Says Michelle Nunn has acknowledged allowing a convicted felon to hold a fundraiser for her.
The super PAC Ending Spending Fund is broadcasting another attack ad against Michelle Nunn, a politically pedigreed Democrat hoping to succeed Republican Saxby Chambliss as a U.S. Senator from Georgia. This time, its aradio adsimulating a man-on-the street interview with a potential female voter. In the ad, the announcer says: According to news reports, shes acknowledged allowing a convicted felon who is well known for his radical anti-American statements to actually hold a fundraiser for her. He then asked the unidentified woman: Is there any wisdom in that thinking? Im going to say None, the woman responds. Its part of a new campaign by Ending Spending that plays off Nunns well-known name. Her father, Sam Nunn was a respected moderate Democrat in the U.S. Senate for 24 years, from 1972 to 1997, who some considered White House or vice presidential material. The ad follows the theme of the super PACs new website,www.AbsolutelyNunn.com, which answers the question, is there any reason for Georgians to vote for her? But, PolitiFact Georgia wondered, is Nunn working with felons to win office? First, lets look at Ending Spending Action Fund, formed by TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts. As of Sept. 11, the group has spent nearly $2.8 million -- more than any other outside group -- on Georgias Senate race, according to OpenSecrets.org. The PAC favors Nunns GOP opponent, businessman David Perdue. Some of its money paid for ads during the contentious Republican primary earlier this year. The race is being closely watched, and heavily funded, nationally because of the tight battle for control of the U.S. Senate. Its also a priority for state Democrats eager to reclaim a major statewide office. The Nunn-Perdue battle has drawn the fifth-most money from outside groups in Congressional races across the nation this year, $12.4 million on ads from both sides. That brings us back to the ad, which is a reference to the July 8 Washington, D.C. fundraiser that featured Sam Nunn as a special guest. Virtual Murrell is listed as one of the co-hosts of the event, giving $2,600 to Nunns campaign for the honor. Guests paid at least $250 to the campaign to attend, according tothe invitation. Two days after the fundraiser, the conservative National Review broke the story that Murrell, now a political consultant, had pleaded guilty in 1995 to accepting a bribe while working as an Oakland (Calif.) City councilmans aide. He was sentenced to a year in prison. Nunn expressed surprise at the news of Murrells history, which also includes a stint in the 1960s as a leader in the Black Panther movement. Her campaign declined this week to make her available to discuss the fundraiser and its fallout. Spokesman Nathan Click referred us to a statement released in July, which said Nunn was unaware of Murrells record and promised to return contributions linked to him. Click, however, declined to confirm the exact amount of money the campaign said was returned or to disclose how much money was tied to Murrell. We didn't deposit any contributions from him or anything he raised for the event, Click said in a statement. We reached out to Murrell via email, to confirm that Nunn returned his donation and other he raised. He did not respond. We also contacted Brian Baker, Ending Spendings president, who said Nunn has acknowledged Murrell, a convicted felon, co-hosted a fundraiser for her. That is exactly what we say in the ad, Baker said. The ad is 100 percent factual. The event wasnt the campaigns only embarrassing moment. In late August, a series of confidential memos were leaked, revealing Nunns campaign strategy and vulnerabilities. Ironically, those documents may support the campaigns contention that Nunn didnt know Murrells background. On page 57 of the 144-page document  after listing vulnerabilities such as being linked to President Obama and before several pages laying out campaign issues  is a category called Vetting. It takes up less than a quarter of the page, most notably this one-sentence paragraph: Currently, there are no plans to vet donors to the campaign, the memo said. Baker said finding out Murrells background didnt require a complicated vetting process and was accessible with a basic Google search. PolitiFact Georgia has reviewed previous ad claims from the group, with mixed results. In August, Ending Spending ads claim that Michelle Nunns foundation directed grants to an Islamic group tied to radical terrorists earned aMostly False. In July, we rated asMostly Truean Ending Spending claim that Nunn earned as much as $300,000 from Points of Light around the time it laid off 90 workers due to its merger with the nonprofit Hands on Network. Available information on the latest claim suggests Ending Spendings new ad uses guilt by association in a bid to suggest Nunn knowingly wooed an inflammatory ex-convict to raise cash for her Senate bid. Nunn has repeatedly said she did not know Murrells history when she attended the fundraiser. She pledged to give back the money he raised, though the campaign and Murrell have not confirmed how much was determined to be linked to Murrell. Most of the statement from the Ending Spending attack ad is correct. A convicted felon did host a fundraiser for Michelle Nunn. Nunn has said she did not know anything about the mans criminal background. And there is evidence from a leaked memo that her campaign was not vetting donors. The claim is accurate. But it leaves out some relevant details. We rate it Mostly True.
