The average time someone used to hold a share of stock back in the 60s was eight years. Now, the average time is four months.
U.S. Sen. Mark Warner joined the ranks of Wall Street critics during a recent radio interview, by complaining that investors increasingly are focused on reaping quick profits from companies at the expense of long-term value. The average time someone used to hold a share of stock back in the 60s was eight years. Now, the average time is four months, he said during aninterviewon Cats Roundtable, a New York City radio talk show hosted by John Catsimatidis, a billionaire businessman. We wondered whether Warner, D-Va., is right about the plunge in share-holding time. Warners office sent us a variety of articles by academics, investment strategists, newspapers and magazines that contained similar statistics to the ones cited by the senator. The source of thehistoric datais the New York Stock Exchange which, for most of the 20th century, was the dominant U.S. stock-trading venue. Heres the NYSEs average holding period for stocks at the start of each new decade, beginning at Warners mark in 1960: 1960, eight years, four months; 1970, five years, three months; 1980, two years, nine months; 1990, two years, two months; and 2000, one year, two months. But many new trading venues have opened and expanded in recent decades - E*Trade and NASDAQ, for example - and the New York Stock Exchanges dominance has diminished. About 25 percent of all U.S. trading now occurs on the NYSE, which has high financial requirements for the companies it lists and generally deals with large, stable stocks. In 2004, the NYSE changed its formula for calculating average share-holding periods to focus on its own listings. Credit Suisse that year began computing share-holding data that reflect the broader U.S. stock market. Credit Suisse figures show that in 2008 and 2009, when the nation was mired in the Great Recession, shares turned over an average almost five times a year. Thats slowed to about three times a year since 2013 or, as Warner put it, once every four months. The World Bank offers more conservative figures, saying U.S. shares, on average, turned over four times a year during the Great Recession and that slowed to 1.65 times a year in 2015 - or about once every eight months. Stock market analysts and academics note a variety of reasons for the quickening turnover of shares. Many say the days of small ma-and-pa investors have given way to an era of mutual funds and hedge funds that exert strong pressure of companies to produce short-term profits. The growth of e-trading also is cited; so are federal laws passed in 1993 that tied the bonuses of executives to their achievement of measurable performance goals in order for the bonuses to be tax-deductible for their companies. Warner said the consequence of activist investors is that corporations pay less attention to training workers and to research and development. He said Congress should explore offering tax incentives to companies that embrace those long-range goals. Many activist investors, to the contrary, say their actions have been beneficial and note that the stock market has continued to rise over the decades. Our ruling Warner said, The average time someone used to hold a share of stock back in the 60s was eight years. Now, the average time is four months. The gist of Warners statement is undeniable: The average holding period for stocks has eroded greatly during the past 56 years. The specifics of Warners statement, however, need a little elaboration. Estimates by Credit Suisse jibe with Warners claim that shares, on average, now are held for four months. The World Bank estimates the holding period now is about eight months. So we rate Warners statement Mostly True.
At the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Donald Trump repeated his months-long criticism of Hillary Clintons past support of free trade deals, a position in stark contrast to his own. (Trump says his superior negotiating skills will result in better deals.) She supported (the North American Free Trade Agreement), and she supported Chinas entrance into the World Trade Organization  another one of her husbands colossal mistakes. She supported the job-killing trade deal with South Korea. She supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This is largely accurate, but its worth noting that Clinton no longer supports NAFTA or TPP, nor is it clear that the South Korean deal is a job-killer. Lets go through Clintons position on these deals one by one. NAFTA As first lady, Clintonspoke favorablyof NAFTA  the North American Free Trade Agreement  signed by President Bill Clinton. I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth, said Clinton, according to a 1996 Associated Press report. Creating a free trade zone in North America  the largest free trade zone in the world  would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization, shewrotein her 2003 memoir,Living History, which the Trump campaign cited in a press release. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. But a few years later, shechanged her position on the dealduring her first White House bid. In 2007, she called NAFTA a mistake and said it hurt a lot of American workers. Why the change of heart? According to the 2008 Clinton camp, she was always skeptical of the deal. But the first lady was not supposed to deviate from the position of the administration, Robert Shapiro, the undersecretary of commerce under Bill Clinton,toldthe Huffington Post. Chinas inclusion in the WTO While campaigning for Senate in 2000, Clinton voiced reservations about Chinas entrance into the WTO, but was supportive overall. Heres what she said at aCNN forumin April of that year, which was cited by the Trump campaign: I share the concerns that many of my supporters in organized labor have expressed to me, because I do think we have to make sure that we improve labor rights, we improve environmental standards in our bilateral and our multilateral trade agreements. But on balance, I've looked at this, I've studied it, I think it is in the interests of America and American workers that we provide the option for China to go into the WTO. Right now, we are trading with China. We have a huge trade deficit with China. The agreement that has been negotiated between our two countries would open their markets to us in a way that they are not yet open, and in fact, for many large manufactured products, like automobiles, we would have the first chance to really get in and compete in that marketplace. (According to news reports from 1999, then-Reform Party member Trump opposed the United States inclusion in the WTO, period.) China became a member of the WTO in December 2001, with the support of President George W. Bush. Since then, Clinton hasnt reversed her position, as far as we can tell, but hasadvocatedfor using the WTO to bring trade cases against China. (This is alsoTrumps current position.) Deal with South Korea During her 2008 presidential run, Clinton opposed a pending free trade deal with South Korea (as well as other deals with Colombia and Panama). While I value the strong relationship the United States enjoys with South Korea, I believe that this agreement is inherently unfair, shetoldthe AFL-CIO in June 2007. The South Korean agreement does not create a level playing field for American carmakers, she said in a November 2007campaign statement. But as secretary of state, she supported the deal advocated by the administration. At an April 2011 gathering of business leaders in Seoul, Clintonsaidthe deal was profoundly in America's strategic interest and a priority for me, for President Obama and for the entire administration. (In 2008, Obama alsowas against the deal.) When the deal entered into force in March 2012, Clintontoutedit as a historic milestone that will provide a significant economic boost to both of our economies and strengthen the U.S. partnership with a key ally in a strategically important region. Does this deal kill jobs, as Trump says? The jury is still out. On one hand, the Economic Policy Institute, a labor-focused think tank, which Trump has cited, has found that the South Korean deal cost about60,000U.S. jobs. On the other, the Obama administration hasarguedthe deal actually creates jobs. Our friends at theWashington PostFact-Checker, meanwhile, looked at the the evidence andfoundboth estimates of job losses and job gains are fishy. An independentanalysisby economists at Tufts University and the University of Michigan projected a decline in manufacturing and service jobs and an increase in agriculture and food, beverage and tobacco jobs. But overall, the net impact on employment would be zero. TPP As wevedetailedquiteextensively, Clinton once hailed TPP as setting the gold standard in trade agreements during her time in the Obama administration, but she came out in opposition during her 2016 bid. Though shes always said the details needed to be hammered out, her comments about the deal were largely supportive from 2010 to 2013. Here are some of the words she used to describe TPP: exciting, innovative, ambitious, groundbreaking, cutting-edge, high quality, high standard and gold standard. In October 2015, Clinton flip-flopped and opposed it, telling PBS, I dont believe its going to meet the high bar I have set. Our ruling Trump said Clinton supported NAFTA, and she supported Chinas entrance into the World Trade Organization. She supported the job-killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Trump is right that Clinton once supported NAFTA and TPP and has yet to revoke her support for Chinas inclusion in the WTO or the deal with South Korea. But there are caveats. Clinton no longer supports NAFTA or TPP, and its not entirely clear that trade with South Korea has killed jobs. Trumps statement is accurate because its carefully phrased, but it needs additional context. We rate it Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/68c1a4d5-56ad-4a84-87b6-564b5037df5b Claim:   Two Idaho pastors were threatened with legal action and arrests for refusing to perform gay weddings.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Facebook has a Fox News Radio article about a couple, Don and Evelyn Knapp, that own an Idaho wedding chapel and are supposedly facing arrest if they don't perform same sex marriages. Is this for real?  Are officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, forcing Christian ministers to perform same sex marriage against their religious beliefs?  What has happened to "separation of church and state"?  Does it now only apply to churches preaching against  orruption in government?  