Cheating Husband Billboard
At the end of June 2006, a new blog entitled "That Girl Emily" appeared at thatgirlemily.blogspot.com. Ostensibly the musings of a married, 35-year-old New Jersey realtor named Emily, the blog for the first few weeks reported what might be read as the ordinary musings of a suburban professional woman: details of a recent vacation with her husband (Steven, a financial consultant), frustrations she experienced in pilates class, her husband's slow climb up the corporate ladder, and (after prompting by her sister) a discussion of her declining sex life. thatgirlemily.blogspot.com The blog then took a sudden left turn when Emily's brother convinced her to hire a private investigator (PI) to "spy" on her husband  a suggestion which Emily promptly accepted, implemented, and concluded in short order, finding out in the process (Quelle surprise!) that her husband was carrying on an expensive affair with her best friend, Laura. Emily spent the next few weeks venting her anger at her lying, cheating husband in her blog, including divulging information about various revenge schemes she had enacted to get back at Steven, starting with the billboard pictured here:  This photo is what Ive been talking about, the favors that I called in for. Brilliant, isn't it? I think so. I ran out early this morning to beat the rush hour traffic (didn't quite go as planned but at least it wasn't standstill) and got a picture of my billboard. My way to tell the world about the lowlife I've just wasted so many years on. I put it near Steven's office so his co-workers and friends could see exactly what a cheating scumbag he is. And of course, for all of you to see as well. I've decided to do what so many quiet, back-stabbed wives don't  take charge, make my whoring, cheating, adulterous, fornicating husband know what it feels like to be humiliated. And do it with many decibels. It's a personal message for everyone to read. Thanks goes out to my husband who chipped in on the price tag. Golly gee honey, I would've never been able to tell the world about your exploits with my best friend without your contribution! Gotta love joint bank accounts. Oh, sorry Steve, I had to splurge on the lights, too. Some people work late, like you. And theyre always driving home when it's dark. Burning that midnight oil, Steve-o. Just like you. So for the next two weeks, starting with today, I will exact revenge on my whoring husband. And who knows what a disparaged woman with lots of resources at her disposal might do?! Many readers who had been following "Emily"'s blog already suspected that something wasn't quite on the level, and their suspicions were confirmed when billboards with text identical to the one pictured above ("Hi Steven, Do I have your attention now? I know all about her, you dirty, sneaky, immoral, unfaithful, poorly endowed slimeball. Everything's caught on tape. Your [soon-to-be-ex] Wife, Emily.") popped up not only in New York, but in Brooklyn, Los Angeles, and Chicago as well. Some sharp-eyed readers noticed that one of Emily's blog entries was remarkably similar to the plot line of an episode of Court TV's reality show Parco P.I., and the blog and billboards were soon revealed as a stealth promotion for the upcoming season of that television series: Parco P.I. The billboard created interest, and not just from an unfaithful Steven. A booking agent from "Good Morning America" sent an e-mail to Emily inviting her on the show. British Glamour wanted to make her the subject of a feature article. But when pictures of the billboard proliferated on blogs, readers quickly dug in. One fact soon emerged, thanks to camera phone pictures: the billboard was identical to others in Brooklyn, Los Angeles and Chicago. Someone else discovered that Emily was keeping a blog, thatgirlemily.blogspot.com, detailing Steven's infidelities. More digging showed that one Emily blog entry was oddly similar to a synopsis for an episode of "Parco P.I.," a reality show on Court TV. Another "source" sent an e-mail suggesting that Court TV was behind the signs, pointing out that it was a viral marketing campaign to promote one of its programs. Mystery solved. The bad news for viral marketers who use these kind of devices: executives at Court TV said they did not really want to be discovered so quickly. The good news is that even after the ruse was discovered, people visited the Emily blog, pushing it to one million hits by the end of [July 2006]. A fake surveillance video on the blog, supposedly from a private eye capturing Steven holding hands with his paramour, hit YouTube and became one of its most-viewed videos. Did it even matter that Emily was fictitious? "Emily is really an amalgam of all of us who have been cheated on," said Marc Juris, general manager for programming and marketing at Court TV. "Clearly, this really resonated with people." The "Emily" ruse was originally intended to be a stunt to help promote the start of the show's new season on Aug. 15, but Court TV's marketing group liked the idea so much that they made it a large part of the campaign.  Mr. Juris was still marveling: "It's like a flash investigation took place, and within 24 hours we were busted." A similar billboard was spotted in Greensboro, North Carolina, in March 2013, this one supposedly bearing a message from a scorned woman named Jennifer, whose unfaithful partner, Michael, was carrying on an affair with a woman named Jessica. The text of the billboard echoed MasterCard's classic "Priceless" campaign, listing items (e.g., a GPS tracker, a Nikon camera) Jessica had purchased to expose Michael's cheating ways and stating that she had used the couple's investment account to fund putting up the shaming sign.  Local news accounts identified this billboard as another advertising gimmick, in this case for a Greensboro yogurt and coffee shop: What is known is that the billboard is owned by Outdoor Signage, a local company whose phone number connects to the offices of Kotis Properties. Kotis also owns a yogurt and coffee shop  Yo Daddy Dessert Bar  on Westover Terrace, the name of which was [later] featured on the billboard. Jessica  Meet me at Yodaddys at 7:00 p.m. for some wine therapy.  Jennifer, the new message read.  Debbie Hill, vice president of Triad Outdoor Advertising (which is not affiliated with the sign), said she has never known of anyone locally buying a billboard for a revenge message. She added that personalized messages are rare in the business. Its usually way too expensive, she said. In January 2010, YaVaughnie Wilkins put up a series of billboards in New York, San Francisco, and Atlanta after learning that the married man with whom she had been carrying on an affair for over eight years, Charles E. Phillips, had reconciled with his wife. Those billboards bore no scornful messages, however  they simply displayed a romantic picture of the couple, along with their first names and a reproduced quote from Phillips stating "You are my soulmate forever":  The billboards did include a URL for a (no longer active) web site, charlesphillipsandyavaughniewilkins.com, which featured numerous photographs and other mementos documenting the multi-year relationship between Wilkins and Phillips. The attendant publicity forced Phillips, who at the time was the president of Oracle Corporation and a member of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, to publicly acknowledge the affair. (YaVaughnie Wilkins' experience was also chronicled in the documentary film The Glamorous Lie.) The Glamorous Lie Berg, Emmett et al.  "Jilted Mistress Proclaims Love for Exec Ex with Billboard."
  New York Post.  22 January 2010. Bosman, Julie.  "Public Hath No Fury, Even When Deceived."
  The New York Times.  24 July 2006  (p. C6). Gardner, David.  "Revenge by Billboard."
  Daily Mail.  23 Janaury 2010. Tucker, Chad.  "Wifes Billboard Revenge a Clever Marketing Ploy by Restaurant Company."
  WGHP-TV [Greensboro].  20 March 2013. [Greensboro] News & Record.  "Greensboro Billboard Draws Attention."
