Does Video Offer Real Footage of the Titanic Sinking?
More than a century after the infamous sinking of the RMS Titanic, which resulted in the death of more than 1,500 passengers, the internet continues to obsess over the tragedy. Case in point: July 2022, a fake video shared to TikTok that claimed to show the sinking of the cruise liner racked up nearly a half-million likes. A caption accompanying the video read, Rare footage of the 1912 sinking of the Titanic. However, the video is a fake.   Titanic left its port of Southhampton, England, for its transatlantic maiden voyage on April 10, 1912. Four days later, the nearly 900-foot vessel collided with an iceberg near Newfoundland, Canada, at 11:40 p.m. Two hours and 40 minutes later, the vessel broke in two and sank, according to the Titanic Inquiry Project. Because many of its passengers were noteworthy individuals, the sinking of Titanic quickly became one of the first international news stories of the 20th-century  and along with it came a slew of misinformation, notes the Titanic Newspaper Archives. Newfoundland, Canada Titanic Inquiry Project Titanic Newspaper Archives Apparently, that legacy of misinformation has followed the wreckage 110 years later. The room that appears in the video presumably contains the Grand Staircase, which was described as one of the most impressive features on board the RMS Titanic and the center of first-class activity. James Camerons 1997 film classic "Titanic" resurfaced the fame of the centerpiece.  described Titanic  Public Domain Back to the TikTok video. How do we know that is is fake? First, listen to the audio. You can hear dramatic screaming in the background, but there are no visible people in the frames. Lets also mention that handheld video cameras werent a thing in 1912. Sure, cameras in the 1910s were more mobile than those of previous decades, but The Living Image vintage camera museum notes that cameras of this era [were] still mainly of wooden, folding construction  heavy and not easily mobile. There is surprisingly little genuine film footage of the Titanic both right before and after the disaster, but it does exist. British Path was a producer of newsreels throughout the 20th century, reported the pop-science website IFLScience. A six-minute newsreel produced in the aftermath of the disaster spans multiple scenes after the vessel sunk and the ensuing search for survivors. The first scenes from the footage below depict the Titanic as it left port for disaster. cameras in the 1910s notes British Path IFLScience the vessel sunk  As you can see, authentic film footage from 1912 is much different than the clips shared to TikTok. Lastly, we checked the Instagram account associated with the TikTok profile. It led us to a person presumably named Taylor Tituss, who has a description in the profile reading, I make video edits for fun.  Taylor Tituss "So, to clear things up, the video is fake," Tituss told Snopes, adding that he took the footage from a YouTube clip posted to the platform in May 2021. A caption accompanying the video, which had over 1.5 million views as of this writing, claimed the following:  Mr Joseph Davies a 17 year old boy who was a Photographer on the Titanic the day it perished down in the Atlantic ocean in 1912.This footage was recovered in 2020 by a historian Investigating the sinking of the titanic.He commented "A camera was found in the Atlantic ocean where the titanic sits to rest. It was a miracle the camera was still intact after it was found in 1989.""After years and years of trying to recover the footage found in the films, they were unsuccessful until in 2020 when they became successful recovering the footage using state of the art technology." Mr Joseph died during the sinking of the titanic, the end bit where the video cuts out is when Mr Joseph drowned to his death trying to capture the sinking of the titanic. His remains were never found. We previously fact-checked the claim that an "old camera" from the Titanic was found deep in the ocean. That's also false, as is the below video: "old camera  As we previously reported, a young girl named Bernice Palmer did capture photographs of the iceberg  that Titanic collided with, as well as images of survivors. The Natural Museum of American History published that Palmer carried a handheld camera on the ship that responded to the Titanics distress call: reported published In 1900, the Eastman Kodak Company came out with the handheld box camera known as the Brownie. An immediate hit, more than 100,000 were sold in its first year. Canadian Bernice Bernie Palmer received a Kodak Brownie box camera, either for Christmas 1911 or for her birthday on January 10th, 1912. In early April, Bernie and her mother boarded the Cunard liner Carpathia in New York, for a Mediterranean cruise. Carpathia had scarcely cleared New York, when it received a distress call from the White Star liner Titanic on 14 April. It raced to the scene of the sinking and managed to rescue over 700 survivors from the icy North Atlantic. With her new camera, Bernice took pictures of the iceberg that sliced open the Titanics hull below the waterline and also took snapshots of some of the Titanic survivors.  We've looked into a number of rumors and claims surrounding the sinking of Titanic (did we mention that the internet is obsessed?). Let's sink these rumors once and for all. Here are some other Snopes fact checks that you may enjoy:  Was the Hidden Truth of Titanic Covered Up for Decades? Is This the Final Photograph of the Titanic? Were These Actual Mistakes in the 1997 Titanic Film? Did Divers Exploring Titanic Make Deeply Shocking New Discovery? Is the Door from Titanic on Display at Disney Springs? Sources Apr 15, 1912 CE: Titanic Sinks | National Geographic Society. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/titanic-sinks. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Cameras of 1910s Era. Old Vintage Cameras, Old Fashion Camera. https://licm.org.uk/livingImage/1910Room.html. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Cameron, James. Titanic. Twentieth Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, Lightstorm Entertainment, 1997. Grand Staircase. Titanic Wiki, https://titanic.fandom.com/wiki/Grand_Staircase. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Grand Staircase of the Titanic. Wikipedia, 29 June 2022. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Staircase_of_the_Titanic&oldid=1095579315. Interesting Clips on TikTok. TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/@clipz_r_us_/video/7123906717020278062?_r=1&_d=secCgYIASAHKAESPgo8l7jDOO69%2F8FwrVlvu2ep8xdlY7z%2BELF9%2FTqCesNUwIiXYwhQ2PZfUzJ4G27YFO7FJsTC1abD8k5j58W4GgA%3D&checksum=4302d0d8b587eafda1c7e917ee37f34a2a7c46f1be0920292ec1b49166236792&language=en&preview_pb=0&sec_user_id=MS4wLjABAAAA-lkqwAHfStUeZkapDd_k_rjsEJRnnBbKhvq05zi0bVTQSKzFBdqKThheOb99NdEv&share_app_id=1233&share_item_id=7123906717020278062&share_link_id=f95dae62-97b3-4e7b-83c9-248e6b8c6dde&source=h5_m&timestamp=1659422273&u_code=dd6mf0739ffej6&ugbiz_name=Main&user_id=6844018106214646789&utm_campaign=client_share&utm_medium=android&utm_source=copy. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. This Haunting Video Is The Only Genuine Footage Of The Titanic Before And After It Sank. IFLScience, https://iflscience.com/this-haunting-video-is-the-only-genuine-footage-of-the-titanic-before-and-after-it-sank-59628. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Titanic Disaster Newspaper Archive. https://www.paperlessarchives.com/titanic_newspaper_archive.html. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Titanic Inquiry Project - Main Page. https://www.titanicinquiry.org/. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Titanic Real Footage: Leaving Belfast for Disaster (1911-1912) | British Path. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05o7sOAjtXE. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05o7sOAjtXE. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022.