Has the First Amendment been rewritten so that the state can now dictate religious beliefs and practices? Origins:  On 18 October 2014, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced in a press release that they were filing a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of pastors Donald and Evelyn Knapp of Couer d'Alene, Idaho. According to the announcement, the move was to prevent the city of Couer d'Alene from "forcing [the] two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples." The ADF's release stated that Donald and Evelyn Knapp faced the threat of jail or exorbitant fines if they refused to officiate gay weddings: City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its "non-discrimination" ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here  and it's happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended." On 14 October 2014, three days prior to the ADF's press release, the Idaho state government had announced that they would no longer oppose the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting a number of same-sex couples to obtain licenses and marry in the days immediately following the state's announcement:  The marriages came a day after Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Republicans who had fought to maintain the state's ban on gay marriage, ended their opposition to a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The localized battle in Idaho received national attention on 20 October 2014, when Fox News opinion columnist Todd Starnes published an article about the ADF's lawsuit on behalf of the Knapps: According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a "religious corporation" limited to performing "one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible." But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business  not as a church or place of worship  and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance. A Couer dAlene deputy city attorney reportedly said on local television that for-profit wedding chapels could not legally turn away a gay couple without risking a misdemeanor citation, and that the Hitching Post "would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance." The Knapps maintain that the City Attorneys office made the same assertion in telephone conversations with them, while the city claims they never threatened to take any legal action against the couple.  The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows: discovery cached The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors.  At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier: description The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions: PDF Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion. This chapter does not apply to: Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies. Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice: reported The Hitching Post wants the city to pay them for wages lost during the time they thought the city was going to force them to perform weddings. The Hitching Post made their stance on gay marriage very clear last year when the initial ban was overturned. Last May they said they would close their doors if they were forced to perform same sex marriages. The Hitching Post now wants the city to pay them for the days the chapel shut down even though they did so by choice. The business also says it lost customers and received hate mail because of media attention. However, the city said they have made it clear the Hitching Post is classified as a "religious organization" and is exempt, whether it's for profit or not. City spokesperson Keith Erickson wrote in a statement that the city "never threatened any legal action against the Hitching Post, nor does it intend to do so." A  2 April 2015 news article added that the chapel closures cited by the Knapps in their suit against the city included days on which same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Idaho:  Boise-based attorney Kirtlan Naylor wrote in the city's legal response, that while the Knapps claim they lost income when they closed the Hitching Post because they would be in violation of the ordinance, they never allege "that they had any weddings scheduled on those dates, or that anybody came to their business requesting a wedding on those dates." "More so, same-sex marriage was not legal in Idaho on Oct. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14," the motion states. "Additionally, on Oct. 15, 2014, when same-sex marriage became legal, Plaintiffs would not have been subject to the ordinance because they were exempt. Therefore, they were under no legitimate threat of prosecution which would require them to close their business on that date." According to the Hitching Post owners' complaint, the Knapps closed their business due to "a constant state of fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony." However, the article referenced above also reiterated a city spokesman's statement that officials "have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind" against them. Last updated:  7 July 2015    Starnes, Todd.   "City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings."   Fox News.  20 October 2014. If anyone has ever agreed with something you said on the internet (a phenomenon that is rare, but it does happen), there's a good chance someone posted a gif in response to your comment showing a bearded man nodding his head in approval:   Many internet users assumed that the nodding guy pictured in this meme was actor Zach Galifianakis. This is assumption is likely based on two factors. First of all, the bearded Galifianakis does bear a resemblance to the person pictured in the meme:   Second, the people who share gifs and memes on the internet tend to be predominantly on the younger side and are generally more familiar with Galifianakis than they are with, let's say, someone who starred in a movie that came out in the 1970s. This gif, which has been making its way around the internet since at least 2012, actually shows actor Robert Redford in a scene from the 1972 film "Jeremiah Johnson," in which Redford portrayed a Mexican War veteran who takes up the life of a mountain man.The "nod of approval" meme can be glimpsed in a trailer for the movie (minus the actual nod part) at the 1:44 mark below: 2012  Here's a more complete look at the nodding scene from "Jeremiah Johnson":  Know Your Meme.  "Jeremiah Johnson Nod of Approval."
  28 September 2018. On 18 September 2016, the "Donald Trump for President" Facebook page posted a photograph of Hillary Clinton along with the claim that the Democratic presidential nominee had spent over $1 billion on negative attack ads targeting Trump, but she had spent no money at all on political ads touting her own political record and accomplishments:  The image asks viewers to "share if you agree," but its claims are not up for debate. They are false.  First, the Hillary Clinton campaign has not spent "over $1 billion on negative Trump ads on TV." Although Clinton has run a number of negative TV spots attacking her rival, she has not spent anywhere near $1 billion on such ads. Shortly after this image was published in September 2016, NBC partner Advertising Analytics released a report detailing how much money each of the candidates had spent on ads. They recorded that Clinton's campaign spent about $90 million on ads during the general election (up to 20 September 2016), while pro-Clinton groups had spent an additional $60 million or so: report Hillary Clinton and her allies continue to dominate Donald Trump and pro-Trump outside groups in the 2016 advertising race. According to ad-spending data from NBC partner Advertising Analytics, Clinton's campaign has spent $96.4 million in ads in the general election, versus $17.3 million for Trump's campaign. That's more than a 5-to-1 advantage for Clinton. And then when you factor in outside groups, it's $156.6 million for Team Clinton, and $33.6 million for Team Trump. That's almost a 5-to-1 advantage. It's also false to say that Clinton has never released a political ad touting her own accomplishments. The Clinton campaign has issued a number of videos touting her accomplishments from her 30-plus years of public service, including one that highlighted her work with children and health care and another featuring President Obama talking about Clinton's many achievements (including becoming the first woman to be nominated for president by a major party).  children and health care achievements Even if we assume the original image referred only to paid television advertising, it's still wrong in light of examples such as a June 2016 Clinton TV spot that showcased several highlights of her political career: In September 2018, a photograph went viral on social media along with a caption which claimed it showed a woman named "Brittany L." holding a leopard she had just killed during a hunting expedition. On 10 September, the wildlife artist Sue Dickinson posted the photograph to her Facebook page along with a message which read as follows: posted This is Brittany L. She just killed this male leopard in his prime. According to SCI (Safari Club International) this leopard ranks as potentially the 9th largest leopard ever hunted. She's a cretin. Please share if you agree. Let's name and shame her.   Dickinson's post was shared hundreds of thousands of times within a week and was re-published through multiple accounts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, including the supermodel Naomi Campbell. Naomi Campbell The image is authentic and captures a woman posing with a real leopard that she herself killed. The photograph was first posted on 7 September 2018 to the web site of Safari Club International, a hunting organization based in Tucson, Arizona, as part of a group of new entries into the organization's online record book: posted SCI members share their hunter pride SCI Members hunt all over the globe, and are proud to share their successes. By entering their successful hunts in the SCI Record Book, they are not only documenting their hunting legacy for future generations, they are also adding to one of the largest and most comprehensive wildlife databases in the world. The URL of the controversial photograph contains the words "Brittany L" and "leopard," so it was reasonable for internet users to deduce that the woman shown with the leopard had the first name Brittany and a surname beginning with the letter "L." Indeed, we can confirm that Brittany L. is the woman shown in the photograph (rather than the name of the person who submitted it to SCI's record book). On 7 September, SCI posted more details about "Brittany L.'s" leopard photograph on HuntForever.org, a website affiliated with the organization. That blog post has since been removed, but we obtained an SCI newsletter email dated 7 September with content identical to the blog post's embedded in it (despite the post's having been removed from HuntForever.org itself). affiliated That blog post described the contentious photograph as follows: "Brittany L. is featured here with her African leopard that potentially ranks number 9 overall and scores 18 4/16." described Safari Club International.  "SCI Members Share Their Hunter Pride."
  7 September 2018. Despite the large number of women in the American workforce, society still treats them as an anomaly, first daughter Ivanka Trump wrote in the introduction to her new book,Women Who Work. Forty-seven percent of the U.S. workforce is made up of women; 70 percent of all mothers support ourselves or contribute financially to our familys bottom line; and 40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners, Trump wrote. Yet we still say working woman as if she were an anomaly. We never say working man. There are a few statistics in that passage, but we wanted to hone in on one of them: that women are the primary earners in 40 percent of American households. In the notes section of her book, Trump referenced a widely cited2013 Pew Research Center reportthat looked at households with children under the age of 18. The report found that in 2011, women earned most or all of the familys income in 40 percent of these households, adding up to about 13.7 million breadwinner moms. Thats quadruple what it was in 1960  11 percent. The Pew figure is a little more specific than what Trump wrote because it only looked at households that had kids, not those that don't have kids. But in context, it's clear Trump was referring to the Pew report  especially because she referred to the same statistic later in the book when talking about being a working mom herself. As much as motherhood is a joy to so many of us, it is also the greatest predictor of wage inequality between men and women in our country, she wrote. Forty-seven percent of the U.S. labor force is female; 40 percent of women are their family's primary breadwinner. The fact is correct, said Betsey Stevenson, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan and former chief economist at the U.S. Labor Department. We couldn't find any comprehensive data that spoke to how many households total, including those without kids, had women as the primary earners. Of the families where the woman is the primary breadwinner, Pew found that 37 percent are married women who earn more than their husbands, while 63 percent are single mothers. And the households with a married primary breadwinner, with a median family income of $80,000, are wealthier than the single mother households, which have a median family income of $23,000. The Pew report is the most recent independent report we could find speaking to this issue. But we also came across a2016 report by the liberal Center for American Progressthat had similar findings. According to the Center for American Progress, 42 percent of mothers were the sole or primary breadwinners in their households in 2015. And 22.4 percent were co-breadwinners, earning one-quarter to one-half of their total household income. Even though womens share of the labor forcegrew dramaticallythroughout the latter half of the 20th century, it has stagnated in recent years, at least in part because of alack of family-friendly labor policies, said Casey Schoeneberger, communications director at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Our ruling Ivanka Trump said, 40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners. A widely cited Pew report found that in 2011, 40 percent of American households with children under 18 had women providing most or all of the familys income. A report by a liberal think tank found similar results looking at 2015 data. The context of Trump's statement shows that she had working moms in mind. We rate her statement Mostly True. In April 2023, a bit of footwear-based movie trivia reemerged on Reddit: that the 2006 movie "Idiocracy" had everyone in the movie wearing crocs because the costume designer had a limited budget and because they were too ugly to ever become popular in real life: on Reddit  This trivia is true. The story behind crocs in "Idiocracy" has been repeated by director and co-writer Mike Judge on multiple occasions. In October 2016, Judge explained their origin in an interview with Fast Company magazine: an interview The wardrobe had to be something that's not around now. It had to be created for a lot of extras, and so you know our wardrobe person was looking for ways to make the budget work. And Crocs were not out in the world yet. They were just a small startup at the time. We shot in 2004, so no one was wearing Crocs. And she showed me these things, and I thought, 'Oh those are great, just stupid plastic shoes.' And I said to her, 'But you actually bought these, you can order these. What if by the time the movie comes out, these things are everywhere, and it doesn't look like we're set in the future?' And she said, 'Oh no, that's never going to happen. And sure enough, by the time it comes out two years later, everyone is wearing Crocs. So it already started coming true even faster than we made the movie, really. The 2006 film "tells the story of an unexceptional man who finds himself put in deep-freeze and thawed out 500 years too late, in a future where the dumbest people alive have taken over the world  and he's suddenly the smartest man alive, if only by default." In June 2022, Judge told the same story on the Joe Rogan podcast: tells the story same story The wardrobe woman had a limited budget. [...] So we shot it in 2004. She goes, she tells me, okay, there's a startup. And it was Crocs. But they weren't out in the world yet [and] she goes, look at these horrible plastic shoes with holes. She said we could really save a lot of money. Just put everyone in these things. I said, well, but what if by the time the movie comes out [...] these become popular and people are wearing them? She said, oh, these are never going to become popular [...], these things are horrible. [...] Then it took two years for the movie to come out. By then people are going like, oh, that's pretty funny that you put everyone in Crocs. Crocs has=d been around on a limited scalesince 2002, but they gained mainstream success and popularity around 2006. Idiocracy finished filming in 2004, but Fox Studios sat on it for two years before releasing it in 2006. since 2002 around 2006 two years Because the story about Crocs in the movie Idiocracy came from the movies' writer and director, and has been told many times consistently, the claim is True. Crocs: A Long-Term Trend or Short-Term Fad? - Aug. 9, 2006. https://money.cnn.com/2006/08/09/smbusiness/crocs/index.htm. Accessed 14 Sept. 2023. "Funky Crocs Gain Toehold Among Fans of Comfort." Omaha World-Herald, 13 Nov. 2003, p. 39. newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/article/omaha-world-herald-funky-crocs-gain-toeh/131810738/. "Joe Rogan Experience #1835 - Mike Judge." Ogjre, https://ogjre.com. Accessed 14 Sept. 2023. "Mike Judge On The 10th Anniversary Of 'Idiocracy' And Predicting The (Near) Future." Fast Company, Oct. 2016, https://www.fastcompany.com/3064328/mike-judge-on-the-10th-anniversary-of-idiocracy-and-predicting-the-near-future. "Was_Idiocracy_treated_idiotically_Contd." Austin American-Statesman, 1 Sept. 2006, p. 51. newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/article/austin-american-statesman-wasidiocracy/30934775/. In February 2020, a variation of a familiar scam circulated on Facebook. The dubious website airalaskaoffer.com offered users a "chance to get 2 free tickets of Alaska Air." To enter, users had to complete survey questions.   