Is Snapchat Building a Facial Recognition Database for the Feds?
One of the more whimsical messaging options offered by Snapchat  a social media app for mobile devices introduced in 2011  is the ability to personalize selfies in real time and share them instantly with other users, a feature that has at once contributed to the app's immense popularity (Snapchat boasts an estimated 166 million users daily) and raised privacy concerns among some of its customers.  Snapchat's rotating toolbox of image filters, called Lenses, enables users to manipulate photos and videos to humorous effect, as seen in these examples shared publicly on Instagram by celebrity Snapchatter Chrissy Teigen:   Cute and innocent though it may appear, the feature has become the target of conspiracy theorists claiming that Snapchat's corporate owner, Snap Inc., uses it to collect facial recognition data which it allegedly stores and shares with law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and CIA. We've found examples of such rumors dating back to Fall 2015 (soon after the Lenses feature was officially rolled out): you guys are all swooning over the snapchat filters... And The FBI is getting the most extensive facial recognition library ever  TEENWOLF (@TEENWOLFREMIX) October 3, 2015 October 3, 2015  It wasn't until April of the following year that the rumors reached takeoff speed, however, thanks largely to a tweet composed by hip hop artist, songwriter, and unabashed flat-earth theorist B.o.B to his roughly two million followers: tweet flat-earth when you realize all the snap chat filters are really building a facial recognition database ?  B.o.B (@bobatl) April 16, 2016 April 16, 2016 In May 2016, with civil cases already pending against Facebook and Google alleging unauthorized use of facial recognition technology, a class action lawsuit was filed by two Snapchat users in Illinois complaining that the app violated their rights under the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by failing to obtain adequate permission before gathering and storing their "biometric identifiers and biometric information". lawsuit BIPA The company flatly denied it: denied Contrary to the claims of this frivolous lawsuit, we are very careful not to collect, store, or obtain any biometric information or identifiers about our community. The class action suit was eventually dismissed in favor of arbitration in September 2016, but as of this writing the case remains unresolved. Crucial to Snapchat's defense is their position, as stated in the Privacy Center of the company's web site, that the app relies on object recognition, not facial recognition, to make Lenses work: arbitration stated Have you ever wondered how Lenses make your eyes well up with tears or rainbows come out your mouth? Some of the magic behind Lenses is object recognition. Object recognition is an algorithm designed to understand the general nature of things that appear in an image. It lets us know that a nose is a nose or an eye is an eye. But object recognition isnt the same as facial recognition. While Lenses can recognize faces in general, they can't recognize a specific face. If it's true that Lenses can't recognize (i.e., identify) specific faces, then the claim that the app produces anything qualifying as a "biometric identifier" under Illinois law is seriously in doubt. (The district judge in Illinois overseeing the Google facial recognition case previously defined "biometric identifier" as "a set of biology-based measurements ... used to identify a person.) case As to the wider claim that Snapchat is building a "facial recognition database," the distinction between object and facial recognition, at minimum, places a burden of proof on those trumpeting the claim to show that the app is capable of identifying specific faces in the first place. If this explanation (provided by the web site Vox) of how the software works is accurate, Snapchat doesn't need to be able to identify specific faces to accomplish the task. It has to recognize a face as a face, and identify the parts of a face as the nose, eyes, ears, chin, etc., but it doesn't have to recognize who the face belongs to: this Moreover, Snapchat's Privacy Policy states that the company neither collects nor permanently stores user-created content (meaning photos and videos) let alone preserves such items in a database: states Snapchat lets you capture what its like to live in the moment. On our end, that means that we automatically delete the content of your Snaps (the photo and video messages that you send your friends) from our servers after we detect that a Snap has been opened by all recipients or has expired. And although the policy further acknowledges that Snap Inc. may share users' personal information "to comply with any valid legal process, governmental request, or applicable law, rule, or regulation" (and transparency reports show that the company has indeed complied with such requests in the past), they can't grant the FBI (or any other agency) access to a "facial recognition database" that doesn't exist. reports Some rumors die hard, however. An updated variant that cropped up in early 2017 brought two new claims to the mix: one, that the FBI literally created Snapchat's image filtering software (and alleged facial recognition database); and two, that there is a smoking gun to prove it  namely U.S. patent #9396354:   granted According to an analysis by Sophos' Naked Security blogger Alison Booth, the patent proposes using facial recognition software to identify individual subjects in photos, whereupon the latter would be modified and/or their distribution restricted in accordance with the subjects' pre-established privacy settings. analysis There is a catch. Implementation of the process would, of course, require amassing a facial recognition database. "For facial recognition to work," writes Booth, "Snapchat would need to store images of all users that sign up to the feature  as a reference image to compare photos against." So, there it is  a "facial recognition database" of the sort conspiracy theorists have been going on about since 2015, except that Snapchat has not, to date, implemented such a feature (a fact we were able to confirm with the company), nor is there evidence that the FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) was involved in creating it, nor does the patent itself mention sharing facial recognition data with government entities. Despite finding no legitimate basis for the claim that Snapchat is currently engaged in collecting, storing, or sharing facial recognition data on its users, we do not wish to downplay the increasing prevalence of facial recognition technology in both commercial and government applications, nor the privacy issues this raises. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) articulated some of these issues in a statement announcing the release of a 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the privacy implications of the technology: report The newly released report raises serious concerns about how companies are collecting, using, and storing our most sensitive personal information. I believe that all Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, which is why it's important that, at the very least, the tech industry adopts strong, industry-wide standards for facial recognition technology. But what we really need are federal standards that address facial recognition privacy by enhancing our consumer privacy framework. The tech industry has yet to address these concerns to the satisfaction of consumer privacy watchdogs, however, nor has Congress made progress toward establishing the federal standards Franken called for. Thus far, issue has been dealt with primarily in the court system via cases such as the aforementioned BIPA class action lawsuits against Facebook and Google. watchdogs lawsuits One of the ironies of the false alarms about Snapchat's alleged sharing of facial recognition data with the FBI is that the agency already maintains a biometric data network comprising the facial images of more than 117 million Americans (about half the U.S. adult population, and growing), mostly drawn from state DMV databases and other non-criminal sources. A 2016 report by the Georgetown Law Center for Privacy and Technology warned that the technology is both error-prone, with a disproportionate impact on communities of color, and almost totally unregulated. already report disproportionate In testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing chaired by Sen. Franken in 2012, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Jennifer Lynch urged Congress to act sooner rather than later to protect the biometric privacy of all Americans: testimony Face recognition and its accompanying privacy concerns are not going away. Given this, it is imperative that government act now to limit unnecessary biometrics collection; instill proper protections on data collection, transfer, and search; ensure accountability; mandate independent oversight; require appropriate legal process before government collection; and define clear rules for data sharing at all levels. This is important to preserve the democratic and constitutional values that are bedrock to American society. Booth, Alison.  "Snapchat Turns Facial Recognition Technology on Its Head."
 Naked Security.  20 July 2016. Danley-Greiner, Kristin.  "Snapchat Defends Procedures After Facial Recognition Class Action."
 Legal Newsline.  2 September 2016. Garvie, Clare et al.  "The Perpetual Line-up: Unregulated Police Face Recognition in America."
 Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology.  18 October 2016. Graham, Meg.  "Illinois Biometrics Lawsuits May Help Define Rules for Facebook, Google."
 Chicago Tribune.  13 January 2017. Korte, Amy.  "Federal Court in Illinois Rules Biometric Privacy Lawsuit Against Google Can Proceed."
 Illinois Policy.  8 March 2017. Maass, Dave.  "Memo to the DOJ: Facial Recognition's Threat to Privacy Is Worse than Anyone Thought."
 Electronic Frontier Foundation.  18 October 2016. Mathies, Daven.  "The Incredible Underlying Technology of Snapchat's Selfie Lenses."
 Digital Trends.  1 July 2016. Nelson, Steven.  "Half of U.S. Adults Are in Police Facial Recognition Networks."
 US News & World Report.  18 October 2016. Roberts, Jeff John.  "Tech Industry's Facial Recognition Plan Bashed by Privacy Groups."
 Fortune.  16 June 2016. Thielman, Sam.  "FBI Using Vast Public Photo Data and Iffy Facial Recognition Tech to Find Criminals."
 The Guardian.  15 June 2016. Trujillo, Mario.  "Facial Recognition Quietly Taking Hold."
 The Hill.  1 August 2015. Welinder, Yana.  "EFF Urges Congress to Protect Privacy in Face Recognition."
 Electronic Frontier Foundation.  18 July 2012. Yakowicz, Will.  "Snapchat Sued Under Illinois Biometric Information Usage Law."
  Inc.  18 July 2016. Electronic Frontier Foundation.  "Testimony of Jennifer Lynch to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law."
 18 July 2012. Google.  "Patent: Apparatus and Method for Automated Privacy Protection in Distributed Images - US 9396354 B1."
  19 July 2016. Government Accounting Office.  "Facial Recognition Technology: Commercial Uses, Privacy Issues, and Applicable Federal Law."
 20 June 2015. U.S. Senate.  "Sen. Franken: New Report on Facial Recognition Technology Highlights Lack of Privacy Standards."
 30 July 2015. U.S. Senate.  "Sen. Franken Releases Extensive Report Detailing Concerns with FBI Facial Recognition Program."
 15 June 2016.
An Associated Press analysis published in late September 2018 warned that prescription drug prices in the United States were still rising precipitously despite President Trump's vow to reduce them. During the first seven months of the year, the report said, prescription drug prices saw 96 increases for every cut. analysis vow The human cost of runaway prescription drugs prices was dramatically illustrated in a meme shared on the Occupy Democrats Facebook page on 18 September:   This is Alex Smith. He died this year at age 26 because he couldn't afford insulin in America. He made $35,000 a year as a restaurant manager, and couldn't afford his $450 a month health insurance with a $7,600 out-of-pocket deductible. The insulin he needed for diabetes was $1,300 a month. When he turned 26 and was kicked off his mom's insurance, he started rationing his life-saving insulin. He died a month later. The text is mostly accurate, although it has Smith's given name wrong (it was Alec, not Alex), and he died in 2017, not "this year" as claimed in the 2018 meme. died According to local news reports, Alec Raeshawn Smith's lifeless body was found in his apartment on 27 June 2017, 27 days after his coverage under his mother's health insurance policy had lapsed due to his age. The cause of death was diabetic ketoacidosis, a life-threatening complication of diabetes that occurs when the body produces excess blood acids (called ketones) because it lacks enough insulin. news reports ketoacidosis In a piece contributed to Truthout.org in February 2018, Smith's mother, Nicole Smith-Holt, wrote that even though Alec had a full-time job, it did not come with employer-provided health coverage: wrote For Alec, this meant that his insulin and supplies cost almost $1,300 a month. He and I together researched for months in advance about his health insurance options. They werent good. The best plan we found would cost him $450 a month for the premium with a whopping $7,600 deductible. That deductible meant he would be paying out-of-pocket for his medicine for many months anyway, so he decided to go without the plan until he could find a different job with benefits. The prohibitive cost drove Smith to ration his insulin use to try to make his supply stretch to the next payday. "I have since learned that this is not uncommon," Smith-Holt wrote, and is indicative of a worsening health care crisis: Globally, half of the people who need insulin cant reliably get access to it. With 6 million people in the US insulin-dependent, and nearly 40 percent of Americans uninsured or facing high deductibles that leave their medicine costs uncovered, the crisis is occurring right here, too. Endocrinologists here in the US report that as many as one in five of their patients are not able to afford their insulin. For many persons with diabetes, that means they land in the emergency room with diabetic ketoacidosis. For others, like Alec, they never get there. Just 27 days after his coverage under my insurance ended, I received the call no parent ever wants to get. The American Diabetes Association released a report in March 2018 estimating that the total costs of diagnosed diabetes in the United States had risen 26 percent in the previous five years: report People with diagnosed diabetes incur average medical expenditures of $16,752 per year, of which about $9,601 is attributed to diabetes. People with diagnosed diabetes, on average, have medical expenditures approximately 2.3 times higher than what expenditures would be in the absence of diabetes.... People with diabetes who do not have health insurance have 60% fewer physician office visits and are prescribed 52% fewer medications than people with insurance coverage  but they also have 168% more emergency department visits than people who have insurance. In November 2017, we confirmed the similar case of Shane Patrick Boyle, an uninsured type 1 diabetic who died of ketoacidosis shortly after starting a GoFundMe campaign to try to raise enough money for a one-month supply of insulin. Shane Patrick Boyle Haavik, Emily.  "Mother Calls for Lower Insulin Prices in Wake of Son's Death."
 WTSP-TV [Tampa/St. Petersburg].  13 May 2018. Karlin-Smith, Sarah.  "Trump Says Drug Industry 'Getting Away with Murder."
  Politico.  11 January 2017. Olson, Jeremy.  "Son's Death Pushes Minnesota Mom Into Fight Against High, Rising Drug Prices."
  [Minneapolis] Star Tribune.  11 May 2018. Smith-Holt, Nicole.  "I Had to Bury My 26-Year-Old Son Because He Couldn't Afford Insulin."
 Truthout.org.  1 February 2018. Symons, Xavier.  "U.S. Insulin Price Hikes Prove Fatal for Diabetics."
 BioEdge.  8 September 2018. American Diabetes Association.  "The Cost of Diabetes."
