Bookkeeper in a Brothel
Claim:  The drawback of a laborer's illiteracy frees him to become a success in another field. LEGEND Example:  [Brunvand, 1993] My grandfather used to tell  about a country lad who went to the big city to seek his fortune, but had no luck finding a job.  One day, wandering through the red light district, he spotted a Help Wanted sign in a window. They were looking for a bookkeeper, but after the madam quizzed the boy about his education and discovered that he could neither read or write, she turned him away. Feeling sorry for him, she gave him two big red apples as he left.  A few blocks down the street, he placed the apples on top of a garbage can while tying his shoe, and a stranger came along and offered to buy them. The boy took the money to a produce market and bought a dozen more apples,which he sold quickly.  Eventually he parlayed his fruit sales into a grocery store, then a string of supermarkets.  Eventually he became the wealthiest man in the state. Finally he was named Man of the Year, and during an interview a journalist discovered that his subject could neither read or write. "Good Lord, Sir," he said.  "What do you suppose you would have become if you had ever learned to read and write?" "Well," he answered, "I guess I would have been a bookkeeper in a whorehouse."1 Origins:  According to folklorist Jan Brunvand, after writer Somerset Maugham was accused of stealing the plot of his 1929 short story "The Verger," he explained that he'd heard the tale from a friend and that it was a well known bit of Jewish folklore.  Maugham's claim is supported by this find, harvested from a 1923 joke book: Some fifteen years ago there landed in New York a friendless and almost penniless Russian immigrant who found lodgings on the East Side and at once, with racial perseverance and energy, set out to earn a living. He was of a likeable disposition, and speedily made acquaintances who sought to aid him in his ambition.  One of them sponsored him for the vacant post of janitor, or shammos, to use the common Hebraic word, of a little synagogue on a side street.  But when the officers of the congregation found out the applicant was  entirely illiterate they reluctantly denied him employment, inasmuch as a shammos must keep certain records.  The greenhorn quickly rallied from his disappointment.  He got a job somewhere.  He prospered.  Presently he became a dabbler in real estate. Within ten years he was one of the largest independent operators in East Side tenement-house property and popularly rated as a millionaire.  An occasion arose when he needed a large amount of money to swing what promised to be a profitable deal.  Finding himself for the moment short of cash, he went to the East Side branch of one of the large banks. It was the first time in his entire business career that he had found it necessary to borrow extensively.  He explained his position to the manager, who knew of his success, and asked for a loan of fifty thousand dollars. "I'll be very glad to accommodate you, Mr. Rabin," said the banker.  "Just sit down there at that desk and make out a note for the amount." The caller smiled an embarrassed smile.  "If you please," he said, "you should be so good as to make out the note and then I should sign it." "What's the idea?" inquired the bank manager, puzzled. "Vell, you see," he confessed, "I haf to tell you somethings: Myself, I cannot read and write.  My vife, she has taught me how to make my own name on paper, but otherwise, with me, reading and writing is nix." In amazement, the banker stared at him. "Well, well, well!" he murmured admiringly.  "And yet, handicapped as you've been, inside of a few years you have become a rich man!  I wonder what you'd have been by now if only you had been able to read and write?" "A shammos," said Mr. Rabin modestly.2 Some like to question the legend's basis on the grounds that if the work-seeker couldn't read, he couldn't have made out what the sign in the window said. "Illiterate" is often mistakenly interpreted as "incapable of making head or tail out of so much as one written word." In real life, any number of folks who cannot read and thus have no hope of making sense of a printed page have learned to recognize by sight a goodly number of key words and phrases, including "help wanted." The illiterate among us manage to catch the right buses, "read" road signs, and order off menus, all by way of having memorized what certain words look like. They exist in mainstream society undetected for years, sometimes fooling even their immediate families. A good story never goes out of style, as this example shows: [Collected on the Internet, 2001] An unemployed man goes to apply for a job with Microsoft as a janitor. The manager there arranges for him to take an aptitude test  (Floors, sweeping and cleaning). After the test, the manager says, "You will be employed at minimum wage, $5.15 an hour. Let me have your e-mail address, so that I can send you a form to complete and tell you where to report forwork on your first day. Taken aback, the man protests that he has neither a computer nor an e-mail address. To this the MS manager replies, "Well, then, that means that you virtually don't exist and can therefore hardlyexpect to be employed. Stunned, the man leaves. Not knowing where to turn and having only $10 in his wallet, he decides to buy a 25 lb. flat of tomatoes at the supermarket. Within less than 2 hours, he sells all the tomatoes individually at 100% profit. Repeating the process several times more that day, he ends up with almost $100 before going to sleep that night. And thus it dawns on him that he could quite easily make a living selling tomatoes. Getting up early every day and going to bed late, he multiplies his profits quickly. After a short time he acquires a cart to transport several dozen boxes of tomatoes, only to have to trade it in again so that he can buy a pickup truck to support his expanding business. By the end of the second year, he is the owner of a fleet of pickup trucks and manages a staff of a hundred former unemployed people, all selling tomatoes. Planning for the future of his wife and children, he decides to buy some life insurance. Consulting with an insurance adviser, he picks an insurance plan to fit his new circumstances. At the end of the telephone conversation, the adviser asks him for his e-mail address to send the final documents electronically. When the man replies that he has no e-mail, the adviser is stunned, "What, you don't have e-mail? How on earth have you managed to amass such wealth without the Internet, e-mail and e-commerce? Just imagine where you would be now, if you had been connected to the internet from the very start!" After a moment of thought, the tomato millionaire replied, "Why, of course! I would be a floor cleaner at Microsoft!" Moral of this story: 1. The Internet, e-mail and e-commerce do not need to rule your life.  2. If you don't have e-mail, but work hard, you can still become a millionaire. 3. Since you got this story via e-mail, you're probably closer to becoming a janitor than you are to becoming a millionaire. 4. If you do have a computer and e-mail, you probably have already been taken to the cleaners by Microsoft. The   legend's message is twofold: that sometimes seeming adversity is actually the Hand of God arranging future events in our favor, and that often the most momentous decisions we make swing on little more than the expediency of the moment. Taking the second point first, we observe that if the young farm boy in the first example had been able to read and write, he would have gained the job he sought, that of a bookkeeper in a brothel, and thus would never have become the grocery tycoon he ultimately turned out to be. As to what led him to seek the bookkeeping position, he quite by happenstance chose to walk down a particular street, coincidentally on a day when a "Help Wanted" sign was posted in one of the windows. On another day, that sign wouldn't have been there, or he would already have had a job somewhere else.  It is ever thus  the directions of lives change depending upon which ad is answered, which interview is given, even which bus is taken. A chance encounter can lead to a marriage and the begetting of children, and just as certainly the slightly different choice of ad or bus can result in those two people's never meeting. Career direction is likewise up for grabs. As much as we like to feel we're masters of our fate, often we're the very last factor to have much influence on unfolding events, even within the confines of our own lives. But there's another message to this legend, one of the power of divine intervention and why it doesn't pay to second-guess God.  Today's disappointment can be a necessary, though momentarily painful, ingredient in tomorrow's success, as the snubbed bookkeeper or janitor finds out. Children of the moment that we are, we tend to forget this truth when caught up in sorrow over not getting what we'd set our hearts on, and tend only to remember it again when things ultimately turn out far better than they would have if we'd gotten our shortsighted way.  Barbara "father of the chide" Mikkelson Sightings:  In Somerset Maugham's 1929 short story "The Verger," an illiterate church caretaker is fired by the vicar when his lack of education comes to light. The ousted verger goes on to become a tobacconist, eventually owning a string of shops in London. Last updated:  20 April 2011 The Baby Train   2.  Cobb, Irvin S.  A Laugh a Day Keeps the Doctor Away.  New York: Garden City Publishing, 1923  (pp. 190-191).  Asimov Laughs Again   Botkin, B.A.  Sidewalks of America.  Indianapolis-New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1954  (pp. 430-431).   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 196). The Big Book of Urban Legends
