Jim Hill's Letter to Barbara Boxer
Claim:  Letter chides Senator Barbara Boxer for asking a general to address her as "Senator." CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2009] Many of us witnessed the arrogance of Barbara Boxer as she admonished a brigadier general because he addressed her as "ma'am" and not "Senator" before a Senate hearing. This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain for Alaska Airlines. I wonder what he would have said if he were really angry. Long fly Alaska !!!!! Babs: You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator". After all, in the military, "ma'am" is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The general was totally wrong.. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equalled only by the U.S. House of Representatives. Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered [Remember Mary Jo]), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing photographs. How many of you could honestly say, "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"? None? One? Two? Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his life to protect your derriere, now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather  chair, paid for by the general's taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front of millions. Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing stock of the nation. What I am writing, Senator, are the same thoughts countless millions of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to convey them. Under the democrats, some don't even have the 44 cents to buy the stamp. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is. Lord Acton (1834 - 1902) so aptly charged, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, "Mr. Power" has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it. Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is "Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat." It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by "ma'am"? Have a fine day. Cheers! Jim HillSouth Hill, WA 98374 Origins:  In June 2009, Brigadier General Michael Walsh testified before the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer of California.  As General Walsh was answering  questions about New Orleans' levee system, Senator Boxer interrupted him mid-sentence to request that he address her as "Senator" rather than "Ma'am": Environment and Public Works Committee  This exchange touched off a partisan political brouhaha, with one side maintaining that the incident was merely an appropriately polite interjection by Senator Boxer requesting that she be addressed as she preferred, and the other side maintaining that it was a rude and disrespectful mid-sentence interruption of a  general who had already been exhibiting due deference by addressing her as "ma'am." The above-reproduced letter, which takes the latter tack and chides Senator Boxer for her action, has been circulated in versions attributing it to several different names, with the most common variant concluding with the mailing address of one Jim Hill of South Hill, Washington.   Mr. Hill told us that he did indeed write and send it: With respect to the letter to Senator Barbara Boxer, I am in fact the author of it.   The only thing I received [from Senator Boxer's office in response to my correspondence] was a "form letter," or at least it seemed to be, that stated that since it was determined that I was not a constituent of the Senator's, that the letter would not be shown to her.  I felt that to be a little bit blunt, but not all together out of place.  I thought no more of it until about two weeks later when I received an email from a friend and fellow airline pilot asking me if I had indeed written the original letter. He attached the email which he had received that contained my letter.  I have received hundreds of letters addressed per the copy of the letter circulating over the internet.  It would seem that someone within the Senator's office either forwarded a copy of the typed letter to a friend, or posted it on the internet.  The letters that I have received have come from all over the country, and from persons from all walks of life.  I have only received one negative letter to date. Last updated:  29 December 2009
A budget storm is brewing in Tallahassee, and Senate President Mike Haridopolos is making clear that no agency, program or area may be spared from impending cuts.Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, met with reporters on Jan. 12, 2011, to offer his outlook regarding Florida's $3.62 billion budget shortfall for the coming fiscal year. Haridopolos predicted that it would be difficult to pursue any significant tax cuts -- like those being championed by Gov. Rick Scott -- and that everyone should expect spending cuts.That includes education funding, he warned.More than $3 billion in federal stimulus funds have helped the state fill education budget holes for the past two years, but those funds sunset this spring. And while some additional federal funds are coming available, about $555 million, Florida's budget picture remains bleak, Haridopolos said.Whether you like to admit it or not, half our general revenue goes to education, Haridopolos was quoted as saying in theOrlando Sentinel. It's a very difficult spot to be in, and the reason we wanted to make the adjustments to the class-size amendment defeated by voters in November. Haridopolos was referring to an amendment proposed by the Legislature to ease class-size requirements at Florida schools so the state could save money. That measure failed to receive the needed 60 percent voter approval to pass.For this fact check, we decided to zero in on Haridopolos' claim that half of state general revenue goes to fund education.Understanding the state budget and education fundingIn his claim, Haridopolos is talking about a subset of the state budget, which is a subset of state's share of education funding in Florida, which is a subset of overall education funding in Florida. Oh, and he's not just talking about K-12 spending, but also state spending on the state university system, pre-Kindergarten and student aid programs.We'll walk you through it.Let's start with the state budget, which you can imagine by picturing a three-legged stool.Leg one: General revenue (what Haridopolos is talking about). General revenue makes up about 34 percent of the current state budget. The money mostly comes from sales taxes -- though some comes from telephone and cable taxes, corporate income taxes (which Scott has vowed to phase out), and taxes on property transactions. The state has broad discretion on how general revenue is spent.Leg two: State trust funds. State trust funds make up about 27 percent of the current state budget. That is money collected by the state to be used for a specific purpose. The state gas tax is funneled into a transportation trust fund, for example, to pay for road building projects. Florida Lottery proceeds roll into the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund. (The Legislature, at times, has raided trust funds to help balance the budget. )Leg three: Federal dollars. Federal dollars this year comprise about 39 percent of the state budget. Federal dollars primarily fund the state's Medicaid program, but also help fund education, road projects and the criminal justice system.So while each leg helps fund education programs from pre-K through college, Haridopolos is focusing on the general revenue fund. In the current budget, 56 percent of all state education spending came out of general revenue, and it's the portion of state spending the Legislature can most easily control.Now, here's a second important primer.The state doesn't fund education all by itself. Hardly. Local school districts contribute billions of dollars on their own through local property taxes. Most of those property taxes, believe it or not, are set at rates mandated by the Legislature through something called the Required Local Effort. In short, school districts are forced to collect the amount of property taxes the Legislature decides, or the districts won't get to share in state funding.In addition, there are other property taxes individual school districts have discretion over. None of those funds are technically state revenues for the purpose of this analysis.If this isn't confusing enough already, the context of Haridopolos' statement also is important. He's talking about potential cuts in education funding because of less federal dollars and lower sales tax receipts that are affecting the state's bottom line. One way to offset those cuts would be to raise the Required Local Effort, but the Republican-led Legislature that sets the tax has been opposed to that idea. Drilling down on general revenueNow, sticking to Haridopolos' statement and examining only general revenue, the Senate president is correct.Of the $23.8 billion of general revenue budgeted to be spent between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011, $12.5 billion was directed to education -- pre-K through college.Divide one into the other and you see that education spending currently equals more than 52 percent of general revenue. You can see the full breakdown of general revenue spending on Page 5 ofthis report.Haridopolos spokesman David Bishop said the state expects to receive $22.6 billion in general revenue for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.If you look at the overall state budget, education funding made up about 32 percent ($22.4 billion) of the entire $70 billion state budget in 2010-2011. RulingAs Haridopolos talked in Tallahassee about the grim state budget prospects for this coming year, he said state education funding might see cuts. Part of the problem is just how much of the budget is tied to education funding, he said -- half of the state's general revenue fund.To be honest, Florida's education funding structure is way more complicated than Haridopolos let on. But he's right that the state general revenue fund, which is a little more than a third of the overall state budget, is being used primarily to fund education.We rate this statement True. Following controversial airstrikes on Syria in April 2018, a 2017 article published by repeat offender YourNewsWire.com with the claim that Hillary Clinton voiced support for destroying Syria in a "leaked" e-mail popped up and began to circulate again: Syria article Lest We Forget  Hillary Clinton: We Must Destroy Syria For israel https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv  Michael Lee (@MichaelLee2009) April 15, 2018 April 15, 2018  The piece included a screenshot of what were purportedly Clinton's views taken from an e-mail, as well as quotes: Clinton Email: We Must Destroy Syria For Israel [...] The best way to help Israel deal with Irans growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad, Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying. Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Irans atom bomb program as a hoax (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to justify destroying Syria in the name of Israel. She specifically links Irans mythical atom bomb program to Syria because, she says, Irans atom bomb program threatens Israels monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.   A nearly identical claim (since deleted) was published by a separate site in March 2016. Both attribute the text of the purported e-mail to Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State, a position she held for approximately four years between 2009 and 2013. published held The text is indeed a part of WikiLeaks' "Hillary Clinton Email Archive," and the title search returns three documents in that data set. The same document was also available via FOIA.state.gov [PDF]. three FOIA.state.gov PDF Although its content was characterized as an e-mail authored by Hillary Clinton, that is misleading. It appears that she actually received and forwarded an attachment from James P. Rubin. In all three documents (two forwards and an attachment) it is clear that Rubin authored and sent the commentary to Clinton, stating in his preface that the then-Secretary of State "may not agree" with his stance on Syria: forwarded attachment James P. Rubin commentary From: James P. RubinSent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:03 AMTo: H Subject: Best of luck on China trip First, I want to wish you and Kurt best of luck getting out of the pickle Mr Chen has you in as you arrive in China. I wanted to pass on something I intend to publish on Syria and Iran, because I think it is worth trying to urge the President and his political advisers to act. As you can see from today's column by Jackson Diehl, the pundits and many in the media will push the Syria issue very hard for the foreseeable future. It may not be on the front burner every day, but it will be close to or at the top of the media's attention indefinitely. Interestingly, the Republicans have showed their hand on the foreign policy debate, in which inaction on Syria is pretty much the only serious criticism they can offer that will stick. As you will see from the attached piece, I believe that action on Syria will forestall the biggest danger on the horizon, that Israel launches a surprise attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Although the pressure has now eased for a variety of reasons, it will return. Action by Washington on Syria, on the other hand, I believe will eliminate much of the urgency for Israeli action. In other words, a more aggressive policy on Syria will eliminate the best case the republican's have going into the November election, will ease substantially the pressure on Israel to attack Iran and possibly spark a wider war in the Middle East, and finally would be the right stance on Syria going forward. I know you may not agree but I thought it was better to share this with you first as at least a new way to look at the problem. All best, your friend,Jamie James P. Rubin Walsh, Nick Paton.  "What Do The US, UK And French Airstrikes Mean For Syria's War?"
  CNN.  15 April 2018. In late December 2020, a misleading online advertisement appeared to announce that Monica Lewinsky was dead and that her net worth stunned her family. It read: "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family At Age 47. Monica Lewinsky Leaves Behind A Net Worth That Will Boggle Your Mind." appeared   However, this was not true. She is alive, and despite what the ad claimed, there was no indication in the resulting story that her net worth shocked her family. The ad was sponsored by the Therapy Joker website and was hosted on the Yahoo! Gemini advertising service. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a 430-page story with the headline: "The Biggest Hollywood Celebrities & Their Incredible Net Worth  Can You Guess Who Has The Biggest Bank Account?" Lewinsky's net worth appeared on page 417. This meant that readers had to click "Next Page" 417 times to reach the page for Lewinsky: page 417 Monica Lewinsky: Activist and TV Personality - $500,000 Monica Samille Lewinsky is a lady of many skills. This popular American television personality is also a successful fashion designer, activist, and a former intern at the White House. The papparazi constantly followed her and she was a regular face in the media during her time at the White House. However, she made up her mind to leave all that behind and went on to pursue a different career. Besides that, she has also authored the book, Monica: Her Story which added to her fame. The London School of Economics and Political Science alumni [sic] is now 47 years old and is a popular television personality. She took a lavish apartment on rent and had quite a luxurious lifestyle. Her fleet of cars includes a Mini Cooper and a Cadillac. We hope she has a professional financial advisor is coming to her aid as far as her banking is concerned. Currently, the media personality, activist, and fashion designer has retained her fame and we hope Lewinsky does the same for the money shes accumulated over the years. The page mentioned nothing about Lewinsky's purported death, nor did it present any information about her family being stunned by her net worth. The misleading advertisement and exceptionally lengthy article reflect a strategy known in the advertising world as "arbitrage." The Therapy Joker website's goal was to make more money from ads displayed on each of the 430 pages than it cost to lure readers with the initial "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family" ad in the first place. The business and technology blog Margins defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." Margins also referred to it as "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." defined Lewinsky was a White House intern in the mid-1990s who became famous after her affair with former U.S. President Bill Clinton became a public scandal. In December 1998, Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the Senate did not vote to convict and remove him from office. He served the remainder of his second term in the White House. impeached We previously covered similar misleading net worth stories for Sean Connery, Jaleel White, Richard Gere, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, and Alex Trebek. Sean Connery Jaleel White Richard Gere Chuck Norris Clint Eastwood Alex Trebek 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 In February 2020, we received multiple inquiries from readers about the veracity of articles which claimed that the United States had "led the entire world" in reducing carbon dioxide emissions that, along with other greenhouse gases like methane, contribute significantly to global warming.  contribute On Feb. 13, the right-leaning website The Daily Wire published an article with the headline "United States Led Entire World in Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019." That piece reported as follows: article "The United States led the entire world in reducing CO2 emissions last year while also experiencing solid economic growth, according to a newly released report. 'The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis  a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt,' The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported on Tuesday. 'US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.' On the same day, the right-leaning website Breitbart published a similar article with the headline "Report: U.S. the Global Leader for Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019," writing: article "The United States led the world in tackling CO2 emissions last year while combining that singular success with solid economic growth, a new report reveals. It has also been confirmed while the U.S. was hitting its climate goals, at the same time '80 percent of the increase in CO2 emissions came from Asia and that China and India both contributed significantly' to global increases." On Feb. 11, the right-leaning Washington Examiner wrote that "U.S. emissions fell 2.9%, or by 140 million tons, continuing the trend of the United States leading the world in total emissions decline since 2000." That prompted Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to tweet: wrote tweet "FACT you will NEVER see on the 6 oclock news: U.S. emissions FELL 2.9%, or by 140 million tons, continuing the trend of the United States LEADING THE WORLD IN TOTAL EMISSIONS DECLINE since 2000."   Based on the data contained in the International Energy Agency's (IEA) February 2020 report, it would be accurate to say that in 2019 the U.S. had the largest year-on-year reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of any country, in absolute terms. However, claiming  as The Daily Wire and Breitbart did  that the U.S. had "led the world" or was "the global leader" in reducing emissions that year, risked giving readers the mistaken impression that the U.S. had performed better than any country when it came to reducing CO2 emissions. This was not the case, because the U.S. reduced its CO2 emissions by just 2.9%, while other countries and regions fared better. Germany, for example, achieved a year-on-year reduction of 8% in its CO2 emissions.  The source of the aforementioned claims was the IEA Feb. 11 data release entitled "Global CO2 Emissions in 2019." The IEA told Snopes that a more detailed, country-by-country breakdown of emissions data was not yet available, but would be published in March. However, some country- and region-specific details were already clear.  