Is the 'Venezuelan Poodle Moth' Real?
The confusion was understandable.Example: Is there such a bug as the Venezuelan Poodle Moth? Needle felted model of the ever popular Venezuelan poodle moth. The moth was first discovered and photographed in 2009 and is believed to be a new species. It's thought to belong to the lepidopteran genus Artace.  The "Venezuelan poodle moth"  is a possible new species of moth discovered in 2009 in the Gran Sabana region of Venezuela by Dr. Arthur Anker of Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.   Images of the fuzzy moth discovered by Dr. Anker took the Internet by storm in August 2012, as reported by the Christian Post: Venezuelan poodle moth A Venezuelan poodle moth is mystifying researchers, baffling the internet, and confusing everyone at a first casual glance. The insect, seemingly a blend of a large moth and a bright, fluffy white poodle, was discovered in 2009 and may be a new species. The Venezuelan poodle moth was first captured on film by Dr. Arthur Anker of Bishkek, Krgyzstan, who posted all 75 photographs of his time at the Gran Sabana National Park on Flickr. His trip to the Venezuelan park didn't gain much fame at the time, however, until last week, when someone noticed and posted the picture online. Flickr Another researcher, Dr. Karl Shuker, took an interest in the fuzzy white creature with bulging black eyes and strange brown antennae. He used his background in zoology, cryptozoology, and science writing to showcase the animal on his blog among other amazing finds. "These photographs formed just one set of numerous spectacular images that Art has taken while visiting tropical rainforests and other exotic locations worldwide, and which he has placed in photosets on the Flickr website," he wrote on his blog ShukerNature. However, the critter pictured above appears to be a model (not an actual example) of a similar-looking but different species of moth, the Bombyx mori, also known as the (China) silkworm moth (pictured at top of this article). Bombyx mori The so-called Venezuelan poodle moth looks like this:   Distant, Daniel  "Venezuelan Poodle Moth Confuses Scientists."
  The Christian Post.  29 August 2012. Atlantic.  "Venezuelan Poodle Moth Is the Internet's Favorite Pet This Week."
  30 August 2012. Daily Mail.  "Is It a Bird? Is It a Dog? No... It's a Moth That Looks Like a POODLE!"
  21 August 2012.
Republican Senate candidate George Allen recently accused Democratic opponent Tim Kaine of being a tax hiker, even on people of modest means.During a July 21 debate in Hot Springs, Allen criticized Kaine for actually proposing tax increases that would be hitting people earning as little as $17,000 a year.We checked to see if Kaine, who was governor from 2006 to 2010, really did try to raise taxes on people at that income level.The Allen campaign, in awebsite post, backed Allens statement by citing news articles about a proposal Kaine unveiled in December 2009 as part of his farewell biennial budget proposal for 2010-2012. Kaine called for adding a 1 percent income tax surcharge and giving all proceeds to localities in return for them scrapping the car tax they levy on personal vehicles.Legislators in 1998 adopted a five-year plan to phase out the personal property tax on most cars and reimburse localities for their lost revenues. But the program was more expensive than anticipated and legislators eventually capped the state reimbursement at $950 million a year. The remaining share is paid by vehicle owners.Ending the car tax would mean the state wouldnt have to provide the annual $950 million payment to localities, Kaine said in aspeechto the General Assemblys money committees. Kaine wanted to use the savings to help balance the states recession-wracked budget.News articles from the time said Kaines policy would raise the maximum state income tax rate from 5.75 percent to 6.75 percent. That maximum rate applies to all taxable income above $17,000 after deductions and exemptions are taken into account.The state charges gradually higher income tax rates up to that level. Virginia puts a 2 percent levy on the first $3,000 of taxable income, 3 percent of the next $2,000, 5 percent on the next $12,000 and then 5.75 percent on all taxable income above $17,000.Thebilladvancing Kaines proposal did not say the added tax would only be levied on taxable income of $17,000 or more. The added 1 percent surtax would have pertained to all income levels, according to Joel Davison, a spokesman for the Virginia Department of Finance.Virginia does not require individuals with a state adjusted income below $11,950 and married couples with a state adjusted income below $23,900 to pay state income taxes. So they wouldnt have been affected by the tax increase.Kaines proposal was killed by the General Assembly.It should be noted that some people earning $17,000 would have benefitted from Kaines plan if their savings from the elimination of the car tax outstripped their increased income tax. There are no estimates of the number of Virginians who would fallen into this category, but we suspect it would be a small group. Heres why:For starters, we can eliminate those who didnt own cars.Now, lets consider those who did own vehicles. A single filer with no children earning $17,000 would have a taxable income of $13,070 after taking the standard deduction and exemption. A 1 percent income tax increase for that person would come to almost $131 a year.The car levy paid by that person would depend on where he or she lived because each locality sets it own tax rate based on the assessed value of the vehicle. In Richmond, a person wouldnt pay a $131 levy unless they had a car worth about $9,000. In rural Henry County, a vehicle would have to be valued at about $17,500 to merit a $131 tax.Our rulingAllen said that Kaine proposed a tax increase that would have affected people earning as little as $17,000 a year. Not everyone at that level would have paid more under Kaines plan, but its a safe bet that large number of them would have seen their overall tax bill rise.We rate Allens statement True. On Nov. 19, 2022, the Facebook page Video Pivot posted a video with the caption, "With a heavy heart at the tearful farewell to 'Dwarf' Amy Roloff, goodbye Amy Roloff." However, Roloff was not dead, nor was there any indication she had just experienced a stroke, as the narrator in the video claimed. This was nothing more than a death hoax. Roloff is one of the stars of the TLC reality TV series, "Little People, Big World," which has often been referred to by fans with the acronym, "LPBW." The Facebook page that posted the death hoax was managed from Indonesia. Its purpose may have been "like-farming," something that the U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB) has warned about in the past. If the page is able to build up a large following without being removed by the platform, it's possible that it will be sold on the black market in the future. It may also be stripped of its past posts and start promoting scammy products. warned As for the misleading video about Roloff, the thumbnail was doctored to show her ex-husband, Matt, holding a picture of her next to men carrying a casket. As of Nov. 21, the video had been viewed more than 53,000 times.  Note: It's unclear what the photograph originally showed, as a reverse image search for the men carrying the casket didn't find any matches for the picture. Days earlier, a video was posted to YouTube that also falsely claimed Roloff had died. The video had the title, "10 minutes ago / We announce very sad news about 'dwarf' Amy Roloff, She has been confirmed as." We found no shortage of these YouTube videos, either. Other examples of misleading YouTube videos from past months that we found were titled as"Official News/ R.I.P/ Amy Roloff Passed Away Last Night At The Hospital After A Health Battle," "Sad News Amy Roloff Is Pass Away Expected Soon Family Prepare To Say Goodbye," and "Sad News Amy Roloff Is Pass Away Expected Soon Family Prepare To Say Goodbye."  One good way to check whether a celebrity has truly died is to check the person's verified presence on social media. While Roloff hasn't posted on her Facebook or Instagram pages since Nov. 18, we note again that the misleading YouTube videos we found were all published prior to that date. We found no credible reporting that said anything about Roloff recently experiencing a stroke or dying. We previously published another story that debunked a death hoax for the Roloff couple's son, Zach.We also reported about misleading online ads that claimed the cast of "Little People, Big World" had experienced a "sudden loss." story reported "Amy Roloff." Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/amyroloffofficalpage/. "---." Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/amyjroloff/. BBB Tip: Like-Farming Is a Facebook Scam Still Going Strong. 10 June 2020, https://www.bbb.org/article/news-releases/17149-like-farming-a-facebook-scam-still-going-strong. Grinberg, Emanuella. "Stars of 'Little People, Big World' File for Divorce."CNN.Com, 6 June 2015, https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/06/entertainment/matt-amy-roloff-little-people-big-world-split-feat/index.html. Liles, Jordan. "'Little People, Big World' Posts About a 'Loss' Are Misleading." Snopes, 5 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/little-people-big-world-loss-death/. ---. "Zach Roloff Death Hoax: False Suicide Claims Came from Obscure Website." Snopes, 5 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zach-roloff-death-hoax/. Few things anger New Jerseyans more than higher costs  and that just may be the point of a recentradio adcritical of Gov. Chris Christies time in office. One New Jersey, a Democratic grass-roots group, released the ad May 3. It uses the sound effects of a deck of cards being shuffled and cut to emphasize a theme that Christies gubernatorial tenure thus far has stacked the deck against taxpayers. Christie is up for re-election in November. His lone challenger is state Sen. Barbara Buono (D-Middlesex). The ad goes after Christie in a number of areas but were looking at issues that are near and dear to many New Jerseyans: toll costs, public transportation, education and the wealthy paying their fair share in taxes. Under Republican Governor Chris Christie, tolls cost more. Train and bus rides cost more. College tuition goes up. But Christie protected a tax cut for millionaires, a portion of the 60-second ad states. Most of the claims are accurate but some details are lacking. Lets start by reviewing toll hikes. One New Jersey is correct that tolls are higher under Christie, but doesnt mention that the state has hadtwomajor toll increases in recent years  the larger of which was courtesy of Democrat Jon Corzine, not Christie. In August 2011, Christie and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo agreed to raise trans-Hudson tolls by $1.50 starting in September 2011, followed by additional hikes of 75 cents annually through 2015 to fund a $33 billion capital plan for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Those increases affected the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the Outerbridge Crossing and the Goethals, Bayonne and George Washington bridges. The Corzine-approved hike that took effect Jan. 1, 2012 increased tolls 53 percent on the New Jersey Turnpike and 50 percent on the Garden State Parkway. Those hikes were the second part of a two-phase toll increase adopted by the Turnpike Authority in October 2008, when