Claim:  A 15-ton "giant shark," previously believed to be extinct (and a "a parent of the Megalodon") was captured off the coast of Pakistan by local fishermen.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September  2014] 15-Ton Prehistoric Shark Captured Off Coast Of Pakistan. Just seems sketchy in all aspects.   Origins:  On 24 September 2014, World News Daily Report published an article sure spark interest in shark fans. According to the site, a "parent" species of the famed Megalodon was captured off the coast of Pakistan, near Karachi. article Megalodon The undated article "quotes" a local marine biologist as surmising that "rising sea temperatures [are] forcing these beasts to come up closer to the shores," or perhaps the shark was "simply hurt and suffering from a disorienting handicap" after reporting: A giant prehistoric shark previously thought to be extinct for more than 20 million years has been captured by local fishermen off the coast of Pakistan, reports the Islamabad Herald this morning. The giant creature first thought to be a great white shark was rapidly declared by experts to be an unknown species of shark as its great weight and size were unheard of. Analysis of the teeth suggest the shark to be a parent of the Megalodon, an extinct species of shark that lived approximately 28 to 1.5 million years ago, during the Cenozoic Era. Given broad interest in the Megalodon, the "prehistoric shark" story quickly gained traction on social media sites.  Unfortunately, World News Daily Report is one of a number of "satire" news outlets, churning out passably believable articles to be shared on Facebook and Twitter. A disclaimer page on the main site states: disclaimer World News Daily Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within worldnewsdailyreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction. In addition to the "prehistoric giant shark" story, World News Daily Report's featured daily articles include "Elderly Woman Vanishes During Magic Show" and "Homeless Man Sexually Assaulted By Top Models In Limousine."   Last updated:  25 September 2014 The House of Representatives passed a 2.6 percent pay raise for all civilian federal employees in response to a government shutdown that left hundreds of thousands of federal workers either furloughed or working without pay. Some Republican lawmakers decried the move. U.S. Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., sent out atweetsaying, Where I come from you dont get a pay raise just for showing up to work. Today Dem leaders pushed a $5B pay raise for federal workers who are paid well above the HOUSEHOLD income in southern Missouri. Retweet if you think that money would be better spent to #SecureOurBorder. Where I come from you don't get a pay raise just for showing up to work. Today Dem leaders pushed a $5B pay raise for federal workers who are paid well above the HOUSEHOLD income in southern Missouri. Retweet if you think that money would be better spent to#SecureOurBorder On Feb. 1, Smith repeated the claim in hisWeekly Capitol Report. The raise in question matches an increase in pay for military personnel that was passed in 2019. If passed by the Senate, the bill would undo a pay freeze instituted by President Donald Trump on Dec. 28. We decided to take a closer look to see if federal workers really do make that much more than southern Missourians and if so, why. Smiths claim focuses on two different metrics  the income of an individual federal civilian employee and the income of households in southern Missouri. This distinction is important, because household income can include the wages and salaries of multiple people. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis supports Smiths claim that individual federal employees bring in more pay than southern Missouri households. The mean household income in Missouri is $70,144, a figure already lower than the mean income of a federal civilian worker, which is $90,811. When asked for data supporting the claim, Smiths communications director Joey Brown pointed to census data compiled by congressional district. To determine the average household income in southern Missouri, we looked at the two congressional districts that cover the states southernmost counties  districts 7 and 8. Smiths district, Congressional District 8, encompasses the southeast corner of the state, stretching from Ozark County to Jefferson County and extending into the Bootheel region. There, the mean household income is $54,393. In neighboring Congressional District 7, which covers the southwest corner of the state, the mean household income is $62,145. There are many explanations for why federal employees are paid more than the average southern Missourian household. Experts told us that any comparison should also take into account education, training, skills and experience that increase worker productivity and typically result in higher incomes. The federal governments 2.2 million civilian workers tend to be older, more educated and more concentrated in professional occupations than private-sector workers, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress. About 51 percent of federal workers have attained at least a bachelors degree. In Smiths district, about 16 percent of constituents 25 and older have a bachelors degree, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and Office of Personnel Management. A report by the Congressional Budget Office that accounted for these differences found that there is a disparity between how federal and private workers are paid. But this disparity depends on levels of education. Theres very little question that the top people in government are being paid quite a bit less usually than the top people with those kinds of skills in the private sector, said University of Missouri economics professor Peter Mueser. Federal workers with a professional or doctorate degree earned roughly 24 percent less than their privately-employed counterparts. But federal workers with no more than a high school education earned 34 percent more than similar workers employed outside the federal government. Federal employees whose highest level of education was a bachelors degree earned 5 percent more. Another factor worth considering is benefits, said Iowa State University economics professor John Winters by email. In addition to salaries and wages, workers are compensated with benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans and job security. However, benefits are more difficult to quantify, because they are in part based on future predictions and less-detailed data is available on benefits than wages. The CBO study found that for federal employees whose highest level of education was a bachelors degree, benefits were 52 percent higher. Average benefits were 93 percent higher for federal employees with no more than a high school education. For employees with a doctorate or professional degree, average benefits were about the same in the two sectors. The bare bones of Smiths claim hold up to scrutiny. Federal workers do take home more in income than the average household in southern Missouri. But Smiths statement doesnt take into account differences between southern Missourians and the average federal employee that help explain income disparity, such as education. We rate this statement Mostly True. With Republicanscriticizing the corporate tax hikeproposed by President Joe Biden to fund his infrastructure plan, Biden pushed back during remarks on his proposal, the American Jobs Plan. Biden framed the issue as one of fairness, with big corporations not paying their fair share. A new, independent study put out last week found that at least 55 of our largest corporations use the various loopholes to pay zero federal income tax in 2020, Bidensaidin his April 7 remarks. It's just not fair. It's not fair to the rest of the American taxpayers. We found that Bidens statement is supported by a recently released study from a liberal group, though that studys methodology has its critics. President Joe Biden speaks during an event on the American Jobs Plan at the White House on April 7, 2021. (AP) We didnt hear back from the White House, but Bidens remarks make clear that he was referring to an April 2studyby the liberal-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. That study, which had received wide media coverage in recent days, found that at least 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no federal corporate income taxes in their most recent fiscal year despite enjoying substantial pretax profits in the United States. The list of 55 companies is sprinkled with well-known names, including FedEx, HP, Nike, Salesforce and XCel Energy. Collectively, the study concluded, the companies earned $40.5 billion in pretax income in 2020 and would have paid taxes amounting to $8.5 billion had this income been taxed by at the standard 21% corporate rate. In reality, the companies collectively received rebates from the federal government worth $3.5 billion. The study cited several tax laws that helped protect these companies income from taxation, including those governing the tax treatment of executive stock options, research and experimentation, renewable energy, deductions for capital expenses, and the reallocation of losses to different tax years. Some observers told PolitiFact that they took issue with Bidens characterization of such laws as loopholes. Reasonable people can disagree over the wisdom of a given tax provision, but they were deliberate policy choices, not rifle shots, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the center-right American Action Forum. Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, agreed. The problem with that framing is that many of the provisions reducing tax rates are either built into the code to properly calculate net income  such as a 100% bonus depreciation, apro-growth provision or provisions created to incentivize preferred activity by policymakers, such as the research and experimentation tax credit, Watson said. Still, even experts who are critical of the studys methodology told PolitiFact that Biden accurately portrayed the gist of the reports findings in his April 7 remarks. Notably, Bidens remark also stopped short of blaming the companies for evading taxes; his remarks suggest that his quarrel is with the tax system that allowed the companies to legally pay so little in taxes. The groups study is based on an analysis of annual financial reports filed by publicly traded companies in the Standard & Poors 500 stock index or the Fortune 500 list of companies with the largest revenue. But while this data comes from federally required disclosures, critics say that what is disclosed on these forms is calculated differently from these companies actual tax filings, which are private. In other words, the critics say, we dont really know whether these companies paid zero in taxes or not. Holtz-Eakinwrotethat using Securities and Exchange Commission filings, as the study does, is tricky, because the way income is counted on these forms departs substantially from the way taxable income is reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Notably, companies have some flexibility to determine their own fiscal years for financial disclosures, whereas the IRS requires a more rigid schedule for tax payments, he wrote. Financial reports may not cover the same period of time as a tax return, he wrote. Meanwhile, the tax code allows companies to smooth out income by allowing losses to be carried forward or backward for a number of years, Holtz-Eakin wrote. As a result, a snapshot of the company in its single year of profitability is a necessarily distorted view, but one that some tax critics tend to highlight. In addition, the rules governing the reporting of capital investments in the SEC disclosures may be different from what the IRS allows. Steve Wamhoff, director of federal policy at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said he disagrees with the methodological critiques. Wamhoff said his groups report focuses on what the companies affirm is their best calculation of taxes they have paid for the year. Its very unlikely that the companys real-world income tax liability will be substantially different from this, he told PolitiFact. He added that the reallocation of losses to different tax years is reasonable in theory, but we are finding that corporations are not paying taxes over a longer period. Our report finds that many of these companies  26 that we have identified  paid nothing over a three-year period. William Gale, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, agreed that it can be difficult to infer a companys actual tax position from its SEC filings. But he said the idea that many large corporations do pay zero in federal taxes is by now well-established. The non-partisan Congressional Joint Committee on Taxationhas shownthat in any given year for the past 15 years or so, about two-thirds of corporations with less than $1 billion in assets paid no federal corporate income tax, and one-third of corporations with assets greater than $1 billion paid no federal corporate income tax, Gale said. And the committee, he said, has access to corporations actual tax returns. Biden said, A new, independent study put out last week found that at least 55 of our largest corporations used various loopholes to pay zero federal income tax in 2020. Biden is right that a study had been released days earlier by a non-governmental group that concluded that at least 55 large companies paid zero federal income taxes in 2020. However, it may be incorrect to call the tax provisions cited in the report loopholes, since many of them are deliberate attempts by the government to set incentives through the tax code and may on their own be broadly popular. Critics also say that the financial disclosures used to compile the report are imperfect estimates of what the companies actually paid in taxes, since the accounting rules are different for the two types of filings. On the other hand, separate data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is based on actual tax returns, has supported the studys general point. We rate the statement Mostly True. On the eve of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin's conviction on murder and manslaughter charges in the killing of George Floyd, a Black man whose death sparked a global reckoning over racism, cities around the U.S. braced for the potential fallout of the trial outcome. On April 19, 2021, one day before the verdict was reached, Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland, Oregon -- which had been a hotbed of racial justice protests for over a year -- declared a state of emergency. The declaration was widely reported by national news outlets as the world awaited the verdict reading in the Chauvin trial. In a 45-minute news conference, Wheeler was joined by other city leaders to respond to violence that had already erupted in Portland in anticipation of the verdict. Wheeler called the event a high-intensity moment and said that the city needed to be ready as possible for anything. widely reported national news outlets As the mayor, Ive declared a state of emergency to allow city bureaus to facilitate peaceful first amendment activity and respond to any violence if necessary, said Wheeler, adding that the state of emergency would be activated for 24 hours and could be extended if necessary. In response, Oregon Governor Kate Brown had made available the state police and select members of the national guard should the city need the resources. The mayor also acknowledged a coordinated plan to combat anarchist posters and a group of 100 or so largely white, self-described anarchists who engage in the criminal destruction of Portlands economy and confidence. Lets be clear, anarchist flyers call for what they describe as quote direct action which are code words for breaking windows, ransacking businesses, arson and intimidation. They call for attacks on public employees, said Wheeler. They use crime and violence to intimidate those who dont share their political views. These people are not protestors. They are criminals.  A tweet shared by conservative journalist Andy Ngo (archived here) appeared accurately described Wheelers emergency declaration but claimed that Antifa had put out flyers calling for violence regardless of the trial outcome. Ngo is also the editor-at-large of The Post Millennial, a Canadian conservative news website, that has been accused of pamphleteering. (Ngo did not respond to our request for comment.) tweet here pamphleteering   A tweet that was shared on the afternoon of April 20, 2021 (archived here) furthered Ngo's sentiment, implying that the state of emergency was in part due to antifa and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, who were both supposedly behind the poster that told rioters to rage in Portland no matter what the verdict is. tweet here   As of this writing, Snopes has not been able to determine if the flyer in question was actually posted around Portland. Furthermore, the text did not specifically mention antifa or BLM, though it did imply that Dont Shoot Portland, a social justice nonprofit, was supporting the protest. In an email to Snopes, the organization said that they were not involved with the posters in any capacity. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for people to use our name for their own agendas. Our marches center [on] children and nonviolence, a spokesperson told Snopes. A reverse image search did not return any results, and Snopes contacted both BLM and Wheeler's office but did not receive a response in time for publication. reverse image search While it is true that Wheeler issued a state of emergency in advance of the Chauvin verdict and mentioned "anarchist posters," there is not enough evidence to confirm whether Wheeler was speaking of the flyer above, or what group(s) were behind this flyer, if it was real. We will update this article if and when more information becomes available. Update [April 21, 2021]: This article was updated to include statements from Dont Shoot Portland. Claim:  Gary Heavin, founder and CEO of the fitness chain Curves, supports pro-life causes. Status:  . Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Just so you know: Gary Heavin, the founder of the Waco, Texas-based chain of exercise studios called Curves, is a heavy contributor to several organizations allied with Operation Save America, the rather more muscular successor to Operation Rescue, the anti-choice group. The organizations he funds are spreading the lie that abortions lead to an increased risk of breast cancer. Planned Parenthood says its operations in Texas are being threatened by Heavin-funded clinics based on the old therapeutic model "you must carry your child to term." In an article in Christianity Today, Heavin expressed pride in his involvement with anti-choice groups, to which he donates 10 percent of Curves' profits. You may do with this information what you will. Origins:   With more than 7,000 fitness and weight loss centers around the globe, Curves is the largest fitness franchise in the world. One in four health clubs in the U.S. is a Curves, a stupendous feat given that the company has only been around since 1992. Yet, for the utterly amazing, consider this: Prior to January 2004, Curves didn't have a national ad campaign. Almost all of its customers found out about the chain through word of mouth. You wouldn't think one exercise club could be that different from any other, but Curves are, and that difference accounts for the success of the chain. Curves exercise clubs are strictly for women. Their stripped-down no-frills look will likely come as a shock to those who   have been conditioned to believe proper fitness palaces should be fashioned of glass and gleaming chrome and populated by herds of designer-garbed hard-bodied 20-somethings setting new land speed records on treadmills and exercise bikes. At Curves, there are no lockers or showers, and the clientele is predominently middle-aged and overweight. The equipment members use is set up in a circle. Every 30 seconds those working out are told to move to the next station, which is either another machine that works different muscle groups or a space between two machines where exercisers run or walk in place. A typical Curves workout regimen is 30 minutes a day, three times a week. Because the equipment is hydraulic, it adapts to each user's level of fitness, making these workouts suitable for anyone regardless of physical conditioning. Women like the Curves program for its "30 minutes and you're on your way" aspect, but also for the camaraderie that comes from exercising with others, which appears to be spurred on by the arrangement of the workout stations in a circle. Friendships form. Encouragement is given. A sense of "We're all in this together" pervades. More than 7,000 outlets since 1992. Obviously, they're doing something  right. This highly successful chain is the brainchild of Gary Heavin, a Texas businessman who earlier in his life had a 17-location fitness center chain before filing bankruptcy, divorcing, losing custody of his two children, and serving a six-month jail sentence for failure to pay child support. Although a Christian from his teen years, he re-committed his life to Christ while in jail, after which he and his new wife (whom he married just before his incarceration) opened the first Curves in Harlingen, Texas, in 1992. The text of the e-mail quoted above was written by Jon Carroll, a columnist with the San Francisco Chronicle. It appeared in that paper on 20 April 2004. The statements made by Carroll in those three short paragraphs about Gary Heavin, the founder and CEO of Curves, hold water for the most part. Heavin (pronounced "Haven"), is a born-again Christian who is strongly pro-life and, according to an Operation Save America's web site (a pro-life group of a more radical orientation than Operation Rescue, and one that asserts there is a connection between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer), is one of their supporters: Operation Save America Operation Rescue We then contacted Mr. Gary Heavin, Founder and CEO of Curves International. Mr. Heavin is a wealthy man who is a committed Pro-life Christian. He is the premier customer of the bank that sponsors Komen. He graciously returned our phone call and promised to use his influence to convince the bank to give some of the funding to Carenet, so they could take care of the women, instead of Planned Parenthood. Several months passed and, lo and behold, on Tuesday, September 23rd, in the year of our Lord 2003, Carenet, our local CPC, held their annual banquet. It was the most attended, and as far as I was concerned, the best one to date. At the end, a major announcement and press statement was issued for Central Texas. Gary Heavin made a five million dollar grant to Family Practice, Carenet, and McCap. These groups and ministries would receive one million dollars a year for the next five years. Granted, some shortcuts were taken by Jon Carroll in his heads-up about Heavin. If Heavin does support Operation Save America, his "support" is of a non-financial nature. The "article in Christianity Today" was actually published in Today's Christian (formerly Christian Reader), a magazine put out by Christianity Today. Also, the "donates 10 percent of Curves' profits" is a misleading way of saying Heavin gave away that much money in 2003  the wording implies he donates that percentage of Curves' profits on an ongoing basis, yet the source material this information was drawn from speaks only to one particular year (2003), not to any year before it, and not to any plans by Heavin to gift at a similar level in future years.  Moreover, the  Today's Christian article stated that Heavin donated an amount equal to 10 percent of Curves' profits to "charities," which Jon Carroll has represented solely as "anti-choice groups"  though Heavin does financially support pro-life organizations and might well give only to them, he might also donate to other manner of charitable groups as well, with the 10 percent figure representing the total of what he doled out in charitable contributions in 2003 to various causes, both pro-life and otherwise. Ergo, either Carroll mischaracterized or misunderstood what he read, or he based his statement on information outside that Today's Christian article: Servanthood may not be today's normal model for business success, but that hasn't stopped the Heavins. In 2003, the couple gave away $10 million  10 percent of their company's gross revenues and 80 percent of Gary's net income  to charities. Heavin matches the first $1,000 that each franchise raises for community causes such as walkathons to benefit pro-life pregnancy-care centers. Such controversial stances have led to criticism, but Heavin is unfazed. "There's nothing healthy about abortion," he says. "I'm not afraid to tell the truth." In a correction published 4 May 2004, The San Francisco Chronicle said: "A Ruth Rosen column Thursday  'What's wrong with curves?'  stated that three 'pregnancy crisis centers' that received $5 million from Curves owner Gary Heavin were 'supported by Operation Save America.' The column was referring to Operation Save America's verbal endorsement of the centers, not financial support." On 13 May 2004, The San Francisco Chronicle published a further correction to information contained in both the Rosen and Carroll pieces: Two recent columns contained errors involving contributions made by Gary Heavin, founder and CEO of Curves, the women's fitness chain.  Ruth Rosen's April 29 opinion-page column stated that Heavin "has given at least $5 million of his profits to some of the most militant anti-abortion groups in the country." That characterization is not accurate.  The column specified that the money went to "three Texas organizations to fund 'pregnancy crisis centers.'" Only one of the recipients, Care Net, operates pregnancy crisis centers that are designed to dissuade pregnant women from having abortions while offering other support services to encourage adoption. Heavin has pledged to give Care Net $1 million over the next five years, according to a Curves spokeswoman.  