On Aug. 18, 2022, a Twitter user named @cocksources tweeted a picture that appeared to show former NBA superstar Magic Johnson giving blood. The caption in the tweet read, "Earlier today, NBA legend Magic Johnson donated some of his blood to the Red Cross to help underprivileged communities help fight COVID-19."  tweeted Why would this be news of interest? Johnson announced his retirement from the NBA in 1991 after testing positive for HIV. announced his retirement Despite the tweet, the truth was that @cocksources publishes satire, which meant that the news wasn't real. The Twitter account's bio said that part of its mission was "spreading narratives with misinformation (satire)." bio  Five days later, Johnson addressed the satirical news, tweeting, "Im aware of the false story circling the internet, and to be clear, I have never donated blood." addressed  According to the TinEye reverse image search website, the oldest posting of the picture was in an article from 2013 on 24ur.com. The story said that the photograph had already raised eyebrows on Twitter years before and that it simply showed Johnson "undergoing a medical examination" in the 2012 documentary, "Endgame: AIDS in Black America." TinEye reverse image search website article Twitter Johnson  We previously reported on this photo back in 2015, when a different misleading rumor said it showed Johnson donating blood for leukemia and lymphoma patients. reported In sum, no, Johnson wasn't donating blood to the Red Cross to help underprivileged communities help fight COVID-19, nor did the picture show him donating blood at all. Red Cross Dvignil Prah: HIV Pozitiven Magic Johnson Daroval Kri? 24ur.com, 26 Mar. 2013, https://www.24ur.com/ekskluziv/tuja-scena/dvignil-prah-hiv-pozitiven-magic-johnson-daroval-kri.html. Nadel, John. AP Was There: Magic Announces He Has HIV, Retires from NBA. AP News, 23 Feb. 2022, https://apnews.com/article/los-angeles-lakers-nba-entertainment-sports-health-d51716031d2641c7e58957e9ef9da718. TinEye. https://tineye.com/. FACT CHECK: Is the city of Seattle forcing local businesses to comply with Sharia law?  Claim: The mayor of Seattle has "launched" a new "rule" forcing businesses to comply with Sharia law.   false WHAT'S   Seattle is exploring options to make home loans accessible to Muslims who are unable to participate in standard mortgage programs due to religious proscriptions.     WHAT'S   Seattle businesses are being forced to comply with tenets of sharia law. Examples: Seattle Mayor Planning to Force Banks to Give Sharia Compliant Homes Loans to Local Muslims https://t.co/QSKZ1XqzMB https://t.co/QSKZ1XqzMB  Warner Todd Huston (@warnerthuston) July 17, 2015 July 17, 2015   Seattle's Liberal Mayor Caves To Muslims Following Sharia Law - BuzzPo https://t.co/A3m76OJz7r https://t.co/A3m76OJz7r  EMERSON E.RODRIGUES (@EMERSON_NALITA) July 17, 2015 July 17, 2015   Mayor, no Sharia law applies in America!! Stop this unconstitutional junk. https://t.co/fx7VENmVQx https://t.co/fx7VENmVQx  Bunch (@bunch1243) July 17, 2015 July 17, 2015   Origins:On 17 July 2015, the unreliable web site Conservative Tribune published an article titled "ALERT: Seattle Mayor Launches Rules to Force Local Businesses to Comply With SHARIAH LAW" claiming that: article In one major American city, new rules may force banks to comply with Shariah law on lending and interest. One of the major tenets of Shariah law is that Muslims cannot pay interest on loans. In countries with large Muslim populations, theres something known as Islamic banking, which manages to get around this through various machinations. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray wants to see that change, and hes apparently willing to force banks into Shariah-compliant lending if necessary. This means that, if it passes, Seattle will be the first city in America to mandate that its banks allow access to Shariah-compliant financing.  That claim was sourced to the TeaParty.org site's article "Seattle Mayor Offers Plan for Sharia-Compliant Housing Rules," which offered the following visual: article That article was a word-for-word copy of a Puget Sound Business Journal article about a potential plan by the mayor of Seattle to help Muslims obtain home loans to buy houses.  Quoting both Seattle Mayor Ed Murray and Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Seattle-area Chapter Executive Director Arsalan Bukhari, the article explained that the city was examining housing options available to home-buying Muslims who are prohibited from participating in the traditional American housing market due to religious restrictions that prohibit them from obtaining standard home loans (despite their having desirable credit profiles): article   For some Muslims, it can be hard to buy a house, and Mayor Ed Murray plans to do something about it. Murray's housing committee released its recommendations for ways the city can increase housing in the city. Most ideas were what you'd expect, including increasing the city's housing levy and implementing new rules and regulations to foster development of market-rate and lower-income housing. One suggestion would help followers of Sharia law buy houses. That's virtually impossible now because Sharia law prohibits payment of interest on loans. The 28-member committee recommended the city convene lenders and community leaders to explore options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products. More and more lenders are offering Sharia-compliant financing. The sector has grown to more than $1.6 trillion in assets worldwide over the past three decades, and analysts see potential for continued growth as the number of Muslims in the United States and Europe grows. Based on what he called "rough anecdotal evidence," Bukhari estimated a couple hundred people aren't borrowing money for houses due to their religion. He said this includes even high-wage earners, such as the more than 1,000 Muslims who work for Microsoft and more than 500 Amazon.com  employees. They could easily qualify for home loans but opt not to apply "simply because they don't want to pay interest," Bukhari said. "We will work to develop new tools for Muslims who are prevented from using conventional mortgage products due to their religious beliefs," Murray said. The overall topic of Seattle-area Muslims and banking products was also addressed in another Puget Sound Business Journal article about retirement plans. According to that piece, CEO Thom Poulson of Falah Capital is working to facilitate opportunities for Muslim tech workers to access products such as 401(k)s and mortgages previously inaccessible to them due to religious barriers: article   It's estimated that more than 1,000 Muslims in the Puget Sound region work for Microsoft, and for those who closely follow their faith, it can be difficult to participate in the company's retirement plan. That's because Sharia law forbids them from investing in funds with holdings in companies that peddle pornography, alcohol and other vices. It's almost impossible for retirement funds to guarantee all their investments are free from those kinds of businesses. This has become an issue for workers at other tech companies, too. "You have people who aren't getting the full benefits of their employer's offering," said Thom Polson, CEO of a new Seattle company, Falah Capital LLC, which works with Muslims to ensure they're investing while staying true to their beliefs. In partnership with Seattle-based Russell Investments and IdealRatings of San Francisco, Falah set up its first Islamic exchange traded fund (ETF) last fall. Listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker "FIA," the Russell-IdealRatings Islamic US Large Cap Index, the ETF is the first of its kind on the exchange. Polson said a large percentage of the Muslims who work at tech firms are not using their 401(k) plans because they're not Sharia-compliant. "All of our advisory business is about addressing these needs," Polson said, adding his company is working with clients from the Muslim Association of the Puget Sound. The association has a large community center with a mosque in Redmond near Microsoft's headquarters. Next up for Fallah is a possible foray into home mortgages so clients can buy houses without taking out interest-bearing loans, which is against Sharia law. As part Seattle Mayor Ed Murray's landmark housing initiative, the city plans to work with lenders to help observant Muslims buy homes.   