Corzine was governor. And costs also have increased for train and bus rides since Christie became governor in January 2010. Three months after Christie took office, NJ Transit approved its largest fare hike in history to help close a $300 million budget gap for the fiscal year beginning that July 1. The hikes, the first since 2007, amounted to 25 percent for train and some bus riders and 10 percent for local bus riders and light rail commuters. In February 2010 Christie called NJ Transit a political patronage pit that needed to cut costs and said fare hikes would be unavoidable since drivers of the states roads had just experienced another toll hike. Next, lets look at college tuition. Christie cut funding for county colleges by 10 percent in 2010, a year that also saw record enrollment increases at the states two-year schools. Tuition increased an average of 4.4 percent. Also, 24 of New Jerseys four-year colleges and universities raised tuition and fees in 2010 faster than the inflation rate, according to a Star-Ledger survey that year. Still, tuition generally increases annually at most schools. Finally, did Christie protect a tax cut for millionaires? Democrats approved a bill in May 2010 renewing a one-year tax rate increase of 10.75 percent for those with taxable income above $1 million. The rate had expired before Christie became governor. Christie, who campaigned that he wouldnt raise taxes, vetoed the surcharge -- protecting the rich, some claim -- and Democrats couldnt override it. Plain and simple, Christie picks and chooses when and how to use his power  and on whose behalf, One New Jersey spokesman Joshua Henne said in an e-mail. He used his power to roll back a tax hike on millionaires, but chose not to use his power to roll back toll, tuition and fare increases that disproportionately hurt New Jerseys middle-class and working families. Christie for Governor spokesman Kevin Roberts declined comment. Our ruling Part of an ad about Christie claims, Under Republican Governor Chris Christie, tolls cost more. Train and bus rides cost more. College tuition goes up. But Christie protected a tax cut for millionaires. The ad is correct that tolls, train and bus fares, and college tuition increased on Christies watch but disregards that some of those increases resulted because the governor slashed funding in an effort to close budget gaps. As for protecting a tax cut for millionaires, weve heard this one before and well point out again that Christie technically didnt cut the millionaires tax since it expired before he took office. Still, opinions vary wildly on that claim. We rate this portion of the ad Mostly True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. In August 2021, rumors swirled around the future of Lionel Messi, one of the greatest soccer players of all time, who broke down in tears at a press conference to announce he would be leaving FC Barcelona of Spain, for whom he had played for two decades, leading the club to extraordinary success and establishing himself as a global superstar of the sport, rivaled only by Portugal's Cristiano Ronaldo.  broke down in tears According to statements issued by both the club and Messi himself, both sides had agreed a new contract for the Argentine attacking midfielder, now aged 34, the terms of which would have seen his previous salary  reported to have be $667,000 per week  cut in half.  statements reported However, strict Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules put in place by Spain soccer authorities, combined with Barcelona's dire financial straits  the club has debts of more than 1 billion ($1.2 billion)  ultimately made the new contract impossible. debts of more than 1 billion Messi's previous contract expired earlier in the summer of 2021, meaning he was now a free agent, and could be signed by any other club without the need for a transfer fee to be paid. However, Messi's profile in the sport, and his likely wage demands, meant only a very small number of clubs were in a realistic position to sign him.  Over the weekend Aug. 6 to Aug. 8 of 2021, rumors emerged online that French giants Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) were aggressively pursuing the signing of Messi, who scored a staggering 672 goals in 778 first-team appearances at Barcelona, and won a record six Ballons d'Or  an annual award generally considered to recognize the world's best player each year  between 2009 and 2019.  scored PSG was taken over in 2012 by the Qatari government-run Qatar Investment Authority, providing an extraordinary injection of cash and sponsorship deals that have helped drastically improve the club's fortunes in the intervening decade. taken over in 2012 The club's controversial Qatari backers also funded a series of marquee signings, including the two most expensive transfers in soccer history: that of Brazilian star Neymar from Barcelona, in August 2017 for 222 million ($264 million or $293 million in 2021 terms); and that of French star Kylian Mbappe from AS Monaco, in February 2018 for 180 million ($223 million or $247 million in 2021 terms). controversial Qatari backers 222 million 180 million On Aug. 10, PSG further fueled speculation that its signing of Messi was imminent  scheduling a press conference for the next morning, and posting short videos featuring the Argentinian flag and snippets of an Argentinian soccer jersey.  press conference short videos When Messi himself was greeted by PSG fans at Paris-Le Bourget airport, on the outskirts of the French capital, and at the Royal Monceau hotel, the rumors were all but officially confirmed.  greeted by PSG fans Royal Monceau However, the club removed any remaining doubts when, on the evening of Aug. 10, they officially confirmed Messi's move to the club on a two-year contract, with the option of a third year.   