According to the report, the overall global trend was as follows: report "Global energy-related CO2 emissions flattened in 2019 at around 33 gigatonnes (Gt), following two years of increases. This resulted mainly from a sharp decline in CO2 emissions from the power sector in advanced economies, thanks to the expanding role of renewable sources (mainly wind and solar PV), fuel switching from coal to natural gas, and higher nuclear power output." Although advanced economies (a category that includes the U.S., the European Union, Australia, Japan, Canada, and others) experienced positive economic growth in 2019, energy-related CO2 emissions also fell, on average, in those countries and regions. The U.S. produced around 4.8 Gt (gigatons/billions of tons) of CO2 in 2019. That was 140 Mt (megatons/millions of tons) fewer than it produced in 2018  the biggest single absolute reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions by any country. The U.S. produced around 2.9% less CO2 in 2019 than it did in 2018.  The IEA report added that: "US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period. A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%. Overall electricity demand declined because demand for air-conditioning and heating was lower as a result of milder summer and winter weather." The large absolute reduction in CO2 emissions in the United States in 2019 is in part a function of the sheer volume of CO2 produced there (which is in part determined by the large size of the U.S. economy). By contrast, its rate of emissions reduction was not as significant as that achieved in other countries and regions. For example, the IEA report explained that Germany achieved a year-on-year reduction in CO2 emissions of 8%, while Japan's emissions fell by 4.3%  significantly greater rates of decline than the 2.9% achieved in the U.S.  Despite having an overall CO2 output that is almost 40% smaller than that of the United States (2.9 Gt vs 4.8 Gt), the European Union still managed to achieve a greater absolute reduction in emissions than the U.S. in 2019 (160 Mt vs 140 Mt). That was because emissions fell at a significantly greater rate in the EU than in the U.S. (5% versus 2.9%).  It's true that, according to the IEA's February 2020 report, the U.S. achieved a greater absolute reduction in CO2 emissions than any other country, in 2019. However, claims that the U.S. therefore "led the entire world" or was a "global leader" in CO2 emissions were belied by the fact that other countries (including Germany, Japan, and likely others) achieved a superior rate of reduction in CO2 emissions. Although not a country, the European Union achieved both a larger absolute reduction and a greater rate of reduction in CO2 emissions than the US did.  As such, we're issuing a rating of "Mixture." The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  "The Causes of Climate Change."
  Accessed 19 February 2020. Saavedra, Ryan.  "United States Led Entire World in Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019."
  The Daily Wire.  13 February 2020. Kent, Simon.  "Report: U.S. the Global Leader for Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019."
  Breitbart.  13 February 2020. Siegel, Josh.  "Demise of Coal in Rich Countries Brings Global Carbon Emissions to a Stall."
  Washington Examiner. 11 February 2020. The International Energy Agency.  "Data Release -- Global CO2 Emissions in 2019."
  11 February 2020. In remarks from the Senate floor, newly elevated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., suggested that his partys takeover of Senate control appears to coincide with recent good economic news. After so many years of sluggish growth, were finally starting to see some economic data that can provide a glimmer of hope, McConnell said. The uptick appears to coincide with the biggest political change of the Obama administrations long tenure in Washington: the expectation of a new Republican Congress. McConnell stopped short of saying the Republican Senate takeover actuallycausedan economic improvement, though manymediaobserversassumedthat was what he was trying to imply. In the liberalNew Republic, Brian Beutlerjoked,It absolutelydoescoincide with the expectation of a new Republican Congress. Relatedly, things that coincide are called coincidences. But is McConnell even right that the economic data and the political expectations coincided? We focused on two questions. First, when did the expectation of a new Republican Congress actually solidify? And second, was there an uptick in economic data that actually coincided with that time frame? Well also briefly address the question of causation, even though McConnell didnt explicitly claim that. The data we found suggest McConnell is engaging in some wishful thinking. When did the expectation of a new Republican Congress actually emerge? To answer this question, we checked with political analysts who handicapped the 2014 battle for the Senate and also looked at poll-based forecasting models. McConnell said expectation, a stronger word than possibility and one that requires a reasonable degree of consensus. Going into the 2014 Senate elections, most observers