 30 April 2018. Mayo Clinic.  "Diabetic Ketoacidosis."
 Accessed 24 September 2018. In their third and final gubernatorial debate on Oct. 25, 2010, Rick Scott and Alex Sink traded accusations that each has been party to fraud.Sink again hammered Scott for his time running Columbia/HCA and the hospital company's convictions and $1.7 billion in fines for defrauding Medicare and Medicaid. But this time Scott countered with allegations that Sink was the president of NationsBank operations in Florida when that company was accused of fraud and forced to pay government fines and settle a class-action lawsuit.Unlike Scott, Sink said she had what amounts to a get-out-of-jail-free card.That case, the lawyer that brought that case -- it was a class-action case against another company -- he even has said publicly that Alex Sink had nothing to do with the case, had nothing to do with the situation and didn't know about the problems, Sink told CNN's John King and theSt. Petersburg Times'Adam C. Smith, the debate's moderators. What more can I say?In a separate item, we dealt with Scott's accusations. You can read that item,here. In this fact check, we'll explore Sink's rebuttal.Some quick background about the case. In 1994, while Sink was president of NationsBank's Florida operations, a stock broker with bank subsidiary NationsSecurities came forward with what he described as an orchestrated nationwide scheme to get bank customers to move investments from safe, federally insured accounts to more risky brokerage and mutual funds.NationsSecurities broker David Cray, who worked in Florida, said the bank intentionally blurred the lines between its traditional banking business and its securities business and misled customers into thinking those securities investments were protected by the bank or the federal government. The scheme permeated the entire bank, Cray, and later others, said. Brokers were given sales scripts to try to convince bank customers to move their money into more risky securities.NationsSecurities branch managers encouraged employees to use fear to sell securities. In one orientation sales meeting, a manager suggested that a broker could ask customers: Is this your risky money or safe money? If this is risky, I know a guy at Merrill or Dean Witter.And NationsBank helped NationsSecurities by providing brokers with lists of customers who had Certificates of Deposit about to mature.The bank and stock brokers pushed the mutual funds because they received more lucrative fees, Cray said.The allegations led to a class-action lawsuit from investors who lost money by unknowingly making the risky investments, which in the end lost money. The Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission also began investigations. Eventually, NationsBank and NationsSecurities settled the investigations, agreeing to pay $8.1 million to investors in 2002, paying civil fines to the federal government of $6.75 million in 2000 and $6.4 million in 2002 and $4 million to the SEC in 1998. No criminal charges were ever filed.Sink says the lawyer who started the case, Jonathan Alpert of Tampa, has said Sink had nothing to do with the scheme.Here's what Alpert told theSt. Petersburg TimesandMiami Heraldin October when previously asked about Sink's role in selling the risky investments.Alex Sink could've done nothing about it. It was run out of Charlotte, said Alpert, referring to NationsBank's headquarters. I know she knew what was going on - that investments were being sold in the bank -- but that's it. And she was powerless to stop it, anyway. I had e-mails where the state presidents were being told what to do, that they had to help the securities people. They would dig into customers bank accounts to identify people who had enough money to buy securities. Charlotte said: 'This is what's going to happen in your bank lobbies and this is the way it's going to be.' They didn't say you're going to do A, B, C and D, they would say the bank cooperates fully with NationsSecurities, Alpert said. If Alex Sink were involved in it, it would be a wonderful story for the gubernatorial election. But she didn't know anything about it.Alpert, who said he voted for Sink, said she no doubt knew that riskier investments were being sold in the bank, but that she was likely not aware of the way brokers were manipulating customers to close the sales. And Sink has previously told theTimesshe had no authority or control over the securities sales. There were very, very strict firewalls between any kind of securities and brokerage operations and operations of commercial banking, she said. Those firewalls, Sink said, were the result of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law that separated commercial and investment banking. (The act was repealed in 1999.) But that didn't prevent Sink from finding out what was going on in her bank, noted Yale University finance expert Jonathan Macey. She's the state bank president, he said. She has the authority and perhaps the responsibility to know what's going on in her lobby. The original whistle-blower in the case, former NationsSecurity broker Cray, said, I would tend not to point the finger at Alex Sink for this. Which brings us back to her statement. At the CNN/St. Petersburg Timesdebate Sink said that the lawyer who brought the case against NationsBank said publicly that Alex Sink had nothing to do with the case, had nothing to do with the situation and didn't know about the problems. We think Sink is mostly quoting the lawyer in the NationsBank case, Jonathan Alpert, accurately. Alpert said Sink wasn't involved in the deceptive selling of more risky involvements through NationsSecurities and didn't know anything about the deceptive practices being employed. The companies NationsBank and NationsSecurities were managed separately. But Sink did know securities were being sold in her banks, and was in a position to voice questions or concerns about the practice if she sensed anything was being handled inappropriately. That's enough of a connection in our minds to knock this claim down one notch, and rate it Mostly True. Claim:  President Obama nominated Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court as a reward for her help in getting nine challenges to his eligibility dismissed.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August  2010] Well, someone figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for theSupreme Court. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docketand search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suitsagainst him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural borncitizenship. He owes her big time. All of the requests were denied of course.They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer. It's all about paybacktime for those that compromised themselves to elect someone thatreally has no true right to even be there. We should be getting sosick of all of this nonsense. The USA has finally become the laughingstock of the world. GOD help and deliver us. Variations:  An e-mailed screed claiming that thisarticle is wrong is itself wrong. screed Origins:  Rumors that Elena Kagan was nominated for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama as a tit-for-tat payment of Kagan's assistance in using her position as U.S. Solicitor General to fend off lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility for the presidency began circulating in August 2010, prompted by a 4 August 2010 online article published byWorldNetDaily (WND). That article claimed that Kagan "has actually been playing a role forsome time in the dispute over whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House" and that a "simple search of the high court's own website reveals Kagan's name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues," then went on to suggest that all nine of the referenced docket items  article were dismissed due to Kagan's influence, an action for which President Obama "owes her big time" and has rewarded her with a quid pro quo Supreme Courtnomination. One small problem for the advocates of this political conspiracy theory: None of the nine docket items cited by WND was about "whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House."  The WND article simply cites the results of a non-specific search on all Supreme Court docket items containing the names "Obama" and "Kagan" and misleadingly claims them all as "involving Obama eligibility issues," without regard for the real underlying issues of those cases.*  search * Each of the docket items included the name of the lower court from which it was appealed, as well as a case number.  Using those pieces of information as reference points for looking up the subject of each of the cited docket items (as WND utterly failed to do) revealed that NONE of the nine entries cited by WND had anything at all to do with cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States; in fact, most of them actually stemmed from cases which were originally filed against the federal government long before the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama (but which since "rolled over" to the current administration). The nine entries cited by WND comprised cases filed by:  Gary William Holt, a federal prisoner in Tennessee who was convicted of firearms-related offenses and whose case is a prisoner civil rights issue filed during the Bush administration. Gary William Holt  Jerome Julius Brown, whose case not only long antedates the Obama administration, but is also largely incomprehensible and has nothing do to with eligibility issues.  