Mitt Romney gave away his father's inheritance.
Mitt Romney, the self-made man. Thats part of the Mitt Romney story that Republicans plan to tell at their convention in Tampa this week.His father may have been well-to-do, but Republicanshave been emphasizingfor weeks that Romney made his millions on his own.Romneys father, George, was chief executive of Detroit automaker American Motors Corp. and a three-time governor of Michigan who ran for president in the 1960s. Mitt grew up in a wealthy Michigan suburb, attending prep school and ultimately Harvard.He's been the target of silver-spoon attacks because hes worthmore than $100 million. (Perhaps far more. )But Republicans argue he wasnt handed his wealth  he earned it.He even gave away his fathers inheritance, national committee chair Reince Priebusrepeatedlytold TV interviewers on Aug. 26, 2012, as the party prepared to open its convention.Weve rated a related claim from Romney himself that he didnt inherit money from his parents. That earned aHalf True, because he previouslytold interviewershe did get an inheritance, but donated it to Brigham Young University.This time were checking whether he gave away his fathers inheritance.Were short on primary evidence for the claim  we havent seen his fathers will, nor a receipt from Brigham Young. But theres a strong circumstantial case that Priebus is correct.Rich get richerGeorge Romney died in 1995 at age 88. By that time, his son had led Bain Capital, the private equity firm he launched in 1984, for more than a decade.As Romney tolda C-SPAN interviewerin 2006:I did get a check from my dad when he passed away. I shouldnt say a check, but I did inherit some funds from my dad. But I turned and gave that away to charity. In this case I gave it to a school which Brigham Young University established in his honor. ... And thats where his inheritance ended up.Why did he give the money away?I figured we had enough of our own, he said.According toa short historyof the George W. Romney Institute of Public Management at BYU, the family provided an endowment in 1998, within a few years of George Romney's death.Our rulingReince Priebus says that Romney gave away his father's inheritance.Romney has repeatedly said so himself and that's backed up by the simple fact that Brigham Young University has an institute named for his father launched just a few years after his death. And theres no reason to think Romney would have needed the money a decade after his lucrative move to Bain Capital.We find the evidence supports the claim and we see nothing to contradict it. If any evidence emerges, we'll review it. But in the meantime, we rate Priebus claim True.
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In July 2020, social media users posted a meme that included a screenshot of an article excerpt that allegedly demonstrated hydroxychloroquine would be an effective "cure and vaccine" against COVID-19.  The claim stems from an opinion piece by Bryan Fischer, former director of the American Family Association, that interpreted a 2005 study on the utility of chloroquine to treat SARS as being relevant to COVID-19  a disease that did not exist at the time of that paper's publication. SARS (aka SARS-CoV, which caused epidemics in the early 2000s) and COVID-19 (aka SARS-CoV-2) are both caused by coronaviruses, but that does not mean that both could be treated with the same medication.  Similarly, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are related drugs, but that does not mean they are interchangeable. Finally, the excerpted study was limited in scope and based on laboratory results. Fischer attempted to tie Dr. Anthony Fauci to the 2005 study by falsely alleging that it was published in a journal run by the U.S. agency Fauci heads.   Are SARS and COVID-19 the same? No. While SARS and COVID-19 are both coronaviruses, that does not mean these two diseases are interchangeable, nor that they can be treated with identical medicines. Hundreds of coronaviruses exist, most of which circulate among animals. These viruses occasionally jump to humans and cause diseases that range in severity. The common cold, for instance, which isn't particularly known for being lethal, can be caused by a coronavirus. On the other hand, COVID-19, which has caused more than 150,000 deaths in the United States (and close to 700,000 total deaths worldwide) as of this writing, is also caused by a coronavirus. Nobody would argue that a treatment for the common cold would be equally effective against COVID-19.  Hundreds of coronaviruses exist Fischer attempts to dismiss the fact that SARS and COVID-19 are two distinct diseases by arguing that they share a similar scientific name (SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2) and 79% of the same genome. Saying that these two diseases share 79% of their genome sequence may make it sound like these diseases are nearly identical, but consider this: Humans share 98% of our genome with chimpanzees.  98% of our genome Are hydroxycloroquine and chloroquine the same thing? No. Although these drugs are similar (they are both derivatives of a 4-aminoquinoline [4AQ] nucleus), they aren't interchangeable. Chloroquine is primarily used to treat malaria, while hydroxychloroquine, which is considered less toxic than chloroquine, is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and certain blood disorders.  