  22 March 2013.
A set of gruesome photographs supposedly showing the aftermath of a "pico jackfruit snake" bite is frequently shared online. We'll be posting these photographs below. As they show a severe hand injury, this article may not suitable for all viewers. The photographs first went viral in August 2017 after they were posted to the Facebook group Faculty of Veterinary Medicine in New York. The first photograph in the set shows what appears to be a small cut on a person's thumb. Subsequent photographs show the injury worsening, due to the snake's venomous bite, until eventually the thumb is amputated. Again, the following photographs may not be suitable for all viewers:   We haven't been able to uncover too many specifics about these photographs, such as where they were taken or the identity of the snake-bit victim. When these images first started circulating on Facebook in 2017 (the original post has since been deleted), the snake was identified as a "sharp-nosed viper," not a "pico jackfruit snake."  In fact, we found no snake by the latter's name. It likely refers to a bushmaster snake, another genus of venomous pit-vipers, which is known by a variety of names across South America, such as the pineapple snake, the silent rattlesnake, and the stinging jackfruit.  Regardless of the specific species of snake, these photographs appear to provide a genuine look at the painful aftermath of a venomous snakebite. News.com.au talked to Brian Fry, an associate professor in the school of biological sciences at the University of Queensland, when these images first went viral:  News.com.au That type of snake [Sharp-nosed viper] has a venom that is extremely tissue destroying, Dr Fry told news.com.au. The reason for this is that they kill their prey by haemorrhagic shock, where some parts of the venom damage the blood vessel walls, while other parts destroy the ability of the blood to clot, leading to a state of massive internal bleeding in a prey animal. As Associate Professor in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Queensland, Dr Fry said because it is a Chinese snake; antivenom for a bite like this might be hard to come by in remote areas. If it was in a private collection somewhere, they probably didnt have it and likely none of the nearby zoos would either, he explained. Thus, theyd have to suffer through the full effects. While we haven't been able to find much information about this specific set of photographs, we have found other snake-bite cases that resulted in similar injuries. A 2015 article from the BBC explained some of the science behind deadly venomous snake bites: cases resulted similar injuries BBC Snake venom is made up of several hundred proteins which all have a slightly different toxic effect on the human body. One snake's poison may not be like another's, even if they are from the same species. But, on the whole, there are two main ways snakes make us suffer  by attacking the circulatory system (ie. the blood) and/or the nervous system. Haemotoxic venom goes for the bloodstream. It can trigger lots of tiny blood clots and then when the venom punches holes in blood vessels causing them to leak, there is nothing left to stem the flow and the patient bleeds to death. Other venoms can increase blood pressure, decrease blood pressure, prevent bleeding or create it. They are all bad news. Neurotoxic venom tends to act more quickly, attacking the nervous system and stopping nerve signals getting through to the muscles. This means paralysis, starting at the head, moving down the body until, if untreated, the diaphragm is paralysed and the patient can't breathe. A classic sign of this is ptosis, when people can't keep their eyes open. Around the area of the bite, necrosis can set in. That happens when the venom destroys nearby muscles, tissues and cells. Long-term, this can lead to amputations, the loss of the use of a limb or the need for multiple skin grafts. In sum, the above photographs most likely show the gruesome aftermath of a snake bite, but because we were unable to uncover specific details about the pictures, we've rated this claim "Unproven." Brown, Vanessa.  "Horror Snake Bite Causes Victims Thumb to Turn Black Before Being Amputated"
  News.com.au.  15 August 2017. Weisberger, Mindy.  "What Should You Do If You're Bitten by a Venomous Snake?"
  Live Science.  2 June 2019. BBC.  "The amazing science behind fatal snake bites."
  13 September 2015. Claim:  King Digital Entertainment, maker of Candy Crush Saga, copied their game from CandySwipe and is attempting to cancel the latter's trademark. OUTDATED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2014] There is an "open letter" being circulated that is supposed to have been written by an Albert Ransom from Runsome Apps, Inc, that states that he trademarked a game called CandySwipe prior to King.com creating CandyCrush and that King.com is trying to take over his trademark.  Is this true?   Synopsis:  As of 16 April 2014, the parties in the dispute discussed below have announced the withdrawal of their claims against each other, so this item is no longer current: announced I am happy to announce that I have amicably resolved my dispute with King over my CandySwipe trademark and that I am withdrawing my opposition to their mark and they are withdrawing their counterclaim against mine. I have learned that they picked the CANDY CRUSH name before I released my game and that they were never trying to take my game away. Both our games can continue to coexist without confusing players. Origins:  In February 2014, King Digital Entertainment, the company behind the massively popular Candy Crush Saga game, announced they had filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to issue an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of stock.  King said they expected to raise $500 million in capital, with some analysts predicting that the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) could value the company as high as $5.5 billion based largely on the strength of Candy Crush Saga: filed The game, which involves matching brightly coloured sweets on a grid to solve various puzzles, was played over 1 billion times a day in December [2013], according to the filing. Candy Crush is free but players pay for options within the game. It has proved a lucrative combination. King's profits grew over 7,000% last year, according to the filing. In 2012 the company's revenues were $164.4 million and its net profit $7.8 million, in 2013 those figures rose to $1.88 billion and $567.6 million respectively. But the filing also reveals that King's fortunes are currently closely tied to the continued success of Candy Crush. The game accounts for 78% of King's total gross bookings, according to the filing. Its second most popular game, Pet Rescue Saga, had 15 million daily active users in December, a fraction of Candy Crush's 93 million. King noted in its filing that "a small number of games currently generate a substantial majority of our revenue." However, King has been the subject of controversy due to similarities between Candy Crush Saga and CandySwipe, the latter being an earlier iteration of a comparable game concept and visual design which its creator, independent developer Albert Ransom, maintains King copied from him.  Ransom posted an open letter to King on the CandySwipe web site, criticizing the company for attempting to wrest theCandySwipe trademark away from him: CandySwipe open letter Dear King, Congratulations! You win! I created my game CandySwipe in memory of my late mother who passed away at an early age of 62 of leukemia. I released CandySwipe in 2010 five months after she passed and I made it because she always liked these sorts of games. In fact, if you beat the full version of the android game, you will still get the message saying "... the game was made in memory of my mother, Layla ..." I created this game for warmhearted people like her and to help support my family, wife and two boys 10 and 4. Two years after I released CandySwipe, you released Candy Crush Saga on mobile; the app icon, candy pieces, and even the rewarding, "Sweet!" are nearly identical. So much so, that I have hundreds of instances of actual confusion from users who think CandySwipe is Candy Crush Saga, or that CandySwipe is a Candy Crush Saga knockoff. So when you attempted to register your trademark in 2012, I opposed it for "likelihood of confusion" (which is within my legal right) given I filed for my registered trademark back in 2010 (two years before Candy Crush Saga existed). Now, after quietly battling this trademark opposition for a year, I have learned that you now want to cancel my CandySwipe trademark so that I don't have the right to use my own game's name. You are able to do this because only within the last month you purchased the rights to a game named Candy Crusher (which is nothing like CandySwipe or even Candy Crush Saga). Good for you, you win. I hope you're happy taking the food out of my family's mouth when CandySwipe clearly existed well before Candy Crush Saga. I have spent over three years working on this game as an independent app developer. I learned how to code on my own after my mother passed and CandySwipe was my first and most successful game; it's my livelihood, and you are now attempting to take that away from me. You have taken away the possibility of CandySwipe blossoming into what it has the potential of becoming. I have been quiet, not to exploit the situation, hoping that both sides could agree on a peaceful resolution. However, your move to buy a trademark for the sole purpose of getting away with infringing on the CandySwipe trademark and goodwill just sickens me. This also contradicts your recent quote by Riccardo in "An open letter on intellectual property" posted on your website which states, "We believe in a thriving game development community, and believe that good game developers  both small and large  have every right to protect the hard work they do and the games they create." I myself was only trying to protect my hard work. I wanted to take this moment to write you this letter so that you know who I am. Because I now know exactly what you are. Congratulations on your success! Ransom's statement was penned in response to King's own open letter on the trademark issue, in which the company maintained that they were simply acquiring "Candy"-related trademarks in order to ensure that their "hard work is not simply copied elsewhere" and to defend their product against "games with similar sounding titles and similar looking graphics" (without commenting on the claim that the similar CandySwipe game antedated Candy Crush Saga by about two years and therefore could not have been copied from the latter): open letter There has been a vigorous debate both inside and outside King about how we protect our intellectual property. I want to set the record straight about where we stand on these issues, and clarify our philosophy on intellectual property. At its simplest, our policy is to protect our IP and to also respect the IP of others. We believe in a thriving game development community, and believe that good game developers  both small and large  have every right to protect the hard work they  do and the games they create. Like any responsible company, we take appropriate steps to protect our IP, including our look-and-feel and trademarks. Our goals are simple: to ensure that our employees' hard work is not simply copied elsewhere, that we avoid player confusion and that the integrity of our brands remains. Lets talk about trademarks, and the use of the words "Candy" and "Saga" in casual gaming. Let's start with the fact that Candy Crush Saga has become one of the most successful casual games in history. Millions of people play the game every day. Not surprisingly, some developers have seen an opportunity to take advantage of the game's popularity, and have published games with similar sounding titles and similar looking graphics. We believe it is right and reasonable to defend ourselves from such copycats. To protect our IP, last year we acquired the trademark in the EU for "Candy" from a company that was in bankruptcy  and we have filed for a similar trademark in the U.S. We've been the subject of no little scorn for our actions on this front, but the truth is that there is nothing very unusual about trademarking a common word for specific uses. Think of "Time", "Money" "Fortune", "Apple", and "Sun", to name a few. We are not trying to control the world's use of the word "Candy"; having a trade mark doesn't allow us to do that anyway. We're just trying to prevent others from creating games that unfairly capitalise on our success. As Metro chimed in, however, even though King may appear to be the villain in this story, neither side may be correct in claiming the high ground since both CandySwipe and Candy Crush Saga are notably similar to other games dating from the mid-1990s, and what is being disputed is merely the name that each side is using for their version of the game rather than a claim to the original idea itself (i.e., this is a tussle over trademarks, not copyright): Part legal drama, part time travel story, this one has it all. Candy Crush developer King have been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons lately, as they continue their attempts to trademark the words 'candy' and 'saga'  which led to them threatening to sue Viking game 'The Banner Saga.' For an encore it later transpired that King had purposefully cloned somebody else's game when a publishing deal fell through. Which was sadly ironic considering how paranoid they are about other people copying them. And now they're responding with legal action of their own, against the makers of CandySwipe, by claiming that it's a clone. Despite the fact that Candy Swipe came out two years before Candy Crush. In fact it's worse than that, as Kings attempts to have CandySwipe's trademark cancelled revolves around them buying the rights to an even earlier game called Candy Crusher. This, they hope, will allow them to claim that they are the original trademark holders of everything video game and candy-related. Although it's hard not to side with Ransom in all this, the idea of all these developers suing each other over who cloned who seems slightly absurd considering they're all just copies of Bejeweled anyway. Indeed, the modern match-three style puzzler has barely changed at all since the days of Nintendo's Panel De Pon/Tetris Attack in 1995. Although the true originator of the concept is little known PC title Shariki, from a year earlier. Shariki  Metro also reported an attempt by developers to challenge King's trademark maneuvering by creating "as many games with the word candy in them as possible": Indie developers have fought back against developer King's increasingly bizarre legal actions with a game jam called 'Candy Jam'. To the uninitiated it may look like just another Bejeweled clone, but Candy Crush Saga is currently one of the most popular video games in the world. This means British developer King suddenly has a lot of power and influence, which naturally it's already started to abuse. It's the slightly unhinged nature of the abuse which is unexpected though, with the company currently trying to trademark the word 'candy' so that nobody else can use it. But King's plans don't stop there, as they're also suing Kickstarter game 'The Banner Saga' because it has the word 'saga' in its name. Ignoring the fact that most people omit the word Saga when saying Candy Crush's name, 'The Banner Saga' is an adult-themed tactical role-playing game with a notably morose atmosphere. Although it does contain lots of angry vikings, at no point in the game are you invited to match together three-similarly coloured sweets. Even so Kings legal filing insists that: "The use and registration by Applicant of the mark The Banner Saga for Applicant's goods is likely to cause confusion or to cause mistake or deception in the trade, and among purchasers and potential purchasers, with Opposer's Saga Marks, again resulting in damage to Opposer." We're trying to keep upbeat but frankly the whole business is deeply depressing in its unbridled corporate greed.  The only positive element to the story is that indie developers have organised an event called Candy Jam to protest King's actions and to make as many games with the word candy in them as possible. The International Game Developers Association (IGDA) has also weighed in on the issue, describing King's trademark efforts as "overreaching" and "predatory": weighed As an advocacy organization for game developers, the IGDA diligently monitors issues that may restrict a developer's ability to create and distribute his or her work. After reviewing the Trademark filing and subsequent conduct by King Inc. in relation to its popular game, 'Candy Crush Saga,' we feel we should comment. While we understand and respect the appropriate exercise of Trademark rights, King's overreaching filing in its application for the Trademark for its game "Candy Crush Saga," and its predatory efforts to apply that mark to each separate word contained in that name, are in opposition to the values of openness and cooperation we support industry wide, and directly contradict the statement King's CEO, Riccardo Zacconi, made on 27 January. Our Business and Legal Special Interest Group will be providing a more comprehensive analysis of this issue from its perspective soon. Last updated:  17 April 2014    Rushe, Dominic and Stuart Dredge.  "Candy Crush Game Maker Aims to Raise $500M in IPO."   The Guardian.  18 February 2014.    Agence France-Presse.  "Candy Crush Developer Defends Trademarking 'Candy' After Backlash."   28 January 2014.    Metro.  "Candy Crush Makers Sue The Banner Saga, Trademark the Word 'Candy'."   22 January 2014.    Metro.  "Candy Crush Saga Makers to Sue Game They Copied."   13 February 2014.    Reuters.  "Candy Crush Saga Developer King Trademarks the Word "Candy.'"   22 January 2014. Claim:  Starbucks has joined Monsanto in a lawsuit against Vermont to avoid the implementation of GMO labeling regulations. : : Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a group challenging Vermont over GMO labeling requirements.      : Starbucks has joined forces with Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over GMO labeling requirements.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2014] Starbucks doesn't think you have the right to know what's in your coffee.  So it's teamed up with Monsanto to sue the small U.S. state of Vermont to stop you from finding out.    Origins:  In November 2014, a petition claiming coffee  giant Starbucks had "teamed up" with agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over a GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling law began to circulate heavily on social media sites. Given the massive popularity of Starbucks and broad worry over genetically modified foods, the petition caused concern amid many Starbucks drinkers over whether their daily latte habit was somehow funding big agribusiness bullies. General consumer unease with what are often unclear links between large corporations as well as growing distaste for massive food conglomerates made the claim particularly unsettling to many social media users. Most consumers lack the luxury to make all their own foods and drinks at home, and to some extent, we all place our trust in large companies to do right by their customers in choosing safe ingredients and not abusing their financial strength by bullying less-powerful entities. A quick scan of Twitter reveals widespread belief Starbucks has suddenly decided to abandon its socially and nutritionally conscious consumer base to join forces with Monsanto, but is that really the case? Most of the chatter points back to the petition, initiated by a group called SumOfUs. On its Facebook about page, SumOfUs describes its mission: SumOfUs We are a movement of consumers, investors and workers counterbalancing the power of large corporations to forge a just, sustainable path for the global economy. The relevant petition can be found on the SumOfUs website: SumOfUs Starbucks doesn't think you have the right to know what's in your coffee. So it's teamed up with Monsanto to sue the small U.S. state of Vermont to stop you from finding out. Hiding behind the shadowy Grocery Manufacturers' Association, Starbucks is part of a lawsuit that's aiming to block a landmark law that requires genetically-modified ingredients be labeled. Amazingly, they are claiming it's an assault on their corporate right to free speech. Even a local Vermont company, Green Mountain Coffee, has joined in. The quoted portion makes it clear Starbucks isn't the entity driving the lawsuit at which the petition takes aim. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a large food industry group of which Starbucks is one of more than 300 members, is the trade organization behind the litigation in question. To call the group "shadowy" is somewhat misleading: GMA has a web site that presents their clear stance on the issue of genetically modified foods and labeling and that included a 2014 membership directory openly listing Starbucks and Monsanto as members.  (The online membership directory link is no longer accessible from GMA's web site, and the organization did not respond to our inquiry about it.) web site membership directory The petition explains (in essence) why Starbucks has been singled out among GMA-affiliated companies as a target of consumer pressure:  SumOfUs members have already chipped in to support Vermont's legal defense fund, and we need to keep it up. Monsanto might not care what we think  but Starbucks does. If we can generate enough attention, we can push Starbucks to withdraw its support for the lawsuit, and then force other companies to do the same. Sign the petition to tell Starbucks and Green Mountain Coffee to withdraw their support for the lawsuit against Vermont, and stop fighting accurate food labeling. Vermont is a small, entirely rural state with just 600,000 people. It's a classic David and Goliath fight  Vermont vs. Monsanto and Starbucks, some of the most powerful corporations in the world. The petition references Vermont's Act 120, voted upon in April 2014 and signed into law on 8 May 2014. Under the provisions of the new law, Vermont is poised to became the first state to require labeling of all foods containing genetically modified ingredients by 1 July 2016. Act 120 On 13 June 2014, the GMA issued a press release stating its intent to challenge the law in Vermont, positing the law was unconstitutional and citing the First Amendment. In its statement, the trade group expressed concern more states would follow Vermont's lead and adversely affect the food industry by imposing labeling standards that serve no health or safety interest: press release Today, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), along with the Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers, filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont challenging the state's mandatory GMO labeling law.  GMA issued the following statement in conjunction with the legal filing. "Vermont's mandatory GMO labeling law  Act 120  is a costly and misguided measure that will set the nation on a path toward a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that do nothing to advance the health and safety of consumers. Act 120 exceeds the state's authority under the United States Constitution and in light of this, GMA has filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont seeking to enjoin this senseless mandate. "Act 120 imposes burdensome new speech requirements  and restrictions  that will affect, by Vermont's count, eight out of every ten foods at the grocery store. Yet Vermont has effectively conceded this law has no basis in health, safety, or science. That is why a number of product categories, including milk, meat, restaurant items and alcohol, are exempt from the law.  This means that many foods containing GMO ingredients will not actually disclose that fact. "The First Amendment dictates that when speech is involved, Vermont policymakers cannot merely act as a pass-through for the fads and controversies of the day. It must point to a truly "governmental" interest, not just a political one. And the Constitution prohibits Vermont from regulating nationwide distribution and labeling practices that facilitate interstate commerce. That is the sole province of the federal government. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency have both the mandate and expertise to incorporate the views of all the stakeholders at each link in the chain from farm to fork." On 9 November 2014, musician Neil Young stated that he was no longer going to patronize Starbucks due to the GMA lawsuit. On 15 November 2014, Starbucks addressed the claims. The coffee chain sent a tweet with a link to a longer statement: Neil Young Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014 Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA  Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014 November 16, 2014  The statement indicated Starbucks asked the petition be edited to reflect their position and lack of involvement in the lawsuit against the state of Vermont: Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law. The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their description of our position.  Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling. As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we prefer a national solution. Grocery Manufacturers Association spokesman Brian Kennedy said that Starbucks is an "affiliate member" of the GMA and is not involved in actions such as the Vermont lawsuit: As an affiliate member, [Starbucks] is not involved in any policy, governance, or legal work with the Association, which includes the lawsuit in Vermont. In summary: Although Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the lawsuit targeted by the petition was initiated by that group and not by Starbucks or Monsanto; and direct collusion between Starbucks and Monsanto on the issue is neither evident nor germane to the dispute between the state of Vermont and the GMA.  Last updated:  17 November 2014 During the 2021 holiday season, internet users enthusiastically shared articles and posts that described a fascinating episode from the history of a classic American Christmas movie, "It's a Wonderful Life." On Dec. 21, for example, the London Independent reported that: "'It's a Wonderful Life' was once considered communist propaganda by the FBI," while various outlets shared their own accounts of the story. Independent reported that shared own accounts Those accounts were broadly accurate, and based on high-quality primary documentary evidence. Although the FBI did not ever formally, as an institution, declare "It's a Wonderful Life" to be communist propaganda, FBI agents and informants investigated the movie, and the people behind it, as such. As part of a sweeping investigation ordered by bureau director J. Edgar Hoover, a special agent in 1949 included the film in a list of "motion pictures disclosing communist propaganda therein." We are issuing a rating of "true." That description of the movie, which was released in December 1946, can be found in an archived and redacted copy of the FBI report on "Communist infiltration into the motion picture industry, available here. Specifically, it can be found on Page 12 in the ninth of 15 dossiers released under the Freedom of Information Act at some point in the ensuing decades. available here The sender of this 1949 update to the report is listed as one "H.B. Fletcher," but it's not clear who specifically wrote the "It's a Wonderful Life" entry: listed   Although the FBI does not appear to have ever "officially" declared or designated the film as communist propaganda, it's quite clear those agents involved in the investigation of Hollywood (codenamed "COMPIC") were far from agnostic on the socialist, even Soviet inspiration behind the Christmas classic. Indeed, Hoover instructed Richard Hood, special agent in charge at the Los Angeles field office, to limit his team's criticism and reviews to films "which are obviously communist propaganda in nature." instructed The entry on "It's a Wonderful Life" appears in the fourth section of the report ("Communist Influence in Motion Pictures"), under a sub-section entitled "Analysis of Motion Pictures Disclosing Communist Propaganda Therein." entitled According to the author(s) of the briefing, Frank Capra's movie is noteworthy because: the two credited screenwriters, husband-and-wife team Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, were supposedly close associates of known communists; the film negatively portrays the villainous local businessman Mr. Potter, which is "a common trick used by communists"; and the storyline appears to have been borrowed from a putative earlier Russian film entitled "The Letter." The first two sections of the briefing can be read in full below: According to the Informants [redacted] and [redacted] in this picture the screen credits again fail to reflect the Communist support given to the screen writers. According to [redacted] the writers Frances Goodrick and Albert Hackett were very close to known Communists and on one occasion in the recent past while these two writers were doing a picture for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Goodrick and Hackett practically lived with known Communists and were observed eating luncheon daily with such Communists as Lester Cole, screen writer, and Earl Robinson, screen writer. Both of these individuals are identified in Section I of this memorandum as Communists. With regard to the picture Its A Wonderful Life, [redacted] stated in substance that the film represented a rather obvious attempt to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a scrooge-type so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists. In addition, [redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters. [Redacted] related that if he had made this picture portraying the banker, he would have shown this individual to have been following the rules as laid down by the State Bank Examiners in connection with making loans. Further, [redacted] stated that the scene wouldn't have suffered at all in portraying the banker as a man who was protecting funds put in his care by private individuals and adhering to the rules governing the loan of that money rather than portraying the part as it was shown. In summary, [redacted] stated that it was not necessary to make the banker such a mean character and I would never have done it that way. Magazine, Smithsonian, and Kat Eschner. The Weird Story of the FBI and Its a Wonderful Life. Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weird-story-fbi-and-its-wonderful-life-180967587/. Accessed 22 Dec. 2021. President Barack Obamas upcoming State of the Union address gave Republicans and Democrats on the Sunday news shows another chance to make their case about the countrys economic performance over the past five years. OnFox News Sunday,Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer pointed out the country has added 8 million jobs since the health care law passed in March 2010. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, offered a different take on the state of the labor force onFace the Nation. Why are jobs and economic growth so dismal? he asked. Weve got the lowest labor force participation in over three decades, since 1978. And if President Obama wants to give an honest, candid State of the Union address this week, hell address the fact that his economic policies are not working. It's difficult to say how Obama's policies are causing the economy to stall or succeed, but we can examine Cruz's specific claim about labor force participation. Cruz, whose press office did not respond to our request for comment, is correctly breaking down data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. The labor force participation rate is another measurement of the health of the labor market. The unemployment rate is the number of people who are not working as a percent of the labor force. There are multiple lenses through which to view jobs data. Another measure, thelabor force participation rate, refers to the percentage of Americans who are considered to be in the labor force as a part of the overall population. To be counted in the labor force, someone must be working or actively looking for work. In December (and also October), the labor force participation rate was 62.8 percent. In January and March of 1978, it was also 62.8 percent. We know what youre thinking: Cool numbers, PolitiFact, but what do they mean? Take a look at the trend. The labor force participation rate had been increasing since 1948, the first year the labor force participation rate was calculated. Then, it was 58.6 percent. It peaked in the late 1990s and 2000 to just more than 67 percent, before more recently hitting its lowest point in 36 years. Its fallen 2.9 percentage points since Obamas first month on the job in January 2009. Whats happening is the subject of an ongoing debate. There is understandable concern about the countrys long-term unemployed anddiscouraged workers. The economic recovery from the 2007-09 recession has been slow, which may have propelled people to go back to school, stay at home with their kids or give up on a search altogether when they could not find jobs in their field. Still, many economists attribute at least a portion of the drop to an unsurprising reason: the retirement of baby boomers, which does not exactly qualify as an American horror story. The trick is to determine how much of the drop represents the impact of a lagging economy, which is worrisome, and how much is due to non-worrisome factors, such as the aging of the adult population, said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, ina 2013 PolitiFact interview. Theres no reason to believe things will change anytime soon. The labor force will become older, slowly add workers as the overall population grows and become more racially diverse in the next decade, according to theBureau of Labor Statistics. BLS researchers say the labor force participation rate will continue to slowly fall until hitting 61.6 percent in 2022 -- a projected decline of 1.2 percentage points since December 2013. The past decade saw a much more dramatic drop, declining 3.6 percentage points since December 2003. Our ruling Cruz said, Weve got the lowest labor force participation in over three decades, since 1978. Were pretty confident Obama isnt asking Cruz for State of the Union talking points, and hes especially not interested in one that may suggest todays economic policies arent working. Cruz has his statistics right. But well note at least part of the trend has been years in the making and appears strongly tied to the inevitable aging of the baby boomer population. In other words, its not all Obamas fault, and its not going to change the minute he leaves office. We rate Cruzs statement Mostly True. Central Florida U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson is digging on some 1970s Led Zeppelin in his first ad attacking Republican opponent Daniel Webster.The ad is called Dan Webster's Stairway to Nowhere. See where this is going, Zeppelin fans?It opens with someone ripping off Jimmy Page's recognizable guitar introduction to Stairway to Heaven. A narrator talks over a black-and-white image of Webster, a longtime state legislator and former House speaker.When career politician Daniel Webster became speaker of the House, he wasted $32,000 of our money on a spiral staircase for his office, the narrator says, before moving on to a claim that he used tax money for private flights.The ad then finishes with a spin off of Robert Plant's vocals.And he's charged us for a stairway to nowhere.To be honest, it's a pretty poor rendition.But we're PolitiFact Florida, not American Idol, so we'll stick to the factual claims in the ad -- specifically about the stairwell.Stepping stones to the staircaseWebster was elected to the state House in 1980. In 1996, he became the first Republican state House speaker in more than 100 years after the GOP seized power.That also put him in charge of improvements and renovations to House offices and facilities. Each new speaker traditionally has made changes, upgrades, or renovations. In 1999, Speaker John Thrasher, now a state senator and chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, approved nearly $7 million for the House chamber -- now adorned in mahogany -- the Speaker's Office, and House office building.In 2002, leaders of the House and Senate spent about $1.5 million on furniture, structural changes, even a private bathroom. On the other hand, former Speaker Allan Bense spent only about $1,500 on changes in 2004, according to theSt. Petersburg Times.According to newspaper accounts Webster spent about $100,000 in taxpayer dollars on improvements to House facilities in his first months as speaker, including $31,983 on a spiral staircase.The staircase connected the Republican Majority Office on the Capitol's third floor with the Speaker's Office above it on the fourth floor. The staircase was intended to make it easier to move back and forth between the two offices -- namely, it allowed legislators and Webster as speaker to avoid walking through the public hallways filled with lobbyists, reporters and members of the public. The staircase will allow us to better coordinate things between the Speaker's Office and the Majority Office, Webster said at the time. He also noted that he took the idea from Democrats, who previously had drawn up plans for a spiral staircase of their own. It was built in a spiral style because it was the only way it could work given the space. The Grayson ad includes an image of an elaborate white spiral staircase to help make its point about Webster. But that's not the Webster staircase, said Todd Reid, staff director for the Florida House Majority Office. The staircasewas closed off in 2006 during more than $500,000 of renovations ordered by then-Speaker Marco Rubio. The stairway's fourth-floor landing became the new offices of the speaker's chief of staff. It was a standard black metal staircase, Reid said. It certainly wasn't heavy on the accouterments. Reid described the staircase as noisy and said whenever someone walked up or down it, people could hear the staircase rattling from both offices. He said the bottom half of the staircase remains in place; a closet was built around it. If you were in Tallahassee, I'd take you in to see it, Reid told PolitiFact Florida. Your humble fact-checker didn't have time to jump in a car for the five-hour trip to Tallahassee, but we were able to send theSt. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald'sLee Logan for an exclusive tour. Cribs: Staircase to Nowhere-edition Logan filed the following report, complete with apicture. Behind a door labeled No Entry in the House Majority Office is the famed Webster staircase. The small closet without lights is used so rarely that Reid had to hunt down someone in the House Sergeant at Arms office to get a key to the door. The bottom half of the black spiral staircase is still bolted to the floor. (Stairs are simple black metal, with a black metal railing.) Pieces of the top half are also in the closet, including a large piece that rests on top of the lower portion.The ceiling of the closet is now covered over with concrete, forming the floor of the chief of staff's office on the fourth floor. Reid says it's unlikely the stairway would be re-installed because the fourth floor spot is prime real estate -- now the House speaker and his chief of staff have direct access to one another through a door.Before Rubio made the space into the chief of staff's office, the staircase came up through a hole in the floor and emptied into a common area that also housed a few supplies.Reid said the closet could be used for supplies if the stairs were removed. But he speculated that they weren't taken out because they're simply too big. Also, a speaker sometime in the future might find a use for the stairs.The stairs were used irregularly, Reid said, usually on peak days when the Capitol was crowded. He also recalled former Gov. Jeb Bush occasionally using the stairs.Currently, if a staffer (not Joe Public) wanted to go from the Majority Office to the Speaker's Office, he or she could go up a back stairwell and cut through the Member's Lounge, which requires a key card and is reserved for lawmakers. Speaker Larry Cretul has said staffers can cut through the area if they don't loiter or disturb the lawmakers. Our ruling Grayson's ad is unintentionally ironic in that Webster's stairway to nowhere actually now is a stairway to nowhere, as it's bolted to the ground of a seldom-used closet. The stairway leads to a concrete ceiling, which now serves as the floor of an office above. Those changes were made by Marco Rubio in 2006. The stairs haven't been used since then. But that's not how Webster left it. When he became speaker in 1996, Webster did what most every speaker has done in recent times -- he spent taxpayer money on House renovations. The amount has varied wildly over the years depending on the size of the renovation.Among the $100,000 or so Webster spent, he allocated just under $32,000 for a plain spiral staircase to internally link the Speaker's Office with the House Republican Offices below.While Grayson's ad is correct on the reported dollar amount and the type of staircase, we think it's slightly misleading for two reasons. First, the imagery displayed suggests an ornate staircase when the staircase is far from ornate and only a spiral staircase by necessity. Second, it fails to provide the context that most every speaker spends taxpayer dollars on renovations, and several spent more than Webster. We rate the claim Mostly True.Now cue the Led Zeppelin ... (Update Sept. 1: We reached out to the Webster campaign before publishing this story via phone and e-mail, but did not hear back. After publication, Webster spokesman Brian Graham said in an e-mail that the staircase actually cost less than published reports. The original construction contract was for $28,126. The state paid even less, $22,242, Graham said). (Update Sept. 3:We noticed that the Grayson ad has been removed from his You Tube web page. We're not sure why). On 7 August 2018, Texas governor Greg Abbott posted a 9gag.com-branded meme on Twitter which included a statement attributed to former British prime minister Sir Winston Churchill about how "fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists":   However apt this quote may (or may not) be, it did not originate with Winston Churchill. Abbott deleted his tweet after critics pointed out that fact to him, but he said during a press conference that knowing who originally made the statement was "irrelevant" because he believed in its sentiment regardless of who said it: "What I tweeted was a sentiment that I had. It was irrelevant to me who may or may not have said that in the past. I didn't want to be accused of plagiarism for saying it. If no one else said it, attribute the quote to me because it's what I believe in." press conference So who does deserve credit? Similar quotes positing the idea that fascism would come to America disguised by a different name can be traced at least as far back as 1936 (although they weren't attached to Churchill's name until decades later).  On 18 March 1936, for example, the Cincinnati Inquirer reported on words delivered by Norman Thomas, an American Presbyterian minister who was running for president as the Socialist Party of America's candidate, at an informal luncheon: "Fascism is coming in the United States most probably, but it will not come under that name."   A few days later the same newspaper mentioned the same statement in a book review of In the Second Year, a dystopian novel by Storm Jameson set in a fascist Britain. That article added some additional words to the statement and reported that Thomas had been quoting Huey Long, an American politician who had been assassinated the previous year: Norman Thomas said recently in a speech made in Cincinnati "Fascism is coming in the United States most probably, but it will not come under that name." In this statement he was repeating the words of the late Huey Long, but Huey added: "Of course we'll have it. We'll have it under the guise of anti-fascism." No one has yet been able to document Huey Long's having made such a statement, however. Several variations of this quote have appeared in print since Thomas' 1936 remark. In 1938, for instance, Rev. Dr Halford E. Luccock of the Yale Divinity School said that "When fascism comes to America, and it has already come to some parts, it will not be marked with the swastika and labeled 'Made in Germany ... It will not even be called Fascism ... But will be called by that high-sounding and highly praised name - Americanism." Playwright Clare Booth reportedly had a similar take: "Speaking of Fascism," she writes, "Of all national ways of life, it is, perhaps, the most quickly habit-forming. It is the alcohol and the opium of the political systems; it will rob us eventually of our physical and mental and even moral powers, but it gives us temporary illusion of escape from an inimical world, a lift of the spirit, a feeling of superiority, of power ... also, we are warned (though not loudly, not often enough) when -- or if -- fascism comes in all America she will come so prettily costumed in red, white and blue as to be practically indistinguishable from a music hall's Fourth of July performance 'Rockette,' than which nothing could look more charmingly, happily, uniformly american.  Apparently Churchill's name was spuriously appended to this statement about fascism circa 2010 more than 40 years after his death (and with no supporting evidence). 2010 Timothy Riley of the National Churchill Museum told us that these words do not appear in any of the articles, speeches, or books penned by Churchill: "Winston Churchill authored over 15 million words  in articles, speeches, books and other writings. There is no evidence that the statesman wrote the words in question.  It is impossible to know if he uttered the words in conversation, but I am not aware of any of Churchills contemporaries who recorded or recalled the statement." The Cincinnati Enquirer.  "Fascism Coming  Under New Name!"
  18 February 1936. JYK.  "This and That."
  The Morning Call.  5 March 1939. McD, J.F.  "A 'Lively Age' to Come?'
  The Cincinnati Enquirer.  22 February 1936. McGaughy, Lauren.  "Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Tweets Fake Winston Churchill Quote About Anti-Fascists."
  The Dallas Morning News.  7 August 2018. Claim:  The father of a fallen Marine returned a condolence letter from President Obama with a cutting handwritten response.  UNDETERMINED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2015] Fallen marine's father , Steve Hogan, returns letter ofcondolence to president Obama.  ?   Origins:  On 3 January 2014, the website IJReview published an article titled "While Obama Boasts of Ending War in Afghanistan, Marine Family's Letter Puts It In Perspective." The piece was a commentary on President Obama's December 2014 written statement about the end of combat operations in Afghanistan: article For more than 13 years, ever since nearly 3,000 innocent lives were taken from us on 9/11, our nation has been at war in Afghanistan. Now, thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, our combat mission in Afghanistan is ending, and the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion. The site highlighted a July 2012 letter of condolence sent by President Obama to Steve Hogan, the father of Lance Corporal Hunter D. Hogan, and the elder Hogan's purported reply. Below the letter sent by the President to Mr. Hogan was a handwritten response that read: Mr. Barrack Hussein Obama, I am deeply saddened that you are the President of the United States. You sir are an embarrassment to the Oval Office. My son, as well as most Marines I know, despise you and your lack of representation for our military. Your ridiculous rules of engagement have caused the massive amount of casualties on your watch in Afghanistan. While we watch your media pander to your administration and clearly sweep things under the rug for you, I fully understand Marines die. You have tied their hands & feet! I am thankful I did not serve under a Comm. in Chief such as you. I am sickened that my son had to. I wonder ... I doubt that you will see this, I hope you do though! Steve Hogan Above the letter was an additional note: "I wonder how many of these get returned to you!" The site did not explain where the putative reply originated, why it had emerged more than two years after Lance Cpl. Hogan's death, or when the reply might have been written. The commentary is not fully out of line with a statement attributed to Steve Hogan and Hunter's widow Brittany, printed on 14 July 2012 in the York News-Times. That statement read in part:  statement We as family and friends of Lance Cpl Hunter and other service members want to know why the media in our country has coddled instead of covered this Teflon coated administration! We listened every night on the news for 8 years with the previous administration the casualty reports. With the present administration nothing is reported! With the news of our recent loss of  HD and others in his battalion, many people have made statements like, "I didn't think anything was going on there anymore." "I thought the Marines were leaving there," etc. Here are the statistics in Afghanistan for the 8 years of George Bush. The total killed in action under him is 660. Barrack Obama in 3 years and 5 months the total killed in action is 1,398. Wounded under George Bush is 2,637 in 8 years. Wounded under Obama up to Jan. 31st of this year is 11,529. Why isn't the media covering this instead of covering the protestors of these brave service men and women's funerals? The policies of this current administration and the rules of engagement are a huge factor with these casualty reports. The limited air and artillery support our men received. The limited company level support such as mortars, as well as the approval to return fire are hampering and adding to the danger they are in daily. Not to mention the severely limited night operations, that are approved, because they scare the Afghan people. Let the military run the war, they are the professionals, or get our people out of there. How many more black walls full of names are we going to build? The response attributed to Steve Hogan circulated heavily in January 2015, but few mentions of it on the internet exist before the article linked above. Hogan criticized the Obama administration's handling of combat operations in Afghanistan in a published editorial in July of 2012, but the wording is not the same as the above reply with which he has been credited. If the reply is genuine, it's not clear where the site obtained it or why it was not uncovered until more than two years after the original letter from President Obama was sent.  Last updated:  9 January 2015 In late January 2017, news outlets across the United States reported on a purported "can you hear me?" telephone scam. According to thosereports, the scam begins with an unsolicited phone call to the putative mark. After the caller makes contact they ask the recipient "Can you hear me?" to elicit a response of "yes," and a potential onslaught of unauthorized charges ensues. On 26 January 2017, CBS News reported the workings of the scam thusly: reported Virginia police are now warning about the scheme, which also sparked warnings by Pennsylvania authorities late last year. The "can you hear me" con is actually a variation on earlier scams aimed at getting the victim to say the word "yes" in a phone conversation. That affirmative response is recorded by the fraudster and used to authorize unwanted charges on a phone or utility bill or on a purloined credit card. "You say 'yes,' it gets recorded and they say that you have agreed to something," said Susan Grant, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America. "I know that people think it's impolite to hang up, but it's a good strategy." But how can you get charged if you don't provide a payment method? The con artist already has your phone number, and many phone providers pass through third-party charges. At first glance, the warning sounded reasonably valid: major news outlets covered it, and a Better Business Bureau satellite office reported the scam as well. But a closer examination revealed some questionable elements.  Primarily, we haven't yet been able to identify any scenario under which a scammer could authorize charges in another person's name simply by possessing a voice recording of that person saying "yes," without also already possessing a good deal of personal and account information for that person, and without being able to reproduce any other form of verbal response from that person. Moreover, even if such a scenario existed, it's hard to imagine why scammers would need to utilize an actual audio recording of the victim's repeating the word "yes" rather than simply providing that response themselves. As far as we know, phone companies, utilities, and credit card issuers don't maintain databases of voice recordings of their customers and use them to perform real-time audio matching to verify identities during customer service calls. In all the news reports we found, interviewees merely reported having been asked the common question ("Can you hear me?") but did not aver that they themselves had fallen prey to scammers: merely reported Lori Goodwin, who lives in Tampa, has been getting about three of these calls every week for the last several months. "If you hear someone say 'I can't hear you' or 'Can you hear me,' the first reaction you have is to say 'Yes,'" she said. "It's almost instinctual, so that's what they're looking for." Goodwin said she's always just hung up the phone, but she didn't realize until recently how dangerous those calls can be. When Mary Kuczborski of Clinton Township answers her phone, she doesn't expect to be hit with questions. But that's what happened Thursday evening. "When it came on it was a gentleman, nice voice, and he says, 'can you hear me?,'" Kuczborski said. Mary was the latest intended victim of a nationwide scam. Asking 'can you hear me?' is aimed at getting the victim to say 'yes.' The response is recorded by the scammer and then used to authorize unwanted charges on phone or utility bills or credit cards. Consumer protection experts say it may be rude, but if you get a 'can you hear me' call, the right response is to just hang up. Mary was a little more colorful. "Now, what do you want? And it went click," she said. BBB of Western Pennsylvania warned of the scam on 18 October 2016 but described no specific instances of individuals being scammed. That BBB satellite referenced the organization's nationwide Scam Tracker, but all related entries we found there were submittedby people already aware of news reports about the purported scam: warned of Scam Tracker       A CBS News report on the purported "Can you hear me?" had prompted police warnings in 2016, but yet again we found no indication that anyone who had actually been scammed out of money by saying "yes" to a caller had stepped forward. (It's not uncommon for police departments to spread dubious crime warnings on a "better safe than sorry" basis, such as one about a $100 bill carjacking ploy.) carjacking The "Can you hear me?" scam for now seems to be more a suggestion of a hypothetical crime scheme than a real one that is actually robbing victims of money. In messages we left with the BBB, the FTC, and the Consumer Federation of America, we asked a question absent from all the news reports we've encountered about this scam: "Are there any documented cases of people being victimized in this manner?" We have not yet received any affirmative response to those queries. Jackson, Curtis.  "Nationwide 'Can You Hear Me' Phone Scam Targets Michigan Residents."   WXYZ.  26 January 2017. Kristof, Kathy.  "Beware New 'Can You Hear Me' Scam."   CBS News.  26 January 2017. Trimble, Grady.  "'Can You Hear Me?' Phone Scam Reaches Tampa."   WTSP.  26 January 2017. Better Business Bureau of Western Pennsylvania.  "BBB Scam Alert: Can You Hear Me?"   18 October 2016. Better Business Bureau.  "Scam Tracker."   Accessed 27 January 2017. On 14 December 2014, photographs were posted by a Facebook user along with accompanying text suggesting the pictures depicted shopping carts full of donated toys that had been returned to a Walmart store in exchange for beer and cigarettes: Ok...As I was leaving Wal-Mart at 6:30am this morning, I asked the returns clerk did someone purchase these? She responded, those were yesterday's return. I then asked the question; were these gifts? She responded that most likely all of them are gifts from organizations or toy runs. I was sick to my stomach with her next response, "folk return them, get a gift card and then buy beer and cigarettes." Be aware of your blessing to others in need. Make sure that the organization or individual is truly getting and keeping the gift, especially children. These pics are from one day of returns and the clerk said; most of time there's more. Be blessed friends...          That claim predictably caused outrage among Facebook users, with many commenters stating the situation as described confirmed their suspicions about the poor and needy. However, a number of factors suggested the claim might not be true and could therefore negatively impact initiatives to ensure children living in poverty had access to much-needed toy donations at Christmastime. First and foremost, the post presented only a single Walmart shopper's account in assessing what the images depicted. The man said he confirmed with the cashier that the items were toy returns, but whether such a conversation even took place is not independently verifiable. Then there's the matter of how retail systems are organized, particularly during the holiday season. Sorting merchandise into carts for restocking on shelves is common practice, and such sorting includes not just returns but also items moved by customers from one part of the store to another or abandoned at check-out aisles.  Such items are generally sorted by department, so busy stores are likely to be stuck with several carts per department at the end of a shift or the start of a day.  Items moved or abandoned at checkout that require refrigeration would be top priority, and items such as clothing and toys would command less urgency. So pictures of carts full of toy department items could create the false impression of a disproportionate number of returns to that department, when it's entirely possible carts full of other departments' items were just as plentiful but were left out of the frame of the photographs or had already been returned to their shelves.   And even if we were to take the tale at face value, it's still a bit hard to buy because for the cashier's claim about beer and cigarettes to be credible, we would have to assume she was in the habit of tracking customers after they returned items, carefully observing what they purchased with  gift cards or store credits.   There is also the matter of the origin of the toys. Although toys received through programs for the needy are certainly returned to stores from time to time, there's simply no way to discern which toys seen in random photographs might have been received as standard gifts from family members or friends, which toys might have been donated via Christmas drives for the needy, and which toys might have been returned simply because they proved to be unwanted or duplicate items. No explanation was provided in the Facebook post as to why the toys in the cart were assumed to have been donated ones rather than purchased or gifted toys. returned In fact, the store in question, a Walmart on Bleachery Boulevard in Asheville, North Carolina, verified that although the photographs were in fact taken at that store, "The claim the toys are all returns is 100 percent not true" and "most of the toys are items left around the store that need to be restocked,"  according to a report by Asheville television station WLOS: report The Facebook post claims donated gifts from organizations or toy runs were being returned to Walmart. The Facebook user says a store clerk told him folks returned the toys to "buy beer and cigarettes." Bill Murdock, CEO of Eblen Charities, has his doubts. "Sometimes these things kind of get out of hand. You know, somebody will make a comment or somebody will assume something and then all of the sudden it becomes the truth, whether it's the truth or not," Murdock said In an effort to reduce the chances someone will return one of the donated toys to a local store, Eblen Charities representatives have started marking over the bar codes.  Whether or not the story were in any way reflective of any factual circumstances, it would be a shame for such a claim to negatively impact much-needed toy drives right before Christmas. The tale closely matches much of the argument against food stamps and other forms of assistance for the needy and has the potential to damage efforts to supply children in need with toys at Christmas. According to Toys for Tots, demand for toys has outpaced supply in recent years, and while the scope of the program is very large, the organization is unable to fulfill all the requests it receives: Many of the gifts they provide, such as books, games and sports equipment, make a significant contribution to the educational, as well as social and recreational interests, of these children.  The program is also of immense assistance to parents who, during the holiday season, are unable to provide needed gifts for their children.  The Marine Corps fulfilled the holiday hopes and dreams of nearly 7 million less fortunate children in each of the past ten years.  While that may be a lot of children, we unfortunately ran out of gifts long before they ran out of children.  To make a credit card contribution or to find out more about the Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, please go to their website at www.toysfortots.org or call the foundation at (703) 640-9433. The author urged people to verify whether toys are truly being parceled out to kids in genuine need, but most toy drives are partially or wholly anonymous in order to protect the privacy of recipients, and therefore such endeavors aren't possible without intruding upon those who receive items from those drives. In the absence of stronger evidence, there is little reason to believe the claim presented here was true, accurate, or representative of how toy drives actually operate. Brigman, Lauren.   "REALITY CHECK: Returned Toy Donations?"
  WLOS-TV.  18 December 2014.