In a news release posted to the club's official website, PSG wrote: news release [PSG] is very happy to announce the signing of Leo Messi on a two-year contract, with the option of a further year. The six-time Ballon d'Or winner is considered a legend of the sport, and a true source of inspiration for all generations, on and off the field. The signing of Leo reinforces the ambitions of PSG and offers our loyal supporters an exceptional team, which promises to bring incredible footballing moments in the years to come.  Messi himself further confirmed the bombshell move, providing the following statement as part of PSG's news release: I can't wait to start a new chapter of my career in Paris. The club and its vision match perfectly my own ambitions. I know just how talented the players and staff are here. By their sides, I'm determined to create something great for this club and for the fans. I cannot wait to step on to the grass at [PSG home ground] Parc des Princes. Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States.  Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.    The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt.   Flickr account As a first step in evaluating this chart, we have to determine the applicable definition of "debt."  In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills.  It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs such as Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by buying up its own treasury securities.  A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former).  We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Monthly Statement of the Public Debt The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan:Took office January 1981.  Total debt: $848 billionLeft office January 1989.    Total debt: $2,698 billionPercent change in total debt:  +218%  George H.W. Bush:Took office January 1989.  Total debt: $2,698 billionLeft office 20 January 1993.    Total debt: $4,188 billionPercent change in total debt:  +55% Bill Clinton:Took office 20 January 1993.  Total debt: $4,188 billionLeft office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionPercent change in total debt:  +37% George W. Bush:Took office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionLeft office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionPercent change in total debt:  +86% Barack Obama:Took office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionTotal debt (as of the end of April 2011):  $14,288 billionPercent change in total debt:  +34% So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported).  That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility.  In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:  The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama).  Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances)  the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office.   All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office.  Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here.  Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two?  As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: FAQ Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market.   Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance?  Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above. Debt-to-GDP chart All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context. In March 2016, photos showing a bottle of Coca-Cola with the words "share a Coke with the KKK" written on its label started circulating online:    This is not a real product sold by Coca-Cola. While the "Share a Coke" campaign allows Coca-Cola drinkers to personalize their cans, some words or phrases (such as "KKK") are not available:    The image showing the "KKK" bottle was created for an online petition on the web site Color Of Change, asking the company to pull its sponsorship of the Republican National Convention due to Donald Trump's failure to condemn the KKK in an interview: petition interview Even with Trump refusing to disavow the support of the Ku Klux Klan this weekend and declaring All Lives Matter at a rally, Coca-Cola and other companies still have not canceled their sponsorship of the RNC. How can Coca-Cola, a company that heavily markets to and profits from Black people, fund a platform for a presidential nominee that is being bolstered into office by former Grand Wizard David Duke, the KKK, and other white supremacists? The petition presupposes both that Coca-Cola will be sponsoring the 2016 Republican National Convention, and that Coca-Cola would be effectively endorsing the Ku Klux Klan by sponsoring the RNC. On 23 February 2016, representatives from the advocacy groups ColorofChange, Americas Voice, CREDO Action, Million Hoodies, MoveOn, and Presente.org admitted as much in an open letter to Coca-Cola and other alleged sponsors of the 2016 RNC: letter Based on your corporate sponsorship of the 2012 Republican National Convention we have reason to believe that your company is planning to again sponsor the RNC this year. We believe it is a sign of strong corporate leadership for you and your company to refrain from sponsoring Donald Trumps hateful and divisive rhetoric. While Coca-Cola did sponsor the Republican National Convention in 2012, the company also sponsored the Democratic National Convention that year: sponsored Many of the sponsors of the Democratic convention were also sponsors of the host committee in Tampa for last week's Republican National Convention. "The Coca-Cola Company believes we have a role to play in the political process and that includes helping to make the political conventions a success," said Coca-Cola spokeswoman Nancy Bailey. In