CNN writes: writes Chloroquine is used to treat malaria, as well as in chemoprophylaxis, which is the administering of drugs to prevent the development of disease, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Since 2006, it has not been recommended for use in severe malaria because of problems with resistance, particularly in the Oceania region, according to the World Health Organization. [...] Hydroxychloroquine is what's known as an analog of chloroquine, meaning the two have similar structures but different chemical and biological properties. The former is considered the less toxic derivative, according to studies.It's given to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and the blood disorder porphyria cutanea tarda, the CDC said. Did this study prove that chloroquine was an effective treatment against SARS? No. The 2005 article published in Virology Journal was based on a laboratory cell-culture experiment that used primate cells, not human cells. The authors noted at the time that more testing was needed before antivirals could be developed to treat the disease in humans: Virology Journal Chloroquine has been widely used to treat human diseases, such as malaria, amoebiosis, HIV, and autoimmune diseases, without significant detrimental side effects [15]. Together with data presented here, showing virus inhibition in cell culture by chloroquine doses compatible with patient treatment, these features suggest that further evaluation of chloroquine in animal models of SARS-CoV infection would be warranted as we progress toward finding effective antivirals for prevention or treatment of the disease. It should also be noted that this was an in vitro study, meaning that it was conducted in a controlled environment, like a test tube, not inside a living organism. The Universal Health Network, a medical research organization in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, noted that in vitro models have a reputation of being "less translatable" to humans than other research methods: Universal Health Network A major drawback is their failure to capture the inherent complexity of organ systems. For example, in vitro models may not account for interactions between cells and biochemical processes that occur during turnover and metabolism. As a result, in vitro studies have developed a reputation for being less translatable to humans. More importantly, in the years since the SARS outbreak in 2002, chloroquine has not been widely used to treat the disease.  Did this study say that hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment against SARS? No.  The 2005 paper in the Virology Journal never mentions hydroxychloroquine. Was Fauci or the NIH involved in this 2005 paper? No.  As mentioned earlier, the above-displayed screenshot shows an excerpt from an opinion piece written by Fischer, which was published on websites such as One News Now and the conspiratorial True Pundit, a site that traffics in misinformation.  One News Now True Pundit, misinformation Fischer's article is centered on a 2005 paper published in the Virology Journal entitled "Chloroquine Is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread." Although this is a genuine article, it was not authored by Fauci. Fischer attempted to connect Fauci to this article by stating that the "Virology Journal [is] the official publication of Dr. Faucis National Institutes of Health [NIH]," but that simply isn't true. The Virology Journal is not an official publication of the NIH.  Virology Journal The Virology Journal is published by Biomed Central (BMC), part of the publishing group Springer Nature, an academic publishing company. Some government researchers were involved with this 2005 study (five of the eight listed authors were from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], the other three were from Clinical Research Institute of Montreal), but this study did not involve Fauci or anyone else from the NIH. Virology Journal Is hydroxychloroquine an effective treatment for COVID-19? No.  As of this writing, hydroxychloroquine has not been shown to be an effective treatment of COVID-19.  effective treatment Hydroxychloroquine has been an effective treatment for other diseases, such as malaria, but studies have not found the drug to be useful in the fight against COVID-19. In June 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revoked "the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19," writing that a large, randomized clinical trial showed that the drug provided "no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery." Food and Drug Administration Universal Health Network.  "In vitro vs. In vivo: Is One Better?"
  Retreived 4 August 2020. McLaughlin, Eliott.  "Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine: What to Know About the Potential Coronavirus Drugs."
  CNN.  24 March 2020. FDA.  "FDA Cautions Against Use of Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine for COVID-19 Outside of the Hospital Setting or a Clinical Trial Due to Risk of Heart Rhythm Problems."
  1 July 2020. Seley-Radtke, Katherine.  "Here's Why Hydroxychloroquine Doesn't Block The Coronavirus in Human Lung Cells."
  Science Alert.  1 August 2020. Duply, Beatrice.  "Chloroquine/SARS Study Doesnt Prove Hydroxychloroquine Works Against COVID-19."
  Associated Press.  31 July 2020. Niaid.nih.gov.  "Coronaviruses."
  Retrieved 4 August 2020. Silverman, Craig.  "Revealed: Notorious Pro-Trump Misinformation Site True Pundit Is Run By An Ex-Journalist With A Grudge Against The FBI."
  Buzzfeed. &nbs; 27 August 2018. Virology Journal.  "Chloroquine is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread'"   22 August 2005. True Pundit.  "COVER UP: Fauci Approved Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine 15 Years Ago to Cure Coronaviruses; "Nobody Needed to Die.'"