As he proposed more changes to legal immigration, President Donald Trump said the United States lags other countries that admit a higher rate of migrants based on education or training. Most of the 1 million green cards awarded each year are based on a family connection to someone in the United States. Now, Trump wants to flip this so that most permits are based on skills and merit. Only 12% of legal immigrants are selected based on skill or based on merit,Trump saidMay 16. In countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and others, that number is closer to 60, and even 70 and 75% in some cases. We decided to fact-check his international comparison. The numbers mostly check out for the United States, and they are at least close for the other three countries. But context is needed, and its unclear what countries meet the high of 75% he mentioned. The White House press office did not answer our questions. A key thing to remember is that population sizes for these four countries are very different. Estimated 2017 population: United States: 326 million Canada: 37 million Australia: 25 million New Zealand: 5 million The number of people granted permanent residence includes new arrivals and those already in a country who adjust their status. Countries also use different terminology, migration categories and criteria. The term merit, for example, isnt widely used outside of U.S. discussions and could suggest that migrants who get green cards through other avenues  such as refugees or family members of U.S. citizens  dont merit the status. Migrants who get a green card through family links or other streams might have professional degrees and other skills, even if thats not the basis for their admission. Family-based immigration, as a share of their respective population, is similar in Australia, Canada and the United States,studiessay. But the United States does have a significantly lower rate of employment-based immigration. About 1.1 millionpeople became permanent residents in fiscal year 2017. About 138,000 people, or 12%, did so under an employment-based category. (Other categories include refugees and relatives of U.S. citizens.) The employment-based category included multinational executives, skilled workers and professors. A small share of those green cards went to needed unskilled workers. And more than half of the recipients were spouses and children of the primary applicants. In 2017, Canada admittedclose to 286,500permanent residents; about 159,300, or 56%, were under the economic class category. This category includes caregivers, entrepreneurs and other skilled workers. The number reflects applicants and immediate family members. Family members represent about half of the economic category in recent years, according to a nonpartisan Migration Policy Instituteanalysis. AustraliasMigration Programgrantedaround 180,200permanent residences in fiscal year 2016-17. About 124,000, or 68%, were under the skill stream designation. Less than half were the primary applicants. (Overall, Australia granted about 207,200 permanent residences that includes individuals granted residence under other programs, including humanitarian. The skill stream category is about 60% of that 207,200.) The skill stream category included points-tested skilled migrants, entrepreneurs, and workers sponsored by employers. New Zealand approved residence forclose to 48,000people in the 2016-17 fiscal year. About 29,000, or 60%, were under the skilled/business stream. New Zealands skilled/business category covers entrepreneurs, people with exceptional talents, technicians and trade workers. The majority of approvals were for the skilled migrant subcategory, and about half were the primary applicants. So none of the other countries Trump mentioned quite reach job-based admissions of 70 or 75%, as he said. His main point, though, is that the United States rate is much smaller. But that doesnt mean that Canada and Australia are more stingy on family immigration, said Daniel Griswold, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University who hasstudiedthose immigration systems. Rather, its a reflection that they are far more open to employment-based immigration. The Migration Policy Institute also looked into family-migration policies in the United States, Canada, and Australia (not New Zealand.) If dependent family members who get green cards under the economic categories are reclassified as family migrants, then family admissions become the largest category in Canada, MPI said. While analyses of family migration tend to focus narrowly on migrants recorded as entering through family-sponsored channels, this is only part of the picture, MPI said. Taking the dependents of migrants who enter a country through other visa categories into consideration reveals more fully the centrality of family migration in many countries. Trump said, Only 12% of legal immigrants are selected based on skill or based on merit. In countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and others, that number is closer to 60, and even 70 and 75% in some cases. In the United States, about 12% of immigrants get employment-based lawful permanent residence. In Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, residence for similar immigration categories range from 56% to 68%. For all countries, those percentages include professionals family members. If the accompanying family members are reclassified as family migrants, then Canadas family migration is greater than the economic share, a study said. Relative to its population size, the United States takes in roughly the same rate of family migrants as do Canada and Australia. Trumps statement is accurate but needs clarification. We rate it Mostly True. As President Donald Trump prepared on 8 January 2019 to deliver a televised speech to the nation making the case for billions of dollars to construct a wall along the roughly 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, some social media users circulated an inaccurate meme containing the claim that the preceding Obama administration, with the help of Democratic lawmakers Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, had given Iran $150 billion in cash.   President Trump battled Congress over his request for $5.7 billion to fulfill a 2016 campaign promise to "build the wall." The resulting impasse over budget appropriations for the wall's construction led to a protracted shutdown of the federal government. build the wall impasse shutdown As with many memes, the one above paired two topics that were unrelated to each other, along with a generous helping of inaccuracy. The "enemy of the U.S." referred to Iran, which was never given a $150 billion cash payment by President Barack Obama with the help of Pelosi and Schumer. Instead, billions of dollars worth of Iranian assets were unfrozen as a result of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated with that country, which had nothing to do with the U.S. federal budget or border wall construction. nuclear deal Trump floated the "$150 billion" figure in conjunction with his desired border wall construction in a 12 December 2018 Twitter post: The Democrats and President Obama gave Iran 150 Billion Dollars and got nothing, but they cant give 5 Billion Dollars for National Security and a Wall?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2018 December 12, 2018 The $150 billion figure is an estimate of the value of Iranian assets that were unfrozen as a result of Iran's agreeing to the terms of the nuclear agreement reached with seven nations in 2015, including the U.S., an agreement formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In other words, Iran gained access to assets that already belonged to them, assets that had been frozen in various financial institutions around the world due to sanctions imposed to curb Irans nuclear program. But Iran didn't get $150 billion in cash, nor did they receive any money at all from U.S. taxpayers -- they only regained access to assets that had been frozen in several different countries (not just the U.S.), and the $150 billion figure was merely an upper estimate. agreement Moreover, that $150 billion figure was the highest estimate of the value of Iran's frozen assets, with multiple sources reporting much lower figures. For example, Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, supplied written testimony to a U.S. Senate committee in August 2015 stating that U.S. assessment of the total liquid assets Iran would regain control of as a result of the nuclear agreement was "a little more than $50 billion": testimony We must also be measured and realistic in understanding what sanctions relief will really mean to Iran. Estimates of total Central Bank of Iran (CBI) foreign exchange assets worldwide are in the range of $100 to $125 billion. Our assessment is that Irans usable liquid assets after sanctions relief will be much lower, at a little more than $50 billion. The other $50-70 billion of total CBI foreign exchange assets are either obligated in illiquid projects (such as over 50 projects with China) that cannot be monetized quickly, if at all, or are composed of outstanding loans to Iranian entities that cannot repay them. These assets would not become accessible following sanctions relief. Nader Habibi, professor of economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University, told us via email his best estimate was that between $30 billion and $50 billion of unfrozen funds were made available to Iran as a result of the deal. On 8 May 2018, President Trump announced that he was pulling the U.S. out of the nuclear deal with Iran, which had been negotiated over the course of two years. Associated Press.  "Democrats and Obama Did Not Give $150 Billion to Iran."