expected the GOP to gain seats, due primarily to a favorable map for the GOP (far more Democrats were up for re-election, especially in conservative states) combined with the longstanding history of six-year-itch midterm elections bedeviling second-term presidents, in this case Democrat Barack Obama. But whether the GOP would actually manage to win enough seats to seize control of the chamber -- six -- was less certain. Going into the election, the Democrats held a 55-45 edge (counting two Democratic-caucusing Independents as Democrats). With many individual races rated as highly competitive right through Election Day, winning a net six seats was no slam dunk. Jennifer Duffy, who handicaps Senate races for the Cook Political Report, said different political experts settled on a Republican takeover at different times but added that she felt pretty comfortable with a gain of six seats around Labor Day, which was on Sept. 1 last year. Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball, agreed that Labor Day was a turning point, though he added that there were slivers of doubt right up until the end. We formally called the Senate for the Republicans the week before the election, but we also suggested that a GOP Senate was likely in the months prior to the election. The forecasters atfivethirtyeight.comsuggested the toss-up lasted past Labor Day. They calculated the likelihood of a GOP takeover at just over 50 percent as late as mid September, before rising again, ultimately to 76 percent on the eve of the election. TheNew York Times in-house forecast saw much the same pattern, narrowing to essentially a coin flip in mid September before climbing to a 75 percent chance of a GOP takeover by Election Day. All told, this suggests that an expectation of a GOP takeover didnt emerge until the beginning of September at the earliest, and possibly as late as the second half of September. This leads to our next question. Has there been an economic uptick that appears to coincide with this timeline? McConnells office pointed us to the announcement that the economy grew at an annualized 5 percent rate in the third quarter of 2014, the biggestexpansionin more than a decade. So well start there. Thefigurewas indeed impressive. But there are two problems with citing this as evidence for McConnells point. First, the third quarter covers July, August and September. So the bulk of this growth occurred before the expectation of a GOP Senate began to jell. Second, GDP growth for thesecondquarter -- covering April, May and June of 2014 -- was almost as impressive, 4.6 percent. And that was well before the expectation of a GOP takeover seemed to take hold. (In fact, for much of that quarter, theNew York Timesmodel showed the Democrats likelier to win control than the Republicans.) Indeed, the longer-term trend for GDP growth shows that three of the past five quarters -- that is, since mid 2013 -- have exceeded 4 percent growth, and another quarter came close to that. Only one quarter, the first quarter of 2014, was a dud. So its not as if the impressive third-quarter growth of 2014 came totally out of the blue. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis We also looked at another major yardstick for the economy -- the monthly change in employment. During 2014,total monthly employment gainsaveraged 241,000. In October -- the month after the expectation of a GOP takeover would have taken hold -- the gain was almost exactly that, 243,000. The November total was 321,000 -- the highest of the year, but not far out of line when compared with the general trend for job creation since early 2011 (see chart below). Its too soon to tell whether Novembers figure kicks off a new, higher threshold or whether the number settles back again into the 240,000 range. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics The strongest evidence for McConnells point is consumer confidence. TheUniversity of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentimentdid experience an uptick between November and December, but even with this measurement, confidence had been rising consistently since July. And other evidence actually points in the opposite direction. Data fornew orders of capital goods-- a good statistic for gauging how much confidence there is in future economic conditions -- actually fell every month between August and November. The question of causation Even if the statistical timeline fit perfectly, its worth remembering that correlation does not equal causation. I don't think that either party has that much power to affect short-run economic movements, except by royally screwing up, and I haven't seen any evidence that theexpectationof a regime change of this sort would affect economic outcomes, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist. Its even possible to draw up a theory that runs the opposite direction as McConnells linkage. Gary Burtless, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, said one reason GDP and employment have increased a bit faster in recent months is that government investment, government consumption, and public employee payrolls have recently been rising instead of falling. Given this, McConnells comments linking the GOP and accelerated economic growth are ironic, Burtless said, since Republicans have been at the forefront of cutting government spending and payrolls. Our ruling McConnell said a recent economic uptick appears to coincide with the expectation of a new Republican Congress. Even leaving aside the question of causation, key statistics show that the economic recovery was under way well before September, which is our best estimate for when the expectation of a GOP Senate solidified. We rate the statement False. Help fund PolitiFact's Kickstarter to live fact-check the 2015 State of the Union and GOP response. A video of a large, augmented-reality, fire-breathing dragon flying over a baseball stadium is frequently shared on social media. While viewers were undoubtedly aware that this footage didn't actually show a real mythical creature's visit to a ball game, some social media users seemed a bit confused about what this video actually showed. Is it a hologram? CGI? Virtual reality? At the opening of the South Korean baseball championship they used a 3D hologram using 5G technology. Realistic Dragon flew over the stadium.Just unbelieveble!!! pic.twitter.com/y3jR64aXXB pic.twitter.com/y3jR64aXXB  Godfather IV (@godfatheriv) August 13, 2019 August 13, 2019  This video shows an augmented reality (AR) dragon. AR, which refers to technology that mixes the real world with computer-generated (CGI) images, is different from virtual reality (VR), the use of computer technology to create a simulated environment. Unlike a hologram, the CGI objects can only be seen via some sort of screen: virtual reality According to information from Live Science and The Franklin Institute, respectively:  Live Science The Franklin Institute Augmented reality is the result of using technology to superimpose information  sounds, images and text  on the world we see. Picture the "Minority Report" or "Iron Man" style of interactivity.  Augmented reality (AR) is one of the biggest technology trends right now, and its only going to get bigger as AR ready smartphones and other devices become more accessible around the world. AR let us see the real-life environment right in front of us  trees swaying in the park, dogs chasing balls, kids playing soccer  with a digital augmentation overlaid on it. For example, a pterodactyl might be seen landing in the trees, the dogs could be mingling with their cartoon counterparts, and the kids could be seen kicking past an alien spacecraft on their way to score a goal. In other words, this dragon didn't actually "fly over" this stadium. It was only viewable via a screen.  This video was created by the company SK Telecom for the SK Wyverns' opening day (a wyvern is a "winged two-legged dragon with a barbed tail") of the 2019 Korean Baseball Organization season. The dragon was visible on the stadium's large LED screen and home televisions. While the people at this game couldn't see this dragon with the naked eye, they were able to see this mythical beast via their phones.  Korea.com reported that fans could also interact with the dragon by pressing the "cheer button" on a smartphone app: reported An augmented reality (AR) image of a wyvern, a mythical dragon-like creature, on March 23 suddenly appeared on the opening day of the 2019 Korea Baseball Organization (KBO) season at Incheon's SK Happy Dream Park, home of the defending league champions SK Wyverns. An image of the team's mascot was shown on the world's largest LED baseball scoreboard at the stadium. In addition, the flying creature put on an interactive performance when fans pressed the cheer button on a smartphone app. Fans who watched the event on TV or their smartphones could also see this high-tech spectacle.   For the wyvern's performance, SK used its self-developed AR and virtual reality (VR) technologies such as eSpace, a hyperspace platform for replicating the real world in cyberspace, and T real Platform, which enables AR content to be freely created and shared. The use of the latest 5G wireless technology also allowed large-scale AR streaming. A second video of this augmented reality dragon was posted to the SK Telecom YouTube page. That video shows fans downloading this app and interacting with the dragon via their phones:  In November 2019, a similar video supposedly showing a "hologram" lion roaring at stadium in Argentina went viral on social media: Estudiantes de La Plata celebrated reopening their stadium with the most incredible hologram show ?? pic.twitter.com/cKCsJAKwD3 pic.twitter.com/cKCsJAKwD3  ESPN FC (@ESPNFC) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   Again, this was not a hologram visible to the naked eye, but an augmented reality display that could only be seen on screens. Emspak, Jesse.  "What is Augmented Reality?
  Live Science. 1 June 2018. The Franklin Institute.  "What is Augmented Reality?
  Retrieved 15 August 2019. Landers, Chris.  "Korea's SK Wyverns Used Augmented Reality to Bring a Fire-Breathing Dragon to Opening Day."
  MLB.  25 March 2019. Hwaya, Kim.  "Augmented Reality Dragon Wows Baseball Fans on Opening Day."
