." Again, his comments were much more nuanced than that description.  accused According to a Huffington Post transcript of a virtual town hall hosted by Cotton in July 2014, the then-Congressman defended voting down a Democratic bill relating to agricultural payments and federal food aid, on the basis that it did not sufficiently reform the food stamps program, including by requiring drug testing for applicants: voting I dont think that we should be using farmers as a way to pack more welfare spending into Barack Obamas government, Cotton said. Nor should we have a food stamp program that isnt reformed, that doesnt have job training and work requirements, that doesnt have drug testing requirements, so we can get people who are addicted the help they need. Or make sure that long-term addicts or recidivists are not abusing taxpayer dollars. In March 2017, Cotton joined with Republican Senate colleagues in voting to nullify an Obama-era Department of Labor rule which limited the circumstances under which states could conduct drug-testing for individuals applying for unemployment insurance.  voting rule President Donald Trump later formally reversed the guideline, effectively giving states greater powers in conducting drug screening for jobless benefits. So Senator Cotton has certainly supported drug testing for welfare programs  but never for Social Security.  reversed Gauthier, Brendan. "Tom Cotton Blames Social Security for 'Heroin and Meth Addiction' Because Reasons."
 Salon. 10 November 2015. Edwards, David. "Sen. Tom Cotton: Social Security Benefits Cause People to 'Spiral Downward' Into Heroin Addiction."
 Raw Story. 9 November 2015. Lachman, Samantha. "GOP Senate Candidate Tom Cotton Calls Food Stamp Recipients 'Addicts.'"
 Huffington Post. 17 July 2014. Brady, Rep. Kevin. "House Joint Resolution 42 -- Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Department of Labor Relating to Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Congressional Record. 31 March 2017. U.S. Department of Labor. "Final Rule --Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Provision on Establishing Appropriate Occupations for Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Federal Register. 1 August 2016. U.S. Department of Labor. "President Trump Nullifies Drug Testing Rule."
 U.S. Department of Labor. 31 March 2017. Claim:  A Russian man was drugged and his testicles stolen by an attractive stranger. PROBABLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2015] There appears to be a new version of the kidney robbery articlegoing around.  kidney robbery Now the Daily Mail in the UK has just published an article about a famousRussian actor (but not showing his face, but showing his name) beingdrugged and having his testicles stolen:  Origins:  On 26 February 2015, the British newspaper the Daily Mail published an article titled "Married TV actor wakes up to find his testicles have been STOLEN after he is drugged in Russian bar by attractive blonde working for organ traffickers." As the example quoted above observed, the article bore many hallmarks of long-circulating urban legends involving organ theft (often as the result  article urban legends of an illicit or otherwise immoral sexual encounter).  According to the article, 30-year-old married Russian celebrity Dmitry Nikolaev met a blonde stranger in a bar in Moscow. After he (presumably) pursued an extramarital encounter with the woman, he awoke to unexplained and severe pain in the area of his groin and was later informed by doctors that his testicles had been removed (without his knowledge or consent). Moreover, the site claimed, the surgical procedure was performed by a skilled individual and likely resulted from a larger organized crime outfit trafficking in human organs. Neither the Daily Mail nor the Russian news source to which it referred provided any date, specific location, or other verifiable details of the alleged crime. The narrative stated that the man was transported to a hospital and only learned after an examination that his testicles had been removed, which does not sound particularly likely given even a layperson's ability to detect whether or not he currently possesses testes. It's possible that the news source intended to imply the man's testicles were replaced with prosthetics, but the nature of his injury was not detailed: referred They kissed and had some more beer and after that the actor remembers nothing,' said a police source. He woke up next day at a bus stop, feeling acute pain, and with blood on his trousers. Rushed to hospital, he was told that his testicles had been removed and that 'it was done like proper surgery by someone with a medical education'. The operation was conducted in a 'skillful way', said police, who believe his beer was spiked by an unknown drug. As discussed elsewhere on this site, the usefulness of such a donation (willing or not) is debatable. It's highly unlikely a crime such as the one described truly constitutes a profit center for gangs in any country, as testicles are neither a commonly purchased medical commodity nor a commonly transplanted organ, and organs of any description are delicate and difficult to transport. donation Finally, the manner in which the site partially obscured the purported victim's identity was atypical and suspicious. While the man's face was pixelated, his full name, age, and general location were utilized by the Russian news outlet from which the Daily Mail sourced the story. The translated article from which the claims arose concluded with a claim that the man's wife remained ignorant of his experience, which is rather implausible given that his full name and other identifying details were released by the media: Interestingly, the wife of the injured man is still convinced that her husband was in the hospital because of surgery on the genitals caused by a serious illness. Last updated:  26 February 2015 On 21 April 2016, the web siteThe Good Lord Above published an article reportingthat a Noah's Ark Christian theme park then under construction in Kentucky had been destroyed by a flood: The new 'Noah's Ark' Theme Parkin Williamstown, Kentucky, was destroyed in a flood earlier today. The sudden flash flood only seemed to affect the location of the Ark Encounter Theme Park, which was in the final phases of construction. "From a meteorological standpoint, this is quite confusing," said Dan Schmidt, a forecaster with the National Weather Service. "There were no storm clouds in the area. We're calling this flood an act of God." While it's true that a Noah's Ark-themed attraction was  built in Kentucky, the project was not destroyed by a flood.  