  5 May 2020. In July 2021, photographs and videos started circulating on social media that supposedly showed the world's smallest cow, a 51 centimeters (20 inches) tall dwarf cow in Bangladesh named Raani (possibly spelled Rani): photographs   This is a genuine photograph of a very small cow in Bangladesh. It was taken by Munir Us Zaman, and is available via Getty Images with the caption: A dwarf cow named Rani (bottom), whose owners applied to the Guinness Book of Records claiming it to be the smallest cow in the world, walks next to a goat at a cattle farm in Charigram, about 25 km from Savar on July 6, 2021.  While this is a genuine photograph of a dwarf cow, Raani has not yet been officially declared the world's smallest cow. But Raani's owner, Abu Sufian, has already filed paperwork with the Guinness Book of World Records.  Sufian said: "Guinness has acknowledged our entry and will be doing an independent verification, but we are confident that Raani will get the award." Sufian said At the time of this writing, the official record holder for world's smallest cow (or world's shortest cow) belongs to Manikyam, a 61-centimeter-tall cow in India that has held the record since June 2014.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=walK6YEmFUURaani is certainly smaller than Manikyam and it seems likely that this itty-bitty bovine will soon be crowned the world's smallest cow. Raani, a Bhutti or Bhutanese cow, is reportedly 23 months old. France 24 reports that the other Bhuttis on this farm near Charigram in Bangladesh are more than twice Raani's size.  France 24 reports: reports Rani is a Bhutti, or Bhutanese, cow which is prized for its meat in Bangladesh. The other Bhuttis on the farm are twice Rani's size. "We did not expect such huge interest. We did not think people would leave their homes because of the worsening virus situation. But they have come here in droves," the manager said. Sajedul Islam, the government's chief vet for the region, said Rani is a product of "genetic inbreeding" and was unlikely to become any bigger. Raani has become a popular tourist attraction, with thousands of people flocking to this farm to catch a glimpse of potentially the world's smallest cow. Below is a video report from WION, a news outlet covering southern Asia:  See also on Snopes: Are Cow Farts Causing Global Warming? Are Warning Signs About Parachuting Cows Real? Did a K-9 Dog Bite a Cow, Deputy Tase a K-9, Cow Kick a Deputy? Did a Cow Really Sit on the Hood of this Car? Claim:  In 2006, U.S. Senator Barack Obama spoke out against raising the U.S. government debt limit.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2011]   'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'    Origins:  In 2006, while serving his first term as a freshman U.S. senator from Illinois, Barack Obama made the remarks attributed to him above during discussion in the U.S. Senate prior to the call for votes on raising the debt limit. The full text of his remarks in the Senate on 16 March 2006 are:     The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.    Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.    Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.    And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like    bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans  a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.    But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to thecommonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.    Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.    Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.    I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.    The shortened quote now attributed to him is a verbatim capture of the opening and closing paragraphs of his remarks of 16 March 2006. (The Senate vote held later that day on a resolution to increase the debt limitpassed by a 52-48 margin, with Senator Obama voting against it.) passed President Obama has undergone a change of position regarding raising the debt limit. In a 15 April 2011 Good Morning America interview, President Obama said this of his reasons for doing so:     Last updated:  7 October 2013    Congressional Record.  "Remarks by Sen. Barack Obama."    16 March 2006.   Farley, Robert.  "Obama Says Reagan Raised Debt Ceiling 18 Times; George W. Bush 7 Times."    St. Petersburg Times.  26 July 2011.   Stephanopoulos, George.  "President Obama One-on-One."    Good Morning America.  15 April 2011.   Werner, Erica.  "WH: Obama Regrets Vote Against Raising Debt Limit."    Associated Press.  11 April 2011. Claim:  E-mail reports the truth about the environmental impact of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)    OF AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] First, do you know what ANWR is? ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now, a comparison:  And some perspective ...  NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS ... (its in the "ANWR Coastal Plain")  THIS IS WHAT THE TV People and others "GREENS" SHOW YOU WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ANWR ... and they are right ... these ARE photographs of ANWR   Isn't ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place? Well, thats not exactly the truth. Do you remember the map? The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain. Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you? What's going on here? The answer is simple. That is NOT where they are wanting to drill! This is what the proposed exploration area ACTUALLY looks like in the winter:  And this is what it ACTUALLY looks like in the summer:    HERE ARE A COUPLE SCREEN SHOTS FROM GOOGLE EARTH   As you can see, the area where they are talking about drilling is a barren wasteland.  Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife. Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the 'depleted wildlife' situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay. Don't you think that the Caribou really hate that drilling?  Here's that same spot during the winter:  Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.  Now, why do you think that the Democrats are LYING about ANWR? Remember when Al Gore said that the government should work to ARTIFICIALLY raise gas prices to $5 a gallon? Well, Al Gore and his fellow Democrats have almost reached their goal! Now that you know that the Democrats have been lying, what are you going to do about it? You can start by forwarding this to everyone you know, so that they will know the truth. P.S.: Drilling does not "destroy." It creates jobs, resources and strengthens our economy  all while protecting our environment. Everyone benefits, even caribou. Origins:  As the price of oil continues to rise with no predictable end in sight, debates over whether the U.S. can and should be producing more oil from domestic sources have been renewed.  A primary focus of such  debates has been the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area which encompasses 19 million acres in the northeast corner of Alaska. The ANWR issue is now a political hot potato batted back and forth between proponents of exploration and development in ANWR's Coastal Plain who assert that the area could become a valuable source of domestic oil production with minimal impact on the environment, and opponents who maintain that the potential advantages to be gained from drilling for oil in ANWR are far too small to offset the despoiling (and potential devastation) of a protected wildlife area.The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.    factors The e-mailed slide show reproduced above might serve a useful function in prompting the public to take a greater interest in all the issues surrounding the potential opening of ANWR to oil exploration, but the information it presents is scant and one-sided.  Since the ANWR issue is far too extensive and complex to cover in detail here, we'll just provide a brief summary of both sides' arguments regarding points mentioned by the e-mailed slide show, with links to sites (on both sides of the issue) that provide greater detail:  Although the ANWR is small in size compared to the entirety of Alaska, at 19 million acres it is larger than ten other states.  (As the third graphic shows, ANWR is about the size of the state of South Carolina.) Proponents point out that the proposed development area within the ANWR Coastal Plain is a relatively small patch of 2,000 acres, an area which constitutes roughly1/10,000 of the total acreage of the ANWR.  Opponents maintain that a similar drilling operation in Alaska at Prudhoe Bay was originally designated to encompass only 2,100 acres but has since expanded to a total drilling footprint of 12,000 acres spread over 640,000 acres of the North Slope. size expanded  Proponents maintain that wildlife continues to flourish amid drilling and other oil production activities in other Arctic regions and would fare just as well near ANWR exploration facilities.  Opponents assert that other North Slope oil development activities have caused an average of 504 spills per year since 1996, including "4,532 spills between 1996 and 2004 totaling more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substances." flourish spills  Proponents maintain that the proposed ANWR Coastal Plain development area is primarily a featureless, barren expanse that is frozen and windswept for most of the year, and therefore exploration and drilling activities would have minimal impact on wildlife in the immediate area (or in the greater ANWR).  Opponents assert that environmental accidents can have devastating effects far outside the limited areas in which they originally occur. Last updated:  2 July 2008 In the summer of 2020, a new nationwide wave of protests against racial injustice and police brutality was accompanied by a rising campaign to substantially divert funding away from police forces, as well as to replace existing models of local law enforcement. The movement, referred to in shorthand by the somewhat imprecise phrase "defund the police" faced intense opposition from some right-leaning quarters, especially supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump. As a result, companies and organizations faced condemnation for their supposed association with the "defund the police" movement, and in July, readers asked Snopes to examine one such claim.  condemnation A widely shared meme read: meme "Starbucks says Defund the Police. Let's defund Starbucks. Ask all friends and family not to be Starbucks patrons. Dunkin coffee is just as good!"   We could find no evidence of any instance in which Starbucks, as a company, called for police forces to be defunded or abolished, promoted or supported the "defund the police" campaign, or indeed used the words "defund the police" (or similar phrases) in its public utterances or on its social media accounts. As a result, we are at a loss as to the origins of the false claim that "Starbucks says defund the police." The company has on several occasions articulated support for the Black Lives Matter movement and opposition to racial injustice, but that is clearly not the same as supporting the "defund the police" campaign.  several occasions articulated support Black Lives Matter We found no evidence that Starbucks supports the "defund the police" campaign. By contrast, we found ample evidence of the company's partnering with various police forces as part of the "Coffee with a Cop" initiative, which encourages police officers and members of the public to meet in their local Starbucks caf with the aim of creating understanding, rather than hostility, between law enforcement agencies and the communities they police.  Coffee with a Cop It's worth noting that that initiative seeks to repair and improve relations between police forces and local communities, especially people of color within those communities. As such, it is actually rather antithetical to the "defund the police" movement, whose proponents often argue that those relationships are damaged beyond repair and efforts to reform policing have failed and should no longer be attempted.  argue Mac Guill, Dan. "Has Ford Motor Co. Donated Millions to 'Defund the Police'?"
 Snopes.com. 10 July 2020. Starbucks. "Black Lives Matter: Starbucks Update on Standing Against Racial Injustice."
 12 June 2020. Newsbrokeon May 27, 2015 that an agreement was close on how to pay for a new $500 million arena for the Milwaukee Bucks, the basketball team that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar once led to glory. Some details of the proposed arrangement between the Bucks and state and local government officials were new. But the overallcost sharing was, more or less, what hadlong beenexpected: The Bucks owners would pay half and taxpayers would pay half. According to Tim Sheehy, president of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, such a split would be good for taxpayers. Here is whathe saidApril 10, 2015 on Here and Now, a Wisconsin Public Television show: If this comes out close to a 50-50 partnership, it will be much better -- in terms of the portion of the public financing -- than most of the other arena projects done around the country. In other words, Sheehy, who supports the new arena, is saying that taxpayers picking up half the tab for a new Milwaukee arena is relatively low, compared to how much taxpayers have contributed toward arenas for other National Basketball Association teams. The parties set a self-imposeddeadlineof May 29, 2015 to try and finalize the financing deal, which would have to be approved, likely within the next few weeks, as part of the 2015-17 state budget. So, lets take a look. The Bucks and their arenas The Bucksjoined the NBA in the 1968-69 season. Led byAbdul-Jabbarand another future Hall of Famer, Oscar Robertson, they won their only league championship in the 1970-71 season. That,according tothe team, meant the Bucks went further, faster, than any expansion team in the history of major professional sports. In recent years, however, the Bucks have struggled, and that is one reason there has been a drive to build a new arena. The teams current home -- the $90 millionBMO Harris Bradley Center, which was built through a donation by the late Milwaukee philanthropist Jane Bradley Pettit -- opened in 1988. The 18,600-seat arena is thethird-oldestand the third-smallest in the 30-team NBA. Momentum for a new arena picked up in April 2014, when the Bucks longtime owner, former U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl of Milwaukee,announcedhe was selling the team to New York hedge-fund investors Marc Lasry and Wesley Edens. Kohl and the new owners pledged to contribute $250 million toward a new arena. Coming up with the other $250 million has been the sticking point,leading to months of negotiations involvingGov. Scott Walker, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele. There is time pressure in that the NBA has said a new arena must be built by the fall of 2017, or Milwaukee would risk losing the team to another market. Other arena deals To see how other NBA arenas have been financed, we turned to two sources: The 2012 edition of Financing Economic Development in the 21st Century,  a textbook that includesa chapteron financing professional sports facilities. And a database,last updatedin August 2014, that is maintained by Marquette University Law Schools National Sports Law Institute. Weve listed the 15 NBA arenas -- comprising half the arenas in the league -- that have been built since 1999. We went back to 1999 because a wave of NBA arenas -- seven of them -- went up that year. As well see, there is some disagreement between the figures provided by the textbook and by Marquette. Holy Cross College sports economistVictor Matheson, who wrote the sports facilities chapter in the textbook, told us thats not surprising because there are different ways to define a public contribution and because stadium financing deals arent always transparent. Based on the two sources we checked, at least eight of the 15 NBA arenas built since 1999 were financed with more than 50 percent taxpayer support. Indeed, although there is some variation in the figures in the two sources, seven of the eight arenas were built with at least 82 percent public money (the total cost figures are according to the textbook). Arenas built with more than 50% public money NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the texbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Orlando 2010 $480 million 90% 87.5% Charlotte 2005 $265 million 100% 100% Memphis 2004 $250 million 100% 83% Houston 2003 $235 million 82% 100% San Antonio 2002 $186 million 85% 84% Oklahoma City 2002 $89 million 100% 100% Miami 1999 $213 million 100% 59% New Orleans 1999 $114 million 100% 100%  Conversely, the textbook and Marquette agree that only four of the arenas were built with taxpayer contributions of 50 percent or less. Arenas built with 50% or less public money NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the textbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Dallas 2001 $420 million 50% 30% Toronto 1999 $265 million 0% 0% Denver 1999 $160 million 22% 3% Los Angeles 1999 $375 million 16% 19%  There was not agreement between the between the two sources on the public portion paid for arenas in Brooklyn, Indianapolis and Atlanta: NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the texbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Indianapolis 1999 $183 million 100% 43% Atlanta 1999 $214 million 29% 91% Brooklyn 2010 $637 million 24% N/A  Our rating Sheehy said a 50-50 public-private split for paying for a new Milwaukee Bucks arena would be much better in terms of the portion of the public financing than most of the other arena projects done around the country. Of the 15 NBA arenas -- comprising half the cities in the league -- built since 1999, at least eight were built with more than 50 percent of the money coming from taxpayers. Seven of those eight were built with at least 82 percent public money. We rate his statement True. In January2015, links began circulating on Facebook promisingusers free lifetime passes to popular fast food outlets such as KFC, McDonald's, Wendy's, Starbucks, Subway, and Burger King, typically presented as promotions offeredin celebration of the brands' purported anniversaries: The embedded links led to severalURLs, and users who clicked through on them to claim the promised lifetime passes were routed to a pages that clonedthe style of Facebook-based content (but werehostedoff Facebook):    As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users.A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media:Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy.When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information.Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. Starbucks On June 21, 2021, the day before New York City's mayoral primary election, a New York Times reporter claimed one of the Democratic candidates  Andrew Yang  said on a conservative talk radio show that people with mental illnesses need to be hospitalized in order for the city's economy to improve.  According to a tweet by the Times journalist, Emma Fitzsimmons, billionaire John Catsimatidis and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani had just spoken with Yang on 77 WABC's "Election Coverage" show. tweet Emma Fitzsimmons John Catsimatidis Rudy Giuliani Fitzsimmons said in the post, which hundreds of users retweeted for their own followers, at 4:18 (EST):   The attribution was correct. According to 77 WABC's video recording of the June 21 broadcast segment, which featured candidates of several New York races fielding questions from Catsimatidis and Giuliani, Yang phoned into the show and had the below-transcribed exchange: video recording Yang: We're poised to win this race, and then I'm going to get to work on delivering for New Yorkers the public safety we expect and deserve, which includes getting the homeless men who are struggling mentally into environments where they're safer and healthier. It's better for everyone. [...] Catsimatidis: One of the most important things with law and order in New York City, is we have all of these homeless people in the streets and lot of them are mentally ill. [...] What happened? Don't those people deserve treatment? Aren't we better of spending money to build hospitals to treat those poor people? Yang: 100 percent. We need to get them the care that they need, but that will also supercharge our economic recovery because we all see these mentally ill people on our streets and subways, and you know who else sees them? Tourists. And then they don't come back, and they tell their friends, 'Don't go to New York City.' We're never going to get our jobs back and our economy back if we don't get the mentally ill people who are on our streets in a better environment. It's going to be worth every penny. In other words,Yang did not explicitly say hospitalizing people with severe mental health issues was "the only way" (verbatim) to restart the city's economy after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, he did say "we're never going to get our jobs back and our economy back" without supposedly taking the step, implying the same thing. Hours after the radio interview, Yang told The New York Times that he stood by his comments on the radio show, again framing the issue as one of public safety. told The New York Times We all know that public safety is top of mind for New Yorkers, he told the newspaper. There will not be an economic recovery until people feel safe walking our streets and walking our subways. It was not the first instance of Yang, a former presidential candidate, saying people with severe mental issues perpetuate some of the city's economic and social problems. During a debate on June 16 with other Democratic candidates (there are 13 total), Yang said city officials need to get people with untreated mental health issues "off of our streets and our subways into a better environment," and that "mentally ill homeless men are changing the character of our neighborhoods," presumably for the worse. June 16 Yes, mentally ill people have rights, but you know who else have rights? We do: the people and families of the city, Yang said at the debate. We have the right to walk the street and not fear for our safety because a mentally ill person is going to lash out at us. Those comments sparked criticism among social media users who pointed out research that shows people with severe mental illness are far more likely to be victims of crime  not perpetrators  and the fact that mental health includes a wide spectrum of disorders that affect everyone. research The day after the debate, Yang responded to that outcry with the below-displayed tweet. responded   Full context here was mental illness is behind half of anti-Asian hate crimes, he said. We need to get them compassionate comprehensive care  and not let them languish on our streets. In December 2020, an online advertisement displayed a picture of an Olive Garden Italian Restaurant sign along with text that read: "Closing Time: Here's All The Restaurant Chains Closing in 2020."   This advertisement was misleading. Olive Garden is not closing all of its restaurants. Readers who clicked the advertisement were led to a 50-page story on the website Money Pop. 50-page story While the advertisement promised a list of restaurant chains that would be closing in 2020, the headline on the actual story was different: "These Popular Restaurant Chains Are Losing Money Fast." headline The story mentioned Olive Garden, but it only mentioned that two locations had closed in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Birmingham, Alabama, in March and April, respectively. Springfield, Massachusetts Birmingham, Alabama Olive Garden did not go out of business in 2020, but that's not to say it hadn't faced financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. The coronavirus had led to the closure of dine-in services at thousands of different restaurants across the United States. This meant less revenue, which resulted in lost jobs. In many cases, restaurants closed. lost jobs restaurants closed On June 22, 2020, Nation's Restaurant News reported that National Restaurant Association President and CEO Tom Ben said the restaurant industry had faced "catastrophic losses." reported Darden Restaurants owns the Olive Garden brand, as well as LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze, and Eddie V's. On Dec. 9, 2020, InvestorPlace.com reported that Darden had managed to survive the pandemic thus far, but it also asked: "What's next for Darden Restaurants?" reported The bull case is built on a bear case regarding other restaurants. Without government help, small operators are closing by the score. This means chains like Darden may be all thats left when people again feel safe to eat out. Darden has managed to make money at Olive Garden while closing half its tables. It reinstated the dividend and paid back its $270 million emergency loan. Once the pandemic is over, Cramer predicts, fast-casual chains like Olive Garden will be the height of fine dining. the height of fine dining. Darden is expected to report earnings Dec. 18, for the quarter ending in November. The estimate is for 72 cents per share of net income on $1.7 billion of sales. That would beat last years profit on 17% less revenue. on $1.7 billion of sales on 17% less revenue The Money Pop story also mentioned The Cheesecake Factory on its list. We previously covered that rumor as well. previously covered Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us Claim:  E-mail from neighbor describes Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards. Status:  Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004]  Meet my neighbor  I'd like to introduce you to my neighbor. I'm from Raleigh, North Carolina, and for several years I've lived around the corner from Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards. My neighbor John has been in the news a good deal lately, but it's hard to tell about the man himself from the coverage. Maybe I can help you get to know him better. Even several years ago, before he was elevated to the national stage, my neighbor John didn't socialize much with other neighbors. He didn't gather with other neighbors at the Fourth of July and he didn't come out to the sledding hills to watch the kids play after a snow. My neighbor John preferred to jog through the neighborhood by himself. There's no sidewalk on Alleghany Drive, John's Street in Raleigh, and if you drove past him as he was jogging on the road and didn't slow down enough for his taste he'd flip you the bird. Even after he became a U.S. Senator, he'd still come home to Raleigh every once in a while, would still jog through the neighborhood, and would still flip the occasional bird to passing cars. He last showed me his middle finger about four years ago. Since then, my neighbor John is rarely in town. When he is home, though, we in the neighborhood all know it. My neighbor John invited reporters from TV, radio, and print news organizations to come to hishouse in January 2003 for the announcement of his Presidential bid. He didn't want any news vans parked on his property  in fact, he made sure all the cameras and reporters waited in the street at the bottom of his driveway. That way everyone could get good footage of him strolling down the driveway to make his announcement, young children in tow. The news vans drove into the yards of John's neighbors and parked there. I heard two families ended up re-sodding their damaged yards, and John never apologized to anyone, much less offered any compensation. The family across the street from my neighbor John has since put up posts at their property line to try to keep that sort of thing from happening again. The appearance was good for my neighbor John. Nobody else seems to matter to him. Since then, when my neighbor comes home (as he did July 10, to be interviewed with John Kerry for "60 Minutes"), Raleigh police officers block off the street. Those of us who live near himend up coming and going to and from our homes on a circuitous route, on a bad, unsurfaced road. Forsyth Street has been closed to through traffic, except when my neighbor is in town, because the road has been ripped up for installation of new gas and sewer lines. My neighbor's street is a public, city-maintained street, and it is the best way to get to homes just north of his. If my neighbor is around, though, apparently none of the rest of us can use the street at all. It's good for my neighbor John. Nobody else seems to matter to him. My neighbor John has been a very successful trial lawyer, but his practice of law sometimes seems more like extortion. A friend of mine is a doctor in Raleigh. He recently spoke with another doctor, an anesthesiologist, who was named in a suit filed by my neighbor John. Apparently a surgeon at a local hospital had made a mistake, and my neighbor John represented the injured patient. Not only did my neighbor John sue the doctor who made the mistake, but also sued the hospital and a string of others, including the anesthesiologist. There was no problem with the anesthesia  the anesthesiologist had done absolutely nothing wrong. His attorney said so in a meeting with my neighbor John. John's neighborly response was that he couldn't careless if the doctor had done nothing wrong. That wasn't the point. The point was that clients come to my neighbor John because of his record of success and his reputation for thoroughness. Every defendant in asuit he files pays, regardless of whether they are actually guilty or not. My neighbor John demanded a settlement of $250,000, and said his firm was willing to spend $2 million to get it. The doctor's insurance company promptly paid the $250,000. The rate of growth in North Carolina's medical malpractice insurance rates is among the highest in the nation. The total cost of health care rises with those rates. My neighbor John's slimy extortion is part of the reason.  Forget about right or wrong, guilt or innocence. My neighbor John did what was best for himself. Nobody else seemed to matter.  My neighbor John may be a trial lawyer, but in front of juries he also claims to be something of a psychic. You see, my neighbor John specializes in cases involving the death or serious injury of children. He claims to receive messages from dead or brain-damaged children, and the messages are much clearer and more specific than those received by the famous "psychic" who nearly shares my neighbor's name. When a child has been killed or is otherwise unable to speak for him or herself, my neighbor John says he has the ability to "channel" that child. He tells juries he feels the child inside him, and that he hasmessages from that child, which he relays to jury members. He tells juries about the car-accident death of his own son, Wade, and speculates that he may have received the ability to "feel" the souls of dead or injured children because of the close relationship he still feels with his son. It sounds hokey and more than a little creepy, but it seems to play well with juries, and results in very high jury awards. These awards have made my neighbor extremely wealthy. He's so wealthy that he created a corporation of which he is the only member, and pays himself most of his earnings as corporate dividends, not as salary or wages. Medicare taxes are not levied on dividend income, so my neighbor hasavoided paying $600,000 into the Medicare system since 1995 by setting up this tax shelter. But he says others aren't paying their fair share of Medicare taxes. It's good for my neighbor John, and nobody else seems to matter.  My neighbor made a lot of promises on his way to the Senate. He promised strong support for our military, but then voted against body armor, combat pay, and better health care for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. He promised to support traditional North Carolina values, but then voted to the left of Ted Kennedy onpartial-birth abortion, taxes, property rights, and a host of other issues. We in North Carolina feel betrayed. My neighbor John figuratively gave his constituents the middle finger while he ingratiated himself to Tom Daschle and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership. My neighbor announced many months ago that he would not seek reelection, because he knows he's unpopular in North Carolina and would lose by a huge margin. According to a poll released this week,when the Kerry/Edwards ticket was announced, support for Kerry in North Carolina went down, not up. We North Carolinians know John Edwards. We've been betrayed by him, and we do not support him. But as he broke his promises to us, he gained favor with the Democratic Party leadership. Now he's a political star. I guess turning his back on the people he claims to represent has worked out well for my neighbor, John Edwards. Nobody else seems to matter. Origins:  This piece about North Carolina senator John Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, was posted to various political newsgroups and web sites in early August 2004, attributed to one  John Edwards posted  Brian T. Nicholson, "a neighbor of John Edwards." Mr. Nicholson does live on Yadkin Drive in Raleigh, a street which intersects Alleghany Drive, where Senator Edwards resides.  However, Mr. Nicholson now maintains that he did not pen the essay attributed to him, but that he wrote a private message to family and friends which was altered by someone else and turned into the piece now circulating on the Internet.  (He has not yet produced the original version or explained which parts of his message were altered, however.) According to the Raleigh News & Observer, other neighbors of Senator Edwards report they haven't observed the behaviors attributed to him in the piece quoted above.   For example, the Internet essay maintains: If you drove past him as he was jogging on the road and didn't slow down enough for his taste he'd flip you the bird. He last showed me his middle finger about four years ago. However, the News & Observer reports: But neighbors this week said they saw Edwards wave while jogging, sometimes giving a thumbs up or stopping briefly to chat. No one said they saw any rude gesture. "I've never seen him be rude or ugly," said Tootie Flythe, who was so upset by the essay that she wrote a multipage response in longhand, which she is keeping to herself. Flythe lives across the street from the Edwardses, and she said John Edwards sometimes cuts through her yard to get to a greenway. He always stops to ask about her family, said Flythe, a 54-year-old registered Democrat. The essay says Edwards didn't hang out with neighbors on the Fourth of July or go out to sledding hills to watch kids play in the snow. But Edwards' neighbors said they don't do that, either. Ray Mays lived across the street from Edwards for 10 years, until he sold his house this summer. Mays, a 61-year-old who said he will vote for President Bush this fall, said he and Edwards were "passing acquaintances," though he knew Elizabeth Edwards better. Mays attended one or two Christmas parties at the Edwards home and remembers Elizabeth spending most of her time in the kitchen, cooking. "They were always friendly," he said. "They never gave the appearance that they were stuck up in any way." The essay also claims: My neighbor John invited reporters from TV, radio, and print news organizations to come to his house in January 2003 for the announcement of his Presidential bid. He didn't want any news vans parked on his property  in fact, he made sure all the cameras and reporters waited in the street at the bottom of his driveway. That way everyone could get good footage of him strolling down the driveway to make his announcement, young children in tow. The news vans drove into the yards of John's neighbors and parked there. I heard two families ended up re-sodding their damaged yards, and John never apologized to anyone, much less offered any compensation But on 2 January 2003, the day he officially announced his candidacy for president, Senator Edwards sent a note containing the following apology and offer to repair damaged lawns (at his expense) to his neighbors: Dear Friends & Neighbors: As you know, 2003 has gotten off to an exciting start for our family. In light of our recent decision, we know that many of you may also be feeling the effects. We want to apologize for any inconvenience you and your family may have experienced. Please call our assistant, Andrew Young . . . if you have any lawn damage from the media traffic. Our personal lawn maintenance company will make any necessary repairs. Thank you for your patience. The Internet piece goes on to claim that the standard security provided to presidential and vice-presidential candidates is somehow an inconsiderate and selfish whim of Senator Edwards', one which has made access to the Raleigh neighborhood where he lives inconvenient for other residents: The appearance was good for my neighbor John. Nobody else seems to matter to him. Since then, when my neighbor comes home (as he did July 10, to be interviewed with John Kerry for "60 Minutes"), Raleigh police officers block off the street. Those of us who live near himend up coming and going to and from our homes on a circuitous route, on a bad, unsurfaced road. Forsyth Street has been closed to through traffic, except when my neighbor is in town, because the road has been ripped up for installation of new gas and sewer lines. My neighbor's street is a public, city-maintained street, and it is the best way to get to homes just north of his. If my neighbor is around, though, apparently none of the rest of us can use the street at all. Again, however, the News & Observer reported differently: When Edwards is at home, which isn't often these days, police block his section of Alleghany Drive but let residents, guests and home repair services through. The essay complained about that inconvenience, but Alleghany residents said they manage easily. "We have a lot of contractors coming and going," said Brenda Gibson, 47, a registered Republican. "I have nothing negative to say." Some of the neighbors said they liked having traffic access limited because it stops cars from speeding down the narrow street. "Alleghany was just a thoroughfare," said Clotilde Collins, 74. "You take your life in your hands trying to get out of your driveway." Some said they are excited to have Edwards as a neighbor. And they like looking out their windows to see Secret Service agents. "I love the security," Gibson said. Last updated:  13 August 2004     Sources:   Bonner, Lynn.  "E-Mail About Edwards Disputed."   The [Raleigh] News & Observer.  13 August 2004.