June 2017, multiple news outlets reported that a small Kentucky town called Rabbit Hash had elected a dog as its mayor. As straightforward as this reporting may seem, there are multiple layers to the story. news reported We'll start with the most obvious question. Was a Dog Elected Mayor of Rabbit Hash, Kentucky? Yes. Although this is more of a title-only sort of position that doesn't come with any mayoral powers. In November 2016, the town elected a two-year-old American pit bull terrier named Brynn (who also goes by the name Brynneth Pawltro) as its "unofficial" mayor: elected Brynn With barks and tail-wagging aplenty, the fourth canine mayor of Rabbit Hash surveys the city she will soon take charge of. In a landslide victory Brynn was chosen to guard the steps of the General Store. The 2-year-old pit bull won the election by more than 1,000 votes. Brynn will govern Rabbit Hash, a quaint historical district nestled on the shores of the Ohio River. She will take office after the i-dog-uration in February 2017, a year after a fire destroyed most of the Rabbit Hash General Store. How does a dog become mayor?  Rabbit Hash is a small unincorporated area in Boone County, Kentucky. As such, it doesn't have much of a need for a formal mayor.  There is a longstanding tradition of electing nonhuman mascots as the town's mayor, which started in 1998 when the Rabbit Hash Historical Society held an "election" in order to raise funds to restore a church. The Historical Society charged a dollar to vote in the election, which resulted in the election of a dog named "Goofy Borneman" as the town's very first mayor: election mayor Mayor Goofy Borneman was the first elected mayor of Rabbit Hash. Born of unknown parentage and adopted in 1985 by the Borneman/Calhoun family of Rabbit Hash, Goofy was raised as any local dog-resident of the town. His early years were happy ones, playing with the Bornemans son, Mike Calhoun. According to Mike, it was the standard boy-dog relationship with Goofy a constant companion for Mike as they traveled up and down Lower River Road. While Mike was in school, Goofy would still take the familiar path between his home and the Rabbit Hash General Store visiting neighbors and eating any scraps along the way. In his adolescence, Goofy ran into trouble. Lounging in the road proved to be a dangerous past-time as he was hit by cars more than once. He also had a stinky reputation and fell into trouble with his owner, Ed Borneman, when Goofy was allegedly found to be poaching town chickens. In his older years, Goofy settled down and was content to remain on the straight and narrow. In June 1998, upon Boone County, Kentuckys bicentennial celebration, the Rabbit Hash mayors race was announced. Although initially open to anyone in the area, only humans entered the race. After Jane and Randy Cochran entered their black Labrador Retriever, Herb, in the race, the Borneman family, finding that everyone in the town already held a relationship with their aging dog, Goofy, decided to enter him. The charisma of the Borneman family and the notorious reputation of Goofy led to a triumphant result as Goofy beat out famed woodcarver Crazy Clifford Pottorf and fellow four-legger Herb Cochran. Goofy died in office, and was succeeded by a black lab named Junior. When Junior died, the town elected a red and white border collie named Lucy Lou, who left office in 2015 to "embark" on a tongue-in-cheek run for United States President: Junior Lucy Lou embark The question Mayor Lucy Lou is most asked is, How does a DOG become mayor? Her answer: As with politics in every corner of the earth, the candidate with the most money wins. In Rabbit Hash, were just honest about it. Anyone of any age can vote, you can vote as many times as you like, and we encourage drinking at the polls. Lucy Lous executive staff have been heard to say on more than one occasion, We bought that election fair and square! Does Rabbit Hash elect other animals? The election in Rabbit Hash is largely a fundraiser for the Rabbit Hash Historical Society. Although the town has only elected canine mayors since its first election in 1998, it is not exclusive to dogs. Other animals, including humans, have entered the race: The competition was stiff. "There was a cat, the chicken, a donkey, a little boy," Bamforth said. Brynneth took them all down without much more than a bark. Believe it or not, the pooch is the fourth dog mayor to be unleashed on the city. Does Mayor Brynneth Pawltro have a staff? Although previous mayors of Rabbit Hash were the sole figures within their administrations, the Rabbit Hash Historical Society announced that two of this year's runner-ups, Bourbon and Lady, would serve as ambassadors for the town: BRYNN is the new Mayor of Rabbit Hash Kentucky!!! In an unprecedented move, the Rabbit Hash Historical Society has given official positions to the 1st and 2nd runner ups, Bourbon and Lady, as Ambassadors to Rabbit Hash. In the case that the official mayor is unavailable for an event or obligation, the Ambassadors will fill in. Here is the official tally: Brynn: 3367Bourbon: 2336Lady: 1621Higgins: 495Stella: 400Walter: 397Bossy: 216Louis: 76Izacc: 53 Mayor Lucy Lou said that she has has been honored to serve for the past 8 years. Through the course of a tense evening of voting she sniffed the butts of all the candidates and has given her approval to the Mayor elect, Brynn. She looks forward to working with the new mayor and the Ambassadors as Rabbit Hash strives to restore the General Store. Brynn also has an owner. 