Thereporting of such was a spoof fromThe Good Lord Above, a web site responsible for several other religiously-based fake news stories, such as anarticle proclaiming that Donald Trump had called Jesus a "socialist loser" and astory reporting thatBernie Sanders savedthree children from a house fire. To their credit, The Good Lord Abovemakes the site's humorous nature very clearon their "About" page: attraction built socialist saved God made the world. Then he flooded it. Then God went to sleep for 2000 years or so. Anyway, eventually God woke up and felt pretty bad for what he'd done in the past. In 2011, after years of therapy, God started his Divine God Facebook Page to restore his good name. In his infinite wisdom, in 2015 God launched this Holy Website, TheGoodLordAbove.com. Thou shalt remember that The First Amendment protects satire as a form of free speech and expression. TheGoodLordAbove uses invented names in all of its stories, except in cases where public figures are being satirized. Any other use of real names is accidental and coincidental. TheGoodLordAbove is not intended for readers under 18 years of age. The Ark Encounter Christian theme park finally opened in Kentucky on 7 July 2016, with a fully intact ark as one of its exhibits: opened With Republicanscriticizing the corporate tax hikeproposed by President Joe Biden to fund his infrastructure plan, Biden pushed back during remarks on his proposal, the American Jobs Plan. Biden framed the issue as one of fairness, with big corporations not paying their fair share. A new, independent study put out last week found that at least 55 of our largest corporations use the various loopholes to pay zero federal income tax in 2020, Bidensaidin his April 7 remarks. It's just not fair. It's not fair to the rest of the American taxpayers. We found that Bidens statement is supported by a recently released study from a liberal group, though that studys methodology has its critics. President Joe Biden speaks during an event on the American Jobs Plan at the White House on April 7, 2021. (AP) We didnt hear back from the White House, but Bidens remarks make clear that he was referring to an April 2studyby the liberal-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. That study, which had received wide media coverage in recent days, found that at least 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no federal corporate income taxes in their most recent fiscal year despite enjoying substantial pretax profits in the United States. The list of 55 companies is sprinkled with well-known names, including FedEx, HP, Nike, Salesforce and XCel Energy. Collectively, the study concluded, the companies earned $40.5 billion in pretax income in 2020 and would have paid taxes amounting to $8.5 billion had this income been taxed by at the standard 21% corporate rate. In reality, the companies collectively received rebates from the federal government worth $3.5 billion. The study cited several tax laws that helped protect these companies income from taxation, including those governing the tax treatment of executive stock options, research and experimentation, renewable energy, deductions for capital expenses, and the reallocation of losses to different tax years. Some observers told PolitiFact that they took issue with Bidens characterization of such laws as loopholes. Reasonable people can disagree over the wisdom of a given tax provision, but they were deliberate policy choices, not rifle shots, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the center-right American Action Forum. Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, agreed. The problem with that framing is that many of the provisions reducing tax rates are either built into the code to properly calculate net income  such as a 100% bonus depreciation, apro-growth provision or provisions created to incentivize preferred activity by policymakers, such as the research and experimentation tax credit, Watson said. Still, even experts who are critical of the studys methodology told PolitiFact that Biden accurately portrayed the gist of the reports findings in his April 7 remarks. Notably, Bidens remark also stopped short of blaming the companies for evading taxes; his remarks suggest that his quarrel is with the tax system that allowed the companies to legally pay so little in taxes. The groups study is based on an analysis of annual financial reports filed by publicly traded companies in the Standard & Poors 500 stock index or the Fortune 500 list of companies with the largest revenue. But while this data comes from federally required disclosures, critics say that what is disclosed on these forms is calculated differently from these companies actual tax filings, which are private. In other words, the critics say, we dont really know whether these companies paid zero in taxes or not. Holtz-Eakinwrotethat using Securities and Exchange Commission filings, as the study does, is tricky, because the way income is counted on these forms departs substantially from the way taxable income is reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Notably, companies have some flexibility to determine their own fiscal years for financial disclosures, whereas the IRS requires a more rigid schedule for tax payments, he wrote. Financial reports may not cover the same period of time as a tax return, he wrote. Meanwhile, the tax code allows companies to smooth out income by allowing losses to be carried forward or backward for a number of years, Holtz-Eakin wrote. As a result, a snapshot of the company in its single year of profitability is a necessarily distorted view, but one that some tax critics tend to highlight. In addition, the rules governing the reporting of capital investments in the SEC disclosures may be different from what the IRS allows. Steve Wamhoff, director of federal policy at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said he disagrees with the methodological critiques. Wamhoff said his groups report focuses on what the companies affirm is their best calculation of taxes they have paid for the year. Its very unlikely that the companys real-world income tax liability will be substantially different from this, he told PolitiFact. He added that the reallocation of losses to different tax years is reasonable in theory, but we are finding that corporations are not paying taxes over a longer period. Our report finds that many of these companies  26 that we have identified  paid nothing over a three-year period. William Gale, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, agreed that it can be difficult to infer a companys actual tax position from its SEC filings. But he said the idea that many large corporations do pay zero in federal taxes is by now well-established. The non-partisan Congressional Joint Committee on Taxationhas shownthat in any given year for the past 15 years or so, about two-thirds of corporations with less than $1 billion in assets paid no federal corporate income tax, and one-third of corporations with assets greater than $1 billion paid no federal corporate income tax, Gale said. And the committee, he said, has access to corporations actual tax returns. Biden said, A new, independent study put out last week found that at least 55 of our largest corporations used various loopholes to pay zero federal income tax in 2020. Biden is right that a study had been released days earlier by a non-governmental group that concluded that at least 55 large companies paid zero federal income taxes in 2020. However, it may be incorrect to call the tax provisions cited in the report loopholes, since many of them are deliberate attempts by the government to set incentives through the tax code and may on their own be broadly popular. Critics also say that the financial disclosures used to compile the report are imperfect estimates of what the companies actually paid in taxes, since the accounting rules are different for the two types of filings. On the other hand, separate data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is based on actual tax returns, has supported the studys general point. We rate the statement Mostly True.