Alaska Airlines was quick to call out the scam on its Facebook page, offering advice on how to spot real offers: call out advice  As if the poor writing on the bogus offer weren't enough of a red flag, we've seen numerous scams like this one before. Save the company name, it was practically a carbon copy of previous anniversary scams. As we previously reported: this one before These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook share buttons and post comments to the scammers site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two Reward Offers (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards). In March 2020, the prospect of the U.S. government's sending out $1,200 stimulus checks to individual taxpayers as part of a $2 trillion emergency economic package for dealing with the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic created a prime opportunity for grifters who engage in scams that involve luring victims by mailing checks to them. In particular, one several-year-old, check-scam warning was widely recirculated via social media:  Such warnings served a useful purpose in alerting many viewers to be wary of receiving checks in the mail from unexpected sources. However, they also poorly served audiences in misstating how the underlying scams connected with those checks work. It is not the case, as claimed in the warning reproduced above and in the following news clip, that the scammers who mail out these checks "do this in hopes of getting your account information when you deposit the check," and then using that information to clean out your bank account:  A little common sense would be relevant here: If your simply depositing a check provided the sender of that check with the means to obtain your personal banking information and drain your bank account, it would be unsafe for any bank customer to ever deposit any check  and clearly that is not the case, as millions of people maintain checking accounts without regularly falling victim to scammers. All such check scams have two essential components: 1) Scammers mail out counterfeit checks (often made out in the names of real organizations) to lure their victims into believing they are receiving money. 2) Scammers instruct their victims to send back some of the funds they supposedly received from depositing the fake checks (usually via wire transfer, Western Union, PayPal, or gift cards). The scammers count on the fact that funds from deposited checks are often made available to bank customers before the banks can confirm that the checks are authentic and have cleared. The victims of these scams, mistakenly believing they have received "free money" once they have deposited their fake checks, are then usually receptive to sending some of that money back to the scammers for some legitimate-sounding purpose. But by the time the victims' banks discover the deposited checks were bad, the scammers already have the money their victims forwarded to them, and the victims are stuck paying all of those funds back to their banks: deposited checks The person running the scam convinces a victim to cash a check and then send, via wire transfer, a portion of the money to another location. The portion kept by the victim can be called payment for a job, part of a commission, or a prize. However, the check turns out to be a very convincing fake. Banks in the United States are required to make funds available within a few days, but it can take weeks for a fraudulent check to be discovered. This means the wire transfers will happen long before the bank, or the victim, discovers that the initial check was fake. This scheme is effective because many consumers aren't fully aware of how the check-clearance process works: check-clearance Unfortunately, the term clear sometimes gets used prematurely. An item has cleared only after your bank receives funds from the check writers bank. Bank employees might tell you that a check has cleared, and your banks computer systems might show that you have those funds available for withdrawal, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can spend the money risk-free. In many cases, when a bank employee tells you an item cleared, they are saying you can spend that money with your debit card, withdraw cash from an ATM, or set up a payment online. Most of the time, this informal terminology is fine because funds typically arrive as expected. Most of the confusion around checks comes from bank policies and federal laws that allow you to spend money before a check really clears. Banks are required to make a portion of your deposit available quickly -- usually the first $200 or, on certain official checks, $5,000 -- and they might need to release the remaining funds after several business days. But that policy might prematurely provide access to the money. It does not mean the funds successfully arrived from the check writers bank. If a check bounces, the bank reverses the deposit to your account -- even if you already spent some or all of the money from that deposit. If you don't have enough money in your account to cover the reversal, you end up with a negative account balance, and you could start bouncing other payments and racking up fees. Ultimately, you are responsible for deposits you make to your account, and youre the one at risk. The lures that scammers use to dupe their victims into sending them the illusory proceeds from the depositing of counterfeit checks are many and varied: o Mystery Shopping Scam: Scammers engage victims to act as "mystery shoppers" by making purchases from various vendors in order to rate their service. The scammers then send out counterfeit checks to their victims, instructing them to keep a portion of the funds to cover the costs of purchasing and returning the goods and to compensate them for their time, then wire back the rest of the money. o Reshipping Scam: Scammers engage job-seekers to act as work-at-home re-shippers, receiving (possibly stolen) goods and sending them on to other locations. Then the counterfeit checks those re-shippers are sent to compensate them for their efforts and to reimburse them the shipping charges they incurred bounce, and they're left holding the bag. o Payment-Processing Scam: Scammers hire job-seekers to work as payment processors. The victims are instructed to open business accounts in their own name, deposit (counterfeit) checks sent to them into those accounts, then disburse the deposited funds as directed by the scammers. When the business account overdraws because the deposited checks are fake and bounce, the victim is on the hook for making restitution to the bank. o Windfall Scam: Scammers send out counterfeit checks that they declare are the proceeds from an inheritance, lottery win, or some other type of prize giveaway. Recipients are instructed to deposit the checks and return a share of the money to cover processing fees, shipping and handling charges, legal fees, taxes, or other charges. o Online Sales Overpayment Scam: Scammers agree to purchase items that have been advertised for sale or auction online, then send out counterfeit checks for greater than the sale price and ask the victims to refund the overpayments. o Rental Scams: Scammers respond to ads seeking roommates or tenants, send a check to cover the rent plus a little extra, then ask that the overpayment be forwarded to another party to cover moving expenses. As the U.S. Federal Trade Commission succinctly describes such scams: describes Fake checks drive many types of scams  like those involving phony prize wins, fake jobs, mystery shoppers, online classified ad sales, and others. In a fake check scam, a person you dont know asks you to deposit a check  sometimes for several thousand dollars and usually for more than what you are owed  and wire some of the money back to that person. The scammers always have a good story to explain the overpayment  theyre stuck out of the country, they need you to cover taxes or fees, you need to buy supplies, or something else. But by the time your bank discovers youve deposited a bad check, the scammer already has the money you sent, and youre stuck paying the rest of the check back to the bank.  The best way to avoid falling victim to such scams is not to cash or deposit checks for people you do not know, not to wire money to people you do not know, and not to spend funds from large checks you have deposited until you have verified with your bank that those checks have fully cleared. Brunelli, Laureen Miles.  "How to Recognize a Fake Check Scam."
  The Balance.  11 November 2019. Pritchard, Justin.  "Did That Check Really Clear?"
  The Balance.  24 February 2019. Tressler, Colleen.  "Anatomy of a Fake Check Scam."
  Federal Trade Commission.  5 September 2018. Loftsgordon, Amy.  "Fake Check Scams Target Job Seekers."
  Lawyers.com.  Accessed 2 April 2020. On 30 April 2016, the web siteDeparted.copublished a clickbait article claiming that American flags were removed from a Pearl Harbor memorial at President Obama's request. The piece had no context beyonda series of photographs of what they said was the flag being taken down. While Departed.copublished several photographs of the memorial  some of which included a flagpole, whileothers were taken after the flagpole wasremoved  they provided little information about the memorial or the flag's removal. No photographs showed any proof, even by inference, that President Obama was either present or responsible for the order: published  As it turns out, there's also a good reason that President Obama was not shown in any photographs: this didn't eventake placeduring Barack Obama's presidential term.The images were first posted in 2007 by the web siteCapVeterans.com.  CapVeterans.com A couple of years previously, the Honolulu Advertiserhad reported that Pearl Harbor was undergoing major renovations and that some veterans were worried about potential changes: changes The memorial's visitor center is overburdened  the lines to bathrooms there are the stuff of legend  and the National Park Service would like to expand its facilities. (Hawai'i entrepreneur Patrick) Brent said he transformed "a filthy parking lot with broken glass and a high crime rate" into a respite for visitors. "Every time we put out a chair, someone sits down," Brent said. But aging survivors of the attack on Pearl Harbor have frequently complained to Brent about his for-profit organization. One veteran told him that the sailors entombed in the USS Arizona are crying because he is selling cola, Brent said. "They attack us because of the respect thing.There is no one in this neighborhood more respectful than myself and my people." We have reached out to the National Park Service for details about this incident, but it's clear that the flagpole's removal had more to do with renovations than politics. Regardless of why it was removed, the flagpole was not taken down on the orders of President Barack Obama.    CapVeterans.com.  "The National Park Service Wants To Remove The Marine Corps PEARL HARBOR Remembrance Memorial."
  2007.



 Gordon, Mike.  "Navy's $84M development deal is changing the face of Pearl Harbor."
  Honolulu Advertiser.  21 February 2005.