Did Donald Trump Appoint Sarah Palin as a Science Advisor?
On 5 December 2016, the World News Daily Report web site published an article reporting that President-elect Donald Trump had officially announced former Alaska governor (and 2008 vice presidential candidate) Sarah Palin was in line to become his new Science and Technology Adviser: World News Daily Report article Critics of the administration have already voiced their concerns over the choice of the former Alaska governor, known to be a fierce climate change denier, to lead the White House Office of Science and Technology of the United States. Far too long has the Chinese narrative over climate change kept our economy in a rut. Its time to open the pumps and as I like to say: Drill, baby, drill!   Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor  This tweet did not appear in Twitter's history of Trump's account, and no other news outlet reported what would have been an undoubtedly highly newsworthy appointment.  history That lack of additional coverage is because this report originated with World News Daily Report, a fake news site. The site used an old and unrelated image of Donald Trump and Sarah Palin together (which dated to 2011) to suggest that the pair had met during the President-elect's transition period in late 2016. image 2011
On Jan. 27, 2022, a reader sent in a tip about a Facebook ad (and likely on Instagram as well) that promised $750 in Cash App rewards for free. The Facebook page was named Kjguyrt. It had been created only a few days before: Facebook ad Kjguyrt  The page claimed to be a dry cleaning company. This was not true.  One user who realized it was a scam commented: "Take your stupid f*cking advertising and stick it up your ass." commented After a few seconds of some simple searching on Facebook, we were able to uncover a seemingly endless number of more posts, groups, and events that promoted a similar $750 Cash App scam. Most of them appeared to lead to brief surveys in Google Docs or on sites.google.com pages before ultimately asking users for personal identifiable information (PII). Such scams have a chance of eventually leading to phishing, identity theft, or other harmful outcomes. No one was genuinely giving away $750 on Cash App for free on Facebook or Instagram. This one from a page named Flash Reward had been around since at least May 2021: This one  Many of the scams led to surveys before ultimately asking for personal information.    Meanwhile, some of the pages we found put the scam in the name: $750 Cash App. This one led to scams on WhatsApp: $750 Cash App  Facebook and WhatsApp are both owned by Meta.  One of the Facebook groups we discovered was named Cash App/PAYPAL BLESSINGS. It had more than 13,000 members. In the rules for the group, it said: "This group is for BLESSINGS only no scams." However, we only found scams. Cash App/PAYPAL BLESSINGS One of the posts from a Facebook user named Stash Account, which had nothing to do with the real finance app, posted in the group: "If you haven't gotten Help Drop Tag Names & Check Balance, I am Legit Limited Time." One of the posts  "I am legit" is never a good sign.    The Stash Account person responded to hundreds of people with the scam in a comment that looked like this:  "Let's claim your reward here." No thanks.    This other Facebook group was named CashApp $750 and placed its scam links in the "About" section of the page: CashApp $750  It's unclear why these Facebook groups were allowed to exist seeing as they were so easy to find.  On top of Facebook accounts, pages, and groups all being involved in the $750 Cash App scams, also including Instagram posts, we found well over 600 Facebook events that had been created for the ruse. There were likely many more. However, our Google Chrome browser window couldn't handle loading any further listings, as it was already so much information for the tab to handle at once. well over 600 Facebook events  Here's a sample of what a few of the Facebook events looked like.    We looked into the Facebook events to see if they differed from the way the scam operated on pages and in groups. From what we saw, it looked like they, too, initially led to surveys that eventually ended up asking for PII. We previously reported on similar scams that offered $750 in Cash App that impersonated talk show host Ellen DeGeneres. Some of those accounts appeared to still be active as of late January. reported It's unclear why these $750 Cash App scams were allowed to thrive on Facebook and Instagram when they were so easy to hunt down. We recommend that readers stay far away from any social media posts or ads that promise free money. For further reading, we recently infiltrated a cryptocurrency scam on Facebook. It wasn't difficult to find our way into the scam. However, what was unexpected was the fact that Facebook took no action on the scam despite the fact that we contacted the company's media relations team by email. It, too, was still active at the end of January. infiltrated a cryptocurrency scam 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 As U.S. President Donald Trump faced political fallout from his June 20, 2020, rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, many speculated about the health consequences of the large gathering due to the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. One such speculation took place on MSNBC's "All in With Chris Hayes" program, where on June 29, the anchor addressed a spike in COVID-19 cases in the state. June 20, 2020 Though Hayes emphasized there was no way to confirm cause and effect, his analysis led to an incorrect theory that the rally resulted in two days of 100% positive COVID-19 tests a week later. In a later segment, Hayes clarified that the data he presented was incomplete. incorrect theory segment We will address this claim starting with the initial misreport, followed by a look at the actual data, and then the clarification. On June 29, Hayes reported that positive COVID-19 test rates in Oklahoma had skyrocketed. He said: June 29 And it comes less than 10 days after that infamous Tulsa, Oklahoma, rally where even with the arena far from full, you still had thousands of people gathered in an indoor space cheering and screaming in a city that had just seen a spike in cases and in violation of every single recommendation for safety ... And while we never know cause and effect exactly, particularly in the moment, its hard to figure out what the exact impact of that rally looks ... Look at this: yesterday in Oklahoma, they tested 352 people for the coronavirus, and every single test came back positive. Today they tested another 178 people, and all those tests came back positive, too. If you cant do the math in your head, thats a 100% positive rate. According to data the show cited from The COVID Tracking Project on those dates, there did appear to be a 100% COVID-19 positive testing rate. On June 28 and 29 respectively, the data showed 352 and 178 tests were conducted and reported positive (see table below). This was in stark contrast to June 30 numbers that showed more than 15,000 tests had been conducted, and the number of negative cases had risen.  The COVID Tracking Project    However, Hayes language led to misinterpretation. PoliticusUSA, a news organization, reported Trumps rally "may have [had] an impact on the spread of coronavirus in the state." Numerous tweets linked the two events together more directly. PoliticusUSA Numerous tweets  But the reality was not so simple. We found some lags in the government's reporting after looking at the Oklahoma health departments daily executive order reports, which provide updated cumulative COVID-19 data for the state, and speaking with Paul Monies, a reporter with Oklahoma Watch, a non-profit investigative journalism outlet. Those lags generally mean that percentages pinned to any specific day can be problematic. executive order reports Each government report  only issued on weekdays  shares data from midnight of the previous day, so the Monday report would conceivably share new information from Sunday, in addition to cumulative data. Monies suggested that many labs with COVID-19 tests were closed on weekends, or worked limited hours, so complete numbers of COVID-19 tests would be released during the regular work week in government reports. Indeed, each report indicates with an asterisk which labs were closed on weekends. Monday report report indicates The COVID Tracking Projects reporting showed that on some weekends, negative specimens' numbers remained unchanged. For example, the government did not release reports for July 3, 4, and 5 during the Fourth of July break, so The COVID Tracking Project reflected the negative specimens' data from the July 2 report for those three days, a cumulative total of 348,789. The same lag happened on June 27, 28, and 29, where the number of negative specimens remained unchanged in reports (313,021), and The COVID Tracking Project reflected data from the government's June 26 report. In other words, reporting delays impacted both the data reported by the government and the data that The COVID Tracking Project pulled from the government.  COVID Tracking Projects COVID Tracking Project July 2 report  June 26 report We also noticed that the state reported large batches of negative tests on Tuesday mornings. For this reason, looking at positive percentage rates on specific days was not useful, Dillon Richards, an Oklahoma City reporter with KOCO News, told us.  On July 1, Hayes issued a correction: July 1 ... those numbers I cited on Monday did not provide a clear or complete picture because they were not the final numbers for Oklahomas weekend testing. I have a cardinal rule that I violated there, that if a statistic sounds too wild to be true, it probably is ... PoliticusUSA also subsequently corrected its report. Hayes told Snopes: PoliticusUSA ... our reporting of what the state had published *was correct* ( I was so incredulous I actually checked it manually myself!) but it was a byproduct of a bad reporting system that is lumpy and misleading. All of that said, Trumps June 20 rally did violate numerous health recommendations from experts, took place when COVID-19 cases were rising in the state, and may have resulted in some positive cases. But no one has traced the increased number of cases to that one event. Oklahoma is also one of the unhealthiest states in the country, a potential factor in rising numbers. violate unhealthiest In sum, even though the rally may have increased risk for attendees, its connection to rising COVID cases is difficult to prove. The 100% positive test rate was also misreported, and Hayes issued a clarification. We therefore rate this claim as  Brown, Trevor. "Experts: Oklahoma, Among the Unhealthiest States, Faces Heightened Risks for COVID-19."
 Frontline PBS. 16 April 2020. Colarossi, Sean. "Correction: MSNBCs Chris Hayes Misinterpreted Oklahoma Virus Test Data."
 PoliticusUSA. 29 June 2020. Coronavirus.health.ok.gov. "Executive Order Reports." Gupta, Sanjay and Andrea Kane. "How Risky is it to Attend a Trump Campaign Rally During a Pandemic?"
 CNN. 19 June 2020. Lutz, Tom. "Brad Parscale Faces Trump 'Fury' After Tulsa Comeback Rally Flops."
 The Guardian. 21 June 2020. Regan, Helen, Marsh, Jenni, Rahim, Zamira. "Coronavirus Pandemic: Updates From Around The World."
 CNN. 21 June 2020. The COVID Tracking Project. "Oklahoma." If you browse Snopes.com, you'll likely come across the advice, "If it seems too good to be true, it it probably is" on pages about social media scams. While this platitude is certainly worth considering when browsing the internet, a few exceptions exist. social media scams The Germany-based search engine Ecosia claims to use its profits to plant trees around the world. Its home page even carries a tally of the number of trees that have reportedly been planted by Ecosia users:   For many people, this business model may seem "too good to be true" and has led to some skepticism about the legitimacy of this company. A search on Google, for instance, results in several articles and blog posts questioning the legitimacy of the search engine and asking whether Ecosia is a scam. As far as we can tell, Ecosia is a legitimate search engine that truly uses a portion of its profits to help plant trees around the world.  Ecosia was launched in 2009 by Christian Kroll. At the time, the search engine was partnered with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and promised to donate "at least 80 percent of its income from sponsored links to WWFs rainforest protection programme in Brazils Juruena-Apui region." WWF announced the partnership in a blog post: blog Those people unable to make it to the Copenhagen Climate Conference this month can still contribute to stopping climate change  by using a new search engine from their own computers. The same day the conference begins on Dec. 7, web users can start using a new green search engine called Ecosia. The new application, powered by Yahoo! and Microsofts Bing search engines, will allow internet surfers to protect about 2 square meters of Amazon rainforest just by clicking on sponsored links. Although users do not donate any money themselves, the company behind Ecosia will donate at least 80 percent of its income from sponsored links to WWFs rainforest protection programme in Brazils Juruena-Apui region. The green search engine is a very modern and inventive method of saving the world climate without a huge effort, says WWF Germanys director Eberhard Brandes. Every year billions of dollars are being earned in the internet only from advertising revenue, says Christian Kroll, founder of Ecosia. There is a more eco-friendly way of using these huge profits: the money should better be used to fight global warming. Since 2009, Ecosia has partnered with a number of other environmental organizations. The company reports it uses a portion of its profits to fund these organizations, who in turn work to plant trees around the world.  Ecosia makes money the way most other search engines and websites do: through advertising revenue. While this money covers various business expenses, such as advertising and operational costs, Ecosia claims that the majority of its revenue goes toward funding tree-planting projects.  Ecosia releases monthly financial reports so users can see exactly how the company is spending its money. The most recent full report comes from July 2019. The following report shows that 52% of its total income (approximately 80% of its surplus revenue) was invested in tree-planting projects; 5% was spent on advertising; 30% was spent on operational costs; and 12% went into company "reserves," which are used to fund larger environmental investments: financial reports   We have been unable to independently verify these numbers. However, we checked the websites of several of Ecosia's reported benefactors and found that many of these organizations list Ecosia as one of their partners. Dr. Simon Pfister, managing director of Green Ethiopia, an organization working to grow forests in Ethiopia that received approximately $150,000 from Ecosia in June 2019, told us that Ecosia accurately reported its donation in the company's financial report.  Ecosia is also a Certified B Corporation. This means that Ecosia underwent a third-party evaluation that determined the company had an overall positive impact on its workers, community, and environment. According to the company: Ecosia Certified B Corporation. B Corp Certification doesnt just evaluate a product or service; it assesses the overall positive impact of the company that stands behind it. And increasingly thats what people care most about. Certified B Corporations achieve a minimum verified score on the B Impact Assessment  a rigorous assessment of a companys impact on its workers, customers, community, and environment and make their B Impact Report transparent on bcorporation.net. Certified B Corporations also amend their legal governing documents to require their board of directors to balance profit and purpose. The combination of third-party validation, public transparency, and legal accountability help Certified B Corps build trust and value. B Corp Certification is administered by the non-profit B Lab. Ecosia lets users plant trees by searching the web. In donating 80 percent of its surplus ad revenue, the search engine has raised almost $3 million for reforestation projects since its founding in December 2009. Ecosia's mission to cultivate a world where the environment doesnt need protecting has it working to plant one billion new trees by the year 2020. By supporting high-impact reforestation efforts  as well as neutralising all CO2 emissions related to its search  Ecosia aims to achieve the highest positive environmental impact per dollar possible. By publishing its monthly donation receipts online, Ecosia aims to live up to its users demands for transparency. And by working to improve its charitable web service day after day, Ecosia aims to show the world that small changes can make a big difference. In its mission to plant one billion trees by 2020, Ecosia is working with experts and communities to reforest areas of the world that need it most. Sustainable, high-impact planting strategies mean improvements to the environment, local economies and social stability. Ecosia truly uses a large portion of its profits to fund tree planting projects. Of course, for anyone searching for an environmentally friendly search engine, planting trees isn't the only factor to consider. Ecosia is largely powered by Microsoft's Bing search engine. While Microsoft's global operations have been carbon neutral since 2012, the data centers powering Bing don't run entirely on renewable energy. Microsoft is working toward this goal, however, and expects to be driven by 100 percent renewable energy by 2023: Bing 2012 100 percent renewable energy In our data centers, we will continue to focus on R&D for efficiency and renewable energy. In 2016, we announced that we would power our data centers with more renewable energy, setting a 50 percent target by the end of 2018 and topping 60 percent early in the next decade while continuing to improve from there. We hit the first target nearly a year ahead of schedule, and today we are sharing the news that we will reach the 60 percent milestone before the end of this year. Were therefore setting our next milestone on the path to 100 percent renewable energy, aiming to surpass the 70 percent target by 2023. Well also launch a new data-driven circular cloud initiative using the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor performance and streamline our reuse, resale and recycling of data center assets, including servers. For comparison's sake, Google announced in 2017 that its search engine was being powered by 100% renewable energy. announced While Microsoft may not be at quite at 100% renewable energy yet, Ecosia claims that its own servers run on clean power thanks to its new solar plant. Additionally, Ecosia's carbon footprint is lessened due to its involvement with various tree-planting projects around the world. The company says: carbon footprint Renewable energy: Did you know that the CO2 footprint of an average search is estimated at 0.2 grams? Not so with Ecosia. We recently built our own solar plant, so that we can run our servers on clean power. This is even better than buying renewable energy from existing plants, as the plant can deliver clean energy to the grid and replace electricity derived from fossil fuels. Carbon-negative: By planting trees and offsetting its energy use with renewables, each search with Ecosia actually removes 1 kg of CO2 from the air, which makes Ecosia a carbon-negative search engine. Heres the math: an average search generates around 0.005  of revenue. It costs roughly 0.25  to plant a tree, which means that Ecosia can plant one tree every 50 searches. On average, these trees will each remove 50 kg of CO2 during an expected 15 year lifetime. To sum up: Ecosia makes money through advertisements on its search engine. While a portion of that money is used to fund the operational costs of the business, about 80% of its surplus revenue is donated to environmental organizations and tree-planting projects around the world.  Smith, Brad.  "We're Increasing Our CarbonFee as We Double Down on Sustainability."   Microsoft.  15 April 2019. Google.  "100% Renewable is Just the Beginning."
  Retrieved 27 August 2019. Ecosia.  "Financial Reports and Tree-Planting Receipts."
  15 May 2019. World Wildlife Fund.  "Clicks to Help Save Amazon."   3 December 2009. 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 October 2020, shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump tested positive for COVID-19, a rumor started circulating on social media that the White House gift shop was selling a "Trump Defeats COVID-19" commemorative coin:   WhiteHouseGiftShop.com is selling a "Trump Defeats COVID-19" commemorative coin. However, this website is not the official gift shop of the White House, the government does not dictate what this business sells, and the Trump administration does not make a profit from its sales.  WhiteHouseGiftShop.com This isn't the first time this misleadingly named gift shop has caused confusion online. In April 2020, a similar rumor went viral after social media users claimed that the United States government was selling "Coronavirus Task Force" coins at its gift shop. Again, while the coins were real, the website selling them was not officially affiliated with the government. The website's owner, Anthony Giannini, told us at the time that the White House Gift Shop "is not affiliated with The White House, nor is The White House involved in any of our decisions, products, or operations." While this website does not have any current ties to the government, it does have a long (and somewhat convoluted) history that can reportedly be traced back to the 1950s when U.S. President Truman set up a gift shop in the basement of the White House: While it traces its history to a 1950 authorization by President Harry Truman, the headquarters of the White House Gift Shop has been in Lititz since 2012. Its operated by Lititz (Pennsylvania) resident Anthony Giannini with his wife, Helen. Its very weird and very cool, Giannini says of the shops curious history and its current location. After a failed assassination attempt of Truman in 1950 left one member of White House Police dead, Truman authorized a fund to benefit the family of the slain officer and the others who were injured in the attack by two Puerto Rican nationalists. When the White House Police became the Secret Service, the Truman-authorized fund became the Secret Service Uniformed Division Benefit Fund. The fund was replenished from the sale of items from a gift shop originally set up in the basement of the White House but eventually relocated to the nearby executive mansion. While Giannini was granted a trademark to use the name "White House Gift Shop," this business has not been officially affiliated with the government since at least 2012.  Umble, Chad.  "From 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to Warwick Center: How the White House Gift Shop wound up in Lititz."
  Lancaster Online.  27 May 2019. In a tweet that preceded West Virginias buck firearm season, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice encouraged West Virginians to purchase a hunting license. In the tweet, he offered an economic rationale -- that hunting is an economic engine for the state. In theNov. 5 tweet, Justice wrote, I've said it before and I'll say it again, hunting is really something that can help our economy grow! Hunters contribute more than $500 million to our state each year and help support a lot of jobs. Get a license today athttp://wvhunt.com.#WV#WVHunt. I've said it before and I'll say it again, hunting is really something that can help our economy grow! Hunters contribute more than $500 million to our state each year and help support a lot of jobs. Get a license today athttps://t.co/burilhQECG.#WV#WVHuntpic.twitter.com/btBNdz4TR6 State offices have thrown around the figure more than once. The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources sent atweeton Nov. 24 that used the same dollar figure, adding that deer hunters in particular spend an estimated $230 million in West Virginia, much of it in the rural areas of the state. We wondered: Do bucks, and other game, really bring the state 500 million bucks? When we contacted Justices office, Jordan Damron, the governors assistant legal counsel and digital director, cited it to the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. A Nov. 14press releasefrom the division includes the $500 million figure and said that hunting is estimated to be responsible for 5,400 jobs and $35 million in sales taxes on goods and services spent in West Virginia. The news release said the numbers came from Southwick Associates, a research firm focusing on outdoor markets. TheSouthwick Associates reportsaid that there had been $421,819,113 in retail sales in West Virginia, with a multiplier effect raising that amount to $552,085,233. The multiplier was used  to estimate the total amount of spending that occurs in the economy as a result of hunters spending. The report also said that 5,377 jobs were created through hunting and $35,544,522 in state and local taxes were gathered due to hunting. The amount spent on deer hunting alone was $291,972,745. So the numbers cited by Justice exist. But well offer a few caveats. First, the report is from 2012 and the data is from 2011. Though Justice offered a specific-sounding figure, the actual figure might have grown or shrunk in the subsequent seven-plus years. Second, multiplier effects are estimates and are highly dependent on the assumptions used. Different assumptions will lead to different results. Using the retail sales figure without the multiplier adjustment might have been a more defensible approach. Finally, the report says it was funded by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and produced in partnership with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The association represents government officials who oversee hunting, but the National Shooting Sports Foundationbills itselfas the firearms industry trade association. This means that the NSSF is an advocacy group that has a vested interest in promoting hunting. As with any advocacy group, its data should be understood in this context. Justice said that hunters contribute more than $500 million to West Virginia. This statistic comes from a comprehensive, 50-state report, but its worth noting that the data is more than seven years old, that it uses an estimate of economic impact beyond just retail sales, and that the report was funded by an industry trade group. We rate the statement Mostly True. Orb-weaving spiders are known for their meticulous ability to create suspended, intricate wheel-shaped webs characterized by nearly parallel grids that have inspired Halloween decorations for decades. How well a web is constructed can determine the likelihood that its weaver will survive. likelihood And decades of scientific research have revealed that when a spider is under the influence of drugs, its web can take on a variety of uncharacteristic shapes and patterns. decades scientific research  A reverse image search revealed that the photographs featured in the tweet in question have been shared to the internet more than 100 times, including a viral Reddit post posted in May 2021. reverse image search May 2021 Though the above images are authentic, they were not all included as part of a 1995 NASA experiment (more on what exactly NASA funded later). In the decades following studies surrounding the web-weaving skills of hallucinating spiders, social media users have mixed and matched photographs taken during various research projects and, in some cases, have erroneously described the details of such work. Since at least the 1950s, scientists have conducted experiments exploring the effects of various drugs on spiders, the first of which resulted in a 1954 piece titled Spider Webs and Drugs published in Scientific American. Among the first of those researchers was Peter Witt, a Swiss pharmacologist who studied how drugs impact the cognitive effects of drugs on the geometry of orb spider webs. 1950s Spider Webs and Drugs Peter Witt In particular, the photograph depicting the web of an acid-tripping spider is authentic, but it was not published as part of the 1995 NASA research nor was it connected with Witt, who died at the age of 80 three years later. The photograph was published in a 1957 article published in the American fashion journal Gravure Magazine with an accompanying caption that read, Web built after administration of d-lysergic acid diethylamide (lsd). Gravure Magazine  The image from Twitter (left) is compared to the image published on Witt's website (right).  To get a spider to take acid, a medical student at the time provided an ingenious solution. The drug was mixed in a sugar solution which was then injected into a small fly. A tuning fork was used and the vibrations set up in the signal thread were the clue to the bait. Apparently the mixture was delicious because there was no problem about getting him [the spider] to take the bait, read the Gravure Magazine article. The 1957 research noted that spiders on LSD seemed unaware of outside influences and concentrated on the job. An interesting parallel, the writers noted, when compared to a person who has ingested a hallucinogen and has a very rich inner life and seems out of contact with reality. With depressants they forgot to finish what they had started and the result was a very ineffective food-gathering device. Humans react in much the same way, read the article. Then again, the researchers also injected spiders with the blood serum taken from catatonic people diagnosed with schizophrenia which they said caused the spiders to withdrew from all activity and exhibited only feeble attempts at spinning or none at all. Thankfully, science is an ever-evolving study. Witt, who was also a mental health researcher and consultant to NASA, said in 1973 that the testing was done in part to determine how spiders spinning inside the orbit of a space station would be impacted by zero gravity and the stress of space travel  study the effects of drugs on mental health, plus environment, on the web building of spiders and how the changes relate to human behavior patterns And in the decades that followed, NASA also took a keen interest in adding onto Witts research. On April 1, 1994, NASA researchers David Noever, Raymond Cronise and Rachna Relwani published a four-paragraph description of an experiment called Using Spider-Web Patterns To Determine Toxicity in a 124-page issue of NASA Tech Briefs. Researchers describe having similarly used spiders as a means to test toxic chemicals at a less costlier alternative, and to avert potential conflicts with the recent animal-rights legislation issues. But the 1995 study, which has been archived here, only published a graphic that depicted the effects of marijuana, Benzedrine, caffeine, and chloral hydrate  not LSD. Using Spider-Web Patterns To Determine Toxicity here  NASA  NASA Spiders recorded in the NASA study were either left sober or were given an unspecified dose of marijuana, Benzedrine, caffeine, or chloral hydrate. However, it did not appear that the arachnids had been given LSD or speed, as the popular meme suggested. The changes in webs reflect the degree of toxicity of a substance. The more the chemical, the more deformed a web in comparison with a normal web, wrote NASA. Each image was digitized and processed by an image-data analysis program that computed measures of cellular structures of each web, including the area, perimeter, and radii of its cells. It appears that one of the most telling measures of toxicity is a decrease in comparison with a normal web of the numbers of completed sides in the cell: the greater the toxicity, the more sides the spider fails to complete, wrote the study authors. Clipped From The Times Recorder. The Times Recorder, 10 May 1973, p. 21. Did NASA Give Spiders Drugs to See How They Would Affect Web-Spinning? Poynter, 13 Dec. 2019, https://www.poynter.org/tfcn/2019/did-nasa-give-spiders-drugs-to-see-how-they-would-affect-web-spinning/. D-Lysergaure-Diathlamid (LSD 25) EXPERIENTIA - Dr. Peter N Witt. https://www.drpeterwitt.com/project/d-lysergaure-diathlamid-lsd-25-experientia/. Accessed 15 Nov. 2021. Dr Peter Witt - Spiders, Drugs and Human Behavior. Dr. Peter N Witt, https://www.drpeterwitt.com/. Accessed 15 Nov. 2021. He Spins at NightGRAVURE MAGAZINE - Dr. Peter N Witt. https://www.drpeterwitt.com/project/he-spins-at-night-gravure-magazine/. Accessed 15 Nov. 2021. Narendra_17. In 1995 a Group of NASA Scientists Studied the Effects of Various Drugs on Spiders, Specifically on the Way They Weave Their Webs. R/Interestingasfuck, 19 Apr. 2021, www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/mtrjnk/in_1995_a_group_of_nasa_scientists_studied_the/. ---. In 1995 a Group of NASA Scientists Studied the Effects of Various Drugs on Spiders, Specifically on the Way They Weave Their Webs. R/Interestingasfuck, 19 Apr. 2021, www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/mtrjnk/in_1995_a_group_of_nasa_scientists_studied_the/. NASA Tech Briefs, April 1995. Apr. 1995. ntrs.nasa.gov, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20100033433.Noever, David A., et al. Using Spider-Web Patterns To Determine Toxicity. NASA Tech Briefs, vol. 19, no. 4, Apr. 1995. ntrs.nasa.gov, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19950065352. Peter Witt Biography - Spiders, Drugs and Human Behavior. Dr. Peter N Witt, https://www.drpeterwitt.com/project/peter-witt-biography/. Accessed 15 Nov. 2021. Schizophrenic Spider Webs LSD 1967. The Times, 2 Nov. 1967, p. 1.Soler, Alejandro, and Ramn Zaera. The Secondary Frame in Spider Orb Webs: The Detail That Makes the Difference. Scientific Reports, vol. 6, no. 1, Aug. 2016, p. 31265. www.nature.com, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31265. Space Spiders Bug SkylabThe News and Observer - Dr. Peter N Witt. https://www.drpeterwitt.com/project/space-spiders-bug-skylabthe-news-and-observer/. Accessed 15 Nov. 2021. Spiders on Speed Get Weaving. New Scientist, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14619750-500-spiders-on-speed-get-weaving/. Accessed 15 Nov. 2021. TinEye Reverse Image Search. https://tineye.com/search/5c8f3332f4b5bc3a91255ed0e91722ac2516f2d5?sort=score&order=desc&page=1. Accessed 15 Nov. 2021. https://twitter.com/latestinspace/status/1432827827691401224. Accessed 15 Nov. 2021. Witt, Peter. Spider Webs and Drugs. Scientific American, vol. 191, no. 6, 1954, pp. 8087. On Oct. 23, 2019, the U.K. tabloid Express published an article that left some readers believing they need not make Christmas plans this year because Earth was in danger of being hit by a large asteroid: Express   The article was entitled "Asteroid terror: NASA spot mammoth space rock to hit Earth's orbit five days before X-mas." The subheading gave earthlings an even smaller chance of survival: "AN ASTEROID the size of the World Trade Centre is on a dangerous Earth-bound orbit that could see the rock smash the planet during Christmas festivities." When the article was regurgitated by even less-reputable websites, the fear-mongering title morphed into a factually inaccurate claim. For instance, the website Digital Wise rehashed this article under the title "NASA Issues Warning Over Asteroid Predicted To Hit Earth Five Days Before Christmas!" Digital Wise NASA has made no such announcement, and Earth is not in danger of being hit by an asteroid around Christmas.  These articles are all based on a real asteroid (known as 216258 2006 WH1) and its holiday approach toward Earth. However, these articles present the information as if this asteroid is particularly dangerous. But there's nothing unusually threatening about asteroid 216258 2006 WH1. NASA's Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) currently lists 26 near-Earth objects that are scheduled to pass by our planet within the next 60 days. While asteroid 216258 2006 WH1 (which was discovered in 2006) will truly be passing by earth around Christmas, CNEOS reports that the asteroid is expected to safely pass by earth at a distance of about 15.19 LD (lunar distance), approximately 3.6 million miles. lists Dr. Paul W. Chodas, the Director of the Center for Near Earth Object Studies, told us in an email that there is "nothing unusual or dangerous" about asteroid 216258 2006 WH1: No, there is nothing unusual or dangerous about this asteroid. It is simply making a close approach to the Earth. Astronomers have been observing this asteroids position for 13 years, we know its orbit very accurately, we can predict its close approaches accurately for the next 200 years, and we know with certainty that it cannot hit our planet. Lindley Johnson, NASAs Planetary Defense Officer and Program Executive of the Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO), also told us that this asteroid "poses no hazard to impacting earth":  NASA and other US agencies are lead players in the international effort to develop plans to respond to a possible Near-Earth Object (NEO) impact. In 2018, the White House released the National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan, which identifies key steps that US agencies need to take to better prepare the United Statesand the worldfor detecting and responding to a possible impact. NASA has been directed by Congress to catalogue and characterize all NEOs bigger than 140 meters, the ones that could be catastrophic. NASA is approximately 35% complete for NEOs 140 meters and larger, and approximately 96% complete for those 1 km and larger. Strategic investments in our space-based programs will lead to the benefit of all of humanity as we continue to catalogue any NEOs that pose a potential threat. This particular asteroids trajectory has been well tracked by NASAs Center for Near-Earth Object Studies since its discovery 13 years and poses no hazard to impacting Earth. Here's a little more information about near-earth objects from CNEOS. The organization writes on its website (emphasis ours):  writes On a daily basis, about one hundred tons of interplanetary material drifts down to the Earths surface. Most of the smallest interplanetary particles that reach the Earths surface are the tiny dust particles that are released by comets as their ices vaporize in the solar neighborhood. The vast majority of the larger interplanetary material that reaches the Earths surface originates as the collision fragments of asteroids that have run into one another some eons ago. With an average interval of about 10,000 years, rocky or iron asteroids larger than about 100 meters would be expected to reach the Earths surface and cause local disasters or produce the tidal waves that can inundate low lying coastal areas. On an average of every several hundred thousand years or so, asteroids larger than a kilometer could cause global disasters. In this case, the impact debris would spread throughout the Earths atmosphere so that plant life would suffer from acid rain, partial blocking of sunlight, and from the firestorms resulting from heated impact debris raining back down upon the Earths surface. Since their orbital paths often cross that of the Earth, collisions with near-Earth objects have occurred in the past and we should remain alert to the possibility of future close Earth approaches. It seems prudent to mount efforts to discover and study these objects, to characterize their sizes, compositions and structures and to keep an eye upon their future trajectories ... ... No one should be overly concerned about an Earth impact of an asteroid or comet. The threat to any one person from auto accidents, disease, other natural disasters and a variety of other problems is much higher than the threat from NEOs. Over long periods of time, however, the chances of the Earth being impacted are not negligible so that some form of NEO insurance is warranted. At the moment, our best insurance rests with the NEO scientists and their efforts to first find these objects and then track their motions into the future. We need to first find them, then keep an eye on them. NASA Near-Earth Object Observations Program is constantly monitoring the skies for approaching asteroids and meteors. So far, the program has discovered more than 19,000 NEOs. When NASA discovers an NEO, it works to determine as much information as possible about the object, such as its size, speed, and orbit, so that the agency can calculate when it will approach Earth and how close it will come when it does.  But the 19,000 NEOs in NASA's database aren't really what we have to worry about. The organization writes that thousands of NEOs have yet to be discovered: discovered Asteroid impacts are a continuously occurring natural process. Every day, 80 to 100 tons of material falls upon Earth from space in the form of dust and small meteorites (fragments of asteroids that disintegrate in Earths atmosphere). Over the past 20 years, U.S. government sensors have detected nearly 600 very small asteroids a few meters in size that have entered Earths atmosphere and created spectacular bolides (fireballs). Experts estimate that an impact of an object the size of the one that exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia, in 2013  approximately 55 feet (17 meters) in size  takes place once or twice a century. Impacts of larger objects are expected to be far less frequent (on the scale of centuries to millennia). However, given the current incompleteness of the NEO catalogue, an unpredicted impact  such as the Chelyabinsk event  could occur at any time. Still, the chances of an asteroid larger than 140 meters hitting earth in the next 100 years is minimal: hitting The current congressionally directed objective of the NEO Observations Program is to find, track, and characterize at least 90 percent of the predicted number of NEOs that are 140 meters and larger in sizelarger than a small football stadiumand to characterize a subset representative of the entire population. Objects of this size and larger pose a risk to Earth of greatest concern due to the level of devastation an impact would cause, and should continue to be the focus of global search efforts. While no known asteroid larger than 140 meters in size has a significant chance to hit Earth for the next 100 years, less than half of the estimated 25,000 NEOs that are 140 meters and larger in size have been found to date. Asteroid 216258 2006 WH1 will pass by Earth a few days before Christmas. However, NASA has issued no warnings about a catastrophic impact, and CNEOS reports that this asteroid will get no closer than 3 million miles from Earth during its approach.  NASA.  "Near-Earth Object Observations Program."
  Retrieved 8 November 2019. NASA.  "Planetary Defense Frequently Asked Questions."
  Retrieved 8 November 2019. Day, Joel.  "Asteroid Terror: NASA Spot Mammoth Space Rock to Hit Earth's Orbit Five Days Before X-Mas."
  Express.  23 October 2019. With the advent of electronic voting systems  and public unease with casting ballots that are not tangible physical objects  every election cycle brings rumors that some individual or group with a heavy investment in the outcome of the election owns or controls the machines that record and count votes  and those parties will use their powers to "rig" the voting systems they control to ensure the election outcome conforms to their preferred results. individual group Billionaire business magnate George Soros was tagged in such rumors in 2012, and he was back in 2016 as the subject of articles by disreputable web sites such as the Daily Caller falsely claiming that Soros' ties to the Smartmatic company, purportedly the manufacturer of voting machines used in 16 states, put him in a position to "rig" the election in Hillary Clinton's favor: tagged Daily Caller HILLARY IS RIGGING THE ELECTION! Surprised? You shouldnt be. Weve just learned that Hillary is tied to the one company that has the power to sway this entire election  Smartmatic. Smartmatic manufactures the voting machines that will be used this November. The Chairman of Smartmatic, Mark Malloch-Brown, is on the board of George Soros Open Society Foundation. Yes, George Soros, the billionaire CROOK who is one of Hillarys biggest donors. SMARTMATICS VOTING MACHINES WILL BE USED IN THESE 16 CRUCIAL STATES: ArizonaCaliforniaColoradoDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaIllinoisLouisianaMichiganMissouriNew JerseyNevadaOregonPennsylvaniaVirginiaWashingtonWisconsin HILLARY IS TRYING TO RIG THIS ELECTION BECAUSE SHE KNOWS ITS THE ONLY CHANCE SHE HAS! George Soros has no hand in the management or ownership of Smartmatic. As is typical of such claims, this one is based on nothing more than the most tenuous of connections  namely that among the number of non-profit boards on which Smartmatic Chairman Lord Mark Malloch-Brown sits is the Global Board of the Open Society Foundation, an international grantmaking network founded by George Soros. That fact that one of the many people on one of the many boards of one of the many organizations with which George Soros (a large Clinton donor) is involved also happens to chair an electronic voting company is taken as proof enough by conspirators that George Soros has the means, motive, and intent to commit a massive act of voting fraud. And, despite being the multinational billionaire business magnate that he is, Soros utterly lacks the common sense not to rig an election through a confederate so obviously connected to him. Global Board donor As is also typical of such claims, those who propagate them mistakenly assume that every company in the business of providing electronic voting services is producing machines that record and count votes, which isn't the case  such services can include anything from providing streamlined systems for reporting election results to the press to automating the process of voter authentication. In this case the assertion that "Smartmatic's voting machines will be used in 16 crucial states" is a false one, apparently a misinterpretation of a statement on Smartmatic's web site touting that the company had previously offered unspecified "technology and support services to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 States"  a statement that didn't say that Smartmatic supplied voting machines used in all if those states, or that Smartmatic was even currently working with any of those states in any capacity. Indeed, the Case Studies section Smartmatic's web site chronicles their primarily dealing in providing equipment and services for foreign elections  there's no mention of Smartmatic's being involved in U.S. elections beyond providing a voting system for a Utah state Republican caucus in March of 2016 and pilot testing an ePen for capturing provisional envelopes and vote-by-mail ballots in parts of Los Angeles County. Case Studies In fact, a search using Verified Voting shows that not a single one of the listed 16 states is using voting machines provided by Smartmatic in the upcoming election  Smartmatic isn't even listed as a vendor of any voting machines being used in any state. Verified Voting Nonetheless, the false rumor has grown so prevalent that Smartmatic has addressed it themselves on their web site, in a page that includes a statement confirming that no Smartmatic technology is being used in any state during the 2016 U.S. presidential election: addressed  Smartmatic is 100% privately owned. Smartmatic has no ties to political parties or groups in any country and abide by a stringent code of ethics that forbids the company to ever donate to any political campaigns of any kind.  The companys headquarters were based in Florida for many years, but have since moved to London to service its global client base.  George Soros does not have and has never had any ownership stake in Smartmatic.  It is no secret that our Chairman Lord Mark Malloch-Brown is a member of a number of non-profit boards addressing global issues from poverty reduction to conflict resolution, including the Global Board of the Open Society Foundation. This is stated clearly in his official biography. Lord Malloch-Brown is a highly respected global figure whose credentials include former Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations and former Vice-Chairman of the World Economic Forum. He also served in the British Cabinet, as Minister of State in the Foreign Office.  Smartmatic will not be deploying its technology in any U.S. county for the upcoming 2016 U.S. Presidential elections.   Our election technology has handled more than 3.7 billion votes over the past 12 years in election projects on five continents, without a single discrepancy.  As a technology provider, Smartmatic is only responsible for, and concerned with, the technical aspects of the vote. Smartmatic does not comment on specific candidates or outcomes.  Smartmatics voting technology has never been compromised. George Soros' philanthropic organization comprises 22 different boards, but Smartmatic's chairman sits on only one of them. Soros himself has never worked for, or held an ownership share in, Smartmatic. boards <!-- As such, the claim was false and contained numerous inaccuracies in its ancillary detail. The chair of Smartmatic was not currently affiliated with any group of George Soros, the included chart involved voting machines unrelated to Smartmatic, and while Smartmatic touted providing services to counties in the 16 listed states, not one of those states used Smartmatic voting machines. A near identical rumor involving Soros and President Barack Obama circulated in 2012, and similarly had no truth to it.  2012 a pilot test with Smartmatic to streamline and expedite election reports during the California Primary Presidential Elections of June 7. Smartmatic provided its ePen solution in Malibu, Littlerock and Downey to enable the fast capture of the provisional envelopes and vote-by-mail ballots from reporting precincts. The item went on to claim the 2016 Democratic primary was similarly rigged in Clinton's favor, using a chart from a mid-2016 viral paper examining the integrity of primary results in contests between Clinton and Sanders: Clinton and Sanders Just take a look at this chart detailing some of the primary results between Hillary and Bernie. Look how much better Hillary did in states that used HER voting machines:   That chart (published in July 2016) had nothing to do with Smartmatic or "HER voting machines"; it pertained to the paper's authors' assessment of purported variations in results between states with and states without "paper trails" on electronic voting machines: published We found that while the polls were quite successful at predicting Clintons numbers in states with paper trails (just a statistically inconsequential 1% difference), Clinton over-performed by an average of 9% in the states that use electronic voting machines but fail to provide paper evidence of this vote: Thus, pollsters were quite accurate in predicting the outcome, but only in states where fraud is hardest to hide. This situation is completely flipped in the states where the placed vote cannot be verified, as the vote only ever existed in the machines. An interesting point of deviation between the two separate election fraud claims was that the initial paper focused in part on potential impropriety involving voting machines. But in that earlier claim, Smartmatic (the vendor purportedly in control of 16 states) was not mentioned: Interestingly, much information has recently come to light about the Clinton candidacy. Notably, the hacker Guccifer 2.0 released documents which he took from the computer network of the Democratic National Committee. Among these files, one tabulated a list of big-money donors to the Clinton Foundation. One fact has gone unreported in the media: Two of the three companies that control the electronic voting market, namely Dominion Voting and H.I.G. Capital (i.e. Hart Intercivic), are in this list of big-money donors. In conclusion, the data suggests that Clinton won in counties and in states where Clinton Foundation donors are responsible for the voting machines. Thus, we strongly believe that the risk posed by unverifiable electronic voting should not be taken. Our country should go back to verifiable voting. An honest election is more important than a day of labor. Off the bat, a discrepancy arose vis a vis the chart. In July 2016, vote skeptics eyed links between two voting vendors and the Democratic National Committee (DNC); neither of those vendors was Smartmatic. In October 2016, the same chart was used to claim Smartmatic had already rigged the primary for Clinton, and would do so for her again in her face-off against Donald Trump on 8 November 2016. Given the source material for the chart named entirely different equipment vendors, its inclusion in claims about Smartmatic was suspect.  Missing from the later claim was any information about how the 16 states and their use of Smartmatic machines to ostensible exclusion was obtained. The claim was simply stated as fact with no citation, along with assertions that George Soros (a Hungarian-American mogul and political activist) was heading up Smartmatic. We contacted Smartmatic via phone and e-mail to ask about the states and the rumor, but did not receive a response. However, Smartmatic (like most companies) heralded their own work and achievements on their web site, and voting machines were not a primary highlight: heralded highlight   It appeared the list of 16 states came verbatim from the unreferenced Smartmatic web site, where the company explained that in its tenure it had worked with 307 counties in 16 states (not that it supplied all voting machines to all 16, or even currently worked in any capacity with any of the states): In the US, Smartmatic has offered technology and support services to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 States. By contrast, the circulating articles used slightly different framing: SMARTMATICS VOTING MACHINES WILL BE USED IN THESE 16 CRUCIAL STATES[.] The "Soros connection" was also described openly on Smartmatic's web site, via a biography and professional history for company chairman Lord Mark Malloch-Brown. Although the articles claimed Malloch-Brown "sat on the board" of George Soros Open Society Foundation, his resume suggested that any work with Soros was not current: openly Mark Malloch-Brown is a former number two in the United Nations as well as having served in the British Cabinet and Foreign Office. He now sits in the House of Lords and is active both in business and in the non-profit world. He also remains deeply involved in international affairs. Mark served as Deputy Secretary-General and Chief of Staff of the UN under Kofi Annan ... Other positions have included vice-chairman of George Soross Investment Funds, as well as his Open Society Institute, a Vice-President at the World Bank and the lead international partner at Sawyer Miller, a political consulting firm.  Thus far the rumor amounted to Smartmatic's potential and possibly prior involvement in "offer[ing] technology and support services" to 307 counties in 16 states, a misrepresented chart of alleged election irregularities involving other voting equipment vendors, and a company chair who once worked for Soros' Investment Funds and Open Society Institute. As for the level of Smartmatic's specific involvement in the vote in those 16 states, most state election officials provided information about their voting methods up to and including vendors that supplied equipment used on Election Day. Ballotpedia hosted a color-coded map of the U.S. with information about voting methods by state, and not all the 16 states voted identically: color-coded map   Going by color-coding alone, it was clear the states' election equipment and processes varied tremendously. The oft-included chart (which evolved to identify "HER voting machines") in actuality referenced states that employed Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) without a paper trail. But several of the 16 states with a paper trail included Arizona, California, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, and Wisconsin -- they were not included in tabulations from states without. Of the 16, only Louisiana and New Jersey employed the DRE without paper trail method of voting, and the balance of states used either paper ballots, a combination of DRE and paper ballots, or mail-in voting -- none of which could be easily corrupted by Hillary Clinton or George Soros. As of 2014, the District of Columbia offered both paper and DRE voting with receipts. offered As Smartmatic stated, "support" and "technology" was provided to the 16 states mentioned; extant information indicated that the states were not equipped identically with specific machines; some used paper or mail-in ballots, some employed DRE with a paper trail, and two used DRE without any "receipts." Arizona (the first state listed) made information about voting machine manufacturers available on its web site [PDF]; only Maricopa county used Sequoia technologies, bought and later sold by Smartmatic in 2006. California relied on a a variety of vendors for DRE voting, including Sequoia, Election Systems and Software (ES&S), Hart InterCivic, InkaVote, and Premier; Smartmatic was not listed on California's election web site as a current or prior vendor of voting machines (but as evidenced above, the company did provide electronic pens for some primary election functions). Illinois also did not list Smartmatic as a vendor, Colorado used Diebold equipment before switching to vote by mail (a vendor also used by Missouri), and Florida listed several vendors (none Smartmatic) for their machines.  PDF 2006 Sequoia ES&S Hart InterCivic InkaVote Premier Illinois Diebold Missouri vendors In fact, in a search using Verified Voting, not a single one of the 16 states was listed as using voting machines provided by Smartmatic -- Smartmatic was not even listed as a vendor of any voting machine in any state. As such, the claim was false and contained numerous inaccuracies in its ancillary detail. The chair of Smartmatic was not currently affiliated with any group of George Soros, the included chart involved voting machines unrelated to Smartmatic, and while Smartmatic touted providing services to counties in the 16 listed states, not one of those states used Smartmatic voting machines. A near identical rumor involving Soros and President Barack Obama circulated in 2012, and similarly had no truth to it. --> Verified Voting 2012 Barragan, Rodolfo Cortes.  "Study Shows Voting Irregularities Linked to Companies That Donated to the Clinton Foundation."
  The Bern Report.  7 July 2016. Cohen, Zach C.  "How D.C. Votes: Paper or Scantron?"
  The Washington Post.  2 April 2014. McCord, Susan.  "Augusta Getting 100 Used Voting Machines from Colorado County."
  The Augusta Chronicle.  2 August 2016. On July 25, 2010, David Gregory, the host of NBC'sMeet the Press, asked his roundtable panelists to consider Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege, aWall Street Journalop-ed column from July 22, in which Sen. James Webb, D-Va., argues against federal affirmative action laws.I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship, Webb wrote. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white. In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.Marc Morial -- president of the National Urban League, a century-old civil rights organization -- was one panelist who took the challenge, arguing that non-whites continue to experience disadvantages compared to whites.I don't agree that Latinos and Asians have not suffered discrimination in this country or that Native Americans have not suffered discrimination in this country, Morial said. I think the question is, how do you target and tailor policies that are going to help all economically and socially disadvantaged people. And it's a fair debate to have, but it also needs to be positive with facts. Look at the Latino unemployment rate. It's higher than the white rate. The black rate is higher than the Latino rate. So to suggest that there are not disparities that affect the Latino community, that affect the Native American community, most in depth, the African-American community, we've got to have the discussion that Jim Webb wants to have. We have facts, real facts, that give a picture of how life is in this nation.We won't take sides on Webb's proposal to end policies that provide race-based advantages, a topic that inspires passions on both sides, but which isn't a checkable fact. Instead, we'll focus on the narrower question of whether Morial is accurate on the question of comparative unemployment rates for whites, blacks and Latinos.The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates seasonally adjusted unemployment rates by race and ethnicity. We found that in June 2010, the white unemployment rate was 8.6 percent. The black unemployment rate was 15.4 percent, and the Hispanic/Latino rate was 12.4.So Morial is correct that the Latino unemployment rate is higher than the white rate and that the black rate is higher than the Latino rate.Though it falls beyond the boundaries of our fact-check, we'll note one other point from the statistics. Morial argued that Latinos and Asian Americans have suffered discrimination in the United States, and we think most people would agree with that at least as a historical matter. But if you look at the unemployment rate for Asians, it's 7.7 percent. That's actually lower than the rate for whites. (Technically, the BLS only calculates a non-seasonally-adjusted rate for Asians, but the comparable rate for whites is still higher at 8.7 percent. )Still, as we indicated, Morial made no specific claim about unemployment among Asian-Americans, and for the groups that he did mention -- whites, blacks and Latinos -- his numbers were accurate. So we rate his comment True. When Susan Goodman Komen died of breast cancer at the age of 33 in 1980, her younger sister, Nancy Goodman Brinker promised she would do whatever she could to help end that disease.  Brinker fulfilled that promise by founding The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (later known as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, then just Susan G. Komen) in 1982, a group that has since become the largest and most well known breast cancer organization in the United States: breast cancer Brinker fulfilled a promise to her sister that she would do everything she could to help eradicate the disease  a disease that Brinker also was diagnosed with and successfully fought. "At that time, there was a stigma and shame around breast cancer," Brinker said. "You didn't talk about it. There were no 800-numbers, no Internet. Our government didn't spend much on breast cancer research. There were few major cancer centers with expertise about breast cancer. That's the world we faced when Suzy was diagnosed. It's a world I watched her suffer in, and it's a world she wanted us to change." In 2012, Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker became the focus of controversy when she announced Komen would be pulling the grants the organization had been providing to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, then quickly reversed that decision.  Several months later Brinker announced she would be stepping down as Komen's CEO, but the following year she was again the focus of controversy when news outlets reported that not only did she still hold her CEO position, but she had received a hefty raise to boot that brought her annual compensation up to $684,000 per year: In early 2012, Komen announced it was pulling its grants for breast-cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood, drawing an immediate backlash from Komen supporters and abortion rights advocates. Within days, Nancy Brinker, the groups founder and CEO, reversed the decision to defund the organization. Then, in August, Brinker announced that she would be stepping down. But 10 months later, Brinker still holds her position and tax documents reveal that she received a 64 percent raise and now makes $684,000 a year, according to the charitys latest available tax filing.  Komen says the raise came in November 2010, prior to last year's controversy. Ken Berger, president and CEO of Charity Navigator, which evaluates and rates charities, called Brinker's salary "extremely high." "This pay package is way outside the norm," he said. "It's about a quarter of a million dollars more than what we see for charities of this size. This is more than the head of the Red Cross is making, for an organization that is one-tenth the size of the Red Cross."  The American Red Cross had revenue of about $3.4 billion, while Komens was about $340 million last year.  Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern makes $500,000, according to the most recent financial documents available for the charity. Charity Navigator's last compensation figure for Nancy Brinker was $560,896 per year, which at the time put her below Komen president Elizabeth Thompson's reported annual compensation of $606,461.   In June 2013, Komen finally announced that Brinker would be stepping down as president and CEO of that organization and named Judith A. Salerno, M.D. as her successor.  In June 2015, Brinker reportedly resigned from her paid position to assume an unpaid role role as a top volunteer with Komen. Dr. Salerno's most recently reported compensation (in August 2017) was $479,858, while Nancy Brinker was still listed as a "founder" receiving a salary of $397,093. compensation announced unpaid In September 2017, Paula Schneider took over as president and CEO of Komen, with compensation of $137,155 reported as of the end of the fiscal year in March 2018. Paula Schneider The reference to Komen's applying only 20% of donated money to breast cancer research likely comes from a pie chart displayed in the "Use of Funds" section of Wikipedia's article about Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which showed Komen's 2009-2010 Expenses: Use of Funds  While it may have been true that breast cancer research comprised only a 21% share of Komen's program expenses (Charity Navigator puts the figure at 28.8% as of March 2018), citing that figure as a criticism of the organization reflects a common misbelief that groups dedicated to addressing particular diseases (e.g., the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the ALS Association) exist solely or primarily to fund and direct research into curing and/or preventing those diseases.  This perception is inaccurate: Komen and other groups like it have goals that include delivering a wide array of services to the communities they support beyond the funding of research, such as funding educational awareness and outreach programs, providing screening and diagnostic procedures, and arranging medical treatment and home care for persons currently living with those diseases.  A more relevant metric for assessing a charity's overall financial effectiveness is the percentage of the organization's budget that is actually spent on all the programs and services the charity delivers, and in this area the Charity Navigator charity evaluation site gives  Komen an 80.3 rating (as well as a 96.0 rating for Accountability & Transparency).  Charity Navigator does rank many other breast cancer charities higher than Susan G. Komen for the Cure, however. Komen breast cancer Regarding the seemingly excessively high level of CEO salaries at some charities, Charity Navigator advises that: advises While there are certainly some charities that overpay their leaders, Charity Navigator's data shows that those organizations are the minority. Among the charities we've evaluated (those being mid to large-sized charities), the typical CEO's annual compensation is in the low to mid six figures. Before you make any judgments about salaries higher or lower than that range, we encourage you to keep in mind that these charities are complex organizations, with multi-million dollar budgets, hundreds of employees, and thousands of constituents. These leaders could inevitably make much more running similarly sized for-profit firms. Furthermore, when making your decision it is important to consider that it takes a certain level of professionalism to effectively run a charity and charities must offer a competitive salary if they want to attract and retain that level of leadership.