23-year-old Jordie Bamforth, who is studying to be a veterinarian, adopted Brynn as a puppy. She said that one of the reasons she wanted to enter to the race was to dispel rumors about pit bulls being aggressive: adopted   Bamforth told reporters: Brynn has declared to be peaceful with any human or animal that comes through Rabbit Hash, especially the cats. Brynn does like to chase the cats around here, but has pledged to refrain from it as much as possible. How much money was raised during the election? The mayoral race in Rabbit Hash is used to raise funds for the town's Historical Society, which then uses the money on various projects around the town. This year, the money will be used to help rebuild and restock the town's general store, which was destroyed in a fire:   store destroyed Bobbi Kayser, secretary of the Rabbit Hash Historical Society and mom of current Mayor Lucy Lou, said the election raised more than $8,900 for the historical society. The money will go toward the restoration of the Rabbit Hash General Store. Although we are so blessed to have had so many corporate donations and benefits in our name, we still have not reached the original estimated goal to complete the project, Kayser said. The General Store is looking nearly perfect, but that comes at a cost of nearly $400,000. The store should be open by September 2017. Brynneth Pawltro could not be immediately reached for comment. Rabbit Hash Historical Society.  "Current Mayor - Brynn."
  Retrieved 28 June 2017. Sutter, Chris.  "For the Fourth Time, Small Kentucky Town Elects a Dog as Mayor."
 WDRB.  23 June 2017. Hadley, Greg.  "A Dog is Now the Mayor of a Small Kentucky Town. And Shes Not Even the First One."
 Brandenton.  24 June 2017. Brookbank, Sarah.  "Rabbit Hash Mayor-Elect Preaches Peace and Love."
 Cincinnati.com  16 November 2016. Claim:  List reproduces various "Marxist" statements made by Hillary Clinton.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] A little history lesson:   If you don't know the answer make your best guess  Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it? 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." A.  Karl MarxB.  Adolph HitlerC.  Joseph StalinD.  None of the above 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." A.  LeninB.  MussoliniC.  Idi AminD.  None of the Above 3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." A.  Nikita KhrushevB.  Josef GoebbelsC.  Boris YeltsinD.  None of the above 4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground." A.  Mao Tse DungB.  Hugo ChavezC.  Kim Jong IlD  None of the above 5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." A.  Karl MarxB.  LeninC.  MolotovD.  None of the above 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." A.  PinochetB.  MilosevicC.  Saddam HusseinD.  None of the above Answers: (1) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/29/2004(2) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  5/29/2007(3) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(4) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(5) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(6) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  9/2/2005 Be afraid.  Be very, very afraid and voteAnybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind! Origins:  This list of purported "Marxist" quotes by former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is (like many collections of utterances from various political figures) difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false": She did make the statements reported above, but they have all been stripped of any explanatory context, and some of them had portions elided, creating potentially misleading impressions about the nature of those statements.  Below we verify the source and complete wording of each statement on this list and provide the context in which it was made.  (All of these entries  date from between 2004 and 2007, during which time Hillary Clinton represented the state of New York in the U.S. Senate.)  "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was not (as commonly assumed) addressed to the general public, but rather to a group of relatively well-to-do Democrats attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer.  Her statement specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which many Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy: tax cuts Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters  some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend  to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few ... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." This entry is a pieced-together passage from a 29 May 2007 economic policy speech given by Senator Clinton on the subject of "Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity."   The supposedly "Marxist" nature of this statement is undercut when the sentences that immediately followed it (affirming support for a free market economy) are included for context: speech It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society. Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.  When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.  "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own in order to create this common ground." "I certainly think the free-market has failed." The above three statements are all out-of-context passages taken from a 4 June 2007 CNN "Presidential Forum" conducted with three Democratic presidential hopefuls, senators John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  The second statement was part of a straightforward expression of the need to for people to reach a consensus (through metaphorically giving up some of their political "turf," not literally giving up their possessions) on how to proceed in order to tackle an issue such as universal health insurance, while the first statement is another pieced-together quote that omits the contextual references to the issues of health care, dependence on foreign oil, and climate change:  Presidential Forum We can set the vision. We can even work to articulate the goal. But the pathway is extraordinarily complicated because of how we live today andhow we think of ourselves in relation to our fellow citizens. Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy  you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people. The third statement was part of a passage in which Senator Clinton listed a number of entities (including churches, schools, and the government, as well as the free market) that she felt had failed in helping young people to make responsible decisions (particularly in reference to abortion): Q: Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero? A: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions. There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today. We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make. And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed. We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally.  "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." This passage was taken from a 2 September 2005 appearance by Senator Clinton in front of constituents in Elmira Heights, New York, where (in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) she expressed her opinion about the need for federal regulatory oversight of the oil industry in order to curb high gasoline prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil: The anxiety and anger felt by motorists was evident at nearly every turn in her travels throughout the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. She made clear she shared the concern. "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they're being watched," she said in explaining her call for an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission. "I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that's what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage." Clinton criticized the new energy bill, which she opposed, as inadequate to solve the country's long-term energy problem. She said the United States has regressed over the past three decades, since the first oil shocks of the early 1970s. "We've had 30 years to do some things we haven't done," she said. "In fact we've gotten, we've gone backwards in many respects. "I am tired of being at the mercy of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, and I'm tired frankly of being at the mercy of these large oil companies," Clinton said.   Last updated:  30 March 2015    Fouhy, Beth.  "San Francisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons."   Associated Press.  29 June 2004.    CNN.  "The Situation Room: Sojourners Presidential Forum."   4 June 2007. Claim:  Photographs show the proceeds from drug sales found during a raid of Mexican drug dealers' residence.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2007] $207 Million seized in Mexico ... wonder what they did with all of it! No wonder we aren't winning the war on drugs. This is unbelievable.  RAID ON DRUG DEALERS HOUSE                   Origins:  The photographs displayed above accompanied a March 2007 press release issued by the PGR (Mexico's office of La Procuradura General de la Repblica, or judge advocate general) announcing a successful drug raid on a Mexico City home.  The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), working in conjunction with Mexican police, made what the DEA described as the "largest drug-cash seizure in history" when they confiscated a total of $205.6 million in U.S. currency, along with other cash, vehicles, and weapons, from a residence used by methamphetamine producers: PGR The money found hidden inside walls, suitcases and closets in one of Mexico City's wealthiest neighborhoods came from the profits of methamphetamines sold in the United States, [DEA chief Karen Tandy]  said. Mexican law enforcement and the DEA worked for a year on the operation, she said. Mexican federal agents also seized eight luxury vehicles,  seven weapons and a pill-making machine during the raid in Lomas de Chapultepec, a neighborhood of walled compounds that is home to ambassadors and business magnates. Seven people were arrested and were ordered Monday to be held for three months while the investigation continues. In addition to the dollars, officials found 200,000 euros and 157,500 pesos. Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora said the money was connected to one of the hemisphere's largest networks for trafficking pseudoephedrine, the main ingredient in methamphetamines. Mora said the ring had been operating since 2004 and was run by a native of China who had gained Mexican citizenship. The alleged gang leader is in hiding, possibly outside of the country, Medina Mora said. The operation should reduce the supply of methamphetamine to the United States, where Mexican drug gangs control at least 80 percent of the market, Tandy said. The U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Antonio O. Garza, issued a statement about the raid which was published on the embassy's web site (and included the photographs reproduced here): statement photographs Mexico City, March 20, 2007  With the largest single drug cash seizure by law enforcement officials in history, major narco-traffickers are now US $205 million poorer. This unprecedented seizure of drug money by Mexican law enforcement officials in Mexico City last week also led to the arrest of several important narco-traffickers.  The seizure and arrests underscore our two countries' deep commitment to fighting the drug kingpins who bring corruption and violence to communities on both sides of the border. President Calderons administration has demonstrated firm resolve in fighting the criminals who undermine our societies and terrorize our citizens.  