  14 December 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie.  "Schumer and Pelosi Tap Themselves to Respond to Trump Speech."
  The New York Times.  8 January 2019. Bozorgmehr, Najmeh.  "Iran to Keep Most Unfrozen Overseas Assets in Foreign Banks."
  Financial Times.  8 February 2016. Cunningham, Erin, and Bijan Sabbagh.  "Iran to Negotiate with Europeans, Russia and China About Remaining in Nuclear Deal."
  The Washington Post. 8 May 2018. Dahl, Fredrik.  "Iran Has $100 Billion Abroad, Can Draw $4.2 Billion: U.S. Official."
  Reuters.  17 January 2014. Habibi, Nader. " Irans Frozen Funds: How Much Is Really There and How Will They Be Used?"
  The Conversation.  11 August 2015. Once upon a time, New Jersey had a surplus in the billions of dollars, according to a former governor.There were surpluses in the state budget and there were surpluses in pension funds.The proudest accomplishment (of my tenure) was leaving the state with a $1.2 billion surplus, which was the largest wed ever had, and getting spending under control and a balanced budget, former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman said in a Sept. 19 interview on NJTV.Since she is a governor who has been accused of shortchanging pension contributions to fund tax cuts, PolitiFact New Jersey decided to check her statement.David Rosen, the Legislative Budget and Finance officer for the states nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services, confirmed that Whitman left the state with a $1.2 billion surplus. And at least since 1986  the first year the states budgets are available online  that surplus was the states largest, PolitiFact New Jersey found. There have been larger surpluses since she left office.As for balancing the budget? Thats not an accomplishment. State law requires it.But we questioned the part of Whitmans statement in which she said she controlled spending.Lets review some of the spending during her tenure. Whitman reduced payments to the states pension funds to balance a 30-percent income tax cut enacted after she became governor in 1994. Three years later, Whitman had the state borrow $2.75 billion to deposit in the pension funds to address that liability. The stock market at that time was doing well and the infusion helped create a surplus in the accounts -- for a while. Then the stock market took a downtown.But the pension issue wasnt the only significant debt during Whitmans tenure. She also approved an $8.6 billion school construction bill that was largely funded during the Jim McGreevey administration. Taken together, thats more than $11 billion in debt.Experts, however, told us that governmental standard accounting practices do not include debt in an annual budget.Debt is included in the states financial statements, said Richard F. Keevey, who was budget director for former Gov. Jim Florio. Keevey, who teaches public budgeting systems and federal finance at Rutgers Newark, also served as a deputy budget director and budget director for former Gov. Tom Kean.Whats included in the budget is debt service, or the amount paid toward the total debt.Rosen also noted that New Jersey and the country had a strong economy during the Whitman years, from 1994 to Jan. 31, 2001. Whitman left office in the middle of her second gubernatorial term to become administrator at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC.We were certainly in a surplus position as was the federal government, Rosen said. Nationally the economy was doing very well and governments generally were doing quite well. Most states had large surpluses, the federal government was in surplus and New Jersey was as well.James DiEleuterio, who was state treasurer from 1994 to 1997, said in an email that Whitman controlled spending by reviewing each of the 32,000 line items in the state budget, cutting unnecessary expenses, streamlining operations and cutting the states payroll by 5,000. He also cited the 30 percent tax cut and changes in tax policy that he said improved the states economic climate.Finally, I want to ensure it is clear that Governor Whitman's surplus was not funded by pension funds, DiEleuterio wrote. Her tax cuts, and subsequent surplus, were funded the only way they should be: with true spending cuts and a balanced budget.Our rulingWhitman says her proudest accomplishment as governor was leaving the state with a more than $1 billion surplus, controlling spending and balancing the budget. Her surplus number is accurate, and two financial experts tell us that basic government accounting principles do not include debt in budgets. Whitmans former treasurer also claims the governor made traditional spending cuts during her tenure. But how is skipping payments to pension funds controlling spending if those and other bills arent being paid in full, or are being deferred to later administrations? We rate Whitmans claim Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. The holiday shopping season often spurs rumors that retailers use "disappearing ink" on receipts, making it difficult for consumers to use paid-for warranties or return unserviceable merchandise. Some rumors were more broad, involving anecdotal concerns about "disappearing ink" receipts, addressing retailers: I know you are in business to make money. I know that fraudulent returns cut into your profit margin, so you feel the need to tighten up your return policies. I am totally on board with that. BUT, could you please then stop using disappearing ink on your receipts? I just had my baby shower, and EVERY SINGLE gift receipt from your store was so faded, it was barely legible. Then, you tried to give me a hard time because your computers couldn't read the receipts, therefore making my duplicates off the registry unreturnable (but improper registry maintenance is a whole other issue.) To sum up. You require receipts? Then print legible receipts. Thank you. Others were more specific, claiming very clear timeframes30 to 45 daysand practices governed the legibility of receipt ink. Iterations of that sort asserted companies deliberately sought out to ensure that no receipts past a certain point could be used, presumably rendered void when the ink "disappeared" by design: PLEASE READ: Learned something new tonight...I guess you guys need to be made aware of (if you don't already know)...I was informed this evening after making a purchase with an extended warranty from Wal-Mart that I needed to go home and make a photo copy of the receipt and file with the warranty card. I curiously asked why and the lady told me that Wal-Mart now uses disappearing ink. My jaw dropped. So this means after 30 -45 days moving forward, you will no longer have a legible receipt from Wal-Mart for returns or warranty usage or credit card issues. Heads up guys ! This will be a problem for many ! I understand the reason they gave for this action, but it sure makes for a difficult life for the honest folks in this world.   