The largest of the pledges  $3.75 million over five years  goes to the Family Practice Center of McLennan County, which provides a variety of health-care services to Central Texas residents, many of whom are uninsured, according to the Curves spokeswoman. The Catholic-run center does not provide abortions but is not actively involved in the anti-abortion movement, the center's CEO said.  The other recipient of Heavin's pledge, $250,000 over five years, was the McLennan County Collaborative Abstinence Project, which promotes sexual abstinence among teens. Its director said that, as a matter of policy, its staff would not discuss abortion when making presentations.  The column presented the contributions as a percentage of the company's annual gross revenues. But the Curves spokeswoman said that those pledges, as well as millions of dollars in donations to a wide range of charities, came from Heavin's personal wealth.  The column also referred to Heavin's comments in a "recent Christianity Today" article that he "is proud to support these organizations." In fact, the interview was published in the January-February issue of Today's Christian, a magazine affiliated with Christianity Today. In it, Heavin expressed his anti-abortion views but did not talk about his support for any specific organization.  In addition, Jon Carroll, in his April 20 Datebook column, erred in referring to Heavin's comments as appearing in "Christianity Today" and by stating that Heavin "donates 10 percent of Curves profits" to "anti-choice groups." He also wrote that Heavin's recipients were allied with Operation Save America, a radical anti-abortion group. As stated in a May 4 clarification on Rosen's column, Operation Save America has praised those recipients on its Web site but does not provide financial support, nor does it have a formal alliance with them.  The Chronicle regrets the errors. Gary Heavin is far from the first successful businessman to underwrite reproductive causes  Tom Monaghan of Domino's Pizza and Carl Karcher, founder of the California-based hamburger chain Carl's Jr., have been very open and public regarding their support of the pro-life philosophy, just as Warren Buffett, ranked by Forbes magazine as the second-richest man in the world, has been forthcoming about his backing of pro-choice programs. In each instance, these men are acting as private citizens who choose to bestow parts of their fortunes on the causes they believe in, not as officers of their corporations. The money is theirs to do with as they please, just as anyone's paycheck belongs to the person who earns it and stops being the employer's money at the moment it is paid out. That a spendthrift employee might choose to gamble away his earnings doesn't mean the company he works for supports gambling; likewise, that a wealthy man financially supports particular causes doesn't mean the corporation that paid him the money favors those movements.  Domino's Pizza Warren Buffett All this is by way of saying that while it's correct to identify Gary Heavin as a patron of pro-life endeavors, it would not be right to point to Curves as a supporter of those same causes.  Barbara "cause and effect" Mikkelson Additional information:     Curves International web site  Last updated:  19 November 2006    Sources:   Carroll, Jon.  "Jon Carroll."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  20 April 2004  (p. E12).    Chan, Vera H-C.  "Gary Heavin Creates Sanctuaries for Women."   San Jose Mercury News.  16 April 2004.    Kennedy, John W.  "Rolling with the Curves."   Today's Christian.  January 2004  (p. 30).    Lawrence, Elana.  "Curves, Without Frills."   The Washington Post.  27 May 2003  (p. F1).    Reimer, Susan.  "The Mature Are Ready to Go Around These Curves."   The Baltimore Sun.  8 February 2004  (p. N1).    Rosen, Ruth.  "What's Wrong With Curves?"   The San Francisco Chronicle.  29 April 2004  (p. B9).    The San Francisco Chronicle.  "Corrections."   4 May 2004  (p. A2).    The San Francisco Chronicle.  "Corrections."   13 May 2004  (p. A2). For all the discussion of immigration, foreign policy and social issues in the 2016 campaign, one issue always returns to the fore eventually: jobs. Republican candidate John Kasich emphasizes his record on jobs as Ohio governor in a new ad. Theadbegins with grainy footage of what seems to be an unemployment line. The narrators first words are, Twenty million Americans are out of work, and this assertion is bolstered by being repeated in on-screen text:  This figure sounded high to us, since the official number of unemployed Americans during the most recent month, February, tops out at about 7.8 million. So we asked the Kasich campaign for their evidence, and they proceeded to cite a source that caught us off-guard: Us. Specifically, they pointed to ourfact-check from Augustin which we analyzed a statement by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Trump said that we have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed. We rated this claimFalse, largely because the 93 million number included lots of people who would not be expected to want or be able to work, including full-time students, senior citizens, the disabled, and those who have chosen to take care of their children full-time. However, in the process, we conducted a mathematical experiment in which we played with possible numbers of Americans who are out of work that fit somewhere between the official unemployment rate (on the low end) and Trumps number (on the high end). HELP US RAISE $15,000 TO HIRE AN EXTRA FACT-CHECKER Heres what we wrote, using the statistics that were current at the time: The official number of unemployed Americans is 8.3 million -- less than one-tenth of what Trump says. But to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, its possible to expand this number using more credible economic thinking. Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, says its not unreasonable to include:  The 6.4 million people who havent looked for work recently enough to qualify as being in the labor force, but who say they currently want a job. And the 6.5 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job. This would mean that upwards of 21 million Americans could be described with some justification as out of work involuntarily, either fully or partially. But thats not even one-quarter of the number that Trump offered. Rob Nichols, a spokesman for Kasich, said the campaign simply updated our math with more recent data in preparing the television ad. The numbers for January 2016, Nichols said, were:  Unemployed: 7.8 million  People who havent looked for work recently enough to qualify as being in the labor force, but who say they currently want a job: 6.2 million  People working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job: 6 million. That works out to 20 million on the nose. We salute the Kasich campaigns efforts to fact-check-proof their assertion. Still, we should note that we didnt intend our calculation to be the final word on how to determine the number of out of work Americans. Rather, we were trying to provide a benchmark for showing just how wrong Trumps number was. Well note that our wording was that the 21 million figure had some justification  not exactly a clarion call for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to change its longstanding protocol. In subsequent fact-checks, though not the one the Kasich campaign referred to, we have added language that is clearer about our intentions. We did that, for instance, in ourFeb. 11, 2016, fact-checkof a different statement by Trump: Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. The number's probably 28, 29, as high as 35 (percent). In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent. In that fact-check, which produced a rating ofPants on Fire, we prefaced a similar alternative calculation this way: We are deliberately stretching the numbers here as an intellectual exercise; we are not saying that 15.6 percent is a more accurate unemployment rate than the official one of 4.9 percent. But enough from us. What do the two economists we checked with for the original fact-check think about Kasichs use of the 20 million figure? Given that the image looks like a guy in an unemployment line, I'd say it's a misleading figure, said Tara Sinclair, an economist with George Washington University and the jobs website Indeed.com. Many people have good reasons for not wanting to work now, she said, and that is something distinct from actually being out of work. Burtless agreed, saying, The 5.988 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job are not out of work. They are employed, but on a work schedule that does not provide them with the weekly hours they desire. At the same time, Burtless said there is still some value in the number cited in Kasichs advertisement. Gov. Kasich has given an upper-bound estimate of the total number of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, Burtless said. Its just not theonlyestimate. Our ruling Kasichs ad said that 20 million Americans are out of work. The Kasich campaign shrewdly cites a past PolitiFact item as evidence for this larger-than-usual estimate of Americas out of work population. But its worth noting that the calculation we did was not intended to determine the actual number of out-of-work Americans, but rather to suggest the highest figure with any sort of credibility as a way of seeing how far out of line Trumps assertion was. The statement is partially accurate but takes things out of context, so we rate it Half True. Legend:  A young woman on a date who is too timid to ask where the toilet is meets with disastrous results. LEGEND Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 1999] This girl had been dating a rich guy in New York City. After a few months he took her to dinner at his parents mansion. During dinner she needed to use the toilet. Not wanting to be indiscreet she asked where the "powder room" was. The parents had the butler assist her to the powder room. When she went inside it had only a vanity and sink. She did not want to embarass herself by asking for the toilet, instead she decided to pee in the sink. However when she sat on the sink, it pulled out of the wall,  and she fell off hitting her head on the towel rack and knocking herself unconscious.  On hearing a loud thump from above the family rushed upstairs to find the sink broken and girl passed out with her pants down.  [Collected on the Internet, 1999] There was this teenager. She was the daughter of a rich (if stuffy) couple and went to an exclusive private girls-only school. She was also head over heels in love with a particularly nice boy from one of the local  boys-only private schools. She would do anything to meet him, and was continually making up excuses or 'coincidences' so that she would run into him. Being a boy, he finally got the message after she almost threw herself at him. He invited her out. However, being himself from a stuffy family, their first 'date' was to dinner at his house with his parents. The girl was ecstatic, if nervous, and immediately set out to make sure that the night would be a success. She didn't eat for a week. She spent a huge amount on a new haircut and a makeover. She bought a new dress.  Finally, the night came. She went to the house and was introduced to the parents at the door. They made small talk. Things were going fine. Then, in  the middle of the main course, the girl needed to go to the toilet. Being on  her best behaviour, she asked for the bathroom. She was given directions, but when she got there, she only found a bath and a sink. Not wanting to appear foolish and go back to ask directions to the toilet, she decided to use the sink. Unfortunately, it was a little high and awkward to sit on, and half way though she slipped, broke the sink, and knocked herself unconscious. After half an hour, concerned about what had happened to her, that's where the entire family found her - unconscious, her knickers around her ankles, lying in a mess of water, urine and broken sink. Of course, when she came to, she was humiliated. The boy, however, thought it was the funniest thing in the world.  He visited her in hospital and asked her to come around again. At first she wouldn't but, when convinced that the family had forgiven her and that it would never be mentioned, she agreed. As with the first time, she spent a week preparing for the night. As with the first time, she was greeted by the parents at the door. Feeling slightly more nervous than the first time, the sat down on the nearest sofa - only to hear a hideous cracking sound. She quickly stood up, and discovered that she had just broken the back of the family's beloved chihuahua.   She never saw the boy again. Origins:  The legend of the social-climbing young lady and her fall from both grace and a bathroom sink dates to at least 1991. It's usually set in Britain, where one could possibly still find older homes in which the bathroom (or washroom) contained only a washstand and where one would therefore need to ask for the "water closet" if one expected to be directed to the toilet, or (as in the first example above) in a "rich person's home" where one might find a "vanity room" with only a sink.  (Neither explanation really applies to the second example above, in which the girl is clearly from the same area and social class as the boy she's dating.) This related version was told by novelist and biographer Andrew Sinclair: A friend of mine from Australia was asked to an elegant party in Eaton Square. Caviar was to be served after the champagne. Having drunk too much of that, my friend found his way to the bathroom. He groped around for a light switch, but did not discover it. He then groped around for a lavatory, but did not discover one. Finally, he found the edge of the bath and settled for that. He relieved himself slowly and fully, then turned on the taps to swill away the evidence. Going back to the party, he asked his hostess where the caviar might be. 'Packed on ice,' she said, 'in the bath. I am just going to get it.' He went instead, walking quickly back to Australia. As a legend, the "sink tinkle" shares a number of elements with the more common crushed dog tale in which an over-anxious guest manages to kill the family pooch by sitting on it. It's therefore no surprise to see the two combined into one story as they appear in the second example above. Crushed dog tales often include a lead-in of the guest having committed a prior faux pas, necessitating his return to the scene of the crime to tender an apology: crushed dog A young man, new in town, is invited to a party at an expensive home. He falls asleep after drinking heavily and awakens in a dark room. While fumbling for the light switch, he accidentally sticks his finger into an open ink well and leaves stains and fingerprints all over the room. Embarrassed by the damage he has done, the young man slips away unnoticed. The next day he decides to return and apologize. He was admitted by a servant, who led him to a dim library to await his host or hostess. He entered the library, and sank into the nearest comfortable chair, only to hear and feel a mind-boggling CRUNCH! The young man leapt to his feet to discover that he had crushed a delicate Chihuahua to death. He fled again, and never returned. A 1996 British version of the crushed dog tale also includes a lead-in involving a boorish guest and bathroom functions gone awry. In that telling, a lad staying over at a country home awakens in the middle of the night, overcome by the urgent need to defecate.  He locates a chamber pot in his room, does his business in it, and returns to bed, resolving to empty the pot first thing in the morning before anyone else is about. In the morning, after topping up the pot with the contents of a full bladder, he sets out to look for a toilet to dump this steaming stew into. Alas, none is to be found. Still a bit tipsy from the night before, our hero decides to empty the pot out a window and onto the flower beds below. Unfortunately, as he holds the pot out the window, the weight of everything in it causes its handle to snap off. The pot plummets down the side of the house, crashes through the glass conservatory roof below, smashing and splashing its contents over the main table where the other guests are seated for breakfast.  Be it spilled ink, a broken sink, or a crushed dog, at the heart of each of these tales lies an overriding commonality  the unforgivable social error committed by someone clearly out of his element. Stories such as these are our way of venting such fears, getting them out in the open where we can laugh at them, but at the same time confirming to ourselves how very much we dread some day becoming the one to break the sink or squash the dog. Only because the following story fits well enough with the theme of social embarrassment to permit me an excuse to slip it in here, I present the following letter to Miss Manners: Dear Miss Manners: This may sound silly, but I'm serious. When someone suffers a particularly embarrassing accident in front of you and many others, what is the socially appropriate response? My husband and I got into an argument about this. We recently visited Boston, and while we were there, we attended a large party where everyone was elegantly dressed. At the party, a lady in a low-cut gown tripped, stumbled, lurched across a table, falling face first into a bowl of guacamole dip, and in the process "popped out" of her top. After an initial stunned silence, practically everyone in the room burst out laughing, even though it was obvious that the lady was terribly embarrassed. Then the hostess rushed over to help her and ushered her upstairs. After we left the party, I criticized my husband for laughing and told him I thought it was very bad manners. But he said that it was not impolite for people to laugh at something like that as long as they meant no harm and didn't "overdo" it. I said it was inconsiderate of the person's feelings to laugh at all. He said it's the social custom. Could you settle the argument? Gentle Reader: What do you mean "something like that"? Miss Manners doubts that there is anything in the world like an elegantly dressed Bostonian lurching across the room and diving face first into a bowl of guacamole dip while simultaneously disengaging her bodice from her bosom. Therefore, Miss Manners has a wee bit of trouble preparing a general rule for dealing with this eventuality. Nor, if she were your husband, would she attempt to justify a reaction on grounds other than direct cause and effect. One might try to ignore a less spectacular accident. If, say, it were avocado dip, rather than guacamole, and the lady had merely trailed her sleeve in it, one could pretend not to have noticed. To pretend not to notice a performance such as you have described  even if it were humanly possible  would be to suggest that the lady did it all the time and her friends have gotten used to it. It is far better to comfort her later by telling stories of your own about hilariously embarrassing accidents you have survived. Doesn't a broken sink or a squashed dog now almost sound picayune in comparison? Barbara "social quirker" Mikkelson Sightings:  The "crushed dog" part of the legend shows up in Tom Robbin's 1980 novel Still Life with Woodpecker. Those looking for the "broken sink" part of the story will find that in an episode of television's The Single Guy (a short-lived sitcom aired in the U.S. from 1995-97). Last updated:  29 July 2013   Martin, Judith.  Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior.  New York: Warner Books, 1983  ISBN 0-446-37763-5   (pp. 468-469).   Morley, Robert.  Robert Morley's Second Book of Bricks.  UK: Coronet Books, 1982  (p. 75).   Samon, Katherine Ann.  Dates from Hell.  New York: Plume, 1992  (pp. ix-xiii).   Scott, Bill.  Pelicans & Chihuahuas and Other Urban Legends.  St. Lucia, Queensland: Univ. of Queensland Press, 1996.  ISBN 0-7022-2774-9  (p. 157). Claim:  Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected on the Internet, December 2013] My family's journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013.   I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us.   We are a family of four, with two little boys' ages seven years old and three years old.   My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively.  We have been with the same two companies for those years.  We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us.  We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.  On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama.  When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement.  Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband.  So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us.  This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month.  I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this.  Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly.  I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kids college, our retirement, etc.  I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month  how in the world could this help the economy too?  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  The item referenced above, an open detailing one Alabama woman's extreme difficulty and frustration in obtaining ACA-compliant health insurance coverage for her family (including her 7-year-old son with ADHD) was posted under the name of Karri Kinder on 23 December 2013 as the sole entry in a blog and was republished (without additional comment) by the Independent Journal Review on 31 December 2013. blog republished Certainly her experience is not unique in kind, as many residents of Alabama covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama (an insurer who has an 88% share of the state's health insurance market) found out at the end of 2013 that they would be paying much higher premiums for ACA-compliant coverage through BCBS: Doug Hoffman, who works statewide to help people sign up for benefits through the Affordable Care Act, just received a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama notice in the mail to find health insurance rates for his family have doubled. And  he's mad  at Blue Cross. "I just got my benefits renewal from Blue Cross for next year and they doubled my rate!" he wrote AL.com in an email. "I was paying $675 for a family premium (2 adults, one 22 yo dependent) with a $1,500 deducible. The new rate for a comparable plan is $1,360 with a $3,000 deductible. Basically they have doubled my costs." "It appears as though Blue Cross is taking advantage of the ACA by hiking rates big time," said Hoffman, who is based in Birmingham with Enroll Alabama. Others, who have received the notices from the state's dominant health insurer are mad as well  at Obamacare. "Obama thinks that he is making insurance affordable," wrote one reader to the Mobile Press Register Sound Off feature. "I just got a letter from my Blue Cross Blue Shield that if I want to keep their insurance it's going to cost me $300 more a month. I already pay $300 a month now and they're wanting right at $600 a month for this Affordable Care Act." Blue Cross posted an explanation for the rate hikes to its Facebook page, maintaining that several reasons are behind the increased premiums: more taxes and fees, a requirement to rate family members individually, and the elimination of health underwriting and waiting periods for preexisting conditions: explanation The new law requires all health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to use a consistent rating method called "member level rating." For the individual market, this means each person on an insurance policy will now be rated based on age, whether he or she uses tobacco, and the county in which the policy holder lives. In the past Blue Cross was able to offer one family premium, no matter the size.  For family plans, most family members will now be rated individually. Once each person has been rated, the amounts are added together to get a family's premium cost. For children age 20 and younger, the oldest three children will be individually rated and included in the family premium amount.   As a result, larger families may experience higher premiums. As Mike Oliver noted in an article for AL.com, the elimination of health underwriting may have a substantial effect on health insurance premiums in that state: article "Alabama has allowed medical underwriting  you're going to be quoted a high premium if you have something wrong with you," said Michael Morrisey, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. "The Affordable Care Act abolishes medical underwriting." This means that those with expensive health problems will likely now jump in and buy coverage because it will be less expensive for them  or if they already have coverage  their rates will go down. But that also means rates will go up for everyone else as the insurer spreads that new cost around. "The thing that happens when you eliminate underwriting is that you lump dissimilar people together," Morrisey said. "When you combine groups, one group is better off and the other group is worse off"  in terms of premium prices. As a policy, the elimination of medical underwriting and preexisting condition clauses helps broaden access to health care coverage and that was the aim of its inclusion in the Affordable Care Act. Reformers say it eliminates insurers from "cherry-picking" and reduces uncompensated care. Karri Kinder subsequently posted followups to her original blog entry about her insurance issue, the update of 4 January 2014 stating that: Karri Kinder blog entry I do have some good news.  Because I decided to write my letter and speak out, people stepped up and helped us.  We were contacted on January 1, 2014 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  I was told by the woman I spoke with that she had read my letter and wanted to get her team involved and see what they could do to help us.  I recounted to her what was happening and that I had been advised to go ahead and sign me and my husband up for a plan on healthcare.gov.  We went with a lower cost plan because it was going to just be the two of us.  We had no idea what it was going to cost for the children once we got some answers.  So we went with BCBS Blue Value Saver plan.  The cost of the plan is $459.19.  We qualified for $255.00 in subsidies so the final cost of the plan to us is $204.19 each month.  I told the lady that I would cancel that plan if I needed to.  What we wanted was to have all of us on one plan like we always have been.  She said, "If the kids qualify for All Kids then I am pretty sure they have to go that route or you will have to buy them a plan at the normal rate."  So again we were told more than likely we will have to go through All Kids.  She took the rest of our information down and said she was getting her team to work on it and would either call us back or All Kids would contact us. Last updated:  4 January 2014    Oliver, Mike.   "Blue Cross in Alabama: We Didn't 'Cancel' Health Policies."   AL.com.  2 December 2013.    Walsh, Alex.   "Obamacare, Big Blue, and You."   AL.com.  31 December 2013. The recession and its aftereffects have been hard on millions of people across the country.But its been especially hard on women, according to state Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande (R-Monmouth).Women have come through the recession worse off than men  the numbers bear that out, Casagrande said to My9TVs Brenda Blackmon on the April 29 New Jersey Now program. We went from a 7 percent unemployment rate for women when he (President Barack Obama) was elected to an 8.1 percent now.Casagrande is correct about most of her data, PolitiFact New Jersey found.Obama was elected in November 2008 and took office on Jan. 20, 2009. Anita Velardo, Casagrandes communications director, said in an e-mail that Casagrandes statistic referred to the period from January 2009 to March 2012. But since Casagrande said elected, well look at the unemployment rate for both periods.From November 2008 to March 2012, unemployment among women rose to 8.1 percent from 6.2 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. For men, the rate climbed to 8.3 percent from 7.4 percent.From January 2009 to March 2012, unemployment for women rose from 7 percent to 8.1 percent. The rate for men, however, decreased from 8.6 percent to 8.3 percent. Thats because the male-dominated industries that lost jobs prior to January 2009 were starting to rebound.Now lets look at data for the recession, which the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research said occurred from December 2007 to June 2009.During the recession, unemployment among women spiked from 4.9 percent to 8.3 percent. For men, the rate more than doubled, from 5.1 percent to 10.6 percent.Mens unemployment was higher than women during the recession, but women have had a tougher time getting work and living day-to-day during the ongoing economic recovery, according to a September 2011 report, Women and Men Living on the Edge: Economic Insecurity After the Great Recession, prepared by the Institute For Womens Policy Research and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.Economic and labor experts we talked with supported Casagrandes claim.Male-dominated fields such as construction and manufacturing often are hit first in recessions and tend to rebound first during an economic recovery, according to Elisabeth Jacobs, a Governance Studies fellow at the Brookings Institution; Gary Burtless, a senior fellow in Economic Studies at Brookings; and Harry Holzer, a professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University. Female-dominated fields such as education, public sector jobs and retail often are hit later and rebound slower, they said.In terms of lost jobs, men suffered worse than women and have seen a bigger drop in their employment rate, said Burtless, who contributed $750 to Obamas campaign in 2011 but also was an adviser on aspects of labor policy to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). In terms of the number of adults who are still looking for work, womens situation looks (proportionately) a bit worse than that of men.The recovery has progressed more slowly for women than for men, and the unemployment rate for women is indeed higher today than it was when President Obama was elected president, Jacobs said in an e-mail.But is Obama to blame?Our colleagues at PolitiFact.com addressed this issue in April after Mitt Romneys campaign claimed women were hit hard by job losses under Obama. Their report showed that women have had a more difficult jobs recovery than men, but Obama cannot bear all the blame, just as he couldnt take the credit if jobs were booming when he took office.Our rulingCasagrande said, women have come through the recession worse off than men  the numbers bear that out. We went from a 7 percent unemployment rate for women when he was elected to an 8.1 percent now. Labor statistics show and some experts told us that while men took the brunt of job loss during the recession, the industries they dominate  construction and manufacturing  tend to bounce back first during economic recovery. Women often are affected much later than men during a recession, meaning they are more likely to have a slower rate of gaining employment. Casagrandes timeframe is off slightly for the statistic she cited, and Obama cant be held completely responsible for the slow recovery among women. We rate Casagrandes statement Mostly True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said high levels of student loan debt motivated his proposal for free tuition at any public university or community college in New York state for students from families earning less than $125,000 a year. It is incredibly expensive, and the debt is so high its like starting a race with an anchor tied to your leg, Cuomo said of paying for college. Average college debt -- $30,000 per student. The governors office projected 210,000 students would seek the benefit. If so, the program would cost the state $163 million annually by 2019. So is Cuomo right about the average student debt load in New York state? The average debt load The Federal Reserve Bank of New York collected 2015 data on student loan debt in the state. The Fed reports 17.9 percent of consumers in New York state have a student loan, and their average college debt is $32,200. Thats higher than the national average of $29,700, the Fed said. The debt steadily increased for a decade. According to a September report from the State Comptrollers office, the average student debt load in New York State increased by more than 47 percent between 2005 and 2015. The national average grew by 56 percent. Total student debt statewide more than doubled during that time period. The Institute for College Access & Success, an independent, non-profit organization, pegged the average debt of the states college graduates in 2015 at $29,320. That ranked 18th highest among the states. Fifty-nine percent of the students graduated with debt, the organization said. The average debt among graduates of State University of New York campuses was generally lower than their private college counterparts. The average debt for University at Buffalo graduates was $26,165, followed by those at Binghamton University, $25,844; SUNY Albany, $25,727; and Stony Brook University, $23,542. The average debt for graduates fluctuated among private colleges in New York state. Among the higher averages were incurred by graduates of Ithaca College, $39,771; Rochester Institute of Technology, $38,198; St. Bonaventure University, $38,073; Fordham University, $37,607; and Syracuse University, $36,500, according to the institute. The average debt was lower - but still significant - for graduates at other private universities: Colgate University, $20,859; Cornell University, $24,394; Clarkson University, $29,000; New York University, $30,480;  St. Johns University, $33,179. Our ruling Cuomo said the average college debt for those who borrowed for college in New York state is $30,000 per student. Cuomo gets it right, according to the Institute for College Access & Success, which analyzed debt for 2015 graduates in New York State. And his claim is about what the Federal Reserve Bank of New York calculates for all New York state consumers with college debt. We rate his claim as True.