Acting on information supplied in part by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Mexican law enforcement officers on March 15th seized these funds from the Mexico City home of an individual connected to the UNIMED pharmaceutical corporation of Hong Kong, China. Seven individuals have been arrested so far and authorities are looking for more suspects.  U.S. authorities believe UNIMED is connected with attempts, in December 2006 and February 2007, to smuggle large amounts of the toxic chemicals used to produce methamphetamine through ports in Colima and Michoacan.  I am convinced that continued close cooperation between our law enforcement agencies will lead to more arrests and further successes in our common fight against narco-traffickers. In July 2007, Chinese-Mexican businessman Zhenli Ye Gon, who was tied to the March 2007 seizure of drug cash shown in the photographs above, was arrested in Rockville, Maryland: Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora called the arrest "magnificent news" and said Mexican officials had 60 days to file their legal arguments for Ye Gon's extradition. The Chinese-Mexican fugitive is wanted on organized crime, drug trafficking and weapons charges. DEA spokesman Garrison Courtney said Ye Gon was arrested on drug smuggling and money laundering charges, adding that he was tracked down by agents and did not turn himself in. Medina Mora said the cash seized at Ye Gon's home was connected to one of the hemisphere's largest networks for trafficking pseudoephedrine, the main ingredient in methamphetamines. He said the ring had been operating since 2004, illegally importing the substance and selling it to a drug cartel that mixed it into the crystal form and imported into the United States. Last updated:  14 February 2014    Grillo, Ioan.   "Alleged Drug Trafficker Arrested in Maryland."   Associated Press.  24 July 2007. On 10 December 2015, the web site YourNewsWire.com published a video purportedly showing film acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick, who helmed such groundbreaking films as Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, confessing to having helped NASA fake the Apollo program moon landings: published A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick's death in which Kubrick admits that the NASA moon landings were faked. Filmmaker T. Patrick Murray interviewed Kubrick three days before his death in March 1999. He was forced to sign an 88-page NDA to keep the contents of the interview a secret for 15 years. Below is a transcript from the interview with Stanley Kubrick, in which the 2001 Space Odyssey Director admits on camera that, "the moon landings ALL were faked, and that I was the person who filmed it." In the interview, the alleged Stanley Kubrick figures confesses that: Kubrick: I perpetrated a huge fraud on the American public, which I am now about to detail, involving the United States government and NASA, that the moon landings were faked, that the moon landings ALL were faked , and that I was the person who filmed it. Murray: Ok. (laughs) What are you talking ... You're serious. Ok. Kubrick: I'm serious. Dead serious. Yes, it was fake. Murray: Why are you telling the world? Why does the world need to know that the moon landings aren't real and you faked them? Kubrick: I consider them to be my masterpiece. Murray: And you can' t take credit, or even talk about ... Kubrick: Well, I am now ... Murray: So, you can't talk to Roger Ebert about it. Does that frustrate you? Why did they have to fake it? Why would they have to do that? Kubrick: Because it is impossible to get there ... 2001 was very ambitious, but that's not to say that faking the moon landing was not ambitious. But I learned things from making 2001, and that's why I got this gig in the first place. Murray: That makes sense Kubrick: Well, it was easy for me, because I didn't think a whole lot about the morality of it. But I didn't. And I could see that Neil [Armstrong] was, he was bothered by it. This video has been circulating online since at least August 2015 and is one of several clips purportedly showing Kubrick talking about his alleged involvement in faking the U.S. moon landings. While there are various edits of this infamous (and fake) interview circulating on YouTube, the videos all originated with a new film from T. Patrick Murray titled Shooting Kubrick. film Murray claimed on the Shooting Kubrick web site that he was granted unprecedented access to interview the director in May 1999, which would have been quite an impressive feat since Kubrick had passed away two months earlier:Although the date could be a simple typographical error, that was not the only questionable aspect of the interview. The man being interviewed simply doesn't look or sound like Stanley Kubrick when compared to a video of the real Kubrick accepting the D.W. Griffith Award in 1997:  Furthermore, unedited versions of the interview contain hints that the "Stanley Kubrick" in the video is an actor. In a since-deleted clip, the interviewer called his subject "Tom" and instructed him on how to tell the next part of his story: "You don't say he said anything. You say what he says. Tom, I'm giving you directions. You don't have to imitate him (Richard Nixon). You're not reporting it. You're repeating it ... We're doing exposition here. That's how we're going to sneak it in." A spokesman for Kubrick's widow also proclaimed that "[t]he interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray the whole story is made up, fraudulent and untrue." T. Patrick Murray has not admitted that his interview with Stanley Kubrick is a hoax, but he certainly is banking the mystery's driving interest in his project: