Berkshire Hathaway Pro-Choice?
Claim:  Berkshire Hathaway, the legendary business concern headed by Warren Buffett and new owner of Pampered Chef, supports pro-choice causes.  Status:  Sort of. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] Dear Friend: I am a Pampered Chef consultant who has recently learned that, due to the sale of The Pampered Chef toBerkshire Hathaway (www.berkshirehathaway.com/news/oct3102.html), Pampered Chef profits are now supporting the population control and abortion industries. These industries trade in the death of countless pre-born children, endanger the health of women, and deny the human rights of women in third world countries through forced sterilizations and abortions. Not only does Berkshire Hathaway contribute to these industries, but Warren Buffett, chief shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway, has pledged to bequeath the majority of his personal fortune (28 billion) to The Buffett Foundation, positioning him to become the largest financier of abortion and population control in the history of the world. www.berkshirehathaway.com/news/oct3102.html As a result of this information, I have ceased to sell or recruit for The Pampered Chef. I have also launched an e-mail campaign to (1) educate Pampered Chef consultants, hosts and customers of the connection between The Pampered Chef and the population control and abortion industries; and (2) petition Warren Buffett to cease his personal and corporate financial support of these same industries. Origins:  In October 2002, Berkshire Hathaway acquired The Pampered Chef, a kitchen products company which vends items atin-home cooking demonstrations known as Kitchen Shows and is run by kitchen consultants (its name for the members of its sale force). More than one million of these events were held in the United States in 2002, and Pampered Chef has annual sales in excess of $700 million. Berkshire Hathaway The Pampered Chef kitchen consultants Besides Pampered Chef, Berkshire Hathaway owns a number of businesses outright (including Dairy Queen, Fruit of the Loom, Geico Insurance, and See's Candies) and also has significant holdings in some very large corporations, including  Coca-Cola. The motive force behind Berkshire Hathaway is its chairman and chief executive, Warren Buffett. Although Buffett is reckoned to be the second wealthiest man in the world, he still lives in the Omaha, Nebraska, home he purchased for $31,500 in 1958. His charitable organization, the Buffett Foundation, currently has $25.3 million in assets, and these holdings are expected to swell to $36 billion when Buffett and his wife die and their shares in Berkshire Hathaway go to the Buffett Foundation, which will make it the richest charitable foundation in the world. About 60 percent of the $33.4 million bestowed by the Buffett Foundation in fiscal year 2001 went toward family planning, reproductive rights, and population control programs operated by organizations such as Planned Parenthood, Johns Hopkins University, and the United Nations in accordance with Warren Buffett's beliefs that population growth must be checked before exceeding a level sustainable by the earth's resources. The Buffett Foundation also funds a number of college scholarships and awards in recognition of exemplary teachers. In July 2003 Berkshire Hathaway announced the end of its shareholder-designated contribution program, through which holders of A shares in Berkshire Hathaway could select the charities to which Berkshire Hathaway would donate funds.  It noted the shareholders' choices of certain charities (including some of Buffett's choices) had caused "harmful criticism" to be directed at Pampered Chef and cited that criticism as the reason for ending the donations program.  Berkshire said all its subsidiaries will continue to support local charities under direction of their local managers. What all this means is that Berkshire Hathaway itself no longer contributes money directly to various charities (controversial or otherwise) designated by its shareholders.  However, since Warren Buffett (as a private individual) holds shares in Berkshire Hathaway and is free to contribute the profit he derives from those holdings to The Buffett Foundation, the businesses owned by Berkshire Hathaway (such as The Pampered Chef) are indirectly providing money to the causes Buffett supports through his foundation. Barbara "missed hathaway" Mikkelson Additional Information:    Berkshire Hathaway holdings      Berkshire Hathaway press release  Last updated:  28 November 2007    Sources:   Jordon, Steve.  "Introductory Lesson on Warren Buffett."   Omaha World Herald.  3 May 2003  (p. D5).     Kawar, Mark.  "Touched by a Billionaire."   Omaha World Herald.  4 May 2003  (p. D1).     Shim, Grace.  "Berkshire Pantry Adds Pampered Chef."   Omaha World Herald.  24 September 2003  (p. D1).     Shim, Grace.  "Lasting Legacy."   Omaha World Herald.  27 April 2003  (p. D1).     The Associated Press.  "Berkshire Hathaway Ends Charity Program Over Criticism."   3 July 2003.
Some political issues, it seems, are so emotionally charged that proponents of one side or another will promulgate anything that reflects their viewpoint, no matter how irrelevant, inapplicable, outdated, or erroneous it might be. The ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy is one such issue, and for years claims about asylum seekers and refugees settled in the U.S. receiving financial assistance from the federal government that amounts to almost double the stipends provided to American retirees have been widely disseminated online:   Pensioners should apply as refugees! It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00 This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Lets send this to all Americans, so we can all be ticked off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 years. Please forward to every American to expose what our elected politicians have been doing over the past 11 years  to the over-taxed American. SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW American Government Seniors Policy Virtually everything claimed in the textual example above is wrong: the information is fifteen years old, it was originally about government policy in Canada and not the U.S. (someone merely substituted the word 'American' for 'Canadian' throughout the text), and it wasn't true (about either Canada or the U.S.) when it was written and still isn't true now. The "pensioners vs. refugees" brouhaha began back in March 2004, when the Toronto Star published an article about plans for Canada to work in conjunction with the United Nations to settle asylum-seekers from a Somali refugee camp in some smaller Canadian cities (outside the usual immigrant magnet communities of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver). As the Star's ombudsman later explained, a single paragraph in the midst of the article was somewhat ambiguous about the amount of financial assistance the Canadian government would be providing to these refugees: Halfway through the 1,500-word article, unforeseen trouble was lurking. In paragraph 16, the story said single refugees are eligible for $1,890 from Ottawa as a "start-up allowance, along with a $580 monthly social assistance, depending on how soon the person is able to find employment." In addition, they get "a night lamp, a table, a chair and a single bed from the government," the story said. In painful hindsight, those details could have been clearer. Actually, the $1,890 "start-up allowance"  including a $580 monthly social assistance cheque from Ottawa  was a one-time payment for basic household needs such as furnishings, pots and linens. The furniture is used. Unfortunately, one Star reader who misunderstood the issue set loose an e-mail polemic about refugee entitlement without waiting for clarification, and the author of a follow-up letter to the editor published in the Star repeated the erroneous claim that the African refugees would be collecting monthly government allowances nearly double those provided to pensioners: In quick order, two things happened after the article ran. First, a reader sent a nasty e-mail to the reporter. Among other things, it said charity begins at home and Canada should not "roll out the welcome mat" for refugees. The e-mailer assumed  erroneously  that the refugees would collect $2,470 a month. They'd be better off than Canadian pensioners. More worrisome, the polemicist sent his rant to 100 recipients, some of whom likely spread the word to wider audiences. Ah, the wonders of the Internet! Alarmed by the e-mail, reporter Keung tried to contact the sender. It was too late. Having spread the misinformation, the e-mailer already had changed his address. At the same time, a second development occurred. The Star ran a letter to the editor that said the $2,470 "compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. "Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees?" reasoned the writer. In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. "Let's send this to all Canadians," one e-mail roared, "so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years." Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: CIC Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials  basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary  lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: CIC No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. loans In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, "We are the dumbest nation on earth," Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times: Dan Shea   Keung, Nicholas.  "New Refugee Plan Eyes Small Cities."   The Toronto Star. 11 March 2004 (p. A1). Sellar, Don.  "Can We Dispel This Urban Myth?"   The Toronto Star.  27 November 2004  (p. H6). The Toronto Star.  "Pay Pensioners Same as Refugees?"   12 March 2004  (p. A23). Claim:  Six outrageous-but-real lawsuits showcase the need for tort reform. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] This is what's wrong with the world:        1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded $780,000.00 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amuck inside a furniture store.  The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving tyke was Ms. Robertson's son. 2. June 1998: A 19 year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000.00 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran his hand over with a Honda Accord.  Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice someone was at the wheel of the car whose hubcap he was trying to steal. 3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol Pennsylvania was exiting a house he finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up, because the automatic door opener was malfunctioning.  He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food.  This upset Mr. Dickson, so he sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars and change. 4. October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock Arkansas was awarded $14,500.00 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced-in yard, as was Mr. Williams. The award was less than sought after because the jury felt the dog may have been provoked by Mr. Williams who, at the time, was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun. 5. May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500.00 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. 6. December 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth.  This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000.00 and dental expenses. Origins:   This "and you wonder what's wrong with the world today?" whinge appeared on the Internet in May 2001. All of the entries in the list are fabrications: a search for news stories about each of these cases failed to turn up anything, as did a search for each law case.  The earliest version concluded with a seventh item that has since been snipped away, likely after someone noticed it was the venerable microwaved poodle legend. Its inclusion would have immediately called into question the truthfulness of the other six cases for any number of folks familiar with urban legends. The remaining six were still false, but they weren't as obviously false as the following poodle tale and thus wouldn't have set the alarm bells ringing: microwaved 7. And just so you know that cooler heads do occasionally prevail: Kenmore Inc., the makers of Dorothy Johnson's microwave, were found not liable for the death of Mrs. Johnson's poodle after she gave it a bath and attempted to dry it by putting the poor creature in her microwave for, "just a few minutes, on low,"  The case was quickly dismissed. A version of the list that began circulating in the spring of 2002 has yet another urban legend included as its final item, the venerable cruise control legend: cruise control In November 2000, Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he could not actually do this. He was awarded  $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago. Some versions bear the following footer, although many omit it: PLEASE ASSIST OUR LAW OFFICES IN A TORT REFORM PROGRAM.  WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO PUT A STOP TO THESE INSANE JURY AWARDS BY SENDING THIS E-MAIL OUT TO THE PUBLIC IN THE HOPES OF SWAYING PUBLIC OPINION.  PLEASE FORWARD IT TO EVERY EMAIL ADDRESS YOU KNOW.Mary R. Hogelmen, Esq.Law Offices of Hogelmen, Hogelmen, and ThomasDayton Ohio Mary R. Hogelmen, Esq.Law Offices of Hogelmen, Hogelmen, and ThomasDayton Ohio There is no law firm of Hogelmen, Hogelmen, and Thomas in Dayton, Ohio, as a call to directory assistance quickly confirmed. This detail was included to give the mailing credibility in the eyes of those who received it: if a law firm had pulled this list together to build grassroots support for its tort reform program, then it went without saying a pack of lawyers had properly researched each item and were guaranteeing the information provided. But of course this detail was as false as everything else in the e-mail. Speaking about implied credibility, we note that the "outrageous lawsuits" list has made it into the newspapers at times, which only works to add to the perception that the information given in it is reliable. In June 2002, the New York Daily News presented it solely as an e-mail it had received, making no statements as to its likeliness to be real or detailing any attempts that publication might have made to verify any of the entries. (Had such attempts been made, the Daily News would have quickly found the article you're now reading, which originally appeared on this site a full ten months prior to the Daily News piece.) Fake or not, a list of outrageous awards bestowed upon those whose actions  nay, misbehaviors  had brought them to grief would fall upon very receptive ears because current feeling is very much against large jury awards for frivolous claims. This e-mail preaches to the choir in that it "confirms" what is already deeply believed. Numerous states have enacted measures to reform their civil law systems in response to the problem of frivolous lawsuits and runaway jury awards. Tort reform usually amounts to placing a cap on punitive damage awards, making the state's joint-and-several liability law more equitable, and limiting judge and court shopping (which means cases are tried in front of whomever they've been assigned to rather than the judge the plaintiff figures will be most sympathetic). Though the cases described in the e-mail are fake, real lawsuits of equal silliness can be found in abundance. An equally impressive list could easily have been compiled by anyone with access to a news database and a few moments to spare. For instance:  In March 1995, a San Diego man unsuccessfully attempted to sue the city and Jack Murphy Stadium for $5.4 million over something that can only be described as a wee problem: Robert Glaser claimed the stadium's unisex bathroom policy at a Billy Joel and Elton John concert caused him embarrassment and emotional distress thanks to the sight of a woman using a urinal in front of him. He subsequently tried "six or seven" other bathrooms in the stadium only to find women in all of them. He asserted he "had to hold it in for four hours" because he was too embarrassed to share the public bathrooms with women.  A San Carlos, California, man sued the Escondido Public Library for $1.5 million. His dog, a 50-pound Labrador mix, was attacked November 2000 by the library's 12-pound feline mascot, L.C., (also known as Library Cat). The case was heard in January 2004, with the jury finding for the defendant. In a further case which was resolved in July 2004, the plaintiff in the previous suit was ordered to pay the city $29,362.50, which amounted to 75% of its legal fees associated with that case.  In 1994, a student at the University of Idaho unsuccessfully sued that institution over his fall from a third-floor dorm window. He'd been mooning other students when the window gave way. It was contended the University failed to provide a safe environment for students or to properly warn them of the dangers inherent to upper-story windows.  In 1993, McDonald's was unsuccessfully sued over a car accident in New Jersey. While driving, a man who had placed a milkshake between his legs, leaned over to reach into his bag of food and squeezed the milkshake container in the process. When the lid popped off and spilled half the drink in his lap, this driver became distracted and ran into another man's car. That man in turn tried to sue McDonald's for causing the accident, saying the restaurant should have cautioned the man who had hit him against eating while driving. Although the cases cited above were all eventually dismissed, they still managed to work their way at least partway through our court system. When we hear such stories, it's hard not to be rabidly in favor of tort reform  these kinds of cases make it appear that the idiots have taken over the asylum and only the rapid institution of some rules is going to bring things back into a semblance of sanity. Yet this solution is not all skittles and beer; many see such changes as potentially denying those in need of legal remedy their day in court and refusing them their right to be heard. The cap on jury awards is also viewed by some as unfair to the seriously injured, who may well require a large sum to afford the cost of living with whatever disability someone else's negligence or recklessness left them with. Capped awards are also scant deterrent to large corporations who could easily afford the judgments against them and therefore have little reason to mend their ways. Big Business is poised to benefit under tort reform in that it will no longer need to fear the courts. It can also be argued that the need for tort reform is overblown. Only rarely do ridiculous lawsuits result in windfalls for the plaintiff; these cases are almost always either thrown out or the judgment goes for the defendant. Some celebrated "outrageous" suits wherein judgment went for the plaintiff prove upon closer examination to be far less "outrageous" than originally presented in the media.  (For example, the "woman scalded by hot coffee" suit, which at first blush looked like the height of frivolity proved to be a perfectly legitimate action taken against a corporation that knew, thanks to a string of similar scaldings it had quietly been paying off, that its coffee was not just hot, but dangerously hot. The Consumer Attorneys of California provides a good description of this case). this case Tort reform thus has both its advocates and its adversaries. On the one hand, we bridle at the thought of the terminally clueless being rewarded for their folly  that strikes us as just plain wrong. We also fear for the continued wellbeing of the small- to mid-sized business which can ill afford to fend off one frivolous lawsuit after another and thus stands in danger of being litigated to death. Also, even when litigants do not prevail, costs associated with their suits rain down onto the average citizen through his taxes (some of which underwrite the judicial system) and through increased prices for goods produced by firms who had to mount legal defenses.  Yet on the other hand, we don't want to see those who have legitimate cause denied their right to sue (or in the case of the seriously injured, their right to sue for an appropriate amount). We also don't want to see corporations run unchecked, free to turn out whatever dangerous product they like because the combination of capped awards and their deep pockets render them bulletproof. It's a complicated issue, one not made any easier to make sense of by lists of fake cases of horrendous miscarriages of justice. One has to wonder why someone is so busy trying to stir up outrage and who or what that outrage would ultimately benefit. Additional information:  George W. Bush's first act upon becoming the Governor of Texas was to reform that state's civil justice system. In January 1995, just after being sworn in, he convened a session of the Legislature to tackle tort reform. Within weeks he signed bills to limit punitive damages to $750,000, cut down on "venue shopping" for favorable judges and juries, and made it easier for judges to impose sanctions on plaintiffs who file frivolous suits.  Sightings:  The "woman in a store trips over a toddler, then sues the store" fiction was incorporated into an episode of the television drama Boston Legal ("Tabloid Nation," original air date 8 April 2008). Last updated:  11 April 2008    Sources:   Associated Press.  "Men's Room Invasion Prompts Suit."   The Fresno Bee.  1 April 1995  (p. F8).     Coile, Zachary.  "Bush's Formula to Win Over Business."   The San Francisco Examiner.  2 October 2000  (p. A1).     Elias, Paul.  "So What's a Little Litigation Between Friends?"   The Recorder.  14 December 1999  (Court Watch; p. 4).     Heller, Jonathan.  "Man Seeks $1.5 Million from City; Says Library Cat Attacked His Dog."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  5 May 2001  (p. B2).     Littlefield, Dana.  "Suit Over Library Cat's Attack Bites Back at disabled Dog Owner."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  31 July 2004  (p. NC3).     Perkins, Joseph.  "We All Pay When Others File Frivolous Lawsuits."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  18 May 2001  (p. B7).     Perry, Tony.  "A One-Man Campaign for More Women's Restrooms."   Los Angeles Times.  18 August 1995  (p. A3).     Riffel, James.  "Jury Rejects Claims of Disabled Man Against City for Cat Attack."   City News Service.  30 January 2004.     Vogt, Andrea.  "Ludicrous Lawsuit Against University of Idaho Rears Its Ugly Head."   Lewiston Morning Tribune.  2 August 1994  (p. A1).     New Jersey Lawyer.  "Moral of a Burger Suit: Don't Eat and Drive."   15 November 1993  (p. 3).     [New York] Daily News.  "Mighty Quinn."   25 June 2002  (Sports, p. 63). On Nov. 26, Taters Gonna Tate published an article positing that the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) had arrested the mayor of Los Angeles.  article "ICE Arrests LA Mayor for Harboring Fugitives Through Sanctuary City." Weve all been wondering when this would happen and why wasnt this done from the start. But we shouldnt dwell. Justice is finally being done. Josiah Barron, the celebrated mayor of Los Angeles County, was led away from his office in handcuffs today by ICE agents and charged with harboring fugitives from the law with his decision to provide undocumented immigrants with refuge under his Sanctuary City designation. The arrest followed Barrons order to the citys police to not cooperate with ICE by reporting illegal aliens in their custody. ICE demanded the criminals be handed over but they were denied.  This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated with a website that describes its output as being humorous or satirical in nature, as follows: describes "Tatersgonnatate.com is a subsidiary of the Americas Last Line of Defense network of parody, satire, and tomfoolery ... Everything on this website is fiction. It is not a lie and it is not fake news because it is not real. If you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined. Any similarities between this sites pure fantasy and actual people, places, and events are purely coincidental and all images should be considered altered and satirical." The fake story was widely shared in late December after America's Last Line of Defense (ALLOD) re-promoted it on Facebook on Dec. 24. Although the article bore disclaimers that labelled it "satire," many readers mistook it for serious news, as demonstrated by a series of earnest comments on the ALLOD Facebook page:   For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire and humor. why TatersGonnaTate.com. "ICE Arrests LA Mayor for Harboring Fugitives Through Sanctuary City."
 26 November 2019. Claim:  Senator Chris Dodd opined that a 5% down payment requirement "would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2010] Democrats Vote Down 5 Percent Rule In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify. His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained, "passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it." Origins:  One factor that fueled the subprime mortgage crisis of the 2000s was easy access given to home loans for those who were poor risks. As these loans almost inevitably failed, mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures not only rose but spiraled dramatically upwards, seriously affecting banking and financial markets around the world. Many people believe a tightening of lending practices would keep similar economic collapses in the housing market from occurring again, with one proposed tightening being the imposition of a five percent down payment requirement upon prospective home buyers. However, not everyone believes such a requirement would be the best way to deal with the issue, which leads us to the fictitious quote reproduced above. Although the debate was real, the quote wasn't  it was a fabrication which was penned by John Semmens of Semi-News, an online  publication billed as "A Satirical Look at Recent News,"  and appeared as the final item in his 15 May 2010 column. Other offerings from that column include "Election Officials to Bar Voluntary Showing of ID by Voters" (an item that included the made-up statement of a Wisconsin Election Board official: "Allowing those who have valid IDs to show them would intimidate those without IDs. They might be discouraged from attempting to vote. This would lower turnout and threaten the democratic process") and "Crist Refuses to Return GOP Donations" (which quoted Crist as saying: "Look, my view has always been caveat emptor"). column Semi-News is a satire publication, albeit one which draws upon the news of the day. Senator Bob Corker had proposed an amendment (S.A. 3955) to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 which would have (among other things) instituted a residential mortgage underwriting standard requiring a five percent down payment from prospective home buyers. Democrats did oppose the amendment, with one reason given by Dodd being that  it would have disadvantaged home buyers who had good credit and solid incomes but lacked the cash to make required down payments.  S.A. 3955 Stability Act Last updated:  20 June 2010 On Dec. 11, 2023, Apple released its iOS 17.2 update for iPhone devices. That fresh software update came with the launch of the new private diary app that the company named Journal. As often happens with new or updated electronic devices and features, the launch prompted unfounded rumors warning that the app presented serious privacy and/or security hazards to users. "Journal, a new iPhone app available today, helps users reflect and practice gratitude through journaling, which has been shown to improve wellbeing," the company's announcement read. "With Journal, users can capture and write about everyday moments and special events in their lives, and include photos, videos, audio recordings, locations and more to create rich memories. On-device machine learning provides private, personalized suggestions to inspire journal entries and customizable notifications help users develop their writing habits." announcement On Jan. 2, 2024, the official YouTube channel for Apple Support posted a video showing how iPhone users can easily get started with the new app. video  Included with the Journal app is the ability to receive suggestions for entries that could possibly be written about, as the video above mentions. For users who have installed iOS 17.2 or later, those suggestion types are listed under Settings > Privacy and Security > Journaling Suggestions. They include Activity (your workouts and exercise), Media (podcasts and music you listen to), Contacts (people you message and call), Photos (library, memories and shared photos) and Significant Locations (places where you spend time). These five settings are enabled by default. Users who write their private entries in Journal can also receive suggestions associated with people who were nearby to them during the day. Two such settings are Prefer Suggestions with Others, which includes "moments you share with your contacts or large groups," and Discoverable by Others, which is described as "[allowing] others to detect your are nearby to help prioritize their suggestions." These two settings are also enabled by default. The top and bottom of the suggestions settings. Regarding the latter setting, Discoverable by Others, in February 2024 it became the subject of a viral Facebook rumor. A search of Facebook for the words "Journaling Suggestions" found no shortage of scared users warning their friends of the purported threat posed by the privacy setting. search  Those users commonly shared an image that displayed the following text: ALERT. If you have an iPhone, this is important! After my latest update, there was a new feature downloaded called "Journaling," and it's under "Settings," "Privacy and Security" and then scroll all the way down and there's a new "feature" called "Journaling Suggestions." Look for the "DISCOVERABLE BY OTHERS" toggle. I bet it's toggled to ON, and it let's anyone near you know your FULL NAME and EXACTLY where you're geo located. Go toggle that OFF!! I'm typing all of this. This is messed up big time. Share with your friends if they're iPhone. Very scary stuff!! PSA ... CHECK YOUR IPHONES. However, this Facebook rumor was false. This was nothing more than the latest rumor about iPhone privacy settings to lead a long scrolling of commenters to say that they're going to turn the setting off "just to be safe." Just two inches above the same Discoverable by Others toggle that so many users were choosing to manually disable, Apple included a link that led to more information on a page named "Journaling Suggestions & Privacy." page On that page, Apple specified that suggestions for the Journal app use Bluetooth  a short-range communication method. Also, the technology "[detects] the number of devices and contacts around you without storing which of these specific contacts were around." In other words, there was no indication that strangers would be allowed to see a name or track a person's location. The page read as follows: Nearby People Journaling Suggestions may also use contextual information to determine which suggestions may be more meaningful or relevant to you. Journaling Suggestions uses Bluetooth to detect the number of devices and contacts around you without storing which of these specific contacts were around. This information is used to improve and prioritize your suggestions. It is stored on device, and is not shared with Apple. You can choose not to allow Journaling Suggestions to use the number of devices and contacts around you to prioritize your suggestions by going to Settings > Privacy & Security > Journaling Suggestions, then tapping to turn off Prefer Suggestions with Others. You can also control whether your contacts include you in their number of nearby contacts by going to Settings > Privacy & Security > Journaling Suggestions, then tapping to turn off Discoverable by Others. If you disable Discoverable by Others and choose not to be included in your contacts' counts, Prefer Suggestions with Others will also be disabled and Journaling Suggestions will not detect how many devices and contacts are around you to improve or prioritize your suggestions. Snopes emailed Apple to ask about this rumor and will update this story if we receive a response. For further reading, we previously reported about a very similar social media scare that also involved iPhones, privacy and a misunderstood feature. reported "Apple Launches Journal App, a New App for Reflecting on Everyday Moments." Apple Newsroom, 11 Dec. 2023, https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/12/apple-launches-journal-app-a-new-app-for-reflecting-on-everyday-moments/. "How to Use Journal on Your iPhone." YouTube, Apple Support, 2 Jan. 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EtNDO-JDME. "Legal - Journaling Suggestions & Privacy - Apple." Apple Legal, https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/journaling-suggestions/. MacRumors. "Hands-On With the New Journal App in the iOS 17.2 Beta." MacRumors Forums, 26 Oct. 2023, https://www.macrumors.com/2023/10/26/ios-17-2-journal-app-hands-on/. Peterson, Jake. "Don't Worry, Apple's Journal App Probably Isn't a Privacy Nightmare." Lifehacker, 29 Feb. 2024, https://lifehacker.com/tech/apples-journal-app-discoverable-by-others. Whitney, Lance. "Write It Out: How to Use Apple's Journal App in iOS 17." PCMAG, 15 Dec. 2023, https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/use-apple-journal-app-iphone-write-it-out. In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and ended 50 years of constitutionally protected abortion rights. While many people took to the streets to protest the ruling, others used social media to share fantasy scenarios of protesting by other means. On TikTok, for example, some people fantasized about someone mailing their uterus to the Supreme Court as an act of protest: overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision   While the above-displayed video described a potential future action ("I need to mail" vs. "I mailed"), other TikTok users shared videos claiming that someone had indeed followed through with this action.   While a number of TikTok users claimed that someone literally sent their uterus to the Supreme Court, there's no actual evidence that this happened.  Protests against the Supreme Court in the wake of the Roe v. Wade ruling garnered plenty of coverage by mainstream media outlets. If someone truly had one if their organs removed, put it in a box, sent their innards to the Supreme Court, and there were actual evidence of this, there would certainly be news coverage of the incident. However, no credible news outlets have filed any such reports.  Roe v. Wade While there are plenty of videos on TikTok of people making this claim, none of them contain images of the alleged package or the identity of the alleged sender. In fact, most of the TikTok videos that we viewed involve imagining what it would be like for an employee of the Supreme Court to open such a package.     The claim that someone mailed their uterus to the Supreme Court is part of a larger trend on TikTok involving users claiming that some extreme action was taken by someone to protest the abortion ruling. For example, another string of videos claimed (without evidence) that the several Supreme Court justices had had their credit card numbers leaked. Social media users also claimed (without evidence) that the IP addresses of the justices had been leaked.  another string of videos claimed also claimed (without evidence) that the IP addresses Sources: Fact Check: Posted IP Addresses NOT Linked To 5 Supreme Court Judges -- They Belong To Unrelated Entities | Lead Stories. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/06/fact-check-ip-addresses-not-linked-to-five-supreme-court-justices.html. Accessed 30 June 2022. Sullivan, Becky. With Roe Overturned, State Constitutions Are Now at the Center of the Abortion Fight. NPR, 29 June 2022. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1108251712/roe-v-wade-abortion-ruling-state-constitutions. The Social Security system has been a contentious political issue ever since it was proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and implemented in 1935. Arguments regarding how the system should be used, administered, and funded  and even whether it should exist at all  have been the subject of debate for many decades now: Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2005] SOCIAL SECURITY:Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary, 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program, 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month  and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following: Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate. Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party. Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S. Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? MY FAVORITE :A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it! Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year! Variations: A version of this piece circulated via e-mail in 2005 opened with the following introduction: Dear Friends:Many years ago in Seattle, two wonderful neighbors, Elliott and Patty Roosevelt came to my home to swim on a regular basis. They were a great couple full of laughter and stories that today I continue to marvel at. Both are now deceased, but their stories remain. During the years of our friendship we had many, many discussions about his parents (President Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt) and how his father and mother never intended for the Social Security and Welfare programs to turn out the way they are today. Elliott used to say that if his mother returned to earth and saw what the politicians had done to their programs she would have burned all of them in hell. Here is a story I received today regarding the Social Security Program and I immediately thought of Elliott's comments. Hope you will read this and think about it. In this vein, the above-quoted item seeks to enumerate (and assign blame for) alterations to Social Security that have supposedly betrayed the intent of the system as originally conceived back in the 1930s. Most of the entries contained therein, however, are inaccurate regarding what changes were made and/or who was responsible for making them: . . . participation in the Program would be completely voluntary There was no provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 (nor has there ever been any provision) for the payment of Social Security payroll taxes (now commonly known as FICA, from an acronym for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act) to be voluntary. Since the inception of the Social Security program, the law has required that payroll taxes for persons working at jobs covered by Social Security "shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid." FICA It is true that Social Security provisions originally applied only to "workers in commerce and industry (except railroads) under age 65 in the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii, and on American vessels," and thus those who worked in fields not designated as "commerce and industry" (e.g., government workers, farm workers, doctors, lawyers) neither paid into the Social Security fund nor received benefits from it. Nearly all of those exemptions have been since phased out: applied . . . participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program Social Security taxes were never limited to the first $1,400 of annual income, nor was there any provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 to permanently fix the tax rate at 1%. The Social Security Act of 1935 set the original rate at 1% of the first $3,000 of annual income, with provisions to gradually increase that rate to 3% over the next twelve years: increase 1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum.(2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 1/2 per centum.(3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum.(4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 1/2 per centum.(5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum. These figures have been adjusted many times over the years. Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, as of 2005 participants pay 6.2% of the first $90,000 of their income (with their employers contributing a like sum) into what is commonly known as OASDI (from an acronym for Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance, the official name of the basic retirement benefits portion of the Social Security program). . . . the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that Social Security payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions: For the purposes of the income tax imposed by Title I of the Revenue Act of 1934 or by any Act of Congress in substitution therefor, the tax imposed by section 801 shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year in which such tax is deducted from his wages. Social Security payroll taxes have never been deductible from income for tax purposes, either when the program was originally instituted or at any time since.  . . . the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the "general operating fund." However, whether the Social Security Trust Fund can truly be said to be "independent" is problematic. The Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may only "be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government," such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). The government "pays back" this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds, but critics of the program contend Social Security will eventually fall into deficit by 2018, and the Treasury won't have the necessary cash on hand to redeem the bonds and pay back the fund. As the Social Security and Medicare Trustees themselves noted in their 2005 Annual Report: Annual Report In 2005 the Social Security tax income surplus is estimated to be more than offset by the shortfall in tax and premium income for Medicare, resulting in a small overall cash shortfall that must be covered by transfers from general fund revenues. The combined shortfall is projected to grow each year such that by 2017 net revenue flows from the general fund to the trust funds will total $515 billion, or 2.3 percent of GDP. Since neither the interest paid on the Treasury bonds held in the HI [Hospital Insurance] and OASDI Trust Funds, nor their redemption, provides any net new income to the Treasury, the full amount of the required Treasury payments to these trust funds must be financed by some combination of increased taxation, increased Federal borrowing and debt, or a reduction in other government expenditures. Thus, these payments along with the 75 percent general fund revenue contributions to SMI will add greatly to pressures on Federal general fund revenues much sooner than is generally appreciated. A somewhat dated but detailed article about how the Social Security trust funds are invested can be found here. here . . . the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income It is true that Social Security benefits were not originally considered taxable income. However, that status was not due to any promise or act on the part of President Roosevelt, nor was it specified in the Social Security Act (or any other law); it was the result of a series of rulings by the Treasury Department in 1938 and 1941 that excluded Social Security benefits from federal income taxation. Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the Social Security act enacted in 1983. rulings amendments Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate. As noted above, the monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been "put into the general fund." The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself: above altered Beginning in fiscal year 1969, Social Security and other Federal programs that operate through trust funds were counted officially in the budget. This was done administratively by President Johnson. At the time Congress did not have a budget-making process. In 1974 Congress adopted procedures for setting budget goals through passage of annual budget resolutions. Like the budgets prepared by the President, these resolutions were to reflect a "unified" budget that included trust fund programs such as Social Security in the budget totals.Beginning in the late 1970s, Social Security faced financial problems, and over a period of time legislation was enacted to restore the financial health of the program. However, because the Federal budget deficit remained large, interest in reducing Social Security spending continued. This routine consideration of Social Security constraints led to concerns that cuts in Social Security were being proposed for budgetary purposes rather than programmatic ones. In response to this concern, a series of measures were enacted in 1983, 1985, and 1987 making the program a more distinct part of the budget and permitting Congressional floor objections (points of order) to be raised against budget bills containing Social Security changes. This method of accounting for the Social Security Trust Fund in the federal budget was reversed in 1990. Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?A: The Democratic Party. As noted above, Social Security withholding has never been deductible from income for tax purposes. The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that monies paid into Social Security via payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions. above Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?A: The Democratic Party. Prior to 1984, income derived from Social Security benefits was exempt from taxation. Amendments to the Social Security Act passed by Congress in 1983 allowed for 50% of Social Security benefits to be considered taxable income for taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds. Responsibility for this change cannot fairly be assigned to either political party. The idea originated with a proposal issued by the bipartisan Greenspan Commission, which had been created by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The amendments were passed by a House of Representatives in which the Democrats held a clear majority of the seats (296-166), but the proposed amendments received "Yea" votes from members of both parties, and they were signed into law by President Reagan. Greenspan Commission Q: Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S. In 1993, Congress passed legislation that increased the percentage of Social Security benefits subject to taxation from 50% to 85%. As with the 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act, this increase applied only to taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds. This change to Social Security was but one element of the massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) introduced in Congress in 1993. OBRA was barely passed by a 218-216 vote in the House of Representatives, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it (although 41 Democrats voted against it). Likewise, the Senate vote on OBRA was deadlocked at 50-50 (again, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it, although 6 Democrats voted against it) until Vice-President Al Gore (a Democrat) cast the deciding "Yea" vote. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton (also a Democrat). OBRA vote vote Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! No one  whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien  is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI)  the latter is a federal welfare program "designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income" by providing "cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter." Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes. SSI was not enacted by the administration of President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat); it was created and signed into law in 1972, during the administration of President Richard Nixon (a Republican). benefits SSI Additional information:     Riedl, Brian and David John.  "Social Security's Fictitious Trust Fund."   Knight-Ridder Tribune.  10 November 2004. In mid-July 2018, a controversy erupted over a graphic artwork displayed in the window of a Portland art gallery that depicted the violent slitting of President Donald Trump's throat with a knife. Although the story was covered by multiple news organizations, many viewers caught wind of it only through encountering the artwork in undetailed social media postings:   This work truly did appear on the window of an art gallery in Portland. It was created by an artist known as "Compton Creep" and was displayed at the One Grand Gallery in Portland, Oregon, as part of a "Fuck You Mr. President" exhibit which opened on 13 July 2018: displayed opened An art gallery in Portland, Oregon, has been criticized for displaying a piece of artwork on the window that depicts President Donald Trumps throat being cut with a knife with the words F**k Trump inscribed underneath. The One Grand Gallery located at 1000 E Burnside Street in Portland, Oregon has a decal of Trump being slashed in the throat with a knife on its window. The photo of the artwork surfaced on Twitter on Tuesday, with many people slamming the gallery for posting the violent image. The "Fuck You Mr President" exhibit featured a number of works critical of President Trump, and the gallery explained in an open call for submissions via their Instagram page that profits from the exhibit would be split between Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the National Immigration Law Center: explained CALL TO ARTISTS: we hate the president and want to let him know. Well be holding a group show for our Fuck You Mr. President exhibit in July and are looking for poster design submissions. Swipe right for show info, and email your submissions to us to info@onegrandgallery.com. All profit from the sales of the prints will be equally split between @plannedparenthood, the @aclu_nationwide, and the National Immigration Law Center. #fucktrump The gallery was particularly criticized for displaying the violent artwork in a window that faced onto a public street. The controversial decal is no longer on display in the gallery's window, having been removed after reports of violent threats: reports A Portland art gallery has taken down controversial image depicting the beheading of President Trump. One Grand Gallery on East Burnside had the image up in their window, but has since removed it after they say they received threats of violence. Gallery organizers said proceeds from this exhibition are going to non-profit groups that have lost funding under the Trump administration. A man identified as the founder of the gallery similarly told KPTV that the gallery had received "continuous threats" over the image: KPTV A Portland art gallery has taken down a window illustration showing a knife to the throat of President Donald Trump. According to a man who identified himself as the One Grand Gallery's founder, who refused to give his name and hid his face from a [TV] crew, the graphic image came down following continuous threats and a request from his landlord. The man also declined to explain why the gallery put the image up in a window, which faces a public street and sidewalk. Reporter Tyler Dumont: "But, I mean, you felt strong enough to put this out here?" Gallery Founder: "Yeah, but people that are responding, are responding with such anger and violence. People want the gallery to go up in flames with my family." KATU reported that in addition to the threats, the gallery also received a warning from the owners of the building stating that the display of the artwork was a violation of the gallery's lease: "The owner of the building [said] as soon as he found out about the image, he told the gallery they have 12 hours to remove the image or they were in breach of their lease." Artist Compton Creep said of his work that "It should provoke your mind, even if it makes you uncomfortable, it should be thought provoking ... It's just art man, if you don't like it, don't look at it. If you dig it, cool." Compton Creep Azar, Kellee.  "Portland Gallery Takes Down Controversial Trump Artwork from Window."   KATU-TV.  17 July 2018. Dumont, Tyler.  "Portland Art Gallery Takes Down Violent Trump Illustration After Threats."   KPTV.  17 July 2018. Perez, Maria.  "Portland Art Gallery Displays Poster with Donald Trump's Throat Slashed."   Newsweek.  17 July 2018. Amid political controversy engendered by the protests of National Football League athletes who refused to stand during pre-game renditions of the national anthem in late September 2017 to display solidarity with black victims of police violence a gesture supported by many Democrats but condemned by President Trump and conservative Republicans a meme was circulated via social media making the point that the Democratic Party was not always a standard bearer for racial equality. protests This is an example from Twitter:   The centerpiece of the post is a reproduction of an illustration typically captioned "Democratic Party Logo until 1966," featuring a drawing of a crowing rooster and the slogan "White Supremacy, For the Right." And although the description is somewhat misleading ("White Supremacy" was never a slogan of the national Democratic Party, for example, nor have we seen evidence that the image was "purged from the Internet"), this was, in fact, the emblem of the Alabama Democratic Party between 1904 and 1966. 1904 First, regarding the rooster, it's often mistakenly assumed that the donkey was always the symbol of the Democratic Party, when in fact the party began using a crowing rooster as its mascot around 1840. This version of how that came to pass is from a biographical sketch of Indianapolis lawyer and Whig politician Thomas D. Walpole published in 1876: sketch In 1840 [Tom Walpole] was an ardent and enthusiastic Whig, and rendered great service to the Whig party, and contributed largely to the success of General Harrison. It was during this canvass that Tom gave to the Democratic party their emblem, which they have claimed ever since, the chicken cock, or rooster. George Patterson, then editing the Democratic paper, wrote, just before the August election of that year, to Joseph Chapman, of Greenfield, that the Democratic party would be beat, and that there was no hope, but, said he, "Crow, Chapman, crow." By some means Tom got possession of the letter, and exposed it. A year or two subsequent to this circumstance Messrs. George and Page Chapman became proprietors and editors of the Democratic paper and placed a rooster at the head of their paper, and from this circumstance it was generally supposed that they were the persons to whom the letter was addressed and the original crowers; but such is not the case. It is to Tom Walpole the Democratic party is indebted for the emblem of the rooster. Other sources grant full credit to Joseph Chapman for dreaming up the rooster symbol, but in any case, although it was never officially adopted as the emblem of the national Democratic Party, it very quickly became an unofficial one and remained so until cartoonist Thomas Nast's depictions of Republicans as elephants and Democrats as donkeys captured the public imagination in the late nineteenth century (to date, the national Democratic Party has never officially adopted any animal as its symbol). The forerunner of today's Democratic Party was born during the 1820s and '30s, coalescing around the populist presidential candidacy of national war hero and southern slaveholder Andrew Jackson. Although egalitarianism and freedom of the individual were much-touted ideals of "Jacksonian Democracy," in reality the Democratic Party of the time took white supremacy for granted and had little to no interest in defending the freedom and equality of African Americans, native Americans, or any other racial minorities. Still, the party was conflicted over the expansion of slavery and split in two during the 1860 elections, with the Northern Democrats opposing expansion and Southern Democrats favoring it. The Democratic Party remained dominant in the South after the Civil War, opposing Reconstruction and enacting laws to suppress black voters and enforce racial segregation. The Alabama Democratic Party went further than most, calling for the adoption of a new state constitution in 1901 that explicitly disenfranchised black voters, and celebrating its success in that effort by officially embracing the slogan "White Supremacy" three years later. TheMonroe Journal of Claiborne, Alabama reported on 2 June 1904: calling The state executive committee adopted the game cock as the Democratic Party emblem. Above the bird will be the words "White Supremacy" and below "For the Right." To be sure, there were a few Alabama Democrats who objected to the emblem after its adoption, though not for the reasons you might suppose. For example, Democratic Congressman J. Thomas Heflin was perfectly fine with the racist slogan, but felt the image of the rooster was undignified: I think that the emblem is not what it should be, and that it fails to impress the people with the dignity of the Democratic Party. To my mind it would have been much better to have had, instead of the rooster, the picture of a handsome young woman, holding the Constitution in a scroll aloft, with the words "Here We Rest" prominently shown upon it. I see no objection to the use of the two expressions already adopted, but do not think that the design is worth of a great party like ours. Dignified or not, that emblem would appear at the top of every Alabama state ballot for many decades to come, as noted, for example, in this November 1940 report by theChicago Tribune: In Alabama the disfranchisement of the Negro is proclaimed proudly by the Democratic party on the official ballot in all elections. At the head of the Democratic column on the ballot appears the emblem of the rooster. Arched over the rooster's head are the words: "White Supremacy." Below the rooster appear the words: "For the Right." By the early 1950s, however, the Alabama Democratic Party's proud embrace of white supremacy was becoming a liability for the national party. In 1952, New York Gov. Thomas Dewey, a Republican campaigning on behalf of Dwight D. Eisenhower, gave a speech laying the racist logo at the doorstep of Eisenhower's Democratic rival Adlai Stevenson (from the Dixon Evening Telegraph,9 October 1952): Gov. Thomas E. Dewer says the "White Supremacy" slogan on Alabama's Democratic ballot convicts that party's top nominees of "rankest hypocrisy." In a state-wide radio and television address Wednesday night, the New York governor ripped into Gov. Adlai E. Stevenson and Sen. John J. Sparkman of Alabama after holding up to TV viewers the official Alabama ballot showing: A rooster emblem, with the words "White Supremacy" above it and the words "For the Right" below it. "There it is," Dewey said, "the rooster and the banner of White supremacy Ku Klux Klan Jim Crow banner  flying over the election for Stevenson and Sparkman in this ear 1952." Though the Democrats lost that election, the emblem would remain intact on the ballot for another 14 years, until leaders of the Alabama Democratic Party finally modified the slogan in 1966 for purely pragmatic reasons: The party needed "Negro" voters. The Montgomery Advertiser reported: In an unexpected display of strength, the Loyalist faction of the State Democratic Executive Committee removed the "white supremacy" label from the party emblem Saturday in a move admittedly designed to keep Negro voters in the fold. ... The only change made in the emblem was removing the words "white supremacy" and substituting "Democrats." The rooster was untouched. Charles W. McKay of Talladega offered the resolution changing the emblem. McKay gained fame a number of years ago when he authored the "Nullification Resolution" in the Legislature which sought to declare null and void the Supreme Court's school desegregation decision. McKay made it clear that the emblem change was necessary if the Democrats were to attract Negro votes this year. "We can't afford to spend a lot of money nominating candidates this spring and then take a stick and run off 150,000 to 175,000 voters who might vote Democratic," he declared. Ironically (though the irony may well have been lost on McKay), it was only because the voter suppression measures instituted decades earlier by his own state party had been knocked down by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that many of those potential new black voters would even have access to the polls. As to the Alabama Democratic Party rooster, it, too, was finally sent into forced retirement, but not till 1996 (30 years later), when it was replaced with the image of a donkey. Bridges, Edwin C. Alabama: The Making of an American State. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2016. ISBN 9780817358761, p. 159. Cotter, Patrick R. "Democratic Party in Alabama." Encyclopedia of Alabama. 3 May 2017. Frederick, Jeff. Stand Up for Alabama: Governor George Wallace. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2007. ISBN 9780817315740, p. 29. Henning, Arthur Sears Henning. "Alabama Ballot Boasts of White Supremacy." Chicago Tribune. 29 November 1940. Ingram, Bob. "Loyalist Faction Wins; 'White Supremacy' Goes." The Montgomery Advertiser. 23 January 1966. Nowland, John H.B. Sketches of Prominent Citizens of 1876. Indianapolis: Tilford & Carlon, 1877, p. 106. Seidman, Steven. "The Rooster as the Symbol of the U.S. Democratic Party." Ithaca College. 12 June 2010. Warren, Sarah A. "Constitutional Convention of 1901." Encyclopedia of Alabama. 15 October 2014. Associated Press. "Democrats Make Donkey Symbol." The Montgomery Advertiser. 27 April 1996. Dixon Evening Telegraph. "Demos Run Under 'White Supremacy Tag in South." 9 October 1952. The Gaffney Ledger. "Action State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabama." 25 May 1904. On 3 December 2016, Politicops published an article reporting that Alaska's former governor (and 2008 vice presidential pick) Sarah Palin called for a boycott of the Mall of America after it hired a black man to play Santa, because the character was always "white" in the "Bible": article The announcement that Mall of America was welcoming its first black Santa Claus was greeted in many quarters as a good thing but, as might be expected in a country that has become increasingly more comfortable saying any racist thing that comes to mind, many were highly offended ... Among many who were offended by this move was former half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. The sharp-tongued Republican wasted no time in condemning the companys actions, going on social media and posting comments that called for boycotting and running Mall of America into the ground, on the basis of Santa always having been white in the Bible. No, I refuse to believe that they went this far in trying to cater to the minorities, I thought the company had some backbone but I guess I was wrong, Palin told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. She also argued that hiring a non-white Santa Claus was the last straw in corporate Americas twisting of traditional, conservative Christian values, because they realized they couldnt make any more money off of the usual scams and techniques theyve been using so far. She added, Thats why they had to come up with something new and out of the box, at least something that appeared that way in their minds. But, this proves that they have no morals and that they wont shy away from even the most blatant twisting of traditional Christian values, just so they could make more money. I understand having to make a profit in order to get by and have a good life, but I dont understand stomping on things that are holy and sacred in order to accomplish that ... Americans, especially white ones, need to boycott the company and need to run it into the ground, so that they never ever come up with such an offensive and sacrilegious idea again, Palin added.  Like all items published by Politicops, (and sister sites Religionlo, Politicalo, and Politcops), the article's first paragraph referenced a real debate over the Mall of America's black Santa. However, Palin made no such remarks about a boycott, and the tacked on fabrication is standard for this particular family of fake news outlets. Articles from Newslo and its sister sites typically begin with a paragraph of fact-based information before launching into fabricated details. Santa Newslo Newslo's fake news sites often display under the lesser-known Politicops domain on social media, but all include a button allowing readers to "show facts" or "hide facts" to highlight the truthful material in the article. fake news However, all articles display by default in "hide facts" mode, so most readers view articles (or their headlines on social media) without embellishments marked:  Prior Newslo fabrications included claims that Chris Christie thought that a female Viagra would cause an uptick in "lesbianism" (and separately that he voted down a gender pay parity bill for Bible-based reasons), an Alabama politician tried to implement saliva-based "hunger tests" for food stamp recipients, Ted Cruz affirmed he'd run as a Democrat if something affected Hillary Clinton's candidacy, Mike Pence said that if abortion was legal in cases of rape women would try to "get raped" in order to obtain an abortion, the father of Brock Turner lamented the absence of punishment for the victim in his son's sexual assault case, and that televangelist Pat Robertson claimed David Bowie did not die, but was kidnapped by demons. Viagra Bible-based hunger tests Ted Cruz Mike Pence Brock Turner David Bowie