The case was originally dismissed by a lower court that could not discern either "which claims are made against which defendants on what basis" nor what "relief [the] plaintiff demands," and a description of the case provides some idea of why the lower court found it unworthy of consideration: Jerome Julius Brown description This matter is before the Court on the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Jerome Julius Brown ("Brown"), who refers to himself as "U.S. Bounty # 1014, U.S.A., Mr. Jerome Julius Brown Sr. et al." On June 7, 2010, Brown filed a one-page Complaint accompanied by 167 pages of attachments. The one-page Complaint is incomprehensible. It consists of several disjointed sentence fragments that do not make sense. It refers to a "petition for writ and attachments," an appeal from a magistrate judge, the United States Marshals Service, "assessment & taxation no real property data land condemnation business check card" and demands $70,000.00. The attachments include copies of his Maryland Driver's License, a business check card apparently issued to him by Chevy Chase Bank, and a Federal Express account card.  Other attachments demonstrate that he has filed other lawsuits against Chevy Chase Bank, and that he has filed other lawsuits against other various persons and entities. Also included among the attachments are copies of various checks drawn on what appears to be a business account for "Zip One Mail Contractor Courier" and "Jerome Julius Brown," an "ID Theft Affidavit" that refers to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a credit report for Brown that includes handwritten notes regarding purported fraud and identity theft, and what appears to be a copy of a home equity loan application.  Louis Lutz, a truck driver who was employed as a U.S. Army civilian contractor in Iraq between 2004 to 2006 (long before the advent of the Obama administration) and whose case has to do with the combatant status of civilian contractors and employees working in Iraq and Afghanistan, not presidential eligibility issues. Louis Lutz Two filings involving Abdul Hamid Abdul Salam Al-Ghizzawi, a Libyan citizen seeking release from his incarceration at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station.  (Al-Ghizzawi was finally released in March 2010, after seven years of imprisonment.) Abdul Hamid Abdul Salam Al-Ghizzawi released  Three filings involving Jamal Kiyemba, a Ugandan who was incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station for four years beginning in 2002. (Although Kiyemba was released from  Guantanamo in 2006, due to "some procedural detail of the American legal system, Jamal Kiyembas name remains in the headlines of the highly public legal battle that began as Kiyemba v. Bush and which sits now on the desks of the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States under its new name: Kiyemba v. Obama." The case is a separation-of-powers issue that has nothing to do with presidential eligibility.) Jamal Kiyemba The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., a case which, although the plaintiff's name might suggest a presidential eligibility issue, is actually a challenge to three Federal Election Commission regulations which the plaintiff organization alleges are "unconstitutionally overbroad" and thereby infringed their right "to disseminate information about presidential candidate Senator Obama's position on abortion." The Real Truth About Obama, Inc.  After we published our article on this topic, WND hurriedly scrubbed the original article from their site without explanation, then misleadingly replaced it three days later with a thoroughly rewritten article on a different topic which was prefaced by an Editor's Note acknowledging their error: replaced Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described a series of cases for which Elena Kagan represented the government as eligibility cases. Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court and the references have been removed from this report. Many people unfamiliar with the function of the Solictor General's office have claimed that even if the referenced docket items are not cases involving eligibility issues, they somehow demonstrate a questionable or inappropriate connection between Barack Obama and Elena Kagan, as if the latter personally represented the former in court and was rewarded for her efforts with a Supreme Court nomination.  This claim is also false One of the duties of the Solicitor General is, in layman's terms, to act as advocate for the United States before the Supreme Courtin any lawsuits filed against the federal government over abridgements of constitutional rights; thus the current Solicitor General's name will appear on virtually every Supreme Court docket item entered during his or her tenure.  (Indeed, a simple search of docket items for the name "Elena Kagan" turns up over 500 matching entries.)  Because such lawsuits often name the President of the United States as a respondent, it is also not uncommon for the current president's name to appear on such docket items (even if he was not yet in office at the time the underlying cases were originally filed in lower courts).  In all such cases, however, the Solicitor General functions as a representative of the interests of the federal government, not as personal counsel for the President.  (Several dozen Supreme Court docket items still identify Barack Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, as a respondent, and in every one of those cases the Solicitor General is likewise listed as an attorney for the respondent.) search George W. Bush *NOTE: Immediately after we published this piece, WND scrubbed all references to the original article from their web site without explanation. Three days later, WND misleadingly replaced the original with a thoroughly rewritten article on a completely different topic.  Last updated:  3 August 2015 Claim:  Article chronicles aspects of Senator Ted Kennedy's life and career. true Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2009] The Last of The Kennedy Dynasty As soon as his cancer was detected, I noticed the immediate attempt at the "canonization" of old Teddy Kennedy by the mainstream media. They are saying what a "great American" he is. I say, let's get a couple things clear & not twist the facts to change the real history. 1. He was caught cheating at Harvard when he attended it. He was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying aclassmate to cheat for him. 2. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. Oops! The man can't count to four! His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England (a step up from bootlegging liquor into the US from Canada during prohibition), pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. No preferential treatment for him!  3. Kennedy was assigned to Paris, never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged. Imagine a person of his "education" NEVER advancing past the rank of Private! 4. While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked. Coincidentally, he passed the bar exam in 1959. Amazing! 5. In 1964, he was seriously injured in a plane crash, and hospitalized for several months. Test results done by the hospital at the time he was admitted had shown he was legally intoxicated. The results of those tests remained a "state secret" until in the 1980's when the report was unsealed. Didn't hear about that from the unbiased media, did we? 6. On July 19, 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts. At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond. 7. He swam to shore and walked back to the party, passing several houses and a fire station. Two friends then returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew  that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep. Kennedy called the police the next morning and by then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began "calling in favors", ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne and he didn't call police because he was in a state of shock. It is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, and he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight. Since the accident, Kennedy's "political enemies" have referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF TWO MONTHS. Kopechne's family received a small payout from the Kennedy's insurance policy, and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy's family paid their attorney's bills ... a "token of friendship"? 8. Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than forty years, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors and is widely held as the "standard-bearer for liberalism". In his very first Senate roll, he was the floor manager for the bill that turned U.S. immigration policy upside down and opened the floodgate for immigrants from third world countries. 9. Since that time, he has been the prime instigator and author of every expansion of an increase in immigration, up to and including the latest attempt to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. 10. He is known around Washington as a public drunk, loud, boisterous and very disrespectful to ladies. Origins:  It's probably impossible for a politician such as Edward M. ("Ted") Kennedy  the youngest child in a family that included a U.S. President (John) and a U.S. Attorney General and Senator (Robert)  to have served as long as he did without acquiring a good many admirers and detractors.  When Ted Kennedy died of cancer in August 2009, after a career spanning more than 46 years as a U.S. Senator, both groups offered their observations, laudatory and critical, on his life and career.   The much-circulated example cited above, of the critical variety, is true in its broad outlines (although some of its subjective observations are questionable): 1)  Ted Kennedy did get expelled from Harvard for cheating (but not twice: a single incident has erroneously been represented as two different events in the example reproduced above).  At the end of his freshman year at Harvard College, in 1951, Kennedy arranged for a classmate to take a Spanish exam in his place: As it had been at Milton [Academy], Spanish was the course that gave Teddy the most difficulty at Harvard. For the others, he would muddle through with C's, he thought, but as the final examination approached, he felt in danger of failing both the test and the course, which would render him ineligible for varsity football in the fall, an intolerable prospect. Knowing he could not pass the examination himself, he arranged to have a friend [Bill Frate], much more proficient in the language, take it for him, signing Teddy's name to the booklet. As it happened, however, the graduate student assigned as proctor for the Spanish examination that day was personally acquainted with the student whom Teddy had recruited as his stand-in. When the stand-in, who did exceedingly well on the test, handed in the booklet, the proctor saw that he'd signed it "Edward M. Kennedy." Perhaps no more than an hour later, [Kennedy and Frate] were both called to the dean's office and expelled. They were told they could apply for readmission in a year or two if they behaved themselves. That was not the most severe punishment Harvard imposed, but it was typical in serious cases. [The preponderance of sources suggest that Frate agreed to take Kennedy's exam for him out of friendship, not because he was paid for his efforts.] 2. With Kennedy's expulsion from Harvard in 1951, he was ineligible for a student deferment and therefore subject to the draft (which had been re-initiated after the Korean War broke out in mid-1950).  In June 1951, he enlisted in the U.S. Army for four years, a term which his father's intervention shortened to two years: On the morning Ted enlisted for four years, the newspapers reported truce proposals [in Korea] but also severe Communist attacks, along with twenty-eight New England casualties.  Joe Kennedy, having lost one son to war, was furious, asking Ted, "Don't you ever look at what you're signing?" In those days, most young men understood the laws about military service, even if they had a student deferment. But Ted did not know that he had the option of volunteering for induction, in effect getting drafted when he chose and for the draft's two years. After Joe intervened, Ted got the shorter term. 3.  Also due largely to his father's influence, Ted Kennedy spent the bulk of his military service stationed in Paris:  Joe had no intention of letting Teddy get anywhere near the war in Korea. Instead, Teddy was inducted at Fort Dix, New Jersey, sent to Fort Gordon, Georgia, for basic training, and then shipped to Paris, where his father had arranged for his assignment to a military police honor guard detachment which had the wholly ceremonial task of standing watch over the NATO headquarters office located there. Kennedy was discharged from the Army in March 1953 with the rank of private first class, returned to Cambridge (where he took two summer school courses), and was readmitted to Harvard for the fall 1953 term.   The comment about a "person of his 'education'" only having attained the rank of private is something of an anachronism, as at the time Kennedy enlisted in the military he had little more than a high school education (having been expelled from Harvard at the end of his freshman year).  The bulk of his education (his final three years at Harvard and an additional four years of law school) did not take place until after his discharge from the Army. 4.  Ted Kennedy was known for driving wildly and accumulating speeding tickets while attending the University of Virginia (UVa) law school, prompting his UVa alumnus brother Robert to quip (during a talk at the school) that their mother had asked him to find out "what side of the court my brother is going to appear on when he gets out of law school, attorney or defendant." After the most serious incident (involving a police chase at speeds up to 90 MPH), Kennedy was arrested and charged with reckless driving and driving without a license (he possessed a valid license but had left it at home), an arrest which his father managed to keep out of the news for several weeks.   There does not appear to be a record of his driver's license having been revoked (but standards for mandatory revocation may have been quite different fifty years ago).   We're unsure what "amazing coincidence" supposedly connects Kennedy's having been arrested for reckless driving in Virginia in March 1958 and his having passed the Massachusetts bar exam in August 1959. 5.  On the evening of 19 June 1964, after a late vote in the U.S. Senate on a civil rights bill, Senator Ted Kennedy boarded a six-seat private plane to fly to the Massachusetts Democratic Party convention in West Springfield.  The plane crashed on approach to Barnes Municipal Airport in conditions of marginal visibility; the  pilot and a Kennedy aide were killed; Kennedy himself suffered crushed and fractured vertebrae, a collapsed lung, and several broken ribs, injuries which required several months of hospitalization and rehabilitation. The mention of Kennedy's supposedly having been "legally intoxicated" at the time of the accident is a red herring  he was a passenger in the plane, not the pilot, and was not responsible for the crash.  (The Civil Aeronautics Board found the probable cause to be "an improperly executed instrument approach in which improper altitude control resulted in a descent below obstructed terrain.") 6.-7.  The July 1969 "Chappaquiddick incident," in which Mary Jo Kopechne (a former campaign worker for Robert F. Kennedy) drowned after Ted Kennedy drove the car in which he and Mary Jo were riding off the side of a bridge late one evening, is well known and too complex a subject for us to adequately summarize in a paragraph or two, so interested readers might wish to peruse Wikipedia's entry on that topic.   entry It's fair to say that, at the very least, Kennedy's actions after the Chappaquiddick accident (particularly his failure to report it to authorities until well into the following morning) were both questionable and inexcusable. As Kennedy biographer Adam Clymer wrote of the Chappaquiddick controversy: No other automobile accident in history has stirred as much suspicion and speculation. There is no question that the authorities, simultaneously sympathetic, in awe, and in fear of a messy case involving a hugely popular Senator, did a terrible job of investigating the accident. The Kennedy camp did not help, but in legal terms, it did nothing to obstruct, either. Absent different evidence, it is almost impossible to see how the authorities could have proved a more serious crime [than leaving the scene of an accident]. The accident itself is consistent with the fact that Kennedy was a terrible, easily distracted driver. Moreover, even if he had only the two drinks he reported, liquor probably mattered. He was almost certainly not legally drunk in 1969, when the blood alcohol standard was 0.15 percent. He might not even have been over the current Massachusetts standard, which is 0.08.  But any alcohol consumption diminishes driving ability.  There is no direct evidence that Kennedy dove to the wrecked car. Some critics have dismissed his account, claiming that his bad back and the tides made this impossible. But since childhood, Kennedy had taken physical risks. After he broke his back, he was skiing on difficult slopes again the next year. Adrenaline would have boosted his energy. There is no reason to doubt that he tried as hard as he could to rescue Mary Jo immediately. Just as there was no good excuse for Kennedy's not knocking on doors until he found a house with a telephone, there was no excuse at all for [Kennedy friend and former U.S. Attorney Paul] Markham and [Kennedy cousin Joe] Gargan's failing to summon help. Each was a lawyer, and [unlike Kennedy] neither had a concussion. Their instinct, and perhaps Kennedy's too, appears to have been to prevent disclosure of his having been in the car with a pretty young woman under circumstances that invited suspicion. Nevertheless, it is very unlikely that faster action to summon help would in fact have saved her life. Considering that it took more than an hour to get her body out the next morning, when everyone involved was already awake and dressed and visibility was good, Lange and Dewitt [authors of Chappaquiddick: The Real Story] argue convincingly that she had to have died before help would have arrived in the middle of the night. But Markham, Gargan, and Kennedy didn't know that. They should not have worried about how it would look and should have called the police without delay. 8.  How one evaluates the accomplishments and achievements of Ted Kennedy's 46-year tenure as a U.S. Senator is a subjective issue, but no even-handed evaluation could fairly describe them as "scant."  