Does Olive Oil 'Fix' Sagging Breasts?
On 12 February 2017, the Facebook page "GreenYatra" published an imagethat bore the claim thatolive oil canbe used to prevent or reverse "sagging breasts": published image   The image-based claim didn't link to any articles or other corroborating information, saying only: Massaging your breasts with olive oil is an excellent technique to firm sagging breasts. Olive oil is a rich source of antioxidants and fatty acids that can reverse the damage caused by free radicals and prevent sagging breasts. Plus, it will help improve the skin tone and texture. According to the claim, topical application of olive oil either circumvents or reverses loss of elasticity in breasts. No specific reason was provided for the claim that olive oil, versus any other type of oil,could replicate the effect shown. The efficacy of topical treatments for sagging breasts or loss of skin elasticity is often discussed in cosmetic circles, thanksin part to the cost and invasiveness of surgical approaches. But research demonstrating any single topical ingredient can prevent (much less reverse) loss of skin elasticity is notably skimpy: notably Antioxidant ointments, creams, and lotions may help reduce the risk of wrinkles and protect against sun damage. Unlike sunscreens, they build up in the skin and are not washed away, so the protection may last longer. Selenium, coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), and alpha-lipoic acid are antioxidants that can be applied to the skin. Evidence of their benefit is limited and more studies in humans are needed. More commonly used antioxidants are described below. Your dermatologist (skin doctor) can tell you which product is right for you. Research from 2012 indicates that anxioxidants could potentially prevent damage to facial skin, but evidence was "limited" and reversal was not referenced. Only 1.5 percent of olive oil contains antioxidants (and that fraction is not composed entirely of antioxidants). Other foods are described as being higher in antioxidants, but no memes recommended rubbing a berry paste onto breasts for firmness. Research overwhelmingly examined efficacy of topical treatment for facial skin, which lacks the weight and density of breast tissue. And although topicals designed for facial skin need only penetrate a few dermal layers, any product designed or intended for useon breasts would have to enter the breast tissue to "lift" or prevent elasticity loss (a far taller order). contains described A blog post written by Miami-based cosmetic surgeon Dr. Ary Krau directly addressesthe question of whether any specific topical substance (including olive oil) had ever shown promise to improve loss of elasticity for breast tissue in clinical research: addresses Unfortunately, no cream or lotion has been clinically proven or FDA-approved to lift the breasts into a higher position. Dont waste your money on any product that claims to improve your breast position. While genetics play a big role in breast sagging, there are a few things you can do to prevent it in the first place. Try not to fluctuate greatly in body weight; gaining and losing a lot of weight in a short period of time can take its toll on the breasts. Be diligent about wearing sunscreen on your chest and dcolletage area to protect the skin from the suns rays. Wear a supportive bra as much as possible, especially when performing high-intensity aerobic exercise. We contacted Dr. Krau's office, and a representative for the clinic told usthat no effective topical treatment appears to exist. A thorough search of related studies turned up no strong evidence facial skin or breast tissue could be firmed by topical treatments at all. A 5percent concentration of Vitamin C (not olive oil) showedmoderate success in treatment of photo-aging in a small 2003 study, but those findings were not relevant to breast tissue or olive oil. 2003 There isresearch [PDF] (conducted by individuals who contracted with cosmetic medical firms) that indicates somesuccess in the ongoing development of a topical version of botulinum toxin type A (popularly known by the brand name Botox) and intended solely for the face. However, thatresearchonly concerns a clinically prescribed substance (botulinum toxin, not a pantry product) and includedno indications that it could beused on breast tissue. PDF Crawford, Holly.  "Sagging Skin  What You and Your Doctor Can Do."
  WebMD.  Accessed 16 February 2017. Glogau, Richard MD et. al.  "Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of a Botulinum Toxin Type A Topical Gel for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Lateral Canthal Lines."
  Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.  January 2012. Humbert, PG et al.  "Topical Ascorbic Acid on Photoaged Skin. Clinical, Topographical And Ultrastructural Evaluation: Double-Blind Study Vs. Placebo."
  Experimental Dermatology.  June 2003. Krau, Ary MD.  "Is There a Topical Cream for Lifting the Breasts?"
  Ary Krau MD.  22 January 2016. Magee, Elaine.  "10 Nutrient-Rich Super Foods."
  WebMD.  Accessed 16 February 2017. University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC).   "Skin Wrinkles and Blemishes."
  Updated 18 December 2012. International Olive Council.  "The Antioxidant Properties Of The Olive Oil."
    Accessed 16 February 2017.
Since 2017, an imposing military-style vehicle with a giant rolling ball on its front has been featured in online advertisements and YouTube thumbnails. An advertisement created by the website Yeah Motor, which was hosted by the advertising platform Taboola, showed the image of the vehicle with the words: "The Military Spent $1 Billion on This New Vehicle, And Here's The First Look." Readers who clicked the advertisement were led to a 52-page slideshow on Yeah Motor, where the image of the ball vehicle did not appear. This method of drawing in readers with clickbait to a slideshow with multiple pages is known as advertising arbitrage. With arbitrage, the goal is to make more money on the ads displayed during the slideshow than it costs to place the ads that drive readers to the story in the first place. 52-page slideshow The MAD LAB YouTube channel also featured the image in a thumbnail for the video, "Best Off-Road Vehicles of All Time." video   However, the vehicle doesn't show up in the 12-minute video. The MAD LAB YouTube channel turned off the ability to like or dislike the video  where viewers can click a thumbs-up or thumbs-down icon  which is unique to this video in particular. The feature was perhaps disabled because of the large number of dislikes the video was receiving for failing to deliver on the promise in the thumbnail. Other videos on the channel allowed the liking and disliking of videos. The image is also featured on several other YouTube videos:   The military did not spend $1 billion on this "new vehicle" because it's not real. Concept artist Camille Kuo created the impressive artwork, although her signature appeared to be removed via Photoshop. The original "track ball" artwork with the signature is available on her ArtStation page: Camille Kuo https://www.artstation.com/artwork/PVxDy Kuo, who is from Taipei, Taiwan, told us that her artwork is available on image-licensing websites, which allows anyone who can pay the licensing fee the ability to use the artwork for commercial purposes. "That's why you see they are being used commercially without giving me credit," Kuo said. However, it's unclear if all of the advertisers and YouTube users that featured her artwork in thumbnails properly obtained licenses. For this piece, "track ball," I emphasized the importance of being a tank without having traditional tank wheels. It can massively mash whatever comes through at the bottom, making pancakes. All of the work is done in Photoshop using the industry of concept art techniques called Photobash and 3DKitbash. She told us that it took around two to three hours to create, although "the process of concepting the design takes the longest." Kuo's other work can be viewed on her ArtStation page. her ArtStation page 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 As the Taliban took over Afghanistan, U.S. President Joe Biden pulled American troops out in August 2021, with the last military plane departing at the end of the month, marking the end of a two-decade-long presence in the country.  pulled  Biden has faced plenty of criticism for the rushed departure particularly from right-wing voices, and the internet pulled out an old article he wrote for The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), titled "How I Learned to Love the New World Order, to bolster arguments against him. According to numerous posts like this one, the essay was arguing for the destruction of national sovereignty and the establishment of a one world government.  one Some claimed that because of the headline, Biden supported a New World Order, which advocates for one world government. This stems from the New World Order (NWO) conspiracy theory, which claims that a secret group of global elites is seeking to establish an all-powerful, authoritarian, one-world government.  New World Order   The essay was indeed published by The Wall Street Journal on April 23, 1992. We found a copy in the archives of the New York Public Library. The full version can be seen below: New York Public Librar   Biden wrote the essay in response to a Wall Street Journal editorial that claimed he was in favor of neo-isolationism. To be clear, in Biden's essay, he was not talking about the NWO conspiracy theory. He argued that the Pentagons strategy of making America a Globocop would render it a hollow superpower.  The highlights made in the blog post above about his essay do not support the argument that Biden wants to destroy national sovereignty. In the article Biden argues for Americans to pull back on military intervention and build up economic might: Bristling with weapons, we would continue our economic decline, while rising industrial and financial giants in Europe and Asia viewed our military pretensions with indifference or contempt. The essay also addresses Americas role as a Globocop, arguing that Power also emanates from [...] the economic leverage to wield diplomatic clout, and not from the barrel of a gun. Biden argues in favor of multilateral military action by breathing life into the U.N. Charter. He envisions "a permanent commitment of forces, for use by the Security Council. That means a presumption of collective action  but with a U.S. veto. He concluded: We must get lean militarily, revitalize American economic strength, and exercise a diplomatic leadership that puts new muscle into institutions of collective security.  The blog post makes another claim: that Biden wrote the WSJ article many years before writing the Patriot Act, a counterterrorism bill that increased surveillance capabilities by U.S. law enforcement after 9/11. This is partially true, because Biden did support the Patriot Act and claimed he was responsible for authoring earlier versions of counterterrorism legislation that featured prominently in it. Biden introduced and authored the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, which he argued provided one source of inspiration for the 2001 Patriot Act.  counterterrorism claimed In October 2001, he said in a Senate speech supporting the Patriot Act: It allows law enforcement to keep up with the modern technology these terrorists are using. The bill contains several provisions which are identical or nearly identical to those I previously proposed.  Senate speech The Patriot Act was criticized by civil rights advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who said it turned regular citizens into suspects, and resulted in a loss of privacy. While civil rights experts have criticized his support for the law, that criticism does not suggest that Biden is trying to build a one world government.  American Civil Liberties Union While the WSJ did publish this essay by Biden, the article did not make the arguments that critical blog posts on social media are claiming. As such, we rate this claim as False. Sources: Afghanistan: Last US Military Flight Departs Ending Americas Longest War. BBC News, 31 Aug. 2021. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58390085. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. "How I Learned to Love the New World Order." Wall Street Journal (1923-), Apr 23, 1992, pp. 1. ProQuest, https://ezproxy.nypl.org/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.i.ezproxy.nypl.org/historical-newspapers/how-i-learned-love-new-world-order/docview/135656899/se-2?accountid=35635. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Hsu, Hua. 50 Years of Conspiracy Theories - New World Order -- New York Magazine - Nymag. New York Magazine, https://nymag.com/news/features/conspiracy-theories/new-world-order/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Senate Approves USA PATRIOT Anti-Terrorism Legislation. https://sgp.fas.org/congress/2001/s102501.html. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Surveillance Under the Patriot Act. American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/surveillance-under-patriot-act. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Ungurean, Geri. JOE BIDEN Proclaimed How He Learned to Love the NEW WORLD ORDER in a Wall Street Piece from 1992: Article Is Clearly Shown in This WP Piece. Absolute Truth from the Word of God, 30 Aug. 2021, https://grandmageri422.me/2021/08/30/joe-biden-how-i-learned-to-love-the-new-world-order/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Claim:  A badly behaved dog wreaks havoc while two fellows stand by silently, each thinking it's the other guy's pooch. LEGEND Examples:  [Brunvand, 1989] A woman is invited to call at the home of a woman who is wealthier than she is. From the moment she is invited, the caller is unsure about how to behave  how to sit, how to take tea, etc. And matters are made worse when the time of the visit arrives. A large, lively, dirty, beast of a dog is sitting in the front yard, and when the hostess welcomes the caller into the house, the dog follows her inside. While the caller tries to respect the social amenities, that darn dog does not. It tracks mud about the room, sniffs the cookies, and paws the furniture. The caller makes small talk, but the conversation becomes strained. Still, both parties keep a stiff upper lip, observing proper etiquette. Finally, the visit comes to an end. As the caller rises to leave, the hostess, with one eye on the wreckage, remarks icily, "And don't forget to take your dog!" "My dog?" the caller says. "I thought it was yours!"  [Regis, 1987] In January 1946 Bigelow came down to Princeton for an interview with Von Neumann. He was a couple of hours late . . . Julian Bigelow got out of the car and walked up to the house.  "Von Neumann lived in this elegant lodge house on Westcott Road in Princeton," Bigelow says. "As I parked my car and walked in, there was this very large Great Dane dog bouncing around on the front lawn. I knocked on the door and Von Neumann, who was a small, quiet, modest kind of a man came to the door and bowed to me and said, 'Bigelow, won't you come in,' and so forth, and this dog brushed between our legs and went into the living room. He proceeded to lie down on the rug in front of everybody, and we had the entire interview  whether I would come, what I knew, what the job was going to be like  and this lasted maybe forty minutes, with the dog wandering all around the house. Towards the end of it, von Neumann asked me if I always traveled with the dog. But of course it wasn't my dog, and it wasn't his either, but von Neumann  being a diplomatic, middle European type person  he kindly avoided mentioning it until the end."  [Mahoney, 1983] In passing I must make mention of a funny situation in which I became involved while visiting Field Marshal Lord Alexander and his wife at their home near London.  I motored there to have luncheon with them, and as I emerged from my car, a huge dog appeared in the driveway.  Dogs always made a dead set for me, and I wasn't worried when it began jumping around and wagging its tail.  But I did feel some concern when it followed me to the doorway and walked in as if it owned the house. A family pet, I felt sure, as it settled down to a corner of the living room as Lord and Lady Alexander greeted me warmly.  At luncheon the dog settled down at my feet and the begging for food began.  Lady Alexander's attention became riveted upon me: "Mr. Mahoney," she said charmingly, "I wish you would send your dog outside." And not until then did it dawn upon me that they thought the stray dog was mine! Origins:  Though this story has often been told as an actual event in an important person's life, its first appearance came in a 1924 Lucy Maud Montgomery book, Emily Climbs. In Chapter   12, Emily's call on socially-superior Miss Janet Royal is interrupted by the antics of a very large muddy dog that follows her into the elegant parlor, where it proceeds to act up.  to the legend, only after the beast has made a shambles of things and Emily is about to leave does the subject of the dog's ownership arise, each girl thinking up until that time the horrid thing belonged to the other. From those early beginnings, the "Not my dog" anecdote has gone on to reach a succession of new audiences, as new storytellers emerge and claim it as their own. Burt Reynolds is rumored to have told this story (starring himself as the embarrassed visitor) to Johnny Carson on The Tonight Show in the 1980s. A common element in this story is unequal status between visitor and visited. The one who comes calling feels inferior for reasons relating to social standing, comparative wealth, or the celebrated householder's achievements. Whatever the cause, he comes hat in hand, filled with a determination to make a good impression  a certain recipe for social disaster! The story is one of horrific embarrassment; the faux pas being perceived as being that much more flamboyant because it plays out before someone looked up to. That matters are straightened out before the visit ends by the caller blurting out, "My dog? I thought he was yours!" doesn't change the  momentary flash of mortification experienced or the knowledge that the sought-after host had sat there for quite a while thinking decidedly evil thoughts about his guest. The story is also a poke at the strictures of etiquette. Neither host nor guest feels it would be proper to comment negatively on the dog's behavior, so both endure the worsening state of affairs in stoic silence. The legend underscores common misperceptions about etiquette, that the rules of polite behavior are often impractical and adherence to them results in ridiculous situations a more direct approach would head off at the pass. Those who resent the genteelly-voiced demands of Miss Manners and long for less structured, more direct forms of social interaction get to savor a moment of self-congratulation through this story because it proves right what they've been saying all along. As old as this story is (1924, remember?) it continues to pop up, and even at times changes in dramatic ways. We picked up the following non-canine version of the tale during our Internet travels, again proving that no story can't stand a little improving: [Collected on the Internet, 2002] The story goes along the lines of a young Indo-asian couple who after a non-arranged marriage, decide to get a house together. A few weeks after they move in, the husband returns from work to find an older woman in the living room of the house. Knowing they have broken with tradition by having a non-arranged marriage, the husband greets his mother-in-law, only to receive a hard silent stare. She is evidently not happy at their recent union. That evening the old woman joins the couple at the dinner table, and continues to join them for every meal for the next month, never uttering a word. Eventually the once-close couple become hostile to one another, unhappy that 'Mother' has been allowed to move in with them. They stop talking and avoid one another. A few days later the situation escalates into an argument about the old woman. The creepy truth is revealed as the wife exclaims "My mother? I thought she was yours!" Barbara "vinegar mother" Mikkelson Last updated:  2 August 2011 Curses! Broiled Again!   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be .  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 55-57). Too Good To Be    Mahoney, Patrick.  Barbed Wit & Malicious Humor.  New York: Citadel Press, 1956.  (p. 100).    Regis, Edward.  Who Got Einstein's Office?   Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1987  (p. 110).   Healey, Phil and Rick Glanvill.  Now! That's What I Call Urban Myths.  London: Virgin Books, 1996.  ISBN 0-86369-969-3  (pp. 105-106). Now! That's What I Call Urban Myths   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 39). The Big Book of Urban Legends Scam:  Advertisers offer kits that enable home workers to make money posting links on the Internet. Example:   If you live in Canada or the US and you have been wanting to work from home, you might be in luck. Google has now released a new 'Work From Home Program' that will allow Americans to work for the titan from the comfort of their own homes. To thousands of North Americans this means that they will soon have a safe and bright future working for one of the fastest growing companies in the world. In the middle of this recession this country and the world is going through, Google has been thriving and reporting profits consistently every quarter.  Completely innovating the Search Engine industry in the late 1990's, Google has had a history of development and innovation, and another one is about to come.  Google has now opened it's doors and will be hiring everyday people to work from the comfort of their own homes posting links. The way this works is Google will allow people to signup and receive a package which will contain all the step by step instructions to get setup from home. This will allow Google to hire talent in places like Canada that would otherwise be unreachable and compensate them based on results on a long term basis. What you need: A Computer, an Internet Connection and the desire to make a living working from home. No special skills are required other than knowing how to use a computer and navigate the internet.  Mary, a mother from Toronto, who worked with Google in the experimental parts of this program, is thriving, in the middle of an economic recession, working in the comfort of her own home with Google. From her website: 'I get paid about $25 USD for every link I post on Google and I get paid every week... I make around $5500 USD a month right now' Google has now officially released their new 'work from home' system out to the public. There will be thousand of spots available that are expected to go very soon in the next few days.  The way this works is very simple, Google says.  First you will need to apply for their work from home kits. Google has release a limited amount of kits, all distributed through local websites in your area throughout US and Canada, which will cost $2 of shipping and handling to the public.  Google says this charge is made to cover shipping costs but also to separate the people that are serious about working with them through this program.  Once you have ordered your kit (if you are one of the lucky few to get availability in your area) then you will receive a package that will contain all the instructions you need to start working from home for the online titan. This kit will show you all you need to know, Google says. You will be performing simple and straightforward tasks such as posting links. 'Anybody with basic computer skills will be able to perform these tasks' adding to that they say that 'We understand the psychology of working from home and we want to give our employees tasks that are simple and easy, and reward them generously in order to keep them motivated.' Is this worth quitting your job? If you're lucky enough to receive a kit, you might not even have to.  'We start off our work from home program only requiring 1-2 hours a day of work, earning a great income from the start. This way our work from home employees will see the benefit and start devoting more and more time each day and their salaries will increase accordingly' Google reports. Although they are going very fast since their release earlier today, thousands of positions are still available at the time of this writing.  To apply for a job working from home for Google here are the three steps: Step 1: Get the Google Work From Home Kit, only pay the $2.95 for shipping. (The shipping cost allows Google to screen for serious people).  Step 2: Follow the directions on your package and set up a Google account. Then they will give you the website links to post. Start posting those links. Google tracks everything. Step 3: Google will send out your checks weekly. Or you can start to have them wire directly into your checking account. (Your first checks will be about $750 to $1,500 a week. Then it goes up from there. Depends on how many links you posted online.) Variations:  In December 2009 we began encountering a Yahoo version of the scam, which was the same as the Google scam discussed below, just with Yahoo's name inserted in place of Google's. Origins:  Those searching for employment opportunities that will allow them to work from home are all too often the very people who can least afford to be defrauded. Although many folks daydream about earning livable incomes from the comfort of their dens rather than having to make the trek to their offices each day, they do not as a general rule of thumb search for such job openings with the same fervor as do the elderly, the physically challenged, or parents committed to remaining at home with their preschool children. Members of those groups hunt for work-at-home opportunities because laboring in more traditional job settings is impossible for them. Because genuine offers of work of this nature are few and far between, with the need to secure a steady income becoming more of a pressing issue with each passing non-employed day, those folks are at far greater risk of being victimized by such schemes; their desperation leads them to be gulled by pie-in-the-sky promises and mollified by the wild backstories that go with them, while the financially better off  are more likely to remain convinced something is very wrong with the offer of mucho bucks in exchange for only a few hours'labor performed from home each week by persons possessed of no special training or skills. From 2009 onwards, a proliferation of seeming newspaper articles touting "Google Job Opportunities," "Google Money Master," "Easy Google Profit," "Google Cash Kit," "Google Fortune Kit," "Home Cash System," "Six Figure Program" and the like began popping up on the Internet. Such come-ons are typically emblazoned with "As seen on" taglines followed by an impressive array of logos, including those of ABC, AOL, CNN, MSNBC, and USA Today.Often these come-ons include what appear to be tearsheets from legitimate-looking publications, such as the New York Tribune and Los Angeles Tribune. As for the publications supposedly reporting these stories, while there was a New York Tribune long ago, in 1924 it merged with the New York Herald to form the New York Herald Tribune. (Even that newspaper is no longer around; it went out of business in 1967.) As for the ostensible Los Angeles Tribune, that paper is wholly fictional; it existed only in the television show Lou Grant. Web pages purporting to be personal reports of riches reaped through these programs have also popped up, such as the now defunctBryansMoneyBlog.com. They too were the same sort of come-on. While the promise of vast riches to be gained through working from home is held out to those seeking an answer to their financial problems, that promise is but the worm used to entice the fish into biting down on the hook. Those who sign up for such kits will not soon find themselves on Easy Street; instead, they will find their bank accounts tapped to the tune of approximately $80 a month. While prospective job seekers are told they need to pay a $2 charge for kits that supposedly contain the step-by-step instructions on how to begin working from home (often explained as Google's way of sifting the serious from non-serious candidates), a closer examination of the Terms and Conditions associated with the programs applicants are signing up for reveals they are instead authorizing monthly charges either to their bank accounts or credit cards, usually to the tune of about $80 a month. Those who attempt to cancel these charges find the task a difficult one, in that only rarely does anyone at the phone number supplied for that purpose actually come onto that line. Those still not convinced they haven't just found the answer to their prayers are invited to closely examine the various web page come-ons. Usually, buried at the bottom of the page in fine print is a statement to the effect that "Google is in no way associated with this website." Barbara "web slight of hand" Mikkelson How to Avoid Falling Victim to 'Work From Home' Scams: Don't pay a company to hire you, not even if such payment is presented as your buying necessary training materials, obtaining required certification, or registering with databases of available workers. Remember, if the process involves your sending your "employers" money, it's probably a scam.  If you have questions about the legitimacy of a job listing, contact your Better Business Bureau, your state or local consumer agency, or the Federal Trade Commission.   Examine your credit card and bank account statements every month, keeping an eye peeled for unauthorized charges. Immediately challenge items you did not approve. Additional information:        Suspicious sites and what to look for   (Google)        How to steer clear of money scams   (Official Google blog)   Last updated:  15 December 2009    Sources:   Buck, Claudia.  "Employment Work-at-Home Deals Often Are Just Scams."   The Houston Chronicle.  30 March 2009  (p. B8).     Turner, Tracy.  "Scammers Tweeting Their Way to Easy Prey."   The Columbus Dispatch.  12 July 2009  (p. D1).     Weeks, Carly.  "As the Economy Tanks, Scams Thrive."   The Globe and Mail.  9 March 2009  (p. L1). Claim:  Letter from a disabled veteran criticizes George Bush and Dick Cheney over the Iraq War. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2013] Was this letter really written by a dying veteran?  DYING VET'S 'F*CK YOU' LETTER TO GEORGE BUSH & DICK CHENEY NEEDS TO BE READ BY EVERY AMERICAN A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney From a Dying Veteran To: George W. Bush and Dick CheneyFrom: Tomas Young I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care. I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all  the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief. I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans  my fellow veterans  whose future you stole. [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  Tomas Young is a disabled veteran who enlisted in the military after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. in 2001 and was severely wounded in Iraq in 2004; he subsequently became an outspoken critic of the Iraq War and was featured in the 2007 documentary film Body of War: Body of War Mr. Young's travails began three days after the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The 22-year-old from Kansas City, Mo., was watching a speech on TV by President Bush who was atop the rubble at the World Trade Center. The president issued a rallying cry, saying, "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon." Motivated to help his country, Mr. Young enlisted in the Army and was sent to Iraq. After just five days, he was shot by a sniper while riding in an unarmored, open truck. A bullet tore through his spine and he was left permanently paralyzed from the chest down. Body of War follows Mr. Young's life after he returns home. Facing struggles with basic bodily functions and neglectful VA medical care that provided him with bottles of pills and limited rehabilitation services, he joined Iraq Veterans Against the War, and became a nationally recognized anti-war activist. With his fresh-faced good looks and upbeat humor, Mr. Young attracted a large following at protests and peace rallies, where Gold Star mothers who lost their sons in combat were comforted just to touch him. After a February 2013 screening of that film, Young told the audience via Skype that he planned to end his life in the near future: A screening of the documentary Body of War came to a startling conclusion when the films star told a stunned audience that he was going to end his life. Appearing with his wife Claudia via Skype on a large projection screen, Mr. Young spoke slowly and at times with difficulty. He said on April 20, the date of the couples first wedding anniversary, he intends to wean himself off food, stop taking life-extendingmedications, "and one day go away." He said he will continue to take medication for pain only. It was important, Mr. Young said, for him to be alert and aware when he died. "Its time," he said. His wife said she supported his decision because he "goes through the gauntlet" every day. "We have talked about where he is at and hes exhausted," she said. The audience was transfixed by Mr. Youngs announcement. Wilton actor Charles Grodin and others called Mr. Young "courageous" and "brave." Mr. Young was commended for taking control over the only part of his life he still had any control over. Others condemned the VA medical system for taking such poor care of returning soldiers, and the politicians who appeared to "rubber stamp" the Iraq War. In a March 2013 interview with Chris Hedges, Young provided more detail about his decision to end his life: interview I had been toying with the idea of suicide for a long time because I had become helpless. I couldn't dress myself. People have to help me with the most rudimentary of things. I decided I did not want to go through life like that anymore. The pain, the frustration ... I felt at the end of my rope. I made the decision to go on hospice care, to stop feeding and fade away. This way, instead of committing the conventional suicide and I am out of the picture, people have a way to stop by or call and say their goodbyes. I felt this was a fairer way to treat people than to just go out with a note. After the anoxic brain injury in 2008  I lost a lot of dexterity and strength in my upper body. So I wouldnt be able to shoot myself or even open the pill bottle to give myself an overdose. The only way I could think of doing it was to have Claudia open the pill bottle for me, but I didn't want her implicated. On 18 March 2013, in conjunction with the tenth anniversary of beginning of the Iraq War, Tomas Young  submitted a letter (referenced above) that was published on the truthdig web site.  Titled "The Last Letter" and subtitled "A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a Dying Veteran," the letter criticized the former president and vice president for sending "hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage." truthdig However, in December 2013, several months after penning "The Last Letter," Young told an NPR interviewer that he had changed his mind about his decision to end his life, saying: "I just came to the conclusion that I wanted some more time with my wife. And I decided that I really don't have the chutzpah to go ahead and do away with myself. If you're in life and you start to think things are a little too rough to handle, just think of me and what I go through, and you realize that hey, I don't have it so bad." Tomas Young passed away on 10 November 2014.  His mother attributed the cause of his death to "his body just wore out."    Last updated:  7 September 2015    Hedges, Chris.   "The Crucifixion of Tomas Young."   truthdig.  10 March 2013.    Martin, Douglas.   "Tomas Young, Army Veteran, Dies at 34."   The New York Times.  16 November 2014.    Morris, Frank.   "Injured Veteran Keeps Up His Fight, Deciding to Live."   NPR.  28 December 2013.    Szoldra, Paul.  "Injured Veteran Who Wrote Scathing 'Last Letter' to President Bush Decides to Live On."   Business Insider.  28 December 2013. Claim:  "Little History Lesson" article accurately explains origins of many common phrases.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2000] In George Washington's days, there were no cameras. One's image was either sculpted or painted. Some paintings of Washington showed him standing behind a desk with one arm behind his back while others showed both legs and both arms. Prices charged by painters were not based on how many people were to be painted, but by how many limbs were to be painted. Arms and legs are "limbs" therefore painting them would cost the buyer more. Hence the expression, "Okay, but it'll cost you an arm and a leg". As incredible as it sounds, we are informed that men and women took baths only twice a year! (May & October) Women always kept their hair covered while men shaved their heads (because of lice and bugs) and wore wigs.  Wealthy men could afford good wigs. The wigs couldn't be washed so to clean them, they would carve out a loaf of bread, put the wig in the shell and bake it for 30 minutes. The heat would make the wig big and fluffy, hence the term "big wig." Today we often use the term "here comes Mr. Big Wig" because someone appears to be or "is" powerful and wealthy. In the late 1700's many houses consisted of a large room with only one chair. Commonly, a long wide board was folded down from the wall and used for dining.  The "head of the household" always sat in the chair while everyone else ate sitting on the floor. Once in a while an invited guest would be offered to sit in this chair during a meal whom was almost always a man.  To sit in the chair meant you were important and in charge. Sitting in the chair, one was called the "chair man of the board." Today in business we use the expression/title "Chairman of the Board." Needless to say, personal hygiene left much room for improvement.  As a result, many women and men had developed acne scars by adulthood. The women would spread bee's wax over their facial skin to smooth out their complexions. When they were speaking to each other, if a woman began to stare at another woman's face she was told "mind your own bee's wax."   Should thewoman smile, the wax would crack, hence the term "crack a smile?"  Also, when they sat too close to the fire, the wax would melt and therefore the expression "losing face." Ladies wore corsets which would lace up in the front. A tightly tied lace was worn by a proper and dignified lady as in "straight laced." Common entertainment included playing cards. However, there was a tax levied when purchasing playing cards but only applicable to the "ace of spades." To avoid paying the tax, people would purchase 51 card instead. Yet, since most games require 52 cards, these people were thought to be stupid or dumb because they weren't "playing with a full deck." Early politicians required feedback from the public to determine what was considered important to the people. Since there were no telephones, TV's or radios, the politicians sent their assistants to local taverns, pubs and bars who were told to "go sip some ale" and listen to people's conversations and political concerns. Many assistants were dispatched at different times... "you go sip here" and "you go sip there". The two words "go sip" were eventually combined when referring to the local opinion and thus, we have the term "gossip." At local taverns, pubs and bars, people drank from pint and quart sized containers. A bar maid's job was to keep an eye on the customers and keep the drinks coming. She had to pay close attention and remember who was drinking in "pints" and who was drinking in "quarts." Hence the term "minding your "P's" and "Q's." Origins:  In 1999, a spurious missive purporting to explain the origins of a number of common phrases appeared on the Internet. That laughable compilation, titled "Life in the 1500s," was pulled together as someone's idea of a joke. 1500s In 2000, the pranksters went at it again with yet another specious list of purported word and phrase origins, this time dating it to the1700s. Typically titled "Little History Lesson," it offered the set of false etymologies listed in the Example section above. Below we analyze each entry in order: In George Washington's days, there were no cameras. One's image was either sculpted or painted. Some paintings of Washington showed him standing behind a desk with one arm behind his back while others showed both legs and both arms. Prices charged by painters were not based on how many people were to be painted, but by how many limbs were to be painted. Arms and legs are "limbs" therefore painting them would cost the buyer more. Hence the expression, "Okay, but it'll cost you an arm and a leg". While some portrait artists might have charged extra for the inclusion of additional details in commissioned works, we know of none that charged per limb displayed. (Most varied their fee by the size of the canvas requested.) The "costs an arm and a leg" saying instead first surfaced around the 1940s, with a meaning of "An exorbitant amount of money," and it likely developed from much older phrases wherein arms and legs were used as examples of extremely valuable items their possessors might be persuaded to surrender in exchange for things desired even more. "If it takes a leg" (used to express desperate determination) dates to 1872. Similarly, print sightings for "I'd give my right arm" (to be able to do something especially desired) go back as far as 1616. As incredible as it sounds, we are informed that men and women took baths only twice a year! (May & October) Women always kept their hair covered while men shaved their heads (because of lice and bugs) and wore wigs.  Wealthy men could afford good wigs. The wigs couldn't be washed so to clean them, they would carve out a loaf of bread, put the wig in the shell and bake it for 30 minutes. The heat would make the wig big and fluffy, hence the term "big wig." Today we often use the term "here comes Mr. Big Wig" because someone appears to be or "is" powerful and wealthy. Full immersion bathing didn't become the norm for a very long time because it took a fair bit of work to haul the amount of water and wood needed to fill and heat a bath. However, that folks weren't routinely taking what we would consider proper baths doesn't mean that they didn't regularly clean themselves. Cleaning one's body was a matter of taking what we would regard as "sponge baths": wetting oneself down with a damp cloth, followed by scrubbing the body with a soapy cloth,  rinsing with a wet cloth, and finishing off with a toweling dry. Even in the 1700s in locales and social strata where the wearing of wigs was common, these headcoverings were indeed washed (albeit carefully); they were not inserted into loaves of bread and baked. (One has to wonder about an explanation that posits folks who were afraid they'd damage expensive goods by washing them would happily risk incinerating them.) Print sightings of "big wig" and "big wigged" date to 1781 and 1778 respectively, with the term's always having referred to someone regarded as societally prominent by virtue of wealth, position, or power. While the term does find its origin in the rather impressive wigs sported by the upper crust, said wigs were deliberately constructed to be large and imposing; they didn't get that way from having been baked in bread to kill lice. In the late 1700's many houses consisted of a large room with only one chair. Commonly, a long wide board was folded down from the wall and used for dining. The "head of the household" always sat in the chair while everyone else ate sitting on the floor. Once in a while an invited guest would be offered to sit in this chair during a meal whom was almost always a man.  To sit in the chair meant you were important and in charge. Sitting in the chair, one was called the "chair man of the board." Today in business we use the expression/title "Chairman of the Board." People have been eating off tables of various forms for about as long as humans have been recording history. We're wholly unaware of any society wherein a board hinged to the wall was let down at dinnertime so that folks seated on the floor in front of it could eat from it. The "board" in "chairman of the board" refers to a board of directors, generally a group of successful businessmen appointed to oversee the running of a corporation. The word "chairman" dates to 1654 and refers to the occupier of a chair of authority. Needless to say, personal hygiene left much room for improvement.  As a result, many women and men had developed acne scars by adulthood. The women would spread bee's wax over their facial skin to smooth out their complexions. When they were speaking to each other, if a woman began to stare at another woman's face she was told "mind your own bee's wax."  Should thewoman smile, the wax would crack, hence the term "crack a smile?"  Also, when they sat too close to the fire, the wax would melt and therefore the expression "losing face." While throughout history women have used odd (and sometimes dangerous) substances on themselves in pursuit of beauty, we're unaware that at any point they were coating their visages with wax.  "Mind your own beeswax," a phrase first noted in 1934, is no more than a cutesy way of saying "Mind your own business," with "beeswax" used as an ear-pleasing substitute for the more staid "business." The saying it's based upon, "To mind one's business," dates to 1660 and means to tend to one's own concerns in preference of involving oneself in the doings of others. One "cracks a smile" in the same way that one cracks a joke or a boast; there is no physical crevice made in anything, let alone the fictional wax masks women were supposedly parading about in. Sightings of "crack" used in the sense of uttering something loudly and with flair date to 1315, with "crack a boast" to 1386. The linguistic concept of "losing face" (or saving it) didn't enter the English language prior to contact between British traders and the Chinese and was first noted in 1834. The "face" the Chinese were so concerned about wasn't an anatomical one but rather the publicized image of oneself, in the sense of the "face" one displays to the world at large. Two Chinese words, one meaning "moral character," the other "social prestige," were each translated into English as "face," with "to lose face" meaning to have damage done to one's reputation or to be publicly embarrassed.  Ladies wore corsets which would lace up in the front. A tightly tied lace was worn by a proper and dignified lady as in "straight laced." "Strait-laced" does derive from the tying of corsets, but the proposed etymology given in the article has it backwards: The term's origin has to do with the tightness of the lacing and the consequent constriction of such garments, as opposed to the moral character of the persons wearing these underpinnings. (One needs to remember that a multitude of men and women, from the wholly proper and dignified right down to the entirely disreputable, wore corsets.) "Strait" came into the English language from the Latin verb "stringere," which means "to strain; draw tight." Other "strait" words we're familiar with, such as Straits of Gibraltar and strait-jacket, likewise employ its narrowing or restraining elements. "Strait-laced" was first spotted in 1430, and while at that time it did have to do with the tightness of corsets, by the 1540s the term had expanded to encompass things that were narrow in range or scope or people that were uncommunicative (i.e., kept a great deal of themselves in). By the 1550s, it was used to describe folks who were excessively rigid or scrupulous in matters of conduct. Common entertainment included playing cards. However, there was a tax levied when purchasing playing cards but only applicable to the "ace of spades." To avoid paying the tax, people would purchase 51 card instead. Yet, since most games require 52 cards, these people were thought to be stupid or dumb because they weren't "playing with a full deck." Taxes were levied on playing cards in England at various times in its history, with the earliest instance occurring in 1588. However, when this tax was in force, the basic duty was applied to each deck, not just a specific card within it. Once the tax had been paid, one card from the now-taxed deck was stamped with a special seal to show that the duty had been properly rendered. Over time, that card came to be the ace of spades (most likely because it's the one on the end of the deck). "Not playing with a full deck" is simply one of countless sayings of the same ilk as "two bricks shy of a load" or "a couple of French fries short of a Happy Meal"; a phrase indicating that the person referred to lacks ordinary intellectual capacity. Early politicians required feedback from the public to determine what was considered important to the people. Since there were no telephones, TV's or radios, the politicians sent their assistants to local taverns, pubs and bars who were told to "go sip some ale" and listen to people's conversations and political concerns. Many assistants were dispatched at different times... "you go sip here" and "you go sip there". The two words "go sip" were eventually combined when referring to the local opinion and thus, we have the term "gossip." "Gossip" descends from "God sib," an ancient term (1014) for godparent or sponsor. (A christening ceremony was a "gossiping.") Along the way to its current meaning, "gossip" picked up the additional meaning of "chum" or "friend." One of the activities folks engage in with their friends is chewing over the events of the day, and over time the word "gossip" shifted away from the person chatted with to the activity itself, as well as coming to attach to people overly fond of discussing the doings of others. At local taverns, pubs and bars, people drank from pint and quart sized containers. A bar maid's job was to keep an eye on the customers and keep the drinks coming. She had to pay close attention and remember who was drinking in "pints" and who was drinking in "quarts." Hence the term "minding your "P's" and "Q's." In an nutshell (with the non-nutshell version to be found here), while the definitive origin of this phrase has yet to surface, ones that most certainly can be ruled out are the "pints and quarts served in a bar" explanations. The first print sighting of the saying dates to 1756 (or even earlier if we accept a 1602 sighting of a variant of the phrase), which means it long predates the selling of beer in pints and quarts. here While the "Little History Lesson" e-mail has remained surprisingly static across its decade-plus existence, one additional item about freezing the balls off a brass monkey has come to be added to it.  One more: bet you didn't know this! In the heyday of sailing ships, all war ships and many freighters carried iron cannons. Those cannons fired round iron cannon balls. It was necessary to keep a good supply near the cannon. However, how to prevent them from rolling about the deck? The best storage method devised was a square-based pyramid with one ball on top, resting on four resting on nine, which rested on sixteen. Thus, a supply of 30 cannon balls could be stacked in a small area right next to the cannon. There was only one problem... how to prevent the bottom layer from sliding or rolling from under the others. The solution was a metal plate called a "Monkey" with 16 round indentations. However, if this plate were made of iron, the iron balls would quickly rust to it. The solution to the rusting problem was to make "Brass Monkeys." Few land lubbers realize that brass contracts much more and much faster than iron when chilled. Consequently, when the temperature dropped too far, the brass indentations would shrink so much that the iron cannonballs would come right off the monkey. Thus, it was quite literally, "Cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey." (All this time, youthought that was an improper expression, didn't you.) That writeup first appeared on the Internet in September 2002 as a stand-alone item. By March 2004 it began showing up as the completing entry in the "Little History Lesson" mailing. In a further nutshell, (with the non-nutshell version offered here), while the etymology of this pronouncement is still up in the air, the "cannonballs" explanation should be dismissed because  when the saying started appearing in print in the mid-19th century, various body parts (ears, tail, nose, or whiskers) were said to be about to fall off a brass monkey thanks to the cold. here Barbara "frozen assets" Mikkelson Last updated:  1 November 2010    Lighter, J.E.  Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang.   New York: Random House, 1997.  IBSN 0-679-43464-X. Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang    The Compact Oxford English Dictionary.   Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.  ISBN 0-19-861258-3. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary Claim:  Someone who cheats at cards is properly styled a card shark, not a card sharp. Status:  Multiple  see below. Origins:  Long has the debate raged over whether a card cheat is properly termed a card sharp or a card shark. Sharks, after all, are known for dispassionately rending the flesh of their prey, which would seem in this linguistic battle to favor the card shark camp, since those who manipulate the pasteboards for the purpose of bilking others have no more conscience or concern for their victims than do their finned counterparts.   Yet card sharp also has in its favor that it seems to conjure up mental images of the poker cheats of the Old West, sharp-featured men with cards up their sleeves. Which, therefore, is it? Both terms still mean someone skilled in cheating at cards, although in recent years card shark has also come to acquire the less odious definition of someone skilled at the play of cards. (Were that not so, one would have to wonder at the naming of the 1978 TV game show Card Sharks, on which  contestants tried to guess whether the next card in a sequence was higher or lower than its predecessor.) As to whether card sharp or card shark entered the English language first, the answer is far from straightforward. A print sighting of card sharp dates to 1884 and one of card sharper to 1859, while the first print sighting of card shark takes us back only to 1942  evidence which  would seem to settle matters. However, both sharper and shark (in the sense of one who cheats) antedate all of the above, sharper to 1681 and shark to 1599, evidence which could be seen as giving the nod to shark. (By the way, the "shark" in question has nothing to do with carnivorous fish; it instead likely entered the English language via the German schurke, a word that in the 16th century had the meaning of a cheat or  swindler.)  If you thought the answer might be found via looking at the words sharp and shark absent the word card, that pursuit also leads down a blind alley, because some definitions of both those words contain elements of cheating or connivance. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a sharp as "A worthless and impecunious person who gains a precarious living by sponging on others, by executing disreputable commissions, cheating at play, and petty swindling; a parasite; a sharper." While that use of the word is rarely encountered these days, remnants of it are still with us, such as when we accuse someone of engaging in "sharp practices" (meaning the cutting of corners to achieve desired ends  while the person so engaged may be staying within the strict letter of the law, his behavior could still be regarded as unethical and suspect). As for the word shark, in addition to encompassing the species of flesh-eating fish it identifies, it has over time come to serve as a label for certain dislikable characters: those who prey greedily upon others (such as successful businesspeople famous more for their love of profit than for adherence to ethics) and those who by virtue of superior skill outmaneuver less capable opponents (highly effective divorce attorneys, for instance). Common compound nouns have been formed from 'shark' that address both meanings, such as loan shark in the "prey greedily" category and pool shark in the "superior skill" category. Barbara "all sharks, finned or otherwise, are best avoided" Mikkelson Last updated:  13 June 2008    Sources:   The Compact Oxford English Dictionary.   Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.  ISBN 0-19-861258-3. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary In December 2020, an online advertisement displayed a picture of an Olive Garden Italian Restaurant sign along with text that read: "Closing Time: Here's All The Restaurant Chains Closing in 2020."   This advertisement was misleading. Olive Garden is not closing all of its restaurants. Readers who clicked the advertisement were led to a 50-page story on the website Money Pop. 50-page story While the advertisement promised a list of restaurant chains that would be closing in 2020, the headline on the actual story was different: "These Popular Restaurant Chains Are Losing Money Fast." headline The story mentioned Olive Garden, but it only mentioned that two locations had closed in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Birmingham, Alabama, in March and April, respectively. Springfield, Massachusetts Birmingham, Alabama Olive Garden did not go out of business in 2020, but that's not to say it hadn't faced financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. The coronavirus had led to the closure of dine-in services at thousands of different restaurants across the United States. This meant less revenue, which resulted in lost jobs. In many cases, restaurants closed. lost jobs restaurants closed On June 22, 2020, Nation's Restaurant News reported that National Restaurant Association President and CEO Tom Ben said the restaurant industry had faced "catastrophic losses." reported Darden Restaurants owns the Olive Garden brand, as well as LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze, and Eddie V's. On Dec. 9, 2020, InvestorPlace.com reported that Darden had managed to survive the pandemic thus far, but it also asked: "What's next for Darden Restaurants?" reported The bull case is built on a bear case regarding other restaurants. Without government help, small operators are closing by the score. This means chains like Darden may be all thats left when people again feel safe to eat out. Darden has managed to make money at Olive Garden while closing half its tables. It reinstated the dividend and paid back its $270 million emergency loan. Once the pandemic is over, Cramer predicts, fast-casual chains like Olive Garden will be the height of fine dining. the height of fine dining. Darden is expected to report earnings Dec. 18, for the quarter ending in November. The estimate is for 72 cents per share of net income on $1.7 billion of sales. That would beat last years profit on 17% less revenue. on $1.7 billion of sales on 17% less revenue The Money Pop story also mentioned The Cheesecake Factory on its list. We previously covered that rumor as well. previously covered 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 Claim:  An employer issued a missive to his employees stating that any additional taxes on his business would result in his shutting the company down. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc. Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business  hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden  the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough.  I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child'sfuture. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy stupid" I'm telling you it isn't. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about. Signed,Your boss  Origins:  In the ramp-up towards the 2008 Presidential election and in its wake, a number of anonymous "Here's how you, the ones who voted for him, will directly suffer from a Barack Obama presidency" missives landed in inboxes everywhere. One such was putatively from a hard-working and generous grandfather telling his beloved liberal granddaughter that her support for Obama meant Grandpa was no longer going to be in a position to help her financially. Another was supposedly penned by CEO to his 140 employees informing them that thanks to the new taxes now surely headed his way, he'd have to lay off a few of them, so he was starting with those whose cars sported Obama bumper stickers." lay off The "To All My Valued Employees" letter quoted above is another of such ilk. In it, a boss threatens to shut down his company (thus wiping out the livelihoods of the 14 people who work there) if any more taxes are levied upon him, an outcome he views a virtual  certainty under an Obama presidency.  The piece is perhaps best viewed as an attempt to put into real-world terms the possible consequences to average folks if business is interfered with to the point of no longer being able to operate rather than as an actual letter sent by a real boss to his employees.  Although our earliest sighting of this item dates to 3 November 2008, textual clues within the missive (such as"Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best" and "So, when you make decision to vote") indicate it was likely penned sooner than just the day before the 2008 presidential election. The original author of this piece is unknown to us. While some versions are merely signed "Your Boss," others are attributed to Michael A. Crowley of Wake Forest, North Carolina, via inclusion of his signature block at the end of the piece. Crowley himself denies authorship, saying: In reference to the "To all my valued employees" letter currently circulating the internet:  This letter was forwarded to me by a colleague. While the letter may indeed be authentic, I was not the author and I do not know the identity of the original author. I forwarded it to the "John McCain Joe the Plumbers" email group prior to the election. Someone moved my contact information into the body of the message making it appear that I was the author of the letter. I would appreciate your removing my contact information prior to forwarding this message.  Michael A. Crowley, PE While sometimes people looking to distance themselves from soapbox pieces they've penned subsequently claim they found such contentious items elsewhere on the Internet and merely forwarded them to others, that is not the case here. More than just Crowley's own words of denial support his claim of non-authorship, with the key to that proof lying in the very signature block that has worked to convince so many of his being the real "boss" behind the letter. That signature block identifies his firm as Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc., a now defunct business entity that (according to North Carolina's Secretary of State) was formed in May 2007.  The missive so widely laid at Crowley's feet states "I started this company 12 years ago." Twelve years prior to 2008 was 1996. (His current firm, Crowley & Associates, Inc., was formed in October 2000.) Were Crowley the actual author, that line about when he began his company would have read "last year" or "8 years ago."  The response to the missive falsely attributed to him prompted Michael Crowley to pen his own letter on the plight of the small business owner, which can be read here. here In October 2012, David Siegel, the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, sent a modified version of this letter to all of his employees. He based his missive on that much-circulated 2008 piece, saying of his offering: "I did use the letter that had circulated before as a guideline, but I changed it [to fit my circumstances]. It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls."  sent Last updated:  9 October 2012 In mid-March 2018, readers began to ask whether it was true that Toys R Us locations had stopped accepting gift cards as a form of payment as of 11 March 2018: is it true toy retailer, Toys R Us is no longer accepting gift cards after 3/11/18? Many linked to a 10 March 2018 Scotsman.com article about a similar situation, but it focused on Toys R Us locations specifically in the United Kingdom: article Toys R Us have said on their website: Gift cards and vouchers will be honoured until Sunday, 11 March [2018]. There are no refunds for cash value on any gift cards. But customers are encouraged to redeem such vouchers as soon as possible as stores may be subject to closure without notice. News about UK-based locations proved confusing to some readers, and the gift card announcement coincided with matters related to Toys R Us' fiscal solvency in the United States. A post shared to shopping site SlickDeals in March 2018 posited that those in possession of Toys R Us gift cards ought to use them sooner rather than later: locations posited Multiple reports are out there that TRU is going into liquidation bankruptcy next week. If you have gift cards, they'll be trash the moment they announce, most likely. Use those cards this weekend if you don't want them to be worthless. Hold onto receipts if they manage to avoid liquidation, you can just return the items if you didn't have anything much you wanted right now. If not, at least you got something for your paper. Also remember to check your rewards total and use those points/certificates as well! The post referenced a 9 March 2018 CNNMoney article about the closure of UK-based Toys R Us locations, and the state of the retailer's finances in the United States.  article On 13 March 2018, CNBC cited reports of a liquidation plan in progress: cited Toys R Us, the iconic U.S. retailer, is in the process of drafting the court motion for its liquidation plan, a source familiar with the situation told CNBC on [13 March 2018]. The retailer could file as soon as the end of [14 March 2018], making the motion official. It will then begin to wind down the storied toy retailer, after more than half a century in business. A liquidation will most likely result in the closing of all of Toys R Us' 800 stores in the U.S. As of midday on 14 March 2018 the web site ToysRUs.com still accepted gift cards as payment, and the site offered customers the option of purchasing physical or virtual versions at checkout: purchasing   Although articles speculated that Toys R Us gift cards might soon become worthless in the United States, and UK outlets have stopped accepting them, no definitive information about their future is yet available. speculated In response to our inquiry, a representative for Toys R Us replied: Thanks for asking! Please know that we are not going out of business, but we are making changes to the number of stores we have. In the meantime, our stores are operating as usual and you can also continue to shop online at https://www.toysrus.com and https://www.babiesrus.com. Additionally, our customer registry, credit, warranty and loyalty programs will continue as normal. We will also continue to sell and accept gift cards as always. On 15 March 2018, a representative for Toys R Us said the chain planned to honor gift cards for a 30-day period. However, the Better Business Bureau advised consumers to use the cards "sooner rather than later."  said Bomey, Nathan.  "Toys 'R' Us Gift Cards Are Good For The Next 30 Days."
  USA Today.  15 March 2018. Goldman, David.  "Toys 'R' Us To Close All Of Its UK Stores."
  CNNMoney.  14 March 2018. Hirsch, Lauren.  "Toys R Us Prepares Plan To Liquidate Its Business."
  CNBC.  13 March 2018. Jackson, Russell.  "Toys R Us Gift Cards No Longer Being Accepted In Stores."
  The Scotsman.  10 March 2018, LaMonica, Paul.  "Toys 'R' Us Could Go Out Of Business. That's Bad News For Lego And Barbie."
  CNNMoney.  9 March 2018, Peterson, Hayley.  "Toys R Us Gift Cards Could Be Useless In A Matter Of Weeks."
  Business Insider.  13 March 2018, ToysRUs.com.  "Gift Cards."
  Accessed 14 March 2018. Updated 15 March 2018, 9:46 A.M.: Added a statement from a Toys R Us representative. Updated 16 March 2018, 1:39 P.M.: Added confirmation of 30-day expiry made by company representative.