What these articles address are efforts to help businesses  service a significant portion of the local Seattle-area working population who are unable to utilize those business' current offerings  due to religious limitations, not to force businesses to comply with tenets of sharia law.  Mayor Murray's 13 July 2015 "Action Plan to Address Seattles Affordability Crisis" merely included a policy point of "explor[ing] the best options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products," not mandating that any local businesses offer such products: Action Plan  Support the Community in Finding Housing Tools for Sharia-Compliant Lending: For our low- and moderate-income Muslim neighbors who follow Sharia law  which prohibits the payment of interest or fees for loans of money  there are limited options for financing a home. Some Muslims are unable to use conventional mortgage products due to religious convictions. The City will convene lenders, housing nonprofits and community leaders to explore the best options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products to help these residents become homeowners in Seattle.   Last updated: 17 July 2015 Originally published:  17 July 2015 In December 2019, readers asked us about reports that claimed the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had proposed changes to the way Social Security disability payments are made, which could cause thousands, even hundreds of thousands, to lose their benefits.  On Dec. 12, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune posted an article with the headline "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients." The article reported that: Inquirer Tribune "The Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children. The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews  the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January." The left-leaning website Common Dreams published an article with the headline "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands.'" That story reported: article "Activists are working to raise public awareness and outrage over a little-noticed Trump administration proposal that could strip life-saving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people by further complicating the way the Social Security Administration determines who is eligible for payments." On the face of it, the changes proposed by the Trump administration would not, in fact, directly or immediately strip disability benefits from thousands of would-be recipients, rather the changes would introduce more (and more frequent) eligibility reviews for those who wish to receive them. However, some critics have argued that those increased bureaucratic requirements would over-burden some would-be recipients, in particular especially vulnerable recipients, and would ultimately (albeit indirectly) result in thousands losing disability benefits.  The Social Security Administration distributes disability benefits in two principle ways: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their previous Social Security tax contributions and history of work, and is paid out of the Social Security insurance fund; and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their disability status and inability to work, and is paid out of general tax coffers.  ways In order to prevent potential abuse and waste in the system, the Social Security Administration conducts "continuing disability reviews," essentially investigating whether each recipient still has a disabling condition, and if so, which kind. Those reviews take place more or less frequently, depending on the nature of each individual's disability, broken into three "medical diary categories," as follows: reviews In November, the Social Security Administration published its proposals to make several changes to the review system. The most significant proposal was to add a fourth medical diary category, "Medical Improvement Likely." Recipients placed in that category would undergo a review every two years. proposals According to a document accompanying the proposals, the decision to introduce the fourth category was made, in part, because the administration saw a pattern whereby some in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category were being prematurely subjected to re-evaluation, after six-18 months, before a medical improvement had the chance to take hold, and some in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category had successfully treated their impairment comfortably within the three-year review interval. The introduction of the new category would therefore mean the bureaucratic burden on some recipients would actually be lessened, since they would be subject to review less frequently, though clearly it would also mean others would be subject to more frequent reviews. On the whole, the administration has estimated that, between 2020 and 2029, the new category would tend towards requiring more frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category, rather than less frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category:   The administration expects the introduction of the "Medical Improvement Likely" category to lead to an 18 percent increase in the total number of reviews undertaken over the next decade. This would therefore lead to an increased up-front cost in administering the disability benefits programs, and an increased aggregate bureaucratic burden to recipients (even if some individual recipients would actually undergo reviews less frequently).  Greater scrutiny of individual cases, and enhanced enforcement of eligibility criteria, results in some recipients no longer being deemed eligible, and no longer receiving either SSDI or SSI, which saves money for the Social Security insurance fund and the Treasury, respectively. For the 2015 fiscal year, for example, the Social Security Administration calculated a 19.9:1 return on investment rate for disability benefits enforcement  meaning that for every $1 spent on performing reviews, the government would save $19.90 on disability benefits that would otherwise have been paid, over the course of a lifetime, to recipients who are now deemed ineligible. To be specific, the administration estimated that the $717 million spent on reviews in 2015 would ultimately save $14.3 billion in lifetime disability benefit payments.  calculated So the introduction of the Trump administration's proposals is highly likely to ultimately lead to thousands of disability benefits recipients no longer receiving those benefits  both because some will be overburdened by the bureaucratic demands of more frequent reviews, and because some recipients whose medical status no longer meets the eligibility criteria will have that ineligibility discovered sooner. A considerable measure of truth, therefore, exists in the reports published by the Philadelphia Inquirer and Common Dreams. However, those articles failed to mention an important component to the administration's proposals: They would not change how a recipient's eligibility is determined, only how often that determination takes place. As the proposal stated: "We are not changing the Medical Improvement Review Standard that we use to determine whether a person continues to meet the disability requirements of the Act." This means that, while the proposed increase in the number and frequency of reviews was highly likely to ultimately cause thousands to lose their benefits, that loss of benefits would not be arbitrary, or based on an application of a new and different standard for determining whether someone's health has improved. The standards and criteria for assessing whether an improvement has taken place would be the same as currently exist, and only the frequency of those reviews would change. In other words, some recipients would be subject to more frequent reviews, but if those more frequent reviews result in a finding that the recipient still has a qualifying disability or impairment  based on the same criteria as currently apply  the recipient would continue to receive disability benefits.  It could be that, as some critics have argued, the proposal represents an elegant way for the administration to save money by removing thousands from the recipient rolls without having to change eligibility criteria  the latter a move that would be more likely to cause public outrage or political opposition. However, on its face at least, the proposal involves enhanced enforcement of existing eligibility standards and criteria. That's an important distinction, and a significant omission from news articles that reported, with some justification, that the Trump administration had proposed changes to Social Security disability benefits that would cause thousands to be stripped of those benefits.  argued Lubrano, Alfred. "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients."
 The Philadelphia Inquirer/The Chicago Tribune. 12 December 2019. Johnson, Jake. "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands."
 Common Dreams. 16 December 2019. Social Security Administration. "Proposed Rule -- Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews."
 Federal Register. 18 November 2019. The fate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh hung in the balance in early October 2018 as the Senate Judiciary Committee awaited the results of an FBI investigation into allegations that he had committed a sexual assault some 30 years before -- allegations that Kavanaugh angrily denied in his Senate testimony. The Senate was already sharply divided along party lines on the urgency of pushing ahead with the confirmation, with Democrats demanding a full and unimpeded investigation into the charges and Republicans accusing the Democrats resorting to delaying tactics and attempting to destroy Kavanaugh's reputation. Public opinion was divided as well, with 45 percent of Americans saying they believed Kavanaugh's accuser (Professor Christine Blasey Ford) and 33 percent saying they believed Kavanaugh in an opinion poll taken four days after their testimonies. poll This clash of opinions played out on social media as uncivil debates raged in which each faction claimed the moral high ground and accused the other of lies and hypocrisy. A meme shared on 1 October took aim at Kavanaugh by calling out a GoFundMe account supposedly established in his and his family's name:   The implication, of course, is that as a presumably wealthy and privileged member of the Washington elite, Judge Kavanaugh doesn't need a fundraising account. Other social media users made the same point: Yes, a gofundme page has raised over $100,000 for poor Brett Kavanaugh. Thats right, some people think he needs money even though he has a job, government body guards, and will either soon be a Supreme Court justice, or he will get a six figures book deal. pic.twitter.com/WWRwV4Coco pic.twitter.com/WWRwV4Coco  Alex Morash (@AlexMorash) September 29, 2018 September 29, 2018  Why are people giving money to SUPER WEALTHY #Kavanaugh & #DrChristineBlaseyFord ??? Both are RICH, should be GIVING MONEY, NOT GETTING!!! RT @thehill: GoFundMe campaign for Kavanaugh raises over $500,000 https://t.co/yfEYSQ1KhW pic.twitter.com/ogImymWxg0 #Kavanaugh #DrChristineBlaseyFord @thehill https://t.co/yfEYSQ1KhW pic.twitter.com/ogImymWxg0  Trixy Wh (@trixywh) October 4, 2018 October 4, 2018  Whether or not it addressed an actual financial need on his part (press reports suggest that Kavanaugh, though by no means poor, is less well off as several current members of the Supreme Court), a number of Kavanaugh supporters did launch GoFundMe accounts in his name in late September and early October. The most successful of these had raised more than $600,000 by 5 October. It was opened by John Hawkins of North Carolina, who runs a partisan news and opinion website called Right Wing News. reports successful John Hawkins Right Wing News In an introductory note on the GoFundMe page, Hawkins explained the thinking behind it as follows: Like many decent people from both parties, I have been disgusted by the unsubstantiated 36 year old smears aimed at Brett Kavanaugh. We live in a country where innocent until proven guilty is supposed to mean something; yet Brett Kavanaugh's reputation is being dragged through the mud while his family is facing non-stop death threats. This is a horrible way to treat a good man who has dedicated his life to public service. So many unethical people are giving unprovable 36 year old accusations the same weight as 6 FBI background checks, hundreds of hours of hearings and testimony under oath. It is disgraceful. What I'd like to do is raise money for Brett Kavanaugh's family to use for security or however they see fit. All of the money collected will go to Brett Kavanaugh's family or alternately, if they refuse to accept it, to a charity of their choice. I have already reached out to a contact who should be able to put me in touch with Brett Kavanaugh's family. If he can't do it, I have plenty of other contacts who should be able to make it happen. I will update this page after I have talked with his family. I hope you will show your support for a good man who has been treated very, very badly. Hawkins posted updates chronicling his efforts to get in touch with the Kavanaugh family to discuss disbursing the funds. After many unsuccessful attempts he finally spoke to one of the judge's staffers, who told him that although the family is aware of the GoFundMe account and "extremely appreciative" of the donations, it would be a while before they could address the question of whether or not Kavanaugh, as a political appointee, can accept the money. On 30 October, Hawkins posted an update which included an "official statement" from Kavanaugh's representatives saying he would not accept the funds: "Justice Kavanaugh did not authorize the use of his name to raise funds in connection with the GoFundMe campaign. He was not able to do so for judicial ethics reasons. Judicial ethics rules caution judges against permitting the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising purposes. Justice Kavanaugh will not accept any proceeds from the campaign, nor will he direct that any proceeds from the campaign be provided to any third party. Although he appreciates the sentiment, Justice Kavanaugh requests that you discontinue the use of his name for any fund-raising purpose." GoFundMe accounts were also started for Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. The most successful of those had accumulated more than $540,000 in donations as of 5 October. A note from Ford posted on the GoFundMe page expressed her appreciation to all those contributing: accumulated I feel like all of you who have made a contribution are on this journey with me, which is very heartening. And some journey it has been and continues to be. We have already had to move four times, our movements are limited even with security, and the threats are ongoing. Thanks to you, I am able to feel safe, my family can be together, and my children can continue to go to school. On 21 November, Ford announced the closure of the GoFundMe account, pledging to donate any unused funds to trauma survivors: The funds you have sent through GoFundMe have been a godsend. Your donations have allowed us to take reasonable steps to protect ourselves against frightening threats, including physical protection and security for me and my family, and to enhance the security for our home. We used your generous contributions to pay for a security service, which began on September 19 and has recently begun to taper off; a home security system; housing and security costs incurred in Washington DC, and local housing for part of the time we have been displaced. Part of the time we have been able to stay with our security team in a residence generously loaned to us. With immense gratitude, I am closing this account to further contributions. All funds unused after completion of security expenditures will be donated to organizations that support trauma survivors. I am currently researching organizations where the funds can best be used. We will use this space to let you know when that process is complete. Adams, Becket.  "Kavanaugh Declines $600,000 Raised in His Defense."
 Washington Examiner.  31 October 2018. Albrecht, Leslie.  "Brett Kavanaugh's GoFundMe Page Raises $603,770, Surpassing $540,000 Raised for Christine Blasey Ford."
  Market Watch.  5 October 2018. Bekiempis, Victoria.  "Christine Blasey Ford to Give Donations to Charity for Trauma Survivors."
 The Guardian.  27 November 2018. Goldstein, Steve.  "Brett Kavanaugh May Become the 'Poorest' Supreme Court Justice."
  Market Watch.  14 July 2018. [29 November 2018]: Added information about the closure and disposition of the largest GoFundMe accounts in Kavanaugh and Ford's names. In early September 2021, the below-displayed compilation of alleged tweetswere circulating on numerous Reddit threads. CNN supposedly offered several suggestions for how people in their day-to-day life could help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and then a media analyst respondedwith this critique: compilation of alleged tweets responded "[Reminder] that 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions and presenting the crisis as a moral failing on the part of individuals without noting this fact is journalistic malpractice."   Both tweets were authentic, though originally posted in October 2018. The underlying claim stemmed from Adam Johnson, a writer and co-host of the podcast "Citations Needed." In short, his post accused CNN of erroneously framing the crisis as the result of individual choice when, allegedly, just dozens of corporations were responsible for the majority of emissions trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere. writer Citations Needed However, the tweet was misleading based on evidence we outline below. After the post went viral, Johnson acknowledged the post's shortcomings on an April 2020 episode of his podcast, saying: "The stat, albeit widely reported that way in the press, is deceiving in its media shorthand." an April 2020 episode of his podcast Before we identify the claim's flaws, let us provide some context to explain CNN's tweet. On Oct. 8, 2018, CNN tweeted several suggestions for people to help curb greenhouse gas emissions(eat less meat, take car rides or plane trips less often, and replace old thermostats) to promote an article published by the news outlet on the same day titled, "What the new report on climate change expects from you." tw eeted (eat less meat an article   The tweet's reference to "that new report on climate change"alludedto a multi-chapter document that theUnited Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had released the same day.In short, that report compared various strategies for slowing (or pausing) the rate at which Earth's average surface temperature was warming, as well as provided recommendations for governments to consider while establishing regulatory laws. multi-chapter document Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Based on our review of the report, the crux of the CNN tweet mostly aligned with the report's ideas  though it's worth noting the social media post editorialized the IPCC's findings with a "second person" point of view (it referred to the speaker's audience) and cherry-picked concepts among numerous strategies to mitigate climate change. Now, let us address the veracity of Johnson's commendatory. Based on a cursory Google search for keywords in his tweet,we uncovered a July 10, 2017, article in The Guardian with the headline: "Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says." July 10, 2017, article   Via Twitter direct messaging, Johnson confirmed with us that he authored the viral social media post based on that headline. We elaborate more on his thinking below. The Guardian article summarized a July 2017 "Carbon Majors"study by an environmental non-profit called CDPand the Climate Accountability Institute, a "tiny think tank" as defined by theScientific American. study CDP Climate Accountability Institute Scientific American However, here was the problem: The study did not assessallsources of global emissions worldwide (which includes agriculture, transportation, buildings' heating and cooling systems) but rather only analyzed the output of fossil-fuel producers, specifically. Its introduction read: "This report looks at industrial carbon dioxide and methane emissions deriving from fossil fuel producers in the past, present, and future [...] [It] isaimed at investors wishing to better understand amount of carbon associated with their fossil fuel holdings." Therefore, The Guardian headline  which did not note the study's strict focus on fossil fuel combustion  was unequivocally misleading. (When contacted by Snopes about the editorial decision, Kerry Eustice, a managing editor, emphasized the article's subhead and several paragraphs within the story's body make clear the referenced companies are fossil-fuel producers, specifically.) The headline appeared to be centered on this finding in the report: The distribution of emissions is concentrated: 25 corporate and state producing entities account for 51% of global industrial [greenhouse gas] emissions. All 100 [fossil fuel] producers account for 71% of global industrial [greenhouse gas] emissions. In other words, almost three fourths of worldwide fossil fuel emissions were indeed linked to just 100 corporations, based on the study. Those companies included Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco), Gazprom OAO, and National Iranian Oil Company. Meanwhile, together, those top-emitting fossil fuel companies produced roughly half of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Aramco Gazprom OAO National Iranian Oil Company Shaina Sadai, a Ph.D. in geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, elaborated on the researchers' work, as well as explained the consequences of its misinterpretations, in a November 2020 post on Sentient Media. In summary, she said the study focused on "one piece of the puzzle"  the production of oil, gas, coal, and cement  when total global emissions includes cumulative outputs from other sectors, as well. Sadai wrote: Sentient Media wrote The finding that 100 corporations were responsible for the majority of fossil fuel and cement production emissions is substantial, but it does not tell us about total emissions or about emissions from other sectors. [...] In order to get to net-zero emissions, all potential sources need to be considered. Fossil fuels are the largest source, but every sector needs to be scrutinized. Emissions from the agriculture sector have numerous sources. Changes in land use; for instance, when land that served one purpose is then used for another, such as when a rainforest is turned into pasture lead to increased emissions. These changes are not included in the Carbon Majors research, and more importantly, the emission sources they reflect are not either. Put another way, while fossil fuels are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and the study's identification of the sector's 100 worst-offenders is important, other industries (such as thefood system and waste-management programs) contribute to global emissions, as well. food system See below for a 2020 sector-by-sector breakdown of emissions bythe World Resources Institute: World Resources Institute   In sum, we rate this claim  While the fossil fuel industry accounts for a significant amount of all greenhouse gas emissions, and research analyzing that concept identified dozens of gas or oil companies that pollute the most, no evidence supported the claim as written. "The point I was trying to make is that any media coverage that reduces the issue to personal choices is incomplete, and [structural] issues should always be central to climate reporting," Johnson told us. "Individuals' choices are not unimportant. They just shouldn't be the focus of climate coverage." Needed, Citations. "Episode 108: How Our 'GDP' Obsession Drives Climate Crisis and Inequality." Medium, 29 Apr. 2020, https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-108-how-our-gdp-obsession-drives-climate-crisis-and-inequality-f2824d48a9bc. aCCESSED 8 Sept. 2021. Mackintosh, By Eliza. "What the New Report on Climate Change Expects from You." CNN, 8 Oct. 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/world/ipcc-climate-change-consumer-actions-intl/index.html. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Global Warming of 1.5 oC . https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. "Just 100 Companies Responsible for 71% of Global Emissions, Study Says." The Guardian, 10 July 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Horgan, John. "Exposing the World's Biggest Carbon Emitters." Scientific American Blog Network, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/exposing-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-emitters/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Sadai, Shaina. "No, 100 Companies Are Not Responsible for 71% of Emissions." Sentient Media, https://sentientmedia.org/no-100-companies-are-not-responsible-for-71-of-emissions/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. This report was updated with a response from an editor at The Guardian, which published the 2017 article titled, "Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says," on which Johnson said his inaccurate tweet was based. The language in a 1974 report that was co-authored by Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has been analyzed and criticized for more than four decades. The piece tackled sex bias in the United States penal code. As these critics have devolved from scholars, to senators, to pundits, to conspiracy-minded web sites, to the lowly meme maker, the accusations against Ginsburg have grown more crude and distorted. scholars senators pundits web sites In February 2018, for instance, we came across a meme featuring an image of the Supreme Court Justice and a quote ostensibly uttered by her about pedophilia being good for children:     This is not a genuine quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This claim is based upon a gross misinterpretation of another misinterpretation, which was itself based upon a simple misreading of a 1974 report entitled "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law" that was co-authored by Ginsburg, who at the time was a professor of law at the Columbia Law School. The other co-author was Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, a former director of the American Civil Liberties Union's women's rights project. The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law In 1974 Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau published a report examining how federal law frequently employed gendered language. This report was used as the basis for the "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," a report published in 1977, which included a passage explaining the purpose of the study: Sex Bias in the U.S. Code The Constitution, which provides the framework for the American legal system, was drafted using the generic term "man." While the United States Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, might have determined that "man" also means "woman" in terms of rights, duties, privileges, and obligations under the Constitution, the Court instead has chosen on numerous occasions to deny to women certain rights and privileges not denied to men. While explaining the "equality principle" and arguing that pronouns should be altered in the existing penal code so that both men and women were equally accountable for crimes against both boys and girls, Ginsburg quoted a proposed 1973 Senate bill as an example of legislation which used gender neutral language:   The 1937 Senate bill, S. 1400, in 1631, provides a definition of rape that in substance conforms to the equality principle: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old. It is the highlighted line that has been repeatedly misinterpreted and distorted over the ensuing decades. It appears that Ginsburg was first accused of wanting to lower the age of consent to 12 shortly before she was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1993. This accusation reemerged in 2005 after John Roberts was nominated. Both Senator Lindsey Graham and Fox News host Sean Hannity, for instance, used this line to argue that Ginsburg was "very left-wing" and immoral: accused Lindsey Graham Sean Hannity HANNITY: I guess where I am on this, if you look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I mean, she -- the Ginsburg rule, she doesn't have to answer specific questions, clearly pro-choice going in, thinks there may even be a constitutional right to polygamy, has a controversial view we should lower the age of consent to 12, supports legalized prostitution, very left-wing. GRAHAM: Well, there are all kind of hearts. There are bleeding hearts and there are hard hearts. And if I wanted to judge Justice Ginsburg on her heart, I might take a hard-hearted view of her and say she's a bleeding heart. She represents the ACLU. She wants the age of consent to be 12. She believes there's a constitutional right to prostitution. What kind of heart is that? However, Ginsburg never actually said that the age of consent should be lowered to 12. Ginsburg's report was about changing gendered language, not the age of consent, in our existing laws. In the quoted passage, she was not arguing for or against lowering the age of consent; rather, she was quoting a proposed Senate bill as an example of how appropriate gender-neutral pronouns should be used. Ginsburg wrote that she used this bill because it "conform(ed) to the equality principle," not because she agreed with the presented age of consent. Furthermore, Ginsburg mentioned another section of the penal code a few paragraphs earlier which referenced a different age of consent: 16. In both cases, Ginsburg's focus was on the gender of the victim, rather than the age, as her report was specifically concerned with gendered-language in U.S. law: 18 U.S.C.  1154 and 2032 make it a crime for a person to have carnal knowledge of a female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years. [...] The "statutory rape" offense defined in these sections follows the traditional pattern: the victim must be a female and the offender, a male. Protection of the girl's virtue as an asset to be traded by her family at marriage time can no longer survive as a justification for such provisions. The immaturity and vulnerability of young people of both sexes can be protected through appropriately drawn, sex-neutral proscriptions. The claim that Ginsburg said that "pedophilia was good for children" appears to be the result of a decades-long game of telephone that started with a misreading of a 1974 report. It started in 1993, after Ginsburg was nominated to the Supreme Court, when this report was quoted out of context as evidence that Ginsburg wanted to lower the age of consent to 12. As this errant argument was reiterated by pundits such as Sean Hannity it morphed from a single out of context quote to an alleged personal belief at the core of Ginsburg's political views. When the "Pizzagate" controversy exploded during the 2016 presidential election, this rumor underwent another devolution as conspiracy theorists claimed that Ginsburg once wrote that she wanted to legalize child rape. Pizzagate claimed In February 2018, this rumor took one more step away from reality when a meme featuring a quote ostensibly uttered by Ginsburg arguing that pedophilia was good for children went viral online. Bader Ginsburg, Ruth.  "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law."
  Report of Columbia Law School Equal Rights Advocacy Project,  1974  (p. 71) Noah, Timothy.  "Lindsey Graham's Smear."
  Slate.  16 September 2005. Kalven, Josh.  "Hannity Falsely Claimed Ginsburg Advocated Legalizing Prostitution, Lowering the Consent Age to 12."
  Media Matters.  1 November 2005. When it comes to illegal campaign cash, the wheels of justice move slowly. So when a May 2011 court filing brought fresh attention to old claims involving illegal campaign contributions to U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, Democrats jumped, airinga radio adin his Florida district. Congressman Vern Buchanan. His old business was caught illegally funneling over $60,000 in campaign donations to Buchanan to influence his election, the narrator of the ad says. Tell Buchanan to come clean.The ad ran from June 13-17 and was paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. It relied onnews articlesabouta lawsuit filedby theFederal Election Commissionagainst a business Buchanan once owned, the DCCC said.The 'old business' Buchanan, 60, is awealthy Republicanfrom Longboat Key serving his third term in Congress representing Florida's13th Congressional District. He built his wealth founding a chain of print shop franchises in Michigan, leaving for Florida in the 1980sas the chain struggledand investing in a range of new businesses, including Florida auto dealerships.One of those dealerships is at the heart of this claim.Buchanan had owned a majority interest in Hyundai of North Jacksonville,the FEC says, when his business partner Sam Kazran arranged for dealership employees and relatives to donate to the Vern Buchanan for Congress committee, then be reimbursed by the business. This went on during the 2006 and 2008 campaigns, the FEC says. (We should note that the date Buchanan legally parted ways with the dealership is a matter of disagreement.The FEC saysBuchanan owned 51 percent of the dealership until Kazran completed his purchase of Buchanan's stake to become the sole owner in 2008  after the suspect contributions were made. Buchanan spokeswoman Sally Tibbetts says Buchanan sold the dealership to Kazran in 2005, putting more distance between the congressman and the illegal contributions. )What's the big deal with reimbursing contributions? It violates federal election law, which says (n)o person shall make a contribution in the name of another person. The Federal Election Campaign Act also limits how much a single contributor may give to candidates' campaign committees. Funneling cash through employees would have made it possible for the dealership to bust through that limit.The Buchanan campaign said they brought the questionable contributions to the attention of the FEC, which then launched the investigation. We can't independently confirm if that's the case, because the FEC does not comment on open cases. However, we found no evidence to the contrary. The commission combined the complaint withone filed in 2008 by a Washington groupand two employees of a Venice dealership, which you canread more about here. The FEC investigated,finding probable causeto believe that the Hyundai dealership and Kazran had illegally reimbursed $67,900 in campaign contributions, but it didn't go after Buchanan.Instead, it's now seeking $67,900 in fines from Kazran.Kazran, for his part,admits reimbursingcampaign contributions, but told theBradenton Heraldhe did it at Buchanan's direction. I've been caught in this political nightmare that I have nothing to do with, he told PolitiFact Florida. But he failed to reach an agreement with the Federal Election Commission  andfailed to respond to the complainton behalf of Hyundai North Jacksonville, which is no longer in business. That means facts in the case stand uncontested. So the commission voted to sue him to collect the fines, asking a judge for a default judgement.The FEC told the U.S. District Court that the dealership illegally spent $67,900 in an attempt to influence an election for Congress, presumably believing this to be a worthwhile investment. And that's the May suit that prompted stories in aWSJ.com blog, theSarasota Herald-Tribuneand theBradenton Heraldthat the DCCC cited as it released the script for its Florida radio ad. Jesse Ferguson, speaking on behalf of the committee, theofficial campaign armof the Democrats in the U.S. House, used partial quotes from the lawsuit when he said, The FEC is seeking fines from a business that Vern Buchanan owned at the time for an 'extensive and ongoing scheme' of 'secret illegal contributions' to help his campaign and were going to make sure his constituents know about it.Buchanan's responseWhat does Buchanan's team say? That the FEC has cleared Buchanan himself  so the ad linking the behavior of Kazran and his dealership to the congressman is misleading and dishonest.It creates the false impression that Vern Buchanan has done something wrong when in fact he has been fully exonerated by the FEC, said Sally Tibbetts, his spokeswoman.Arelated news releasethat says Buchanan has been completely exonerated is the subject of its own fact-check, andwe found the claim to be Barely True. But we'll summarize here by saying that what little information is available so far from the FEC doesn't fully clear Buchanan  though it does mean the commission won't take any further action against him in the case.Information's limited because the case isn't yet closed, soconfidentiality rulesapply.That means for the purposes of this fact-check, we'll rely on what's in the public record  information that the DCCC had access to when it scripted its ad.The rulingThat ad starts by naming the congressman, then says his old business was caught illegally funneling over $60,000 in campaign donations to Buchanan to influence his election.The FEC and Buchanan's team agree that he owned a significant stake until at least 2005, when suspect campaign contributions started. The FEC says the dealership reimbursed more than $60,000 in contributions. The money went to Buchanan's main campaign committee, and the FEC says the money was spent in an attempt to influence an election for Congress.What is contested is Buchanan's role in the scheme.The FEC has said it will take no further action against him, closing his file. But it didn't go further to declare it had no probable cause to believe he was involved  which would have better supported his team's claim that he's been cleared. Meanwhile, his former business partner still says Buchanan put him up to it, and says he plans another lawsuit to prove it.While we think the DCCC could have done a better job noting it was Buchanan who turned in the illegal contributions, we rate this ad Mostly True. Claim:  U.S. law specifies that merchants do not have to accept more than 100 pennies in payment.  Origins:  This is one of the pieces of misinformation that makes me wish web sites like this one had been around when I was a kid so I have could pointed my father toward it and told him to shut up already.  I can't recall how many times he solemnly intoned that "Pennies are not legal tender in quantities greater than 100" and therefore merchants were   "legally" allowed to refuse any offer of payment that included more than one hundred one-cent coins (and, presumably,  could not "legally" refuse payment offered in any other form of legal tender).  As with so many other things he was dead wrong (and I knew it even then), but I had no way of proving him wrong.  I can now, though. Title 31 (Money and Finance), Subtitle IV (Money), Chapter 51 (Coins and Currency), Subchapter I (Monetary System), Section 5103 (Legal Tender) of the United States Code states: United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts. What this statute means, in the words of the United States Treasury, is that "[A]ll United States money ...  is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal law mandating that a person or organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services." In other words, U.S. currency and coins can be used for making payments, but merchants do not necessarily have to accept it for all forms of business transactions. If a shoemaker wants to sell his products for 8000 jelly beans per pair, he's entitled to do so; the buyer cannot demand that he accept the equivalent value in legal tender instead.  However, legal tender is the default method of payment assumed in contractual agreements involving debts and payments for goods or services unless otherwise specified.   So, for example, if an automobile dealer signs a contract agreeing to sell you a car for $8,000, but when you begin making monthly payments he rejects them and insists he wants to be paid in gold instead, you can go to court and have your debt discharged on the grounds that valid payment was offered and refused. Up until the late 19th century, pennies and nickels weren't legal tender at all.  The Coinage Acts of 1873 and 1879 made them legal tender for debts up to 25 cents only, while the other fractional coins (dimes, quarters, and half dollars) were legal tender for amounts up to $10. This remained the law until the Coinage Act of 1965 specified that all U.S. coins are legal tender in any amount. However, even in cases where legal tender has been agreed to as a form of payment, private businesses are still free to specify which forms of legal tender they will accept.  If a shop doesn't want to take any currency larger than $20 bills, or they don't want to take pennies at all, or they want to be paid in nothing but dimes, they're entitled to do so (but, as mentioned earlier, they should specify their payment policies before entering into transactions with buyers).  Businesses are free to accept or reject pennies as they see fit; no law specifies that pennies cease to be considered legal tender when proffered in quantities over a particular amount. Additional information:        Designation of legal tender   (United States Code, Title 31)        What is legal tender?   (United States Treasury FAQ)   Last updated:  16 May 2011   Landers, Ann.   "Ann Landers."  29 January 1996   [syndicated column].   Viets, Elaine.  "A Penny Saved Can Be a Lot of Trouble."  St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  24 April 1994. Brendan Doherty, like a lot of candidates, says if hes elected to Congress in November hell put a stop to rampant fraud and waste in government spending.On his campaign website, the Republican candidate for the First District seat and former head of the Rhode Island State Police, says hell use his years in law enforcement  to shine a light on the unconscionable abuse of hard-earned taxpayer funds.Among examples of abuse he lists are the purported millions of dollars in pension benefits the federal government distributes each year to federal retirees who are, well, dead:Over the past five years the federal government has paid out $601 million in retirement and disability benefits to deceased former federal employees.Weve heard stories of dead people voting before, but are they also getting hundreds of millions in pension payments? We called Dohertys campaign to find out where the candidate got his information.Spokesman Robert Coupe told us he thought the $601 million figure was pretty large when he first heard it from campaign staffers. He said it came from Wastebook 2011, the latest edition of an annual compilation of questionable government spending put out by Sen. Tom A. Coburn, R-Oklahoma.We checked Wastebook 2011, which indeed mentions over $601 million paid out to deceased federal workers in the last five years, with footnotes citing the source: a report issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Managements Office of the Inspector General, titled, appropriately enough, Stopping Improper Payments to Deceased Annuitants.According to the Office of Personnel Managements report, the amount of post-death improper payments is consistently $100-$150 million annually.Some of what the federal government calls improper payments is outright fraud -- people with electronic access to the deceaseds bank accounts taking the money. And some of it is because the money was electronically transferred into what are now inactive bank accounts. The money can sit there piling up for years before anyone notices.Special efforts have been under way since at least 2005 to reduce payments going to dead retirees and their survivors, the report says. Those efforts have included matching the rolls of eligible recipients with the Social Security Administrations death records on a weekly and annual basis, doing similar checks with the IRS to see whos still filing returns, and random phone calls to retirees over 90 years old just to make sure theyre still around.Those steps have helped identify the scope of the problem, Susan L. Ruge, a spokeswoman in the Office of Personnel Managements inspector generals office, said in an e-mail. In fiscal year 2010, for instance, the office identified $116.8 million in improper payments going to dead retirees or survivors.But solving the problem is another matter.According to the Personnel Managements report: There remains a high probability that egregious loss of monies from the [civil service] fund will continue and require strategic corrective actions. It notes one case of a man illegally pocketing more than $515,000 by cashing in his dead fathers monthly retirement checks -- for 37 years.Ruge said 94 percent of annuity payments are transferred electronically into bank accounts as opposed to the older method of mailing checks. The office of inspector general, she said, has no breakdown as to payments stolen by others with access to those accounts and money lost by languishing into those unattended accounts.In overpayment cases where no theft has occurred, there is greater potential for EFT (electronic fund transfer) overpayments to continue undetected, simply because no one is monitoring the deceased annuitants bank account, said Ruge.If there is good news in any of this it is this: while $601 million going to dead people in the last five years sounds like a lot of money, it represents less than 2.5 percent of all civil service retirement disbursements, the report claims.Our RulingDohertys website says Over the past five years the federal government has paid out $601 million in retirement and disability benefits to deceased former federal employees.The campaign accurately quoted a figure whose source is a report issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Managements Office of the Inspector General.We rate his statement True.Rhode Islands former top cop is setting his bar of expectation pretty high if hes promising to curb this kind of  rampant fraud and waste. Well be watching.Get updates fromPolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage. Ever since Georgia voters roundly rejected regional sales taxes to fund road and transit projects in 2012, state leaders have pledged to take the lead on transportation. The Legislature made good on that promise this year with House Bill 170. Awaiting the governors signature, the measure is projected to raise nearly $670 million in transportation funding next year, by moving the state from a series of sales and excise taxes on gasoline to a single excise tax. That plus a mix of new fees for drivers of electric car and heavy trucks, the end of a popular tax credit for electric cars and a $5 per-night fee on hotel/motel stays, is expected to generate close to $1 billion a year to tackle the states backlog of transportation projects. That is really what all of this has been about --- finding sensible and fair ways to make our transportation network better and keep Georgia moving forward, House Transportation Committee chair Jay Roberts, R-Ocilla, wrote in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Not that everyone was on board. Sen. Mike Crane, R-Newnan called the bill a midnight run on taxpayers. Debbie Dooley, who led part of the opposition to the 2012 sales tax referendum as chairman of the Atlanta Tea Party, echoed that language on her Twitter page. GA Republicans just pulled a midnight run on taxpayers and passed a billion-dollar tax increase with a rushed vote giving only 2 hours, Dooley posted on March 31. Is that right? Does the long-awaited transportation plan translate into a massive tax hike? And with that, PolitiFact Georgia waded into the squishy semantics of what counts as a tax and what is a fee. In public policy terms, a broad swath of people pay taxes, for broad services, even if they dont use them. Homeowners pay property taxes to local governments, for instance, to fund police and fire departments they may never need. Fees, meanwhile, are charged for the use of a facility, service or good that government provides. Your federal taxes help fund national parks but you still pay a fee to camp under the stars. That much is clear. Where the lines blur is when politicos and journalists begin using the terms interchangeably. House Bill 170, for instance, refers to the states gas tax. The money paid by Leaf drivers, or hotel visitors? Those are called fees. But to public policy folks, the gas tax is more like a fee, said Barbara Neuby, a political science professor at Kennesaw State University who specializes in budget and finance issues. Thats because you can opt out of owning a car, never buy a gallon of gas and still benefit from others picking up the tab, making what they pay a fee. And to complicate things further? You can pay a tax and a fee at the same time. Dont own a car but need some gas for your lawn mower? You arent using the road to drive but you still pay for the product. A lot of it is semantics, Neuby said. Its a tax increase, or additional fees if you use certain things. To some people, thats splitting hairs. Any time government extracts money from your pocket, folks tend to see it as a tax, even if it isnt. There is not, in economic circles, a clear or bright line between the two terms. After all, the gas tax could be a user fee if only motorists paid it. But to an economist, if a 10-year-old walks to Dairy Queen for an ice cream cone, the price will include the cost of getting the treats ingredients to the store, said William J. Smith, the economics department chairman at the University of West Georgia. Any good or service you purchase that involves transportation will involve the gas tax, Smith said. So thats why its so hard to say with any conviction that any one thing is either a tax or a fee. All told, both expert realms lend some credibility to Dooley, and the public, seeing the transportation bill as a giant tax hike. But that refers to the language distinction. Math math, however, does not fully back up claims about a tax increase. Jared Walczak, an analyst with the right-leaning Tax Foundation, examined Georgias gas tax at PolitiFact Georgias request. The current mixed system includes a 7.5 cent per gallon excise tax, a 4 percent sales tax and, generally a 3-4 percent local tax. The effective rate: 26.5 cents per gallon, based on the current AAA fuel price of $2.37 a gallon. And with the elimination of the local and state sales taxes and jump in excise tax? At todays prices, motorists would pay 26 cents a gallon in taxes. The break-even point would be gas prices at $2.65 a gallon, Walczak said. And those calculations do not include the local option, which could add an additional 1 percent sales tax after a public vote. But because the bill also will index the excise tax to inflation, the amount paid is projected to go up over time, as the cost of living gradually rises. The states amended fiscal note acknowledges that index inits projections.The impact of the gas tax in 2016 will be up to $668 million. By 2020, the tax could generate as much as $867 million. Some people will pay more under this proposal. Those who drive a heavy truck, those who drive an alternative vehicle, will certainly pay more immediately, Walczak said. Certain others may pay less or identical amounts at this juncture, but in succeeding years that burden will be indexed to inflation and is apt to increase. Dooley said that conclusion remains the same, regardless of the semantic dispute. The Tea Party understood the need for transportation funding, she said. Members supported the bill repealing a jet fuel tax exemption for Delta, estimated to bring in $21 million this year and up to about $32 million in 2020. By not looking at other tax incentives to cut  such as credits given to the movie industry or breaks that helped lure Mercedes Benz USAs headquarters  lawmakers ensured most Georgians will pay more for the necessary work, she said. They are increasing the burden on everyday motorists in Georgia while giving out all of these subsidies to businesses, Dooley said. They can call it a fee all they like, but if it raises revenue like this does, its a tax, Experts quibble over the semantic distinction. And at least in the short term, people will pay slightly less, or about the same, on the tax that is the biggest piece of the funding overhaul. But over time, the experts agree that the burden on taxpayers will increase. The distinction between a tax and a fee brings it down a notch, but we rate Dooleys statement about a billion dollar tax increase to be Mostly True.