  Korea.net.  27 March 2019. Claim:  Macy's is giving out $200 gift cards to users who follow three simple steps on Facebook.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, November 2014]Macy's has a giveaway of $200 on Facebook.  Is it legitimate?   Origins:  In November 2014 a popular survey scam targeting Facebook users and major retailers emerged with a new variation, this time promising a $200 Macy's gift card for users who completed three short steps after clicking a link on the social network. The $200 Macy's gift card link was  virtually identical to prior scams dangling the lure of $200  Costco gift card, $100 Kohl's gift cards, and $200 Kroger  gift cards. Costco Kohl's Kroger In all the scams, users were redirected to a page which appeared to be both legitimately branded by the named retailer and nearly identical to Facebook's pop-up "like and share" functionality. However, the prompts were phony, associated with neither Facebook nor the referenced big-name retailers. On 10 November 2014, the official Macy's Facebook page was deluged with queries about this purported giveaway. The brand's social media managers responded, confirming the Macy's $200 gift card offer was fake and all legitimate contests were run through Macy's official page: Macy's Currently, we are not running any giveaways. Any official Macy's contests are shared by us, through our official Facebook page and other social channels. Thank you again for asking! -Chris at Macy's As noted in an earlier Facebook scam giveaway post, the Better Business Bureau offered three tips to avoid similar scams on social networks: three tips Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.  Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy.  Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. The bulk of big giveaways from stores such as Macy's are conducted through the brand's official social media channels and rarely require users to provide personal information. Chances are if you've been redirected off an official Facebook page for any given brand, the giveaway claim is not on the up and up. Last updated:  10 November 2014 Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States.  Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.    The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt.   Flickr account As a first step in evaluating this chart, we have to determine the applicable definition of "debt."  In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills.  It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs such as Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by buying up its own treasury securities.  A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former).  We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Monthly Statement of the Public Debt The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan:Took office January 1981.  Total debt: $848 billionLeft office January 1989.    Total debt: $2,698 billionPercent change in total debt:  +218%  George H.W. Bush:Took office January 1989.  Total debt: $2,698 billionLeft office 20 January 1993.    Total debt: $4,188 billionPercent change in total debt:  +55% Bill Clinton:Took office 20 January 1993.  Total debt: $4,188 billionLeft office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionPercent change in total debt:  +37% George W. Bush:Took office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionLeft office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionPercent change in total debt:  +86% Barack Obama:Took office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionTotal debt (as of the end of April 2011):  $14,288 billionPercent change in total debt:  +34% So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported).  That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility.  In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:  The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama).  Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances)  the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office.   All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office.  Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here.  Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two?  As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: FAQ Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market.   Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance?  Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above. Debt-to-GDP chart All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context. On 5 February 2018, Shaun Usher, the owner of the blog "Letters of Note" posted an image on Twitter that purported to show Donald Trump opining that any president presiding over the United States during a stock market crash of more than 1,000 points should be "shot out of a cannon." blog image Although the image was intended to poke fun at now-President Trump's prolific Twitter use and his timeline that has offered a running joke that puts his past criticisms of his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, in context with current events (such as a precipitous stock market drop a few hours before), this tweet was not real: before   Sweet mother of god. Not for one second did I think people would believe that to be genuine.  Shaun Usher (@ShaunUsher) February 5, 2018 February 5, 2018 omg it's everywhere. What have I done.  Shaun Usher (@ShaunUsher) February 5, 2018 February 5, 2018 siri can i be arrested for making a fake tweet  Shaun Usher (@ShaunUsher) February 5, 2018 February 5, 2018 In a message sent via Twitter, Usher confirmed he was the tweet's author and that it was not real. He told us: Naively thought it too ridiculous to be believable. Says a lot, really. Was going to delete it but it was everywhere within minutes: feels like I need to leave it up in its place of birth. President Trump has legitimately tweeted about the stock market in the past, however: tweeted   Creating fake tweets is extremely easy and can spread virally within minutes  as Usher has now demonstrated, even if unintentionally. fake tweets In April 2020, Facebook posts circulating online offered coupons supposedly good for two free large pizzas from the Domino's pizza chain:  Users who clicked on the offer were taken to an external website where they were instructed to answer survey questions in order to receive their coupons:  After completing the questionnaire, however, users were then required to click a button to share the "offer" with their Facebook friends before they could retrieve their coupons. Those who complied by spamming their friends were then allowed to click a "Receive the Coupon" button, but there was no actual coupon to receive. Like innumerable other "free merchandise" offers on Facebook, this offer was another variation of a common scam. other free merchandise offers Facebook We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers