No, 'Dog the Bounty Hunter' has not passed away.
In late 2019, readers asked us about blog posts that were widely shared on social media and falsely claimed that the reality television star Duane Chapman, known as "Dog the Bounty Hunter," had died either by suicide or from a pulmonary embolism.  Those reports were false. Beginning on Nov. 20, admirers of Chapman and his late wife, Beth, who died in June after herself being the subject of death hoaxes, began posting tributes to him and sharing one of two blog posts.  hoaxes The first purported to be hosted by a website with the domain name whatnow.actual-events.com, but when internet users clicked on the story on social media, they were redirected to the domain newspanel.suzeraincollections.com. There, the story carried the headline "Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Pulmonary Embolism. He Didn't Survive His Second Attack. He Was 66 -- WGN."  first   The highly dubious website falsely attributed the claim about Chapman's death to WGN America, a real U.S. television network that broadcast the Chapmans' most recent reality show "Dog's Most Wanted." The hoax article also misleadingly used WGN America's logo in a sharebait video that purported to be a television news report about Chapman's death, but that paused after a few seconds and required users to share the article on social media in order to continue watching:   In reality, WGN America had no connection to the story and did not report on Chapman's death in November 2019, because Chapman did not die in November 2019. The specific claim that Chapman had died from a pulmonary embolism (a blocked artery in the lungs) was rather insidious. At first glance, it appeared especially plausible to many fans of the television star because he was in fact diagnosed with that very problem in September 2019. diagnosed The second blog post shared by social media users was even more distasteful than the first. It falsely and misleadingly used the logo of BBC News, a highly reputable and widely trusted information source, to report that Chapman had taken his own life.  In this instance, social media users shared an article that appeared to be hosted on the domain bbc-newsroom.actualeventstv.com, but which redirected to news-room.easystepsdiy.info. On social media, the post carried the headline "Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Suicide After Depression Attack on His Sickness -- BBC News" but when users redirected to the source, the article's headline proclaimed: shared proclaimed "Breaking: (Actual Suicide Video) Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Suicide After Depression Attack on His Sickness -- BBC News." Despite the extremely distasteful claim that the video in the article contained footage of Chapman's suicide, it contained nothing of the sort and, just as in the first article, the video stopped after a second or two and required viewers to share the post on social media in order to continue watching.     The claim that Chapman had taken his own life was, like the claim he had died of a pulmonary embolism, particularly insidious. In the season finale of "Dog's Most Wanted," broadcast by WGN America on Nov. 6, Chapman spoke about the recent death of his wife from cancer, and the considerable difficulty he was experiencing in coping with her loss.  At one moment in the episode, he reportedly discussed how he had contemplated taking his own life, such was his grief. People magazine quoted Chapman as saying: People "I just hope that I dont live very much longer without her, because now she made the first step, shes through the gate," he added. She paved a way for me. I want to take a [god damn] pain pill so bad. I feel like if I did something to myself right now and passed away suicidal and I got to heaven and was like, Hi honey, and would she go, You [dumb ass], why would you do that? Or would she go, Wow, youre here. Ill be like Of course Im here. You left me. Im here. So, am I obligated to do that?  Because of that widely reported revelation, a report that Chapman had died by suicide would have appeared somewhat plausible to many readers.  The dubious nature of the websites involved, and the absence of any corroborating evidence or reports by actual news organizations, meant that some readers would have immediately recognized the stories as hoaxes. However, a significant number were taken in by them, and shared them on social media, to the extent that Chapman himself intervened. He provided the gossip website TMZ a photograph of himself holding the Nov. 19 edition of the Denver Post, and a handwritten sign that read "I'm alive!" Chapman then posted a screenshot of that article to his own Instagram page the next day. photograph Instagram If you need help, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-8255. Or contact Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741. Kasprak, Alex. "Outdated: Beth Chapman Death Hoax."
 Snopes.com. 22 April 2019. Lee, Ashley. "Dog the Bounty Hunter Reveals Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis."
 The Los Angeles Times. 28 September 2019. Dugan, Christina. "Dog the Bounty Hunter Contemplates Suicide After Wife Beth's Death on 'Dog's Most Wanted' Finale."
 People. 6 November 2019. TMZ. "Dog the Bounty Hunter: Nope, He's Not Dead...Look, I'm Alive!"
 20 November 2019.
On 10 November 2016, journalist Dan Arel published a tweet claiming Donald Trump had won the state of Wisconsin by 27,000 votes, adding that 300,000 Wisconsin voters were "turned away" by the state's voter identification laws: Trump won Wisconsin by 27,000 votes. 300,000 voters were turned away by the states strict Voter ID law. There is your "rigged" election.  Dan Arel (@danarel) November 10, 2016 November 10, 2016 Many social media users sought citations for both claims (one involving the margin of Trump's Wisconsin victory, and the other the number of voters purportedly turned away). As of 14 November 2016, Trump's votes in Wisconsin were tallied at 1,409,427 to Hillary Clinton's 1,382,210 (a margin of 27,257 votes):  margin  That figure made it into a New York Times article about voter identification laws and their effects on voting outcomes, but the far more attention-grabbing 300,000 voters being denied at the polls part did not. When asked about a source for those numbers, Arel tweeted:  article @SpartaDTD Not sure if I replied to you or not yet. https://t.co/O6gCIiD82W  Dan Arel (@danarel) November 10, 2016 @SpartaDTD https://t.co/O6gCIiD82W November 10, 2016 2nd paragraph. 3000,000 voters lacked the necessary ID. You read like you vote. https://t.co/qlBNsXpOOX https://t.co/qlBNsXpOOX  Dan Arel (@danarel) November 10, 2016 November 10, 2016  The article Arel cited claimed that: claimed Well likely never know how many people were kept from the polls by restrictions like voter-ID laws, cuts to early voting, and barriers to voter registration. But at the very least this should have been a question that many more people were looking into. For example, 27,000 votes currently separate Trump and Clinton in Wisconsin, where 300,000 registered voters, according to a federal court, lacked strict forms of voter ID. Voter turnout in Wisconsin was at its lowest levels in 20 years and decreased 13 percent in Milwaukee, where 70 percent of the states African-American population lives, according to Daniel Nichanian of the University of Chicago. I documented stories of voters in Wisconsinincluding a 99-year-old manwho made two trips to the polls and one to the DMV on Election Day just to be able to vote, while others decided not to vote at all because they were denied IDs.  The piece in turn linked to a 29 September 2016 article on the same web site about the difficulty of obtaining voter identification in the state of Wisconsin, but nowhere in that article did the 300,000 number appear. A second link led to a 29 April 2014 Wisconsin court ruling against voter ID laws: article court ruling For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that the named Defendants and Defendants officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all those acting in concert or participation with them, or having actual or implicit knowledge of this Order by personal service or otherwise, are hereby permanently enjoined from conditioning a persons access to a ballot, either in-person or absentee, on that persons presenting a form of photo identification. A section of that ruling gauged that roughly 300,000 registered voters in Wisconsin did not possess sufficient identification to vote at the time that the ruling was issued in April 2014, but it did not suggest that all 300,000 had tried and failed to vote at any point: section In light of the fact that a substantial number of the 300,000 plus voters who lack an ID are low income, Act 23's burdens must be assessed with reference to them rather than with reference to a typical middle- or upper-class voter. Although the latter voter may have little trouble obtaining an ID, he or she is not the type of voter who will need to obtain one in order to comply with Act 23. Thus, in the discussion that follows, I identify the burdens associated with obtaining a qualifying photo ID and explain how they will impact low-income voters. Given the obstacles identified above, it is likely that a substantial number of the 300,000 plus voters who lack a qualifying ID will be deterred from voting. Although not every voter will face all of these obstacles, many voters will face some of them, particularly those who are low income. And the evidence at trial showed that even small obstacles will be enough to deter many individuals who lack an ID from voting.  The courts found not that 300,000 people were actively "turned away" as of April 2014, but rather that that number of registered voters possibly faced what the court deemed to be undue burdens obtaining the necessary identification to vote:  There is no way to determine exactly how many people Act 23 will prevent or deter from voting without considering the individual circumstances of each of the 300,000 plus citizens who lack an ID. But no matter how imprecise my estimate may be, it is absolutely clear that Act23 will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes. On 26 October 2016, the New York Times provided updated information about voter ID laws in Wisconsin. Although some barriers to voting remain, the paper found many of the controversial provisions had been overturned: about It seemed a clear victory for voting rights advocates in July when a federal court invalidated much of Wisconsins restrictive elections law, concluding that it discriminated against minorities by requiring voters to produce photo identification cards that blacks and Latinos too often lack. The remedy was straightforward: Henceforth, the state was to promptly issue a credential valid as a voting ID to any person who applied for one. But this month when Treasure Collins visited one of the Wisconsin motor vehicle offices that issue IDs, she found something entirely different. I brought everything my mom told me I would need: my school ID, a copy of my birth certificate, my Social Security number, said Ms. Collins, 18. But they told me I needed an original copy of my birth certificate. An original copy, all the way from Illinois. While Donald J. Trump repeatedly claims that the election is rigged against him, voting rights groups are increasingly battling something more concrete in this years ferocious wars over access to the ballot box: Despite a string of court victories against restrictive voting laws passed by Republican legislatures, even when voting rights groups win in court, they are at risk of losing on the ground. The 300,000 figure originated with a court's estimate of how many voters were potentially impacted by a voter ID law as it stood in April 2014, but by October 2016, changes had been made to that law. Moreover, even if the 300,000 figure was an accurate estimate of Wisconsin residents who back in 2014 possibly could not vote because they did not have the correct identification, that number was not a head count of residents who actually did (or would have) set out to vote on 8 November 2016 only to be turned away. Berman, Ari.  "The GOPs Attack on Voting Rights Was the Most Under-Covered Story of 2016."
  The Nation.  9 November 2016. Berman, Ari.  "Wisconsin Is Systematically Failing to Provide the Photo Ids Required to Vote in November."
  The Nation.  29 September 2016. Bialik, Carl.  "Voter Turnout Fell, Especially in States That Clinton Won."
  FiveThirtyEight.  11 November 2016. Wallace, Gregory and Robert Yoon.  "Voter Turnout at 20-Year Low in 2016."
  CNN.  12 November 2016. Wines, Michael.  "After a Fraught Election, Questions Over the Impact of a Balky Voting Process."
  The New York Times.  12 November 2016. Wines, Michael.  "As ID Laws Fall, Voters See New Barriers Rise."
  The New York Times.  25 October 2016. United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin.  "Frank v. Walker."
  29 April 2014. Wisconsin State Legislature.  "2011 Wisconsin Act 23."
  25 May 2011. In early March 2021, Snopes readers asked about screenshots of what appeared to be a scam circulating on the payment platform Venmo. The alleged scam shows a Venmo user sending $600 to another user and then requesting it back, claiming to have sent it to the wrong person:   Although we don't know the intentions of the Venmo user involved in the above exchange (and we cropped the person's name out for privacy reasons), sending money to strangers and then requesting it back is a known type of scam on Venmo. known The Dayton Daily News, a Dayton, Ohio-based daily newspaper, described how the scam works: Even Venmo is aware of these scams and puts a warning on its website that Venmo is designed for payments between people who trust each other because there is no protection for the buyer or seller. Therefore, its important you dont accept or give money to strangers who could potentially be scammers. For example, scammers connect stolen credit cards to Venmo and use them to transfer money to unsuspecting users. If you send the money back to the scammer, he or she will delete the stolen credit card from the account and add his or her own card in its place. Others send screenshots of fake emails that make it seem like theyve paid you through the app, when they actually havent.  The Better Business Bureau (BBB) also warns against this type of scam, in which a cash app user "accidentally" sends a stranger a payment and then requests that they send it back. The BBB advises that if you are targeted in an exchange like this, don't send the money back. Instead, ask the other person to simply cancel the transaction. warns against "The sender can request that the vendor cancel the transaction. If the person refuses, its probably a scam," the BBB states. The BBB also encourages cash app users to check their security settings and to link their accounts to credit cards instead of debit cards or bank accounts because, in the event that you are scammed, it's easier to recoup the money if you charged it to a credit card. Claim:  Essay compares education and career experience of government officials and celebrities.  Status:  Undetermined. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like "stupid," "morons," and "idiots." Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American.  So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid," "ignorant," "moronic" leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:  President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic reelection victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998, winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other that Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo.  Vice President Dick Cheney earned a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966, both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes to Capitol Hill to meet with Senators and members of the House of Representatives to work on the Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America.  Secretary of State Colin Powell was educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country.  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: attended Princeton University on Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59; U.S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was raised in a working class family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U.S. House, and was overwhelmingly reelected six times.  National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981.  (Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in Political Science.)  She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender  Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. She resides in Washington, D.C.  So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also have all the facts on their educations and background:  Barbra Streisand: Completed high schoolCareer: Singing and acting  Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade.Career: Singing and acting  Martin Sheen: Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton.Career: Acting  Jessica Lange: Dropped out college mid-freshman year.Career: Acting  Alec Baldwin: Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandalCareer: Acting  Julia Roberts: Completed high schoolCareer: Acting  Sean Penn: Completed High schoolCareer: Acting  Susan Sarandon: Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.Career: Acting  Ed Asner: Completed High schoolCareer: Acting  George Clooney: Dropped out of University of KentuckyCareer: Acting  Michael Moore: Dropped out first year University of Michigan.Career: Movie Director  Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High SchoolCareer: Acting  Jennifer Anniston: Completed High SchoolCareer: Acting  Mike Farrell: Completed High schoolCareer: Acting  Janeane Garofelo: Dropped out of College.Career: Stand up comedienne  Larry Hagman: Attended Bard College for one year.Career: Acting  While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders.  These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed by freedom-hating terrorists while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, God-fearing Republican sits in the White House.  Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE, FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons, in order to promote world peace. It is curious that now, even after we have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical, biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave him alone in his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even though it is certain that these deadly weapons will eventually be used against us in our own cities.  So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also determine the course of our Nation? That they can make viable decisions concerning war and peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing of the Nation when he recently thanked France, on our behalf, for being a "good enough friend to tell us we were wrong"? I know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from war? Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in more money per year than the average American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him clout?  The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!  It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation remains strong. We must make certain that those who would destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall them.  Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real. We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F. Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH. Origins:  Thefactual information presented here is not difficult to verify, as biographies detailing the educational and professional qualifications of our high-ranking government officials are readily available from a number of on-line sources:  President George W. Bush President George W. Bush  Vice-President Dick Cheney Vice-President Dick Cheney  Secretary of State Colin Powell Secretary of State Colin Powell  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld  Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge  National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice  National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice  Verifying the educational accomplishments of film stars is less easy:  Barbra Streisand had already embarked on a show business career by the time she was a teenager and did not attend college. Barbra Streisand  Cher left home at age sixteen to pursue an acting career and did not finish high school. Cher Martin Sheen did fail his college entrance exam for the University of Dayton but maintains that he did so on purpose so that he could pursue an acting career over the objections of his disapproving father. Martin Sheen Jessica Lange studied art at the University of Minnesota but left school before the completion of her freshman year. Jessica Lange Alec Baldwin spent three years studying political science at George Washington University before switching to New York University's drama department to pursue an acting career, and he eventually returned to NYU and received a BFA degree in Drama in 1993.   (Could not find any information about a "scandal" prompting his departure from George Washington University.) Alec Baldwin Julia Roberts moved to New York after finishing high school to pursue an acting career and did not attend college. Julia Roberts Sean Penn joined the Los Angeles Repertory Theater after finishing high school and did not attend college. Sean Penn Susan Sarandon graduated from Catholic University in Washington, DC, with a degree in Drama. Susan Sarandon Ed Asner enrolled at the University of Chicago, but his education was interrupted by an Army hitch; after his discharge he embarked on an acting career and did not return to college to complete a degree. Ed Asner George Clooney studied Broadcast Journalism at Northern Kentucky University but left school before completing a degree. George Clooney Michael Moore briefly attended the University of Michigan at Flint before leaving school. Michael Moore Sarah Jessica Parker was already a professional performer before starting high school and did not attend college after graduating. Sarah Jessica Parker Jennifer Aniston graduated from New York's High School of Performing Arts and pursued an acting career without attending college Jennifer Aniston Mike Farrell joined the Marines after finishing high school and afterwards embarked upon an acting career without attending college. Mike Farrell Janeane Garofalo studied history at Providence College in Rhode Island.  There is conflicting information about whether she completed her degree or left school during her senior year; most biographies indicate the former. Janeane Garofalo Larry Hagman attended Bard College in Anandale-on-the-Hudson for one year before leaving school and pursuing an acting career. Larry Hagman As to the point of this piece, it's safe to say that those who hold high positions in federal government generally have more formal education and more on-the-job experience in politics and government than film actors do, that they are privy to a large amount of information the  general public does not have access to, and that they are therefore better qualified to make important policy decisions than the average actor. The question posed by the title  "Who's smarter?"  isn't so easily answered. Graduating college or holding elected office exposes people to new ideas and concepts and imbues them with practical experience, but those paths don't necessarily make people "smarter," nor is treading those paths necessary for one to become a competent politician or political analyst.   Some very highly regarded U.S. presidents had little or no formal education (Abraham Lincoln), did not attend college (Harry Truman), or had no previous experience holding elective office (Dwight Eisenhower), and one (Ronald Reagan) even began his career as a film actor.  On the other hand, some very well-educated and intelligent men with experience in governmental administration who served as chief executive of the U.S. (Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter) frequently show up on rosters of "worst U.S. presidents." Last updated:  14 October 2007  <!--  Sources:   Dowdell, Kitty.  "Seniors Should Be Ashamed."   The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer.  24 September 1996  (p. B8).--> Does Arizona have a law limiting the number of dildos a person can have in their home? That rumor has been bouncing around blogs, books, and websites for decades. In December 2018, a Twitter user  renewed interest in this suspiciously strange piece of legislation: renewed   This restriction is not actually codified in Arizona law. But it almost was. Arizona State Rep. Leslie Johnson (R-Mesa) attempted to pass an obscenity law in the 1980s aimed at regulating pornography and banning the sale of dildos. House Bill 2613, which was later dubbed the "dildo bill," would have made the commercial sale of "obscene devices," such as dildos, a felony. The first news report we could find covering the bill was published in the Arizona Daily Star in December 1987:   The original proposal focused only on the sale of "obscene devices" and not their ownership. Alan Sears, the lawyer who drafted the bill for Johnson, said that ownership of such devices was less important as women didn't like using them anyway. However, a provision of the proposed bill stated that ownership of six or more dildos would be considered proof of intent to sell them commercially -- which would have made such ownership a felony. dildos While the bill faced some ridicule from members of the public (some Arizonans reportedly sported bumper stickers reading, "When dildos are outlawed, only outlaws will have dildos"), it was eventually passed by both the House and Senate. Ultimately, however, Gov. Rose Mofford vetoed the measure. ridicule passed vetoed Dildo ownership, however, was not at the center of Mofford's decision to veto the bill. The then-Arizona governor's action was based more on the term "obscenity," how it was defined, and how it would be enforced: In her veto message, Mofford said she fully supports the enforcement of tough laws to eliminate obscene material, but "I must regretfully use my veto power, primarily because I believe the bill is unconstitutional." The anti-pornography bill  also known as the "dildo bill" because it would have banned the commercial sale of sexual devices  would have allowed juries to decide what books and movies are obscene by using a standard of community acceptance rather than community tolerance. Moffard said she believes that the acceptance standard could allow higher courts to overturn convictions, so "persons who would otherwise have been convicted under the tolerance standard would go free." She said she also feared that the acceptance standard  a tougher standard than used in several U.S. Supreme Court obscenity decisions  could allow the removal from library shelves and movie theaters of works that are widely recognized as fine literature or works of art. Johnson, who insisted that dildos were used solely to abuse children, filed similar legislation the following year. When the Arizona House amended some of the language in the bill, replacing the word "dildo" with "child molestation devices," Johnson killed the legislation: insisted amended killed The Arizona Legislature disposed of a couple of controversial bills. Rep. Leslie Whiting Johnson, best known for changing hats and hairdos daily, prematurely withdrew her dildo bill after her fellow representatives had amended it to her dissatisfaction. As originally crafted, the bill would have made it a felony to possess more than five sexual devices. That caused Rep. Bobby Raymond, D-Phoenix, to ask: "Which one of my hands will I have to cut off?" The story behind Johnson's obscenity law was eventually boiled down to a factually inaccurate sentence published on the website Dumblaws circa 1999. From there, it spread to a number of listicles concerning "obscure laws" in the United States. Perhaps most famously, photographer Olivia Locher created a visual representation of this rumor in her 2017 book I Fought the Law: Dumblaws listicles obscure laws book   Despite the widespread prevalence of the rumor, no law on the books in Arizona prohibits the number of dildos a person can own. The rumor stemmed from a failed piece of 1989 legislation dubbed the "dildo bill" which, among other things, would have made it a felony to sell sex toys. The "ownership" aspect of the rumor was due to language in the bill stating that owning more than six (not two) dildos would have constituted proof of intent to distribute. The Phoenix New Times reported on the legislation (and several other fabled Arizona statutes) in 2013 and asserted that Arizonans "can have dildos stacked to the rafters" without fear of legal repercussions. reported Carson, Susan.  "Mofford Vetoes Bills on AIDS, Peep Shows, Mountain Bell."
  Arizona Daily Star.  9 July 1988. Nett, Walt.  "House Panel Chairman Kills Anti-Porn Bill Amid Protests."
  Arizona Daily Star.  22 March 1988. Nett, Walt.  "House Approves AIDS, Porn Bills."
  Arizona Daily Star.  25 June 1988. Bass, Jonathan.  "House OKS Bills on Child Abuse, Jail Fires, Insurance Firms' Books."
  Arizona Daily Star.  15 March 1989. Pires, Kevin.  "Arizonas Two-Dildo Policy and Other Photos of Obscure Laws You Might Be Breaking."
  Flavorwire.  11 November 2013. Locher, Olivia.  I Fought the Law: Photographs by Olivia Locher of the Strangest Laws from Each of the 50 States.
  Chronicle Books, 2017.  ISBN 1452156956. Hendley, Matthew.  "10 Arizona 'Dumb Laws' That Are Complete Horse S**t."
  Phoenix New Times.  11 September 2013. Claim:  The drawback of a laborer's illiteracy frees him to become a success in another field. LEGEND Example:  [Brunvand, 1993] My grandfather used to tell  about a country lad who went to the big city to seek his fortune, but had no luck finding a job.  One day, wandering through the red light district, he spotted a Help Wanted sign in a window. They were looking for a bookkeeper, but after the madam quizzed the boy about his education and discovered that he could neither read or write, she turned him away. Feeling sorry for him, she gave him two big red apples as he left.  A few blocks down the street, he placed the apples on top of a garbage can while tying his shoe, and a stranger came along and offered to buy them. The boy took the money to a produce market and bought a dozen more apples,which he sold quickly.  Eventually he parlayed his fruit sales into a grocery store, then a string of supermarkets.  Eventually he became the wealthiest man in the state. Finally he was named Man of the Year, and during an interview a journalist discovered that his subject could neither read or write. "Good Lord, Sir," he said.  "What do you suppose you would have become if you had ever learned to read and write?" "Well," he answered, "I guess I would have been a bookkeeper in a whorehouse."1 Origins:  According to folklorist Jan Brunvand, after writer Somerset Maugham was accused of stealing the plot of his 1929 short story "The Verger," he explained that he'd heard the tale from a friend and that it was a well known bit of Jewish folklore.  Maugham's claim is supported by this find, harvested from a 1923 joke book: Some fifteen years ago there landed in New York a friendless and almost penniless Russian immigrant who found lodgings on the East Side and at once, with racial perseverance and energy, set out to earn a living. He was of a likeable disposition, and speedily made acquaintances who sought to aid him in his ambition.  One of them sponsored him for the vacant post of janitor, or shammos, to use the common Hebraic word, of a little synagogue on a side street.  But when the officers of the congregation found out the applicant was  entirely illiterate they reluctantly denied him employment, inasmuch as a shammos must keep certain records.  The greenhorn quickly rallied from his disappointment.  He got a job somewhere.  He prospered.  Presently he became a dabbler in real estate. Within ten years he was one of the largest independent operators in East Side tenement-house property and popularly rated as a millionaire.  An occasion arose when he needed a large amount of money to swing what promised to be a profitable deal.  Finding himself for the moment short of cash, he went to the East Side branch of one of the large banks. It was the first time in his entire business career that he had found it necessary to borrow extensively.  He explained his position to the manager, who knew of his success, and asked for a loan of fifty thousand dollars. "I'll be very glad to accommodate you, Mr. Rabin," said the banker.  "Just sit down there at that desk and make out a note for the amount." The caller smiled an embarrassed smile.  "If you please," he said, "you should be so good as to make out the note and then I should sign it." "What's the idea?" inquired the bank manager, puzzled. "Vell, you see," he confessed, "I haf to tell you somethings: Myself, I cannot read and write.  My vife, she has taught me how to make my own name on paper, but otherwise, with me, reading and writing is nix." In amazement, the banker stared at him. "Well, well, well!" he murmured admiringly.  "And yet, handicapped as you've been, inside of a few years you have become a rich man!  I wonder what you'd have been by now if only you had been able to read and write?" "A shammos," said Mr. Rabin modestly.2 Some like to question the legend's basis on the grounds that if the work-seeker couldn't read, he couldn't have made out what the sign in the window said. "Illiterate" is often mistakenly interpreted as "incapable of making head or tail out of so much as one written word." In real life, any number of folks who cannot read and thus have no hope of making sense of a printed page have learned to recognize by sight a goodly number of key words and phrases, including "help wanted." The illiterate among us manage to catch the right buses, "read" road signs, and order off menus, all by way of having memorized what certain words look like. They exist in mainstream society undetected for years, sometimes fooling even their immediate families. A good story never goes out of style, as this example shows: [Collected on the Internet, 2001] An unemployed man goes to apply for a job with Microsoft as a janitor. The manager there arranges for him to take an aptitude test  (Floors, sweeping and cleaning). After the test, the manager says, "You will be employed at minimum wage, $5.15 an hour. Let me have your e-mail address, so that I can send you a form to complete and tell you where to report forwork on your first day. Taken aback, the man protests that he has neither a computer nor an e-mail address. To this the MS manager replies, "Well, then, that means that you virtually don't exist and can therefore hardlyexpect to be employed. Stunned, the man leaves. Not knowing where to turn and having only $10 in his wallet, he decides to buy a 25 lb. flat of tomatoes at the supermarket. Within less than 2 hours, he sells all the tomatoes individually at 100% profit. Repeating the process several times more that day, he ends up with almost $100 before going to sleep that night. And thus it dawns on him that he could quite easily make a living selling tomatoes. Getting up early every day and going to bed late, he multiplies his profits quickly. After a short time he acquires a cart to transport several dozen boxes of tomatoes, only to have to trade it in again so that he can buy a pickup truck to support his expanding business. By the end of the second year, he is the owner of a fleet of pickup trucks and manages a staff of a hundred former unemployed people, all selling tomatoes. Planning for the future of his wife and children, he decides to buy some life insurance. Consulting with an insurance adviser, he picks an insurance plan to fit his new circumstances. At the end of the telephone conversation, the adviser asks him for his e-mail address to send the final documents electronically. When the man replies that he has no e-mail, the adviser is stunned, "What, you don't have e-mail? How on earth have you managed to amass such wealth without the Internet, e-mail and e-commerce? Just imagine where you would be now, if you had been connected to the internet from the very start!" After a moment of thought, the tomato millionaire replied, "Why, of course! I would be a floor cleaner at Microsoft!" Moral of this story: 1. The Internet, e-mail and e-commerce do not need to rule your life.  2. If you don't have e-mail, but work hard, you can still become a millionaire. 3. Since you got this story via e-mail, you're probably closer to becoming a janitor than you are to becoming a millionaire. 4. If you do have a computer and e-mail, you probably have already been taken to the cleaners by Microsoft. The   legend's message is twofold: that sometimes seeming adversity is actually the Hand of God arranging future events in our favor, and that often the most momentous decisions we make swing on little more than the expediency of the moment. Taking the second point first, we observe that if the young farm boy in the first example had been able to read and write, he would have gained the job he sought, that of a bookkeeper in a brothel, and thus would never have become the grocery tycoon he ultimately turned out to be. As to what led him to seek the bookkeeping position, he quite by happenstance chose to walk down a particular street, coincidentally on a day when a "Help Wanted" sign was posted in one of the windows. On another day, that sign wouldn't have been there, or he would already have had a job somewhere else.  It is ever thus  the directions of lives change depending upon which ad is answered, which interview is given, even which bus is taken. A chance encounter can lead to a marriage and the begetting of children, and just as certainly the slightly different choice of ad or bus can result in those two people's never meeting. Career direction is likewise up for grabs. As much as we like to feel we're masters of our fate, often we're the very last factor to have much influence on unfolding events, even within the confines of our own lives. But there's another message to this legend, one of the power of divine intervention and why it doesn't pay to second-guess God.  Today's disappointment can be a necessary, though momentarily painful, ingredient in tomorrow's success, as the snubbed bookkeeper or janitor finds out. Children of the moment that we are, we tend to forget this truth when caught up in sorrow over not getting what we'd set our hearts on, and tend only to remember it again when things ultimately turn out far better than they would have if we'd gotten our shortsighted way.  Barbara "father of the chide" Mikkelson Sightings:  In Somerset Maugham's 1929 short story "The Verger," an illiterate church caretaker is fired by the vicar when his lack of education comes to light. The ousted verger goes on to become a tobacconist, eventually owning a string of shops in London. Last updated:  20 April 2011 The Baby Train   2.  Cobb, Irvin S.  A Laugh a Day Keeps the Doctor Away.  New York: Garden City Publishing, 1923  (pp. 190-191).  Asimov Laughs Again   Botkin, B.A.  Sidewalks of America.  Indianapolis-New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1954  (pp. 430-431).   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 196). The Big Book of Urban Legends Claim:  Lockheed Martin is going to lay off 123,000 workers due to military downsizing but is not sending out layoff notices at the behest of the Obama administration.  OF AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] My son-in-law works at Lockheed Martin and we just found out that Lockheed is going to lay off 123,000 defense workers due to Obama's downsizing of the military.  This hit the Drudge report yesterday.  We are livid.  This is true! The law requires Lockheed to give 60-day notice to all to-be-fired employees within 60 days.  That drop dead date would be November 1st. Since this would be bad for the election, Obama has promised that our government would cover all Lockheed severance packages to fired employees if Lockheed would not release the names and locations of those losing their jobs until after the election! Origins:   In August 2011 Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Budget Control Act of 2011 in order to resolve the U.S. debt-ceiling crisis and prevent the federal government from heading into default over its debt.  That piece of legislation identified $1.2 trillion in budget cuts to be made over 10 years and called upon Congress, through the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (also known as the "super-committee"), to come up with a plan to cut the budget deficit by another $1.5 trillion (through revenue increases and/or spending reductions) by 23 November 2011.  If that committee failed to come up with a viable deficit reduction plan by the deadline, or if Congress failed to approve the committee's plan, then the legislation called for automatic, across-the-board cuts (known as "sequestration") to go into effect.   The super-committee did not agree on a deficit reduction plan, stating that "After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline," so unless and until lawmakers can agree on a solution to the budget impasse, the sequestration budget cuts are set to take effect  with the 2013 budget.  Since those cuts, if they take place, may include large reductions in Pentagon spending, some defense contractors are anticipating that they may have to engage in significant layoffs of personnel in the upcoming year, and under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, enacted in 1989, most employers with 100 or more employees are required to issue 60-day advance notification of mass layoffs. WARN When one such defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, announced on 1 October 2012 that it would abide by White House guidance not to issue WARN Act-mandated layoff notices to thousands of employees just before the November presidential election, Republican critics contended that President Obama was engaging in a partisan political ploy to protect votes in a key battleground state (Lockheed Martin has a large business presence in Virginia) at the expense of workers who might soon find themselves without jobs: contended U.S. Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte released the following statement on Obama Administration guidance issued instructing defense companies and other government contractors not to issue mass layoff notices to their employees, as is required under the WARN Act, in anticipation of the $109 billion in across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to occur under sequestration on January 2, 2013: Today, President Obama put his own reelection ahead of the interests of working Americans and our national security by promising government contractors that their salary and liability costs will be covered at taxpayer expense if they do not follow the law that requires advance warning to employees of jobs that may be lost due to sequestration. The WARN Act exists to protect workers by providing at least 60 days' notice of layoffs from government contracting work.  But today, the Office of Management and Budget published guidance for the defense industry and other government contractors that they do not have to provide that notice now even though, under current law, $109 billion in across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to occur on January 2 are estimated to result in as many as 1 million lost defense jobs.  Apparently, President Obama puts politics ahead of American workers by denying them adequate time to plan their finances and take care of their families. The people who work in the defense industry and other government contracting companies deserve as much notice as possible that they are on track to lose their jobs. At issue is a Training and Employment Guidance letter issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) on 30 July 2012, and reiterated in a 28 September 2012 memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), advising employers that the issuance of WARN Act notifications in anticipation of sequestration was not required by law and would be a waste of resources because it is currently unknown which contracts might be affected by potential budget cuts and when the effects of those budget cuts might take place.  The DOL's letter also informed employers that if they followed the DOL's advice and refrained from issuing WARN Act notifications in anticipation of sequestration, and they later had to engage in mass layoffs due to sequestration, the government would cover any legal costs they incurred as a result: letter memo Although it is currently known that sequestration may occur, it is also known that efforts are being made to avoid sequestration. Thus, even the occurrence of sequestration is not necessarily foreseeable.  In addition, the sequester's impact on particular accounts will depend at least in part on Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 funding that Congress has not yet enacted.  Perhaps more importantly, Federal agencies also have some discretion in how to implement the required reductions if sequestration were to occur.  Given that Federal agencies, including DOD, have not announced which contracts will be affected by sequestration were it to occur, and that many contracts may be completely unaffected, the actual contract terminations or cutbacks that will occur in the event of sequestration are unknown.  Thus, in the absence of any additional information, potential plant closings or layoffs resulting from such contract terminations or cutbacks are speculative and unforeseeable.    The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification generally requires employers with at least 100 employees to provide written notice to affected employees 60 days before ordering certain plant closings or mass layoffs if they are reasonably foreseeable. DOL concluded that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for Federal contractors to provide WARN Act notice to employees 60 days in advance of the potential sequestration because of uncertainty about whether sequestration will occur and, if it did, what effect it would have on particular contracts, among other factors: In reaching this conclusion, DOL explained that giving notice in these circumstances would waste States' resources in undertaking employment assistance activities where none are needed and create unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for workers.  Despite DOL's guidance, some contractors have indicated they are still considering issuing WARN Act notices, and some have inquired about whether Federal contracting agencies would cover WARN Act-related costs in connection with the potential sequestration. To further minimize the potential for waste and disruption associated with the issuance of unwarranted layoff notices; this memorandum provides guidance regarding the allowability of certain liability and litigation costs associated with WARN Act compliance. Specifically, if (1) sequestration occurs and an agency terminates or modifies a contract that necessitates that the contractor order a plant closing or mass layoff of a type subject to WARN Act requirements, and (2) that contractor has followed a course of action consistent with DOL guidance; then any resultingemployee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable. GOP critics maintain the legality of the DOL's advice is questionable and amounts to "giving contractors a free pass" in exchange for a "multi-billion dollar campaign contribution": As a result of the OMB guidance, the Department of Defense will have to allow companies to claim repayment for the salaries of workers who are laid off but did not receive the required WARN notices  a cost to the taxpayer that could be as much as $4 billion.  In addition, DOD will have to reimburse companies for any legal damages paid to workers who are laid off but did not receive the required WARN notices  a cost that is inestimable.  Facing intense lobbying by defense companies and other government contractors for financial protection if they agreed not to issue WARN notices, the Obama Administration is giving contractors a free pass and will have potentially stuck the taxpayers with a multi-billion dollar campaign contribution. We also have questions regarding the legal authority of OMB to interpret the WARN Act as it has, and to obligate the Federal government to pay billions of dollars of potential claims from private contractors arising as a result of this interpretation. The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis.  The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices. Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as recently as three days ago, called on the president to work with us to avert the looming threat of sequestration to our national security. Other labor officials contended that the DOL's advice to employers about implementation of the WARN Act was consistent with the law: William Gould, a Stanford Law School professor emeritus specializing in labor law and a former chair of the National Labor Relations Board appointed by President Bill Clinton, said the Labor Department was correct when it said the possibility of sequestration-induced layoffs did not warrant Warn notices. "The courts have been very clear that mere conjecture does not trigger the obligation," he said. Rick McHugh, an attorney with the National Employment Law Project, agreed. "The obligation to give notice arises once the employer believes or should have known that a mass layoff or plant closing is going to happen at a particular worksite. At this point, no one knows with any certainty [whether] layoffs will be taking place or not at a particular worksite," he said. Lockheed Martin never announced that it was planning to lay off 123,000 workers (a number which represents the entirety of the company's workforce).  What happened was that in June 2012 a Lockheed Martin official expressed frustration with the uncertainty of the sequestration issue and stated that if it weren't resolved soon, the company would have to send WARN Act notices to  the "vast majority" of their workers because they had received no guidance on the issue from the government and thus had no idea who might be affected: Right before Election Day, the company is likely to notify the "vast majority" of its 123,000 workers that they're at risk of being laid off, said Greg Walters, the company's vice president of legislative affairs. Walters's comments are some of the most specific threats yet from an industry that's trying to head off the $500 billion in automatic cuts in defense spending set to begin taking effect Jan. 2. Called sequestration, the cuts are being phased in over 10 years, with about $55 billion slated for 2013. Unless Congress reaches a deal to stave off the cuts, "we will find it necessary to issue these [layoff] notices probably to the vast majority of our employee base," Walters [said]. The company has little choice, he explained, because federal law requires large employers to provide two months' notice to workers facing layoffs. "We would see a requirement, an obligation, to issue [layoff] notices 60 days prior to sequestration taking effect," he said. The layoffs, of course, won't all happen on Jan. 2, as it would likely take months for sequestration to begin affecting contractors' bottom lines. But the timing of the cuts  along with the requirement of 60-day notice  provides an opportunity for the defense industry to ratchet up the pressure on President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to tackle the issue before November. Only a fraction of Lockheed's workers ultimately would be let go as a result of the cuts. But the company plans to send out mass notifications because it is unsure exactly which employees would be affected. The White House Office of Management and Budget has not yet provided guidance for how sequestration would be carried out. "We've wanted a dialog about what sequestration could look like," Walters said. "But as of right now, no, we have no answers from OMB." (In a July 2012 memo, Lockheed Martin projected a much lower figure of potential layoffs, stating  that "Our very rough estimate of the number of employees who could be affected [by sequestration], based on the limited information available to us from the government, is about 10,000.")  projected Ultimately, Lockheed Martin announced on 1 October 2012 that after "careful review of the additional guidance" provided by the government, they would not be issuing sequestration-related WARN notices this year:  announced For the better part of this year, we and others in industry and government have worked to raise awareness in Congress as to the devastating effects of sequestration  the federal law passed last year through the Budget Control Act that forces automatic across-the-board cuts in government spending.  In July, we informed you that, without clear direction from the government about how these cuts would be implemented, the corporation could issue conditional Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) notices to a substantial number of employees.  We have been working closely with the government to understand our obligations under the WARN Act and to ensure our employees are provided fair treatment and appropriate notice, if their jobs are impacted by sequestration. On Friday afternoon the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Defense (DOD) released guidance clarifying responsibilities under the WARN Act and outlining their timeline for making sequestration-related program decisions.  After careful review of the additional guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense, we will not issue sequestration-related WARN notices this year. The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan.  The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable.   We remain firm in our conviction that the automatic and across-the-board budget reductions under sequestration are ineffective and inefficient public policy that will weaken our civil government operations, damage our national security, and adversely impact our industry.  We will continue to work with leaders in our government to stop sequestration and find more thoughtful, balanced, and effective solutions to our nation's challenges. If sequestration were to happen, we are compelled to comply with the law and will do so as respectfully and as ably as we can. While we work to stop sequestration we will also continue to petition the government to outline exactly how sequestration will be implemented so that we can responsibly prepare for the impact to our employees and our business. Finally, as political reporter Bob Woodward noted, the sequester in the Budget Control Act that could result in automatic defense spending cuts in 2013 was put there not as part of an Obama administration policy to "downsize the military," but as means of prodding Congress into coming up with a concrete plan for addressing the deficit issue: No one thought [sequestration] would happen. The idea was to design something ... that was so onerous that no one would ever let it happen. Of course, it did, because [Congress] couldn't reach agreement. They all believed that the supercommittee was going to come up with a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction plan, so there would be no sequestration. Of course, the supercommittee failed and so the trigger went off, which has all of these very Draconian [budget] cuts. Last updated:  27 October 2012    Munsil, Leigh.  "Bob Woodward: Obama 'Mistaken' on Sequester."   Politico.  23 October 2012.    Pender, Kathleen.  "U.S. to Contractors: No Layoff Notices."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 October 2012.    Wright, Austin.  "Lockheed Martin Eyes Layoffs This Fall."   Politico.  24 June 2012. Claim:  Photographs show female hunters posing with the bodies of giraffes they've killed. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2015] Facebook has recently been inundated with pictures of women hunters posed with dead giraffes. Are they fake or real?  Origins:  Earlier this year as we were trekking through Africa, we passed through Tanzania to investigate some animal-related legends and visit a place that has loomed large in our imaginations ever since we were children: the Serengeti. It was everything we imagined it to be, and more: endless herds of zebra and buffalo stretching across the plains  as far as the eye could see, prides of lions snoozing under trees, elephants with their calves parading across our path, rhinoceros slowly lumbering along the landscape, huge pools in which hundreds of hippos lazed to escape the midday sun, as well aswarthogs, mongooses, hyenas, impala, gazelles, dik-diks, hyrax, and baboons. Tour operators in that part of the world typically tout that their clients will have an opportunity to view the "Big Five" of African wildlife: the African lion, the African elephant, the Cape buffalo, the African leopard, and the rhinoceros (black or white).  We were fortunate enough to see all of these creatures (and more), and to be able to shoot them from up close  with cameras only  includingthe one animal that's hardest to miss:  We were somewhat surprised to learn during our trip that the term "Big Five" derives not from the world of tourism (which has co-opted it), but from the world of big-game hunting: it is said to encompass the five African animals most difficult to hunt on foot.  We were more surprised to learn that, despite widespread public perception that the "Big Five" (and most other large African wildlife) are all endangered and/or protected by law, there are very few African animals that cannot be legally hunted somewhere on that continent. We were reminded of our experience in April 2015, when comedian Ricky Gervais posted to his Facebook page a photograph purportedly showing a female hunter posing in recline alongside the carcass of a giraffe she had just killed, along with his rumination about why someone would "want to kill a beautiful animal and then lie next to it smiling":  The comedian didn't provide much background information in his Facebook post, which led many viewers to speculate about the authenticity of the photo. Was the scene staged with a giraffe that died from other causes?  Was the giraffe put down for humane reasons? Was the image Photoshopped?  The photograph that Gervais shared has originally appeared on the website RebeccaFrancis.com in August 2010. Although that site did not provide any specific information about that particular image, the site is full of pictures of animals killed in African big game hunts, including lions, zebras, and giraffes. Francis addressed the controversy of being a "big game hunter" in a blog entitled "The True Circle of Hunting": RebeccaFrancis.com pictures As a hunter, I am constantly under fire and constantly being labeled a "trophy hunter". What is a trophy hunter?  I have put a great deal of thought into the meaning of this.  In the dictionary the literal meaning is simply put: "Trophy hunting is the selective hunting of wild game animals".  In that case, I AM A TROPHY HUNTER.   There is no question that I am extremely selective about the animals I hunt.   I feel it is absolutely necessary to hunt older and more mature animals.  In a lot of cases, that puts that animal past it's breeding prime and the animal can actually be kicked out of the herd and replaced with a younger, stronger male to introduce new genetics into the gene pool. Consequently, that animal can not only be bullied by the new male, but also be left all alone to suffer until its inevitable death. I have no desire to shoot an animal, just to shoot it.  I admire, respect, and love watching these beautiful creatures. Ricky Gervais subsequently posted a second photograph on his Facebook page of a female hunter posing with a dead giraffe :  While the specific origins of this photograph are unknown to us, the earliest incarnation we've found appears to have originated with the now-defunct Facebook page of one "Ivy Swanepol":  A similar photograph of a grinning woman posing astride a dead giraffe while holding a high-powered rifle in her hands generated online controversy in March 2014 when it was posted to the Facebook page of Koeshall's World Hunting Adventures taxidermy shop in Wisconsin along with a caption  "We took Shelley out this morning with the thoughts of maybe getting a giraffe. We found this big bull feeding in the trees, and Shelley put 2 good shots in him before he went down. Big mature bull. We have it all here, and we want to share it with YOU": posted  Regardless of who is pictured in these photographs, there is no good reason to believe that they are not genuine or do not represent what they appear to depict, as giraffes are indeed one of the trophy animals frequently targeted in African big game hunts. Big Game Hunting Adventures of South Africa, for instance, offers safaris on which hunters can bag (among other animals)baboons, hyenas, buffalo, elephants, giraffe, hippos, impala, leopards, lions, warthogs, wildebeest, and zebras.   safaris Although many animal lovers and wildlife protection groups may decry African big game hunts, they are perfectly legal in places such as South Africa.  Moreover, some conservationists have argued that this form of tourism actually helps their cause by providing much-needed revenue for the preservation of more endangered species in the region: South Africa has a tourism industry that permits people to hunt big game animals such as the elephant, rhinoceros and lion.  Many people object to this blood sport.  But some argue that hunting big game animals creates income needed to save the country's population of big animals. It is legal in some African countries to hunt big game.  The business brings in a lot of money.  A ten-day 'elephant package' could cost U.S. $36,000.  Hunting a rhinoceros can cost U.S. $100,000. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has strong words against what it calls the "needless killing of endangered species for trophies."  The organization says big game hunting is not sustainable, meaning it cannot be supported over a long period of time.  The group also says it provides only short-term economic gains, hurts the area's environmental balance and is morally wrong. But not all conservationists agree.  Some argue trophy hunting may be helping Africa's wildlife.  Professor John Hanks is the former head of the World Wide Fund for Nature in South Africa.  He says tourism and donations do not provide the billions of dollar needed. "I think trophy hunting in South Africa is really absolutely essential if we are going to look for long-term future for rhinos in the whole of Africa ... there's hardly a single country anywhere that can afford to run its national parks as they should be run ... Here we are in South Africa, one of the richest countries in the continent, Kruger Park has a million visitors a year and they still cannot afford to defend the rhinos." The hunting industry in South Africa brings in more than $744 million each year.  The industry employs about 70,000 people.  And about 9,000 trophy hunters travel to South Africa every year.  Ninety percent of them come from the United States.  In 2012, foreign hunters spent $115 million in South Africa.  Trophy hunting is the most profitable form of commercial land use in the country. Herman Meyeridricks is the president of the Professional Hunters' Association of South Africa.  He argues that legal hunting is important to wildlife protection. "The only way there will be incentive for those landowners to protect and keep on investing in rhino is if they have an economic value. They can only have an economic value if there is an end-user that is willing to pay for that, and that is the trophy hunter." One can find plenty of photographs of male big game hunters posing with taken giraffes online, but those images apparently don't stir up as much widespread outrage as similar pictures showing female hunters. photographs Last updated:  14 April 2015    Parker, Gilliam.  "Trophy Hunting Is Big Business in South Africa."   VOA.  16 August 2014. On 9 May 2017, Facebook page "The Church of PUNK" shared an article reporting that a KGB agent admitted the band the Sex Pistols were an operation backed by the former Soviet Union to destabilize Western democracy: shared article   The April 2015 article reported that at the time it was published, a former KGB agent had just disclosed the punk rock plot: article Alexandrei Varennikovic Voloshin, a retired KGB agent, has admitted this week on National Russian Television (NTV) that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was behind the creation of the 1970s punk scene and financed major punk bands such as the Sex Pistols, the Clash and the Ramones. The USSR government at the time spent hundreds of millions of rubles on this covert operation destined to create utter chaos and pervert the Western youth to nihilist, anti-establishment and anti-american ideologies he explained in an hour long interview broadcast on national television. There is no truth to this story; World News Daily Report states on its own disclaimer page that all of the content on the site is fictional: no truth disclaimer WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website  even those based on real people  are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle. A reader forwarded anemailto us in which state Rep. Senfronia Thompson urged a boycott of Macys department stores on the day after Thanksgiving 2013. The fact that Macy's doesn't support equal pay for women should stop you from shopping there on Black Friday, the Houston Democrat wrote, saying that her equal-pay proposal cleared the Legislature earlier this year, but then Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto the law, which he ultimately did. Thompsons House Bill950was among 24 bills PerryvetoedJune 14, 2013. It would have created state law similar to 2009s federal Lilly Ledbetter Act, which gave plaintiffs more time to sue over pay discrimination in federal courts. AnAug. 6, 2013,news storyin theHouston Chroniclereported that Texas Retailers Association members including Macys and Krogers had written Perry in May asking him to kill the legislation because, they said, it would lead to open-ended litigation and duplicate federal law. Thompson spokeswoman Milda Mora told us by phone that the representative learned of the letters from theHouston Chroniclereporter in August and checked with the governors office, which provided her with copies that Moraemailedto us. One written on Macys letterhead (clickhereor scroll down to view it) concluded, The federal requirements under Lilly Ledbetter are unnecessary and would be harmful to Texas employers. We urge you to veto this legislation. Macys spokeswoman Bethany Charlton confirmed that her company sent the May 31, 2013, letter, which was signed by a company vice president. By email, Charlton said the company absolutely supports equal pay for equal work among men and women but believes existing laws provide strong remedies for discrimination. Perrys logic was similar: House Bill 950 duplicates federal law, which already allows employees who feel they have been discriminated against through compensation to file a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said his June 14, 2013,veto statement. Progress Texas, the pro-Democratic organization that distributed Thompsons email and is organizing theboycott,disputesPerrys statement that the bill would have duplicated federal law, saying that the Ledbetter protections need to be codified in state law for them to apply to cases in state courts. The groups executive director, Ed Espinoza, told us by email that his group launched a boycott of Macys and other retailers when the news broke in August. An Aug. 7, 2013,Chroniclenews blog postsaid Thompson took part in that boycott also, canceling a planned appearance at a Macys store to mark the states annual sales-tax holiday. Mora said that Thompson, who was quoted in an Aug. 9, 2013 Texas Public Radionews storyas saying she had previously been a card-packing member of Macys, but had not shopped there since the letters became public. Our ruling Thompson said Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto her equal pay measure. As the Houston newspaper reported, Macys wrote the governor May 31, 2013, saying We urge you to veto this legislation. The claim is True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In early July 2020, social media users shared a meme that continued to fuel long-standing culture war animosity directed at former NFL player and civil rights activist Colin Kaepernick, this time by noting that he had been "hired" by Disney to "teach your kids about American history." culture war   The meme both sensationalizes and exaggerates Kaepernick's role with Disney. While it's true that Kaepernick has made an agreement with Disney and ESPN Films to create a documentary series focusing on race, that doesn't mean he has been "hired" by Disney to "teach children" about American history.  On July 6, the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback and Disney announced a first-look deal for a documentary series  to be produced by ESPN Films  about Kaepernick's experience, according to a press release from ESPN. press release "Colins experience gives him a unique perspective on the intersection of sports, culture and race, which will undoubtedly create compelling stories that will educate, enlighten and entertain, and we look forward to working with him on this important collaboration," Disney executive chairman Bob Iger said in the statement. Per the press release, the "first project in development as part of this deal is an exclusive docuseries chronicling Kaepernicks journey. Using extensive new interviews and a vast never-before-seen archive that documents his last five years, Kaepernick will tell his story from his perspective." Overall, the partnership "will focus on telling scripted and unscripted stories that explore race, social injustice and the quest for equity, and will provide a new platform to showcase the work of Black and Brown directors and producers." Kaepernick has been a lightning rod in popular culture since 2016, when he began protesting systematic racism and police violence against Black Americans by kneeling during the national anthem before NFL games. His protest was mimicked by other players, but it also became a recurring talking point among media pundits, some of whom accused him of disrespecting national symbols. This narrative has been echoed by the White House. accused echoed The issue Kaepernick raised with his protest has hardly gone away. In the spring of 2020, racial justice protests swept the country after a video went viral of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on the neck of George Floyd, a Black man, for almost nine minutes. Floyd died in police custody. The public outcry coupled with massive protests prompted a national conversation about racism and compelled many businesses  including entertainment companies  to reckon with their own failures when it comes to racial equality. Lopez, Isabelle."The Walt Disney Company Announces Overall First-Look Del with Colin Kaepernick."
ESPN Press Room.6 July 2020. Steinberg, Brian."Colin Kaepernick Signs First-Look Deal With Walt Disney."
Variety.6 July 2020. Adler, Dan."Our Never-Ending Culture Wars: Colin Kaepernick and Nikes Betsy Ross Air Maxes Edition."
Vanity Fair.2 July 2019. BBC."Trump: NFL Kneelers 'Maybe Shouldn't Be in Country.'"
24 May 2018. Johnson, Martenzie."Colin Kaepernick Tried to Tell White America."
The Undefeated.30 May 2020.