Don't forget to take a picture of your receipts. Disappearing ink is one big snowjob, so be ready for the storm.... 30 days and presto-change o. Although the rumor was rife on Facebook, instances of it far antedated the social network. Forum posts as far back as 2003 referenced the phenomenon. 2003 However, many retailers's return policies stipulate that receipts are not the sole manner in which consumers can prove a purchase. Walmart maintains: maintains Walmart will accept a non-receipted return or exchange provided it meets the following conditions: The refund verification process accepts the return.The government issued ID must not be altered and is accepted by Walmart. To return or exchange items without a receipt, you are required to present a valid government issued photo ID. Information from the customer ID will be stored in a secured database of returns activity that Walmart uses to authorize returns. At Lowe's the policy reads, in part: the policy reads, in part In most instances, your receipt can be retrieved by using the original credit card, checking account number, MyLowe's card or by your phone number. For returns without a valid receipt, in-store credit may be issued for the items current selling price. Lost or stolen gift cards can only be replaced for the remaining balance by presenting the original receipt. Similarly, CVS notes "returns or exchanges are subject to a third-party verification process," suggesting physical paper receipts were not the sole manner in which proof of purchase was retained by the consumer or retailer. The web site CreditCards.com surveyed major retailers and reported that in addition to protections offered by issuers such as American Express and Mastercard, receipts were rarely the only recourse: notes surveyed Our survey of 12 large retailers policies regarding returning items without a receipt shows most allow it  within limits. Although a staunch no receipt, no return policy is rare, it does still happen, and there can be individual store quirks that make the return process difficult to predict. Store policies tend to be tiered, with full refunds reserved for those who meet the gold standard: They return the entire item, in its original packaging, quickly, with a receipt. The further you vary from the gold standard, the less you get back. Credit card holders may find that using their cards provides an added avenue to a refund, since some retailers will look up a credit card transaction and let you use that as proof of purchase for a return. As to how youll get your money back, its typical for stores to return it in the same way it was tendered. So if you used a credit card, expect to get the money back in the form of a credit on your cards statement. Retailers' policies stipulating for other verification measures undermined the implication receipt degradation was a deliberate action to discourage store returns. As for why receipts tended to fade (at least under certain conditions), papermaker Panda Paper Roll explained that the effect was a cost-saving measure for different reasons: explained Receipts are typically printed on thermal paper, a chemically coated paper that produces text and image when heat is applied to its surface. Since this kind of paper is susceptible to heat and UV light, extended exposure to these elements will ultimately cause gradual fading. If you are in the mood for experimenting, place a receipt that you dont need under a hot iron for about 10 seconds. The heat from the iron will change the color of paper to black. Oil and humidity are also factors to blame. Now if youre wondering why the use of thermal paper is so widespread despite this massive disadvantage, its because they are very low cost and the equipment used to print it is low maintenance, since it doesnt need ink or ribbon cartridges. That claim was echoed in a since-deleted 2014 WFLA story about "disappearing ink" receipts: story If you keep paper receipts, this could happen to you, too. That's because more retailers are using thermal paper. Heat and light fades the ink. Although it was clearly true that many receipts faded over time, the claim involving "disappearing ink" was a misnomer. Retailers' well-known reliance on thermal paper due to its cost efficient nature led to the generation of fragile receipts, particularly those exposed to heat or light. The phenomenon was real, but the cause was often misinterpreted by concerned consumers. Early iterations of the rumor also antedated the rise of online retail giants, e-receipts, smartphones with storage capabilities, and other technological advances that served effectively as a "receipt" for consumers. Behnken, Shannon.  "Sales Receipts Have Ink That Fades, Making Returns Harder."
  WFLA.  23 June 2014. Cabrera, Kristen.  "Major Retailers' 2016 Return And Receipt Policies."
  CreditCards.com.  22 December 2016. Walmart Help Center.  "No Receipt Returns In Stores Policy."
  Accessed 14 December 2017. Lowe's Service Desk.  "Returns and Refunds Policy."
  Accessed 14 December 2017. CVS.com.  "Returns Policy."
  Accessed 14 December 2017. Panda Paper Roll Company.  "Thermal Paper: Why It Fades And How To Restore It."
  Accessed 14 December 2017. In December 2021, a meme circulated on social media that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, who leads the U.S. COVID-19 response and has become a bogeyman for pandemic conspiracy theorists, was the real-life model for the villain in the 2013 movie "Dallas Buyers Club." bogeyman   The meme contains images from the movie's promotion materials, including stars Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, and Jared Leto, next to a black-and-white photograph of a young Fauci. It also contains text that reads: "Remember the movie 'Dallas Buyers Club' about a group of AIDS patients fighting for the right to use cheap, effective drugs against government bureaucrats in the pocket of Big Pharm? The bad guy was Dr. Anthony Fauci." First of all, we note that movies are not real life. Even if it were true that the villain in the movie was based on Fauci, that doesn't mean the story is completely factual rather than dramatized for the purpose of making a good movie. Producer Rachel Winter said as much in a comment published by Slate in 2013: Slate [Screenwriters] Craig [Borten] and Melisa [Wallack] found the right blend of accuracy, not only for the medical details, but for the legal and government issues that Ron faced. There was only so far we could go into 'procedural' mode; the movie had to be entertaining." And entertaining it was, racking up six Academy Award nominations and winning the Oscar for actor, supporting actor, and best makeup and hairstyling. Various aspects of the movie's script don't align with the claim that the villain in the film was modeled after Fauci, and we couldn't find any public statements made by anyone involved with the film indicating that the antagonist was modeled after him. The film is the classic tail of the heroic man who uses his ingenuity and grit to go toe-to-toe with the uncaring and callous Big Government bureaucrats. And though the protagonist in the story is a real person, the antagonists appear to be fictional characters. We don't know whether they are based on real people, or amalgamations of people the protagonist dealt with during his life. McConaughey plays Ron Woodroof, a hard-living Dallas electrician and rodeo rider who gets diagnosed with HIV in 1985. At that time, an HIV/AIDS diagnosis was a death sentence, because there was no treatment for the new epidemic. Woodroof is placed in a clinical trial for azidothymidine (AZT). The thrust of the movie is that there is a conspiracy between the government and medical establishment to push "toxic" AZT on HIV patients, while Woodroof circumvents the system by going to Mexico and getting an unapproved cocktail of drugs and supplements from a doctor who lost his license to practice in the U.S.. Woodroof then returns to form the Dallas Buyers Club with a transgender woman named Rayon (Jared Leto), where they illicitly sell the cocktail, at first for profit and later to save lives, only to be hounded an FDA agent. thrust The antagonist (or "bad guy") in the film is an FDA investigator, which is not an equivalent position to the one Fauci held at the time the events portrayed in the film took place. Fauci was an important public health figure during the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but he wasn't an FDA agent. He spent his career at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of the National Institutes of Health), becoming that agency's director in 1984, one year before the events in the film. important The Washington Post reported in 2014 that neither the portrayal of AZT or Woodroof's legal trouble were accurate in the film, noting, "AZT is actually a very effective therapy against HIV/AIDS." It was known to prolong life after a diagnosis. It's true that the doses it was prescribed at early in the epidemic were often too high, resulting in deleterious effects, but those effects could easily be countered by lowering the dose or stopping the drug. reported The Post noted that AZT became an important part of lifesaving HIV/AIDS treatment for about a decade and as such, saved "millions" of lives. The film included a title card at the end admitting as much. Its portrayal of the FDA's actions vis-a-vis such buyers clubs was also factually problematic, in that in reality, the FDA did cooperate with them. Peter Staley, an HIV/AIDS activist who informally consulted on the film told the Post: The true story was that we made the system bend, and we used the system and needed the system. I wouldn't be alive today without the companies this film paints as evil, and I wouldn't be alive today without civil servants at the FDA who worked incredibly hard in the 1990s to get these drugs out there quickly. Furthermore, Woodroof's issues with the FDA largely stemmed from "his reluctance to stop using harmful treatments." In sum, there isn't any evidence that the antagonist in the movie was based on Fauci, and even if that were the case, that doesn't mean one should draw any real-world conclusions about Fauci based on a movie made for entertainment purposes. Dallas Buyers Club (2013) - IMDb. www.imdb.com, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0790636/plotsummary. Accessed 17 Dec. 2021. Westenfeld, Adrienne. Larry Kramer and Anthony Fauci Sparred During the AIDS Crisis. In the End They Were Friends. Esquire, 27 May 2020, https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a32688094/anthony-fauci-larry-kramer-aids-friendship-legacy/. What Dallas Buyers Club Got Wrong about the AIDS Crisis. Washington Post, 10 Dec. 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/12/10/what-dallas-buyers-club-got-wrong-about-the-aids-crisis/. Harris, Aisha. How Accurate Is Dallas Buyers Club? Slate, Nov. 2013. slate.com, https://slate.com/culture/2013/11/dallas-buyers-club-true-story-fact-and-fiction-in-the-matthew-mcconaughey-movie-about-ron-woodroof.html. Correction [Dec. 17, 2021]: "Dallas Buyers Club" won three Academy Awards, not six as previously reported. On March 16, 2020, a Facebook user was watching a local news broadcast when an image graphic supposedly showing results from a 2020 Democratic presidential primary election popped up on the screen. This wouldn't have been very unusual except for one thing: The election hadn't happened yet.  The Facebook user posted a video of the broadcast on Facebook. The image graphic in question, shown below, shows former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden winning the Illinois primary with 50% of the vote and defeating Sen. Bernie Sanders: video   WCIA truly did broadcast the above-displayed graphic the day before the 2020 Illinois primary. However, this is not a story about election rigging or a news station with unusual prognosticating abilities. This is a story about a broadcasting error.  Television news stations do a lot of prep work before live broadcasts, especially for an election. One thing they do is make image graphics similar to the one above. Once the visuals are set, reporters can plug in the results and quickly produce an image ready for television. In the case above, one of these "test" visuals was accidentally aired on television. CNN made a similar mistake in 2013 when they accidentally published pre-written obituaries for people who were still very much alive.  pre-written obituaries WCIA reporter Mark Maxwell reached out to the Facebook user after her post went viral and explained that this was a "test" graphic that was never meant to air: We do routine test rehearsals before every election to make sure the graphics work properly and to give directors some practice. The error was in putting the dry run on air. That shouldnt have happened and were looking into it. Obviously, we never intended to give the wrong information or wrong impression. None of those numbers were based on any real polling returns. Since your post is being widely shared, Id appreciate it if you would consider updating the original post so people dont get the wrong idea. Rich Flesch, the News Director of WCIA, also reached out, writing: WCIA 3 News --- Sorry it was an error by our team. We are currently doing election rehearsals with test data and not intended to go on TV. We apologize for any inconvenience. The user updated her Facebook post to include both of these responses.  The claim that this image shows "tomorrow's results" can also be debunked by looking at the actual results of the primary election in question. On March 17, 2020, the day after WCIA accidentally published the test graphic, the election took place and the real results were made available. While the test graphic showed Biden winning with 986,341 votes (or 50%), Biden actually ended up getting 913,067 votes (or 59.1% of the vote). Sanders fared better in the test graphic with 893,249 votes (for 45%); in the election he took in 556,904 votes (or 36%). real results   The New York Times.  "Live: Illinois State Primary Election Results 2020."
  17 March 2020. Legend:  A wife returns home from shopping and spots a pair of legs sticking out from under the car in their driveway.  Thinking that her husband is working on the car again, she playfully bends down and pulls down his pants zipper before cheerfully strolling into the house.  As she walks through living room, she spots her husband sitting in a chair watching TV.  Startled, she asks her husband who is under the car; when her husband informs her that it's his mechanic, she faints. Examples:  [Collected by Brunvand, 1969] The lady came home from the grocery store, and she saw her husband working under the car.  All that was exposed were his legs, so in passing she reached down, unzipped his zipper, chuckled to herself, and went into the house.  Immediately she saw her husband sitting in the easy chair reading the newspaper.  She cried, "Who is THAT under the car?" and her husband replied, "My mechanic."  She told her husband what she'd done, and they went outside to find the mechanic lying unconscious, in a pool of blood, because when the lady unzipped his pants he was so startled he sat up and clobbered his head under the car.  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Be   careful what you wear (or don't wear) when working under your vehicle especially in public. From the Sydney Morning Herald, Australia, comes this story of a central west couple who drove their car to K-Mart only to have their car break down in the parking lot. The man told his wife to carry on with the shopping while he fixed the car there in the lot. The wife returned later to see a small group of people near the car. On closer inspection she saw a pair of male legs protruding from under the chassis. Although the man was in shorts, his lack of underpants turned private parts into glaringly public ones. Unable to stand the embarrassment, she dutifully stepped forward, quickly put her hand up his shorts and tucked everything back into place. On regaining her feet, she looked across the hood and found herself staring at her husband who was standing idly by. The mechanic, however, had to have three stitches in his head.  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] From the Northwest Floida Daily News comes this story of a Crestview couple who drove their car to Wal-Mart, only to have their car break down in the parking lot. The man told his wife to carry on with the shopping while he fixed the car in the lot. The wife returned later to see a small group of people near the car. On closer inspection, she saw a pair of male legs protruding from under the chassis. Although the man was in shorts, his lack of underpants turned private parts into glaringly public ones. Unable to stand the embarrassment, she dutifully stepped forward, quickly put her hand up his shorts, and tucked every thing back into place. When she got back on her feet, she looked across the hood and found herself staring at her husband who was standing idly by. The mechanic, however, had to be treated by the paramedics and received three stitches in his forehead. Variations:  Some versions of the legend feature a plumber working under a sink in place of the auto mechanic under the car.  When the wife unzips the plumber's pants, he sits up and hits his head on the pipes, knocking himself cold. Origins:  Some readers recall having heard this legend as far back as the late 1950s,  a variation on a common theme of a wife's playful licentiousness resulting in her great embarrassment. Unlike other versions, however, there is no suggestion of moral censure in this telling of the legend: the ubiquitous fondled minister has been replaced by an auto mechanic, and the wife suffers no painful humiliation.  In fact, the only one who comes to any harm is the innocent and unwitting mechanic who ends up with a bump on his head. fondled minister An early sighting of the legend features the "dropped stretcher" motif which appears in other urban legends, notably the Hind-Lick Maneuver (dog cold-noses naked man working under sink), Blew Moon (wife spritzs hairspray into toilet in attempt to kill bug; husband who aftewards lights cigarette while on throne blows himself up), and Frame Job (lady becomes stuck to freshly painted toilet seat).  Hind-Lick Maneuver Blew Moon Frame Job [Linkletter, 1967] A lady who had been after her husband for months to install a garbage disposal under the kitchen sink finally trapped him one Saturday afternoon, and he glumly got to work with his wrenches. Not wishing to listen to his colorful vocabulary as he banged his thumbs, she went out shopping. While downtown she ran into some girl friends and had a few cocktails, so she was feeling very friendly when she returned home. There was good old George still under the sink, working away, legs sticking out into the kitchen. So she bent down, reached under, and gave him a rudely familiar tweak. "Hi, honey," she said. There was a howl of surprise from under the sink as the man raised up and smacked his forehead against the disposal. It was the plumber! Her husband had given up on the job. The plumber crawled out, his forehead all bloody, and the wife ran to the phone for an ambulance. The husband helped the attendant load the poor plumber onto a stretcher. "How'd it happen?" asked the attendant as they were carrying the man out. When the husband told him, the attendant began laughing so hard he let go of the stretcher  and the plumber plunged to the sidewalk, breaking his arm. Imagine explaining that one to the insurance company. Last updated:  21 February 2009    Sources:  Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be .  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 140-141).  Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Vanishing Hitchhiker.  New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.  ISBN 0-393-95169-3  (pp. 147-148).   Bryson, Bill.  The Blook of Bunders (Bizarre World).   Great Britain: Sphere Books Ltd., 1982.  Dale, Rodney.  The Tumour in the Whale.   London: Duckworth, 1978.  ISBN 0-7156-1314-6  (pp. 37-38, 129).  Linkletter, Art.  Oops! Or, Life's Awful Moments.  Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967  (pp. 66-67). Too Good To Be    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Vanishing Hitchhiker.  New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.  ISBN 0-393-95169-3  (pp. 147-148). The Vanishing Hitchhiker    Bryson, Bill.  The Blook of Bunders (Bizarre World).   Great Britain: Sphere Books Ltd., 1982.   Dale, Rodney.  The Tumour in the Whale.   London: Duckworth, 1978.  ISBN 0-7156-1314-6  (pp. 37-38, 129). The Tumour in the Whale   Linkletter, Art.  Oops! Or, Life's Awful Moments.  Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967  (pp. 66-67).   Also told in:   Holt, David and Bill Mooney.  Spiders in the Hairdo.  Little Rock: August House, 1999.  ISBN 0-87483-525-9  (p. 43). Spiders in the Hairdo   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 123). The Big Book of Urban Legends When Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina was denied a spot in a debate just days before the New Hampshire primary,she took to Medium to argue her case. Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, compared herself to some other Republican candidates in the race, including Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida. She wrote, Despite what the media is telling you, it is clear that Carly deserved to be on the debate stage, both according to their arbitrary metricsand the ones that actually matter: In an actual contest of voters, Carly came out ahead of Governors Christie and Kasich. She has the same number of delegates as Governor Bush. Governor Christie has 0. Carly is 6th in hard dollars raised and has more cash on hand than Governors Kasich and Christie combined. Fiorina never managed to snag a spot at the debate, but we decided to take a look at the third of Fiorinas bullet points -- the one about about her fundraising totals. (For the record, she was right on both of the previous two bullet points.Fiorina got 3,485 votes in Iowa, or 1.9 percent, which was ahead of Kasich by 11 votes and ahead of Christie by 201 votes. That translated into one delegate each for Bush and Fiorina and none for Christie.) For fundraising data, we turned toopensecrets.org for the latest presidential fundraising data. Heres the table, in descending order, for hard dollars raised, defined as money raised by the candidates own campaign committee. The most recent data available at the time of her Feb. 6 statement was through Dec. 31, 2015. (Opensecrets.org does not have data for one Republican candidate still in the race, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore.) Candidate Hard dollars raised 1.Ben Carson $54,036,610 2.Ted Cruz $47,086,857 3.Jeb Bush $31,922,100 4.Marco Rubio $29,710,092 5.Donald Trump $19,405,217 6.Carly Fiorina $11,349,057 7.John Kasich $7,582,365 8.Chris Christie $7,159,329 So Fiorina was indeed sixth on the list. Thats not saying a whole lot -- she was ahead of only two candidates, and she had barely half the amount of the fifth-place finisher. How about cash on hand, which means money raised minus money already spent? Candidate Cash on hand 1.Ted Cruz $18,734,794 2.Marco Rubio $10,398,593 3.Jeb Bush $7,589,858 4.Donald Trump $6,964,325 5.Ben Carson $6,567,647 6.Carly Fiorina $4,484,307 7.John Kasich $2,537,301 8.Chris Christie $1,126,158 Fiorina was right that she had more cash on hand than Kasich and Christie combined; they totaled $3,663,459. Here too, thats no great shakes -- she still ranks sixth of the eight candidates in cash on hand Our ruling Fiorina said she is 6th in hard dollars raised and has more cash on hand than Governors Kasich and Christie combined. While its worth noting the context that she ranks far back in the pack, Fiorina is right on both counts, according to the most recent public filings. We rate her claim True. In the wake of the Great Recession, some conservative political leaders are considering a new portion of the state budget to save money -- the prison system.Gov. Nathan Deal has talked about his desire to find less costly alternatives to prison for drug addicts who commit nonviolent crimes.It is draining our state treasury and depleting our workforce, Deal said in his inaugural address.It seems some of this new thinking comes from conservative mastermind Newt Gingrich, the former Georgia congressman and one-time U.S. House speaker who says he is considering a run for president.Gingrich co-wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post a few days before Deals speech that contained similar themes.The criminal justice system is broken, and conservatives must lead the way in fixing it, wrote Gingrich and Pat Nolan, a former California lawmaker who is now vice president of a Christian ministry that aids prisoners, ex-prisoners and their families.Some people attribute the nations recent drop in crime to more people being locked up. But the facts show otherwise, they added. While crime fell in nearly every state over the past seven years, some of those with the largest reductions in crime have also lowered their prison population.AJC PolitiFact Georgia stumbled upon the second sentence late last week and wondered whether it was true. Wouldnt the reason why some states have less crime is because more criminals are in prison?A Gingrich spokesman pointed to data from states such as Texas to make the former speakers case. In 2007, Texas lawmakers approved broad changes to the states correctional system -- then the nations largest -- that included more drug courts and treatment programs, The New York Times reported. Crime, Gingrich and Nolan wrote, dropped 10 percent between 2004 and 2009, and the Lone Star State is expected to save about $2 billion in prison costs over five years.Gingrich and Nolan also compared New York and Florida to further prove their point.Over the past seven years, Florida's incarceration rate has increased 16 percent, while New York's decreased 16 percent, they wrote. Yet the crime rate in New York has fallen twice as much as Florida's. Put another way, although New York spent less on its prisons, it delivered better public safety.We looked around to see whether anyone has done research on this topic. The Washington-based Pew Center on the States puts together an annual report on the prison population of each state. Its most recent annual report, released in April 2010, found the number of state inmates in America declined for the first time in 38 years. Between 1972 and 2008, the number of state prisoners grew by an astounding 708 percent, Pew found.The Pew Center has also done research, using data from the federal government, on the nations crime rate. It shared two charts: one with the change in crime rate between 1999 and 2009; the other contained the incarceration rate change during that same time period.The Pew research showed four of the 10 states with the greatest drops in crime were also among the top 10 states in lowering their incarceration rates. Those four states were Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Utah. The six other states had increases in their incarceration rates. Texas, which Gingrich and Nolan held up as an example of their theory, had a 10 percent drop in crime and a 15 percent decline in its incarceration rate.Georgia, by the way, had a 21 percent decrease in crime and a 1 percent decrease in its incarceration rate, according to Pews data. The Peach State did not rank in the top 10 in either category.We also looked at data from the federal National Institute of Corrections, which compiled 2008 crime statistics from several state and federal agencies and the incarceration rates in 2009. Seven of the 10 states with the lowest crime rates also had among the 15 lowest incarceration rates. Those seven states were Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota and Vermont. Georgia had the eighth-highest crime rate and incarceration rate.Florida and Texas ranked among the top 10 highest crime rates and incarceration rates.So are some of these states making a concerted attempt to leave more space in their prisons?Texas is trying to change its approach in order to save money on incarceration, Gingrich and The New York Times noted.In Oregon, where officials say the crime rate is at its lowest rate in four decades, the states Criminal Justice Commission analyzed five-year intervals of the states incarceration rate, the Portland Oregonian reported. Oregon had a 36 percent decrease in crime between 1999 and 2009, the largest decrease in the nation, according to the Pew data.The commission found major drops in both violent and property crime from 1995 through 2000, when Oregon's prison population grew more than 50 percent, the Oregonian reported. It also showed that when incarceration remained fairly flat from 2005 to 2008, violent crime and property crime continued to fall. Then-Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat, has used the lack of growth in the prison system to argue that Oregon should not overinvest in our prison system. Others in the Oregonian article suggest the lower crime rate is a result of an aging population and efforts to reduce the production of a key ingredient of methamphetamine.There is some debate about what factors are causing a decline in crime. Gingrich and Nolan argued that some states with major reductions in crime have also had large drops in their incarceration rate. The Pew figures provide support to Gingrichs point. So does the National Institute of Corrections data. Therefore, we rate Gingrichs statement as True. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., recently took to the House floor to tout abillshes sponsoring that would change the structure of job training programs. She warned that the economy faces a paradox -- despite historically high unemployment rates, many jobs are going vacant.There are 3.6 million jobs sitting vacant, in part because there arent enough qualified applicants to fill them, Foxx said in the March 12, 2013,speech.To check Foxxs claim, we turned to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal governments scorekeeper on employment data.We easily found the source of her 3.6 million figure. It comes from a monthly survey called the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, or JOLTS. Themost recent seasonally adjusted dataat the time of Foxxs speech covered January 2013. It showed that there were just under 3.7 million job openings in January, which was up slightly from 3.6 million in December 2012.So Foxx essentially got the number right. However, her use of the term sitting vacant and her warning about a shortage of qualified applicants suggests that employers are having trouble filling these 3.6 million jobs. A close look at the survey reveals it doesnt actually support that thesis.The bureaus official definition of a job opening is a specific position of employment to be filled at an establishment that satisfy these conditions: there is work available for that position, the job could start within 30 days, and the employer is actively recruiting for the position.But there are always job openings -- even in a healthy economy. In a phenomenon known as churn, people change jobs. Just because their old job is unoccupied when the BLS takes its monthly data snapshot doesnt necessarily mean that the employer is having trouble filling the job. Rather, the employer could simply be going through the process of hiring, with the job filled a month later.The data from this survey  has important limitations, said Steven J. Davis, an economist at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, because it provides little information about the distribution of vacancy durations and no direct information about the reason why some job openings take a long time to fill.In some ways, vacancies are actually a hallmark of a healthy economy. Job openings often arise either because someone leaves one job for a better one, or because a company is hiring new workers. Both are positive signs. If you look at the monthly December job opening totals going back a decade, the years just prior to the recession had the most job openings, while the years during and immediately after the recession hit had the least job vacancies:2012:3.6 million2011:3.5 million2010:2.9 million2009:2.5 million2008:3.2 million2007:4.0 million2006:4.4 million2005:3.9 million2004:3.5 million2003:2.9 millionBut while the number Foxx used doesnt provide much support for her claim, other evidence, both anecdotal and statistical, suggests that she has a point that theres a problem with unfilled jobs today.The most solid evidence for a lengthening of job vacancies comes from astudyby Davis,  R. Jason Faberman and John C. Haltiwanger. It found that the time before a vacancy is filled has expanded from 15 days in 2009 to 23 today. As a result, the job vacancy rate and the unemployment rate, which historically have moved in tandem,began to divergeduring the most recent recession and have not yet returned to their historical pattern.Why is this happening? Foxxs office provided links to avarietyofnewsreportsthatsuggesta mismatch between applicants job skills and the ones employers are seeking. Economists agree that that is part of the issue, particularly with high-skill jobs. But its probably not the only reason.For instance, there appears to be a hiring paralysis among employers who are acting with unusual caution because they are uncertain whether the economy will remain strong rather than stagnating, according to economists and hiring professionals quoted in theNew York Timesearlier this year. This has sometimes led to employers piling on extra tests and rounds of interviews as a way of stalling, experts told theTimes.Our rulingFoxx said, There are 3.6 million jobs sitting vacant, in part because there arent enough qualified applicants to fill them. Shes right that there are 3.6 million vacancies and she's right that there aren't enough qualified job applicants, but she wrong to link the two because that statistic doesnt take into account how long a job has been open. Still, there is strong evidence that the duration of job vacancies has grown since the onset of the most recent recession, and the skills mismatch Foxx cites is likely part of the reason. We rate her claim Mostly True.