Wikipedia, for example, observes that: Wikipedia Since his presidential bid [in 1980], Kennedy became one of the most recognizable and influential members of the party, and was sometimes called a "Democratic icon" as well as "The Lion of the Senate". Kennedy and his Senate staff had written about 2,500 bills, of which more than 300 were enacted into law. Kennedy had co-sponsored another 550 bills that became law since 1973.  Kennedy was known for his effectiveness in dealing with Republican senators and administrations, sometimes to the irritation of Democrats. During the 101st Congress under President George H. W. Bush, fully half of the successful proposals put forward by the Senate Democratic policy makers came out of Kennedy's Labor and Human Resources Committee. During the 2000s, almost every bipartisan bill signed during the George W. Bush administration had significant involvement from Kennedy. A late 2000s survey of Republican senators ranked Kennedy first among Democrats in bipartisanship. Kennedy strongly believed in the principle "never let the perfect be the enemy of the good," and would agree to pass legislation he viewed as incomplete or imperfect with the goal of improving it down the road. In April 2006, Kennedy was selected by Time as one of "America's 10 Best Senators"; the magazine noted that he had "amassed a titanic record of legislation affecting the lives of virtually every man, woman and child in the country" and that "by the late 1990s, the liberal icon had become such a prodigious cross-aisle dealer that Republican leaders began pressuring party colleagues not to sponsor bills with him". (A [partisan] list of Kennedy's accomplishments published on his portion of the U.S. Senate web site can be viewed here.) here Ted Kennedy was a strong advocate for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, a bill that abolished U.S. national-origin immigration quotas which had been in place since 1924  quotas that apportioned immigration visas according to the demographic breakdown of the U.S. as recorded by the 1920 census and thereby placed few limits on immigrants from Western and Northern Europe but strict limits on immigrants from the rest of the world. Although Kennedy argued during debate on the bill that "Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [this bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think," the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 did have a significant impact on immigration patterns: President Kennedy proposed a new immigration structure that would no longer be based on national origins. After Kennedy's assassination, his brother Ted took up the fight, pushing the Johnson administration to go even further than it wanted in evening the playing field. Though Lyndon Johnson, in signing the bill, tried to reassure opponents that it wouldn't do much to change the balance of immigration, its impact was dramatic. In the 1950s, 53 percent of all immigrants were Europeans and just 6 percent were Asians; by the 1990s, just 16 percent were Europeans and 31 percent were Asians. The percentages of Latino and African immigrants also jumped significantly. In 1965, the U.S. was around 85 percent white, according to various estimates. Today, a third of the country is minority, and nonwhites are on track to become the majority sometime in the 2040s. Minority populations have grown by leaps and bounds because of high birth rates among those first generations of immigrants and a steady flow from Latin America, Asia and Africa since. 9.  During his long career in the U.S. Senate, Ted Kennedy was certainly a consistent advocate of immigration policy reform: Historians and immigrant advocates are remembering the senator  perhaps more than any other  as championing legislation that directly benefited immigrants, their children and their grandchildren. The 1965 law that he sponsored fundamentally changed the demographics of the country and transformed many urban enclaves into majority-minority cities. But they say Kennedy also remained a "point man" in the Senate for immigrant advocates and minorities throughout his career, even supporting recent proposals to overhaul immigration laws aimed at undocumented workers. Kennedy advocated for the children of immigrants and minorities by pushing legislation on voting rights and health care for uninsured children. The list of accomplishments on Kennedy's web site describes his efforts in this area thusly: Senator Kennedy had long been convinced that legal immigration is good for our country. As such, he had been at the forefront of efforts to improve U.S. immigration policy by sponsoring beneficial legislation and opposing initiatives that are harmful to immigrants and refugees. In 1986, Senator Kennedy worked to obtain legal status for undocumented workers and address the potential for increased employment discrimination against immigrant workers as a result of the employer sanction provisions. He was the lead sponsor of the Immigration Act of 1990, which increased the quotas for family immigration, established a diversity visa program, and created a temporary safe haven program for persons fleeing oppressive governments. He was also an original sponsor of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act and its re-authorization in 2000, which allows battered immigrant women and children to apply for permanent residence without the cooperation of their abusive spouses or parents. He strongly opposed the harsh 1996 immigration laws, which divided families, returned refugees to the hands of their persecutors, and denied immigrants their day in court, as well as the 1996 welfare law that turned immigrants into second class citizens, and he continues to work to eliminate the harshest provisions of these laws. His goal was to preserve families, assure fairness and due process, and maintain the integrity of our immigration laws. Senator Kennedy believed that immigrants deserve the same due process protections available to U.S. citizens, and that it is contrary to basic principles of fairness and justice to take immigrants from their U.S. citizen families, without even an opportunity to have their day in court.  He also helped lead the way in efforts to restore fairness and justice to immigrants and refugees. Senator Kennedy's support was instrumental in restoring public benefits, such as Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid, to countless elderly, disabled, and legal immigrants. He continues to push for the further restoration of benefits to all legal immigrants. 10.   No one could deny that Ted Kennedy was known as a drinker and a womanizer, particularly in the earlier years of his life.  As the Miami Herald noted of his passing: For his many critics, the flaws in Kennedy's character and his mistakes  above all, Chappaquiddick  overshadow his good works. He paid for that by losing the campaign to unseat President Carter in 1980 and later suffered humiliations over his drinking and womanizing. Ultimately, he turned his energies to Congress and forged one of the great Senate careers. Last updated:  30 August 2009    Canellos, Peter S.  "Obama Victory Took Root in Kennedy-Inspired Immigration Act."   The Boston Globe.  11 November 2008.    Canellos, Peter S.  Last Lion: The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy.   New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009.  ISBN 1-4391-4873-2.    Clymer, Adam.  Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography.   New York: William Morrow, 1999.  ISBN 0-688-14285-0.    Contreras, Russell.  "For Immigrants, Kennedy Remained Tireless Advocate."   Associated Press.  29 August 2009.    McGinniss, Joe.  The Last Brother: The Rise and Fall of Teddy Kennedy.   New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993.  ISBN 0-671-67945-7.    Miami Herald.  "Ted Kennedy: The Lion Sleeps."   27 August 2009. Claim:  A college student bursts into his dorm room naked to play a crude prank on his roommate, not realizing that his girlfriend and her parents are waiting inside the room. LEGEND Example:  [Brunvand, 1986] Two roommates had taken to pulling crude pranks on each other in the dorm.  It happened that one lazy Sunday afternoon one of the roommates had gone down the hall from his room to take a shower. His fellow roommate was in the room studying when there was a knock on the door and the showering roommate's father, who had driven down for a visit, came in bringing with him the girlfriend of the showerer and his mother. The folks were quite naturally invited into the room and they commenced to chat. The other roommate was quite taken with the girlfriend, and he did not go and get his friend, likely assuming he would return soon  which he did. He was clad only in a towel, which he threw off as [he] opened the door and barged in; with his hand gripping his penis, he screamed, "Bang, bang; you're dead!"1  Variations:   Some versions (such as the example quoted above) suggest that the second roommate deliberately does not give the returning showerer any warning because he has designs on his roommate's girlfriend himself.  In another variation the showerer has two roommates and thus is not tipped off by the sounds of conversation issuing from the room when he returns.  Some variants involve the showerer wrapping his towel around his head and shouting with a foreign accent as he enters the room.  One variant describes a student who strips naked and hides inside the closet of his girlfriend's dormitory room.  He jumps out of the closet when he hears someone enter the room, only to discover that the new arrival is the fire inspectors and not his girlfriend. Origins:   A   quaint legend from an era when same-sex dormitories and chaperoned visits were the norm, and impressing your girl's parents was the most important part of the dating ritual (after impressing your girl, of course).  Embarrassing yourself in front of your girl's parents (and your girl to boot) was the ultimate in dating disasters, and what could be more humiliating than being caught acting goofy while naked? In the following years, when we began to admit that young, unmarried people actually engaged in sex (but we still didn't condone it), we developed a few answers to that "What could be more humiliating?" question.  We had the Blind Date legend, in which a young man's intentions of engaging in sex were inadvertently revealed to his date's father, then the Fete Worse Than Death legend, in which both boyfriend and girlfriend are caught participating in sexual foreplay in front of a host of friends and relatives. Blind Date Fete This legend is now a mostly moribund relic of a time when sexual attitudes were less liberal, superseded by tales of adults caught engaging in "unusual" (and formerly unmentionable) sexual practices which still have the power to shock or titillate some listeners. Last updated:  16 June 2011 The Mexican Pet    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Baby Train.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1993.   ISBN 0-393-31208-9   (pp. 305-307). The Baby Train    Zelkind, Andrew.  "Fun on Campus."   News-Chronicle.  12 April 1986  (p. B3). The Big Book of Urban Legends An alarming photograph of a car after it was impaled by a guard rail is frequently presented as if it shows an accident that was the result of distracted driving. The most popular iterations of this rumor, such as this May 2018 Facebook post, also include a gory story about how the driver's torso was found in the car's trunk with a phone still in her hand: Facebook   This is a genuine photograph of a crash scene. However, the accompanying backstory is unsubstantiated. It appears that this photograph was first posted to Flickr by EMS Flight Crew, an international community of air medical professionals, in October 2010. That posting did not include any information about where or when this accident occurred, nor any information about what caused the crash (such as texting and driving.) We assume that the driver was alive when emergency crews first arrived on the scene, as the photograph was accompanied by a number of tags such as "air evac," "air rescue," and "life flight." Flickr Although it was originally posted and shared simply because it is an image of a shocking car accident, by 2012 it was being used to dissuade drivers from texting and driving. In fact, EMS Flight Crew may have been the first to share this photograph attached to a warning about distracted driving:   However, it doesn't appear that EMS Flight Crew is describing the cause of this specific crash. Rather, this appears to be a general warning against distracted driving. A few months prior, the same Facebook page asked users to suggest a headline for the photograph. "Don't text and drive" was one of the suggestions: prior   As there is no credible source confirming that the driver of this vehicle was texting at the time of the crash, we are highly suspect of the gory story claiming that the bisected driver was still clutching her phone when her body was recovered from the trunk of the car.  The photograph itself seems to disprove this story, as the driver's side chair is still intact.  Texting while driving is certainly a dangerous (and illegal) activity that could result in a similar car crash to the one depicted above. However, there's no evidence that this specific car accident was actually caused by a distracted driver. The story about the bisected driver clutching her phone was likely manufactured in an attempt to scare drivers from using their phones while driving. Although this story may have created with good intentions  after all, more than a quarter of car accidents in 2014 involved some form of cellphone use  this rumor is little more than unsubstantiated scarebait. 2014 We've reached out to EMS Flight Crew for more information about this crash, and will update this article if more information becomes available. During floor debate, a Republican legislator complained that state expenditures on TV and film productions have extended to a long-running series celebrating cheating spouses.Really?Rep. Jodie Laubenberg of Parker initially asked a House colleague about his proposed amendment to the House version of the 2014-15 state budget.Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, said he sought to shift money from the states film and music marketing fund to teacher pensions. When last we wrote about the fund, overseen by the governors office, we noted the 2011 Legislature had agreed to spend $16 million each year to market Texas as a film location and promote the Texas music industry, according to the May 26, 2011, House-Senate conference committee report.Laubenberg asked Leach: Would you like me to give you a couple of examples of things being funded with this money? At Leachs go-ahead, Laubenberg replied: How about Bad Kids Go to Hell, Cheaters, ...a TV series on spouses cheating on their wives, kind of glorifying the act of cheating--yeah, entertainment for some, unless youre the one cheated on.After listing other entertainment projects she described as helped along with state funds, Laubenberg closed: You know, if you want to watch this, fine, but I think you ought to do it on your own dime and not the states dime.To our inquiry, Laubenberg later left a message saying she had been reading from a list provided by Leach, whose office emailed us a spreadsheet listing more than 400 projects. A header on the spreadsheet says each one was paid by the Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Program through March 2013.More detail: The incentive program offers qualifying productions a shot at payments equaling 5 percent to 17.5 percent of the money they spend in Texas or 8 percent to 29.25 percent of eligible wages paid to Texas residents, according to agency information posted online, depending on budget levels and types of production, with both live-action and animated projects eligible.The spreadsheets sixth entry indicates $74,736.58 was paid March 22, 2013, to Bobby Goldstein Productions in Dallas in connection with Cheaters, which is described on the sheet as a reality show. Lower entries show previous payments to the company in connection with Cheaters, $72,714 in May 2012 and $100,082 in May 2011, respectively.By email, gubernatorial spokesman Josh Havens confirmed the state has paid about $248,000 since May 2011 to the Dallas company that produces Cheaters, which is among several hundred projects benefiting from such aid.The program met the incentive program requirements for economic impact and Texas resident employment, Havens said.By phone, the shows executive producer, Bobby Goldstein, told us that he hires more than 20 full-time and probably 30 part-time employees for the show and the company contributes a lot in taxes.So, is the legislator correct that the series celebrates unfaithfulness?Not so, Havens replied, pointing out the message that appears at the start of each episode stating that from the programs surveillance cameras, you are about to view actual true stories, filmed live, documenting the pain of a spouse or lover caused by infidelity. This program is both dedicated to the faithful and presented to the falsehearted to encourage their renewal of temperance and virtue. (We confirmed the text here. )Goldstein said: We dont make this show and make it look like somebody did something good. We point out they did wrong. Its sort of a scarlet A.We viewed excerpts of episodes placed on YouTube by viewers. Our impression was the show centers on confrontations between purported cheaters, cheatees and, often, involved third parties. A vivid example involved a cheating man punching his irate girlfriend in a parking lot; blood runs. Another excerpt showed a man being confronted in a bed as a dominatrix edges out of camera range.Critic Pete Vonder Haar described the show this way in an April 25, 2012, account in theHouston Press, an alternative weekly. The premise of the show is simplicity itself: a man or woman, suspecting their partner of philandering, contacts the steely professional Cheaters investigative team. They, in turn, put the suspected party under surveillance, amassing evidence of their infidelity for presenting to the complainant. A confrontation is arranged between the aggrieved party and their wayward lover. Hilarity then ensues, if by hilarity you mean emotional breakdowns and the occasional threat of physical violence.The article, which Goldstein called accurate, says the show is primarily taped in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, though there have been Houston-area forays.Im not one given to hyperbole, Vonder Haar wrote, but Cheaters is as great an American institution as baseball and morbid obesity. Who but the good old U.S. of A. would so brazenly combine our love of moralistic posturing (the wayward partners are referred to as suspects as if they were felons) with salacious, albeit (barely) pixelated footage of sexual transgressions.Finally, we revisited posted state guidelines for the incentives to see if any provision might restrict support for Cheaters. The guidelines say projects not eligible for the aid include those considered obscene as that term is defined in the states penal code, meaning something the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex. The code further lists explicit acts defined as obscene and also says something is obscene if taken as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.Havens said in his email that the Texas Film Commission felt the project fell well short of the definition of obscene.Our rulingLaubenberg said the state helped fund a show that glorifies cheating spouses.Mild point: The state-supported show, Cheaters, doesnt limit itself to exposing cheating spouses. Were not sure, either, that everyone would agree the show glorifies infidelity, considering its theme is to expose the practice and touch off emotional confrontations. The legislator could have clarified that an intended point of the show is that cheaters are wrongdoers.We rate the claim as Mostly True. In January 2022, an online advertisement showed a picture of former Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway next to the words, "Iconic NFL Players Who Went Broke." online advertisement  The ad was misleading clickbait.  The ad led to a slideshow article on MoneyWise.com that again featured the same photograph of Elway. The headline read, "These Iconic NFL Players Lost It All." article It wasn't until the last page of the long story that Elway was featured. However, it said nothing of him running out of money and going "broke." last page Instead, it referenced that, in 2010, Elway fell victim to a Ponzi scheme by a hedge fund manager named Sean Michael Mueller. The Associated Press reported that "he and a business partner gave Mueller $15 million," and that Mueller was later sentenced to 40 years in prison. fell victim to a Ponzi scheme reported The last page of the MoneyWise.com article also mentioned an ABC News article from 2016 that reported Elway missed out on a potentially huge investment opportunity in 1998. Had he signed a deal with the Broncos to buy an ownership stake in the team, his investment might have been worth around $388 million by the year 2015, potentially a "646 percent return on the 1998 investment, adjusted for inflation." an ABC News article As of early 2022, the former NFL great was employed as the president of football operations for the Broncos and had previously held the title of the team's general manager. the team's general manager There was no evidence that Elway was broke, nor did the lengthy MoneyWise.com article mention any such thing. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us On July 25, 2010, David Gregory, the host of NBC'sMeet the Press, asked his roundtable panelists to consider Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege, aWall Street Journalop-ed column from July 22, in which Sen. James Webb, D-Va., argues against federal affirmative action laws.I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship, Webb wrote. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white. In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.Marc Morial -- president of the National Urban League, a century-old civil rights organization -- was one panelist who took the challenge, arguing that non-whites continue to experience disadvantages compared to whites.I don't agree that Latinos and Asians have not suffered discrimination in this country or that Native Americans have not suffered discrimination in this country, Morial said. I think the question is, how do you target and tailor policies that are going to help all economically and socially disadvantaged people. And it's a fair debate to have, but it also needs to be positive with facts. Look at the Latino unemployment rate. It's higher than the white rate. The black rate is higher than the Latino rate. So to suggest that there are not disparities that affect the Latino community, that affect the Native American community, most in depth, the African-American community, we've got to have the discussion that Jim Webb wants to have. We have facts, real facts, that give a picture of how life is in this nation.We won't take sides on Webb's proposal to end policies that provide race-based advantages, a topic that inspires passions on both sides, but which isn't a checkable fact. Instead, we'll focus on the narrower question of whether Morial is accurate on the question of comparative unemployment rates for whites, blacks and Latinos.The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates seasonally adjusted unemployment rates by race and ethnicity. We found that in June 2010, the white unemployment rate was 8.6 percent. The black unemployment rate was 15.4 percent, and the Hispanic/Latino rate was 12.4.So Morial is correct that the Latino unemployment rate is higher than the white rate and that the black rate is higher than the Latino rate.Though it falls beyond the boundaries of our fact-check, we'll note one other point from the statistics. Morial argued that Latinos and Asian Americans have suffered discrimination in the United States, and we think most people would agree with that at least as a historical matter. But if you look at the unemployment rate for Asians, it's 7.7 percent. That's actually lower than the rate for whites. (Technically, the BLS only calculates a non-seasonally-adjusted rate for Asians, but the comparable rate for whites is still higher at 8.7 percent. )Still, as we indicated, Morial made no specific claim about unemployment among Asian-Americans, and for the groups that he did mention -- whites, blacks and Latinos -- his numbers were accurate. So we rate his comment True. In March 2014, the now-defunct Newshound web site published an article positing that a woman named Gemma Sheridan, who was lost in a storm in 2007 and had spent seven years on a deserted island, was finally rescued when the SOS sign she made on a beach was picked up by and spotted in images captured by Google Earth: article My hope was that perhaps a plane might fly over and see [my SOS sign], but in all my time on the island, I had not seen 1 single plane fly over. I didn't give up though. Fast forward a couple more years: I woke up 1 morning to the sound of a plane flying over me which was unusually low, I could not believe it, I thought it was a dream. I ran to the beach screaming and waving my arms like a lunatic, the plane flew over 2 or 3 more times and then dropped a small package. Inside was a radio, fresh water, food and a small medical kit. I switched on the radio and heard the first human voice for years. We talked for what seemed like an eternity, then I asked the voice on the other end "How did you find me" to which they replied "Some kid from Minnesota found your SOS sign on Google Earth" I didnt even know what Google Earth was, but I'm eternally in their debt now. The story was easily spotted as nothing more than fake news, however, for a variety of reasons: The NewsHound web site was not a news site at all, and in place of news it reproduced a number of other hoaxes and spoofs as if they were in fact real news, such as long-debunked stories about a Chinese man suing his wife over giving birth to an ugly baby, Apple paying Microsoft [sic] a $1 billion debt all in nickels, and a planetary alignment causing gravity on Earth to be negated for five minutes. ugly baby nickels gravity  The Newshound article's photograph of the SOS message supposedly created on a beach  by the stranded woman was actually a cropped and enlarged version of a picture published by Amnesty International back in 2010 to accompany an article about destructive violence in southern Kyrgyzstan and was clearly (in its original context) not snapped on a deserted island: Kyrgyzstan  article Compare the following two passages, the first from the 2013 Daily Mail article and the second from the 2014 Newshound article: It was something I was thinking about as I nibbled away at the bark of a tree with a giant clam shell for 11 days just to build a shelter. It might have been bomb-proof and waterproof in the end and it's probably still standing but if I'd had a machete, just that one tool, I would have been able to build it in a few hours.  It was two weeks before I managed to light a fire  you'll be able to tell how happy that made me when you see the show. There were eight feral goats on the island, four adults and four kids. I saw them on day one and they seemed to taunt me by coming so close I could almost touch them. I made a bow and arrow.  In films, the arrow leaves the bow at high velocity and brings down an animal in full flight but this just went twang and fell on the floor. And my spear wasn't sharp enough.  For the first 2 weeks I stayed in a mock shelter i made from debris that washed ashore. I needed to find real shelter, I found a large tree that looked perfect. I nibbled away at the bark of a tree with a giant clam shell for 11 days just to build a shelter. It might have been bomb-proof and waterproof in the end and it's probably still standing but if I'd had a machete, just that one tool, I would have been able to build it in a few hours. It was four weeks before I managed to light a fire  you have no idea how happy that made me. There were eight feral goats on the island, four adults and four kids. I saw them on day one and they seemed to taunt me by coming so close I could almost touch them. I made a bow and arrow, but this just went twang and fell on the floor. And my spear wasn't sharp enough. In August 2015 Linkbeef republished this story, simply changing a few of the details, such as switching the gender of the rescued castaway from female (Gemma Sheridan) to male (Adam Jones) and altering the length of the strandedness from seven to nine years.