Is This a Photograph of a Dead Fairy?
Most of the April Fool's pranks that appear on the Internet on or around April 1 have petered out by a day or two later; some of the more subtle satirical articles may continue to circulate for a few days longer before some readers recognize them as humor rather than genuine news stories.  For whatever reason, though, a "mummified fairy" prank of 2007 was still going strong well after April 1 had come and gone, even though its creator had long since admitted to the hoax and the fictional tale had been exposed by major news outlets: Do fairies live at the bottom of your garden? Maybe not anymore but a recent discovery would suggest that they probably did. What appear to be the mummified remains of a fairy have been discovered in the Derbyshire countryside. The 8 inch remains complete with wings, skin, teeth and flowing red hair have been examined by archaeologists and forensic experts who can confirm that the body is genuine. X-rays of the fairy reveal an anatomically identical skeleton to that of a child. The bones, however, are hollow like those of a bird making them particularly light. The puzzling presence of a navel even suggests that the beings reproduce the same as humans despite the absence of reproductive organs.  The mummified fairy supposedly found in Derbyshire by a dog walker at Firestone Hill near Duffield was the work of former Derbyshire resident Dan Baines, a prop maker.  Baines posted an article (titled "Do Fairies Live at the Bottom of Your Garden?") presenting an elaborate backstory about the creature's discovery, along with several close-up photographs of the small, detailed fairy figure he created, on a web site a few days before April Fool's Day 2007.  The hoax was quite the hit for a few days as netizens debated its details and origins, and then on April 1 Baines 'fessed up by appending the following message to his fairy article: article Thank you for the interest you have shown in my story.    Even if you believe in fairies, as I personally do, there will always have been an element of doubt in your mind that would suggest the remains are a hoax. However, the magic created by the possibility of the fairy being real is something you will remember for the rest of your life.    Alas the fairy is fake but my interest and belief has allowed me to create a work of art that is convincing and magical. I was also interested to see if fairy folklore is still a valid belief in modern society and I am pleased to say that yes it is! I have had more response from believers than I ever thought possible.   As well as an artist I am also a magician and you have been my fantastic audience. That spark of magic ignited your imagination and made your day more memorable and exciting.    I believe fairies to be Earth spirits rather than physical beings so my performance was slightly flawed. The question stills begs to answered though, are they made of flesh and blood like you and I?    I hope you have not been offended by the events of the past few days but if you are I sincerely apologise. It took 50 years for the Cottingley fairies to be revealed as a hoax; at least youve only had to endure a few days of mystery. The prank was even prominent enough to merit coverage by the BBC: Photographs of a mummified fairy supposedly found in Derbyshire have been revealed as an April Fool's prank.  Former Derbyshire resident Dan Baines, 31, who designs illusions for magicians, made the fairy as a prank.  The site got 20,000 hits in one day from fairy believers. "Although I've said it's a hoax, people still believe that it's real," said Mr Baines. "They believe this is just a cover-up so let the illusion continue."  He added that it had taken him four hours a day to answer all of his emails.  "I've had all sorts of comments including people who say they've seen exactly the same things and one person who told me to return the remains to the grave site as soon as possible or face the consequences," he said.  The fairy is about eight inches long with details such as a navel, ears and hair added for authenticity.  Mr Baines added that he had now become addicted to April Fool's jokes and told people to "watch this space" for future pranks. Dan Baines later put his fairy figure up for auction on eBay, where it fetched a high bid of 280.00.  eBay BBC News.  "Fairy Fool Sparks Huge Response."
  1 April 2007. The Sun Online.  "Mummy Fetches Fairy Good Price."
  11 April 2007.
On July 14, 2021, former U.S. President Donald Trump released a statement via email praising a new book by Fox News host Jesse Watters. As screenshots of Trump's statement started making their way around social media, some people noticed that the text of this statement was, in part, a direct copy of the book's description on Amazon.com.  noticed This is a genuine statement released by Trump and this is the genuine description of Watters' book from Amazon.com and other booksellers' websites.  description of Watters' book from Amazon.com Here's the text of Trump's full statement. We highlighted the portion that was lifted directly from the book's description: Great new book out by Jesse Watters, How I Saved the World. Interspersed are his thoughtful suggestions for overcoming left-wing radicalism, maintaining American democracy, moving beyond aging hippies (like his long-suffering, loving parents), saving the world from social justice warriors and the deep stateall while smirking his way through life in only the nicest way. Get your copy today, congratulations Jesse! Trump's statement did not contain any punctuation to indicate that this was a quote, nor was this plagiarized portion of his statement preceded by any indications that this was a quote from the book's promotional copy. As written, it appeared that Trump was giving a personal testimony about Watters' book, but that is not the case.  Trump was banned from social media in the days following the attempted insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, as the companies feared that the former president might incite more violence by pushing falsehoods about his election loss on their platforms. Without social media, Trump has started to issue statements via email which are then reposted to social media by his supporters and journalists. As social media users can't see these statements posted on Trump's own timeline for themselves, they are often left wondering if they are authentic.  We've been asked about a few of these statements in the past. For example: Yes, Trump wished a happy Father's Day to the "the losers of the world," and yes, he wished a Happy Easter to the "radical left crazies." the losers of the world, radical left crazies In early January 2017 a rumor swept Facebook asserting that "Facebook security" people were being paid to watch individual accounts:  According to that rumor, entering the term "Facebook Security" into Facebook's "block users" field would reveal a list of people whom the social network had engaged to furtively monitor your activity, and each of whom had to be individually blocked by you to prevent them from spying on you: rumor [D]id you know there are people literally watching your Facebook account? Yes. There are people who have a specific duty to monitor your posts and activity. While there are many Facebook secrets, for those who enjoy privacy, this one is for you! Here is what you need to do to block the majority of the accounts that monitor your Facebook: 1. > Log into Facebook 2. > Account Settings 3. > Click on blocking 4. > In the search field where it says Block Users type in: Facebook Security 5. > A new window will pop up. The list you see is a list of [most likely] Facebook employees, spies, and private accounts that are paid to shill for who knows who (sarcasm (kind of)). 6. > Go down the list, and if you dont like being monitored, just hit the block button. Some of the accounts are unable to be blocked. While this is somewhat disturbing, you must remember that Facebook owns everything Facebook, so in essence, you agreed to be monitored. (I know. What moral and reasonable organization needs to hire people to monitor you? Right?) However, following these instructions does nothing to uncover or block the (non-existent) Facebook security personnel who are supposedly monitoring your online activities. Entering the term "Facebook Security" into "Block Users" search box simply returns "profiles of [users] who have used those particular words somewhere on their profile [or] in a place thats visible to the individual, as in a public post." The list returned by this search neither includes people who are furtively following you, nor persons employed to spy on you by Facebook security. In September 2017, this rumor took on a slightly new form (one which eliminated the paranoid reference to "Facebook security"): Again, following these instructions simply produces a list of Facebook users with the string 'Me' somewhere in their screen names or profiles, not a list of accounts of people who are secretly following you: A nine year-old viral Facebook post that portrays the United States as soft on illegal immigration enjoyed something of a resurgence in early 2018, most likely in light of ongoing negotiations between President Donald Trump and Congressional Democrats over the fate of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children by their undocumented parents and who have previously been allowed to stay in the United States under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The wording of the post, which was turned into a meme, has been repeated since at least 2009, and has been adapted for Australian and Canadian audiences over the years. There have been small variations here and there, but it typically goes something like this: Australian Canadian this   Undocumented immigrants do have some rights and entitlements, but the meme vastly overstates these entitlements, and omits to mention the many burdens and disadvantages placed on these immigrants, including the constant possibility of arrest and deportation.  A job Adults who enter the United States illegally are not provided with a job. In fact, it's illegal to knowingly hire any immigrant who isn't authorized to work in the country (whether they entered the United States illegally or overstayed a visa after entering legally.) illegal Of course, that doesn't stop the practice from happening, and according to a 2017 analysis by the Pew Research Institute, there were around 8 million unauthorized immigrants working or looking for work in the United States in 2014. analysis A driver's license This depends on where you live. As of January 2018, there are 12 states (and the District of Columbia) which allow immigrants without legal status to obtain a driver's license. Some of the states where unauthorized immigrants can drive (California, New Jersey, Illinois) have relatively high undocumented populations. 12 states populations Food stamps An immigrant who does not have a legal status in the United States is not eligible for food stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), although their children might be. Indeed, undocumented immigrants do not receive most kinds of welfare benefits, even though they do pay taxes.  not eligible benefits According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-partisan think tank, undocumented immigrants collectively contribute almost $12 billion per year in state and local sales, income and property taxes.  contribute "A place to live" Generally speaking, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal housing benefits like public housing, rental assistance, and vouchers. However, as a 2015 Congressional Research Service report outlines, some undocumented immigrants may live in a household with citizens or qualified immigrants, and thereby indirectly benefit from some public housing assistance (although the level of that assistance is reduced on a pro rata basis, due to the presence of that undocumented immigrant.) report Undocumented immigrants are eligible for emergency assistance such as homeless accomodation and domestic violence shelters.  It is possible for an undocumented immigrant to own a home, either by buying it outright with cash, or by using something called an individual tax identification number (ITIN) mortgage. This allows non-citizens (including undocumented immigrants) to bypass the usual requirement of having a social security number to take out a mortgage.  ITIN Some 31 percent of undocumented immigrants live in a home that is owned by at least one of its residents (as opposed to rented), according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of data from the United States Census Bureau's 2014 American Community Survey.  analysis Health care Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Health Insurance Marketplace, significantly curtailing the affordable health insurance and health care available to them. not eligible However, six states and the District of Columbia have rules that allow undocumented immigrant children to avail themselves of Medicaid benefits, and undocumented immigrants are also entitled to emergency medical care.  six states emergency According to a 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, non-elderly undocumented immigrants are four times more likely than United States citizens to be uninsured, and fears about immigration enforcement and detection often cause undocumented immigrants to forgo preventive healthcare, leading to worse outcomes.  analysis Child benefits It's not entirely clear what the creator of this meme means by "child benefits," but let's take a look. Undocumented immigrant tax-payers (using an ITIN rather than a social security number) can avail themselves of a child tax credit.  child tax credit Low-income undocumented immigrants are also eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which provides food and infant formula assistance, as well as nutritional and immunization assessments.  WIC Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), a federal program that provides financial help to low-income families and pregnant women. TANF Education In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are constitutionally barred from denying children a public school education on the basis of their immigration status. As a result, undocumented immigrant children can attend public schools for free, like any other children. ruled While attending public schools, undocumented children can benefit from federal nutrition services like the School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program.  Program Program Only two states (Alabama and South Carolina) do not allow undocumented immigrants to attend public colleges and other third-level institutions, and three others (Arizona, Georgia and Indiana) do not allow them to pay lower in-state tuition rates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. allow Undocumented students are not allowed to receive federal financial aid for higher education, but they might be able to get state aid or private scholarships.  federal A tax-free business for seven years This is completely false. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes, and there is no provision in law at the federal or state level which grants them any kind of "tax holiday." false Legal Information Institute. "United States Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1324a - Unlawful Employment of Aliens."
 Cornell University. 30 October 2004. Passel, Jeffrey S.; Cohn, D'Vera. "Size of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Workforce Stable After the Great Recession."
 Pew Research Center. 3 November 2016. Mendoza, Gilberto. "States Offering Driver's Licenses to Immigrants."
 National Conference of State Legislatures. 30 November 2016. Krogstad, Jens Manuel;Passel, Jeffrey S.; Cohn, D'Vera. "5 Facts About Illegal Immigration in the U.S."
Pew Research Center. 27 April 2017. Watson, Tara. "Do Undocumented Immigrants Overuse Government Benefits?"
 Econofact. 28 March 2017. Christensen Gee, Lisa et al. "Undocumented Immigrants' State and Local Tax Contributions."
 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. 2 March 2017. McCarty, Maggie; Siskin, Alison. "Immigration: Noncitizen Eligibility for Needs-Based Housing Programs."
 Congressional Research Service. 8 December 2015. Kasperkevic, Jana. "The American Dream: How Undocumented Immigrants Buy Homes in the U.S."
 Marketplace. 11 September 2017. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. "Health Coverage of Immigrants."
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 13 December 2017. Ollova, Michael. "More Immigrant Children in U.S. Illegally to Receive Health Care."
 Pew Charitable Trusts. 8 August 2017. Siskin, Alison. "Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview."
 Congressional Research Service. 12 December 2016. American Immigration Council. "Public Education for Immigrant Students: Understanding Plyler v. Doe."
 American Immigration Council. 24 October 2016. Hultin, Suzanne. "Undocumented Student Tuition: Overview."
 National Conference of State Legislatures. 29 October 2015. Mikkelson, David. "Tax Holidays for Immigrants."
 Snopes.com. 23 November 2012. In perhaps one of the worst miscalculations in modern political history, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in January 1933 in the hopes that he could successfully form a coalition government amidst a collection of competing minority parties (including his own Nazi Party) and that the worst impulses of Hitler and the Nazis could be "controlled" or "tamed" once they bore responsibility for leading the national government (rather than criticizing others' administration of it).   But shortly after Hitler's swearing-in as chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933, the Nazis began to systematically suspend civil liberties and eliminate political opposition, with the passage of the Enabling Act two months later effectively establishing Hitler's government as a legal dictatorship that could issue decrees without the involvement of the German parliament (Reichstag) or president. Enabling Act One example of the navet that held sway in Germany at that time caught the attention of Americans in February 2020, in the wake of impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump.  That example took the form of a snippet from a purported 1933 Wall Street Journal article which was widely circulated via social media:  This article did in fact appear in the Feb. 2, 1933, edition of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).  Under the headline "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly," the report from the WSJ's Berlin bureau briefly referenced contemporaneous assessments of Hitler -- that "there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power," that Hitler would not "disrupt the nation's affairs," that it was "not believed" Hitler would "accomplish a change in the constitution" -- and that a rise in stock prices indicated public confidence in these assessments:     Rise in Stocks Reflects Confidence He Will Not Disrupt Nation's Affairs Berlin is settling down to pass judgment on political developments. Politicians, economists and bankers declare there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power. Consequently, it is not believed that Hitler will accomplish a change in the constitution or that [Reich Minister of Economics Alfred] Hugenberg will bring about a general reduction of interest rates. The government wants to obtain an adjournment of the Reichstag for several months, but it is questionable whether the Centre [Party] will approve of such action. After calmly dismissing the threat that Hitler posed (and which would come to pass in just a few short months) the article provided a short summary of the "considerable gains in stocks" that supposedly indicated good times were ahead under the new government -- including, ironically, a rise in the price of stock in I.G. Farben,  the German chemical company that manufactured the Zyklon B gas later used to kill millions of Jews during the Holocaust: I.G. Farben The Boerse closed with considerable gains in stocks. Rhenish Coal advanced 7, Mannesmann Tube 5, I.G. Farben 4 and Rhine-Westphalia Electric 4. Bonds registered average losses of 2 points. Common stocks were favored as being less susceptible to talk of devaluing the currency or of other inflationary experiments. Furthermore, profits are expected to increase for many industries from expanded public works projects. The Wall Street Journal.  "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly."
  1 February 1933  (p. 12) In mid-April 2017, multiple online sources reported that former U.S. State Department employee Candace Claiborne (purportedly an employee of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton) was arrested on charges of treason: Barack Obama Hillary Clinton   The indictment in question was real, although many online reports covering it were inaccurate. Claiborne was arrested on specific charges related to improperly receiving gifts in exchange for her providing information to Chinese agents  obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements to the F.B.I.   not "treason," as noted in a Justice Department press release about the case: press release A federal complaint was unsealed charging Candace Marie Claiborne, 60, of Washington, D.C., and an employee of the U.S. Department of State, with obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements to the FBI, both felony offenses, for allegedly concealing numerous contacts that she had over a period of years with foreign intelligence agents. The charges were announced by Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary B. McCord for National Security, U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips of the District of Columbia and Assistant Director in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the FBIs Washington Field Office. Candace Marie Claiborne is a U.S. State Department employee who possesses a Top Secret security clearance and allegedly failed to report her contacts with Chinese foreign intelligence agents who provided her with thousands of dollars of gifts and benefits, said Acting Assistant Attorney General McCord. Claiborne used her position and her access to sensitive diplomatic data for personal profit. Pursuing those who imperil our national security for personal gain will remain a key priority of the National Security Division. Candace Claiborne is charged with obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements in connection with her alleged concealment and failure to report her improper connections to foreign contacts along with the tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and benefits they provided, said U.S. Attorney Phillips. As a State Department employee with a Top Secret clearance, she received training and briefing about the need for caution and transparency. This case demonstrates that U.S. government employees will be held accountable for failing to honor the trust placed in them when they take on such sensitive assignments Candace Claiborne is accused of violating her oath of office as a State Department employee, who was entrusted with Top Secret information when she purposefully mislead federal investigators about her significant and repeated interactions with foreign contacts," said Assistant Director in Charge Vale. "The FBI will continue to investigate individuals who, though required by law, fail to report foreign contacts, which is a key indicator of potential insider threats posed by those in positions of public trust. Claiborne is required to report any contacts with persons suspected of affiliation with a foreign intelligence agency. Despite such a requirement, the affidavit alleges, Claiborne failed to report repeated contacts with two intelligence agents of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), even though these agents provided tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and benefits to Claiborne and her family over five years. According to the affidavit, the gifts and benefits included cash wired to Claibornes USAA account, an Apple iPhone and laptop computer, Chinese New Years gifts, meals, international travel and vacations, tuition at a Chinese fashion school, a fully furnished apartment, and a monthly stipend. Some of these gifts and benefits were provided directly to Claiborne, the affidavit alleges, while others were provided through a co-conspirator.  Claiborne wasn't an "employee" of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, other than in the sense that she held a mid-level (not a "deep state operative") job at the State Department, which was headed by Clinton from 2009-2013 (in her position as Secretary of State) and is a part of the executive branch, which was headed by Barack Obama from 2009-2017 (in his position as President of the United States).  By that standard, Claiborne would also have been an "employee" of Donald Trump and Rex Tillerson, as the affidavit that accompanied the criminal complaint against her noted she was still working for the State Department at the time of her arrest: affidavit Candace Claiborne is a 60-year-old Office Management Specialist with the Department of State. She is a United States citizen who resides and works in Washington, D.C. Claiborne has a bachelor's degree in criminal justice and law enforcement from the University of the District of Columbia. She joined the State Department in 1999, and has served in a variety of places, including Washington, D.C., Baghdad, Iraq, Beijing and Shanghai, China, and Khartoum, Sudan. According to State Department records, Claiborne has language proficiency in Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, and Spanish. She currently works at the Department of State headquarters in Washington, D.C. in the Office of Caucasus Affairs and Regional Conflicts. Claiborne has held a TOP SECRET security clearance since 1999. Candace Claiborne pled "not guilty" at her 29 March 2017 court appearance, and a preliminary hearing for her case was scheduled for 18 April 2017.  Dmitry, Baxter.  "Former Hillary Clinton Employee Arrested on Treason Charges."
  YourNewsWire.com.  12 April 2017. Gerstein, Josh.  "State Department Aide Charged for Hiding Gifts from Chinese Agents."
  Politico.  29 March 2017. Miller, John.  "Obamas 'Deep State' Operative Just Got Arrested for Committing Treason  The First Domino Has Fallen."
  America's Freedom Fighters.  29 March 2017.
 The United States Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs.  "State Department Employee Arrested and Charged With Concealing Extensive Contacts With Foreign Agents."
  29 March 2017. United States Code, Title 18.  "Chapter 115: Treason, Sedition, And Subversive Activities."
  Accessed 14 April 2017. Many Democrats are eager to debateraising the federal minimum wagebecause its a popular issue to the party base, especially women, says ABC News political commentator Cokie Roberts. When you're talking about the minimum wage, you're talking about women, Roberts said March 31 onNPRsMorning Edition. Two-thirds of the people who receive the minimum wage are female, and this is one of many attempts on the part of Democrats to get out the voters who normally don't vote in an off-year election, to try to get them to the polls this year. Well see whether that works or not. Is her statistic accurate? The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, a hub for data on American workers and the unemployed, had just the report, Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers, 2013. The BLS collects this data through a national monthly survey of households called the Current Population Survey. It does not account for overtime pay, tips or commissions workers earn above their hourly wage. Of the 75.9 million Americans who earn hourly wages (and make up half of the nations workforce), 1.5 million earn exactly the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, and 1.8 million earn less than that, according to BLS. Here, were focused on the gender composition of those 3.3 million workers who earn at or below the minimum wage. We found its true that women have a disproportionately high place in the minimum-wage workforce than men. In 2013, 62.4 percent of workers, or 2.06 million people, who earned at or below the federal minimum wage were women. This was down slightly from the year before, when it was 64 percent. Its important to know this data only isolates workers who make the federal minimum wage of $7.25 or below. Many states have set a higher minimum wage for their residents. The BLS measure would not account for minimum-wage earners in California, who earn $8 an hour, or their counterparts in Washington, who earn the highest minimum pay in the country of $9.32. Arecent Congressional Budget Office reportpointed out half of all workers live in states where the minimum wage is more than $7.25 an hour. Still, these caveats do not undermine Roberts point, said Heidi Shierholz, a labor economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, which supports increasing the minimum wage. An increased federal minimum wage to $10.10 would set a new floor for all workers in the country, even those in states that set their own minimum wages. And it wouldnt just lift the pay of workers who earn $7.25 an hour, but also those who make slightly more, such as $8 or $9 an hour. Astudy by the Economic Policy Institutefound women would make up 55 percentpercent of workers who would benefit from raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by the second half of 2016, a congressional proposal backed by the White House. That figure aligns withCBO data, too. If you raise the wage floor, more women will be affected by that, Shierholz said. Thats the bottom line. The discrepancy in pay between men and women known as the gender gap is closer at the bottom of the income distribution than at the top 1 percent of earners, Shierholz said. The gap is closing as a result of more women going to college and stagnated male wages.The White House arguesraising the minimum wage would further tighten the gap because women are overrepresented in low-paying professions. The amount of women in tips-based jobs, such as hairstylists and waitresses, is even higher than the female share of the federal minimum wage workforce, Shierholz said. Employers are allowed to pay workers a minimum of $2.13 an hour as long as their tips or at least $5.12, or the difference between $2.13 and $7.25. The White House also wants an increase in the tipped minimum wage of $2.13 an hour to $4.90 by 2016 under the proposedHarkin-Miller legislation. Efforts to reach Roberts through ABC News were unsuccessful. Our ruling Roberts said, Two-thirds of the people who receive the minimum wage are female. The actual figure is just a little bit lower. Federal data shows62 percent of people who earn the federal minimum wage or below are women. The federal data has limitations, as it does not account for women in states with a higher minimum wage. One study says that if the federal government raises the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, women will benefit more than men by a 55-45 percent spread. Roberts claim is on the right track but needs some additional information. That falls into a rating of Mostly True. Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn.,took to Twitterrecently to tout her support for a $15 minimum wage. In the tweet, Smith wrote that one of the proudest things I did as lieutenant governor serving under Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton was helping to raise Minnesotas state minimum wage to $9.50 an hour. Now, Im proud to back a bill to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2024, she wrote, referring to a measure introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Patty Murray, D-Wash. Currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25, though states can set higher levels if they wish  anda majority do, from a small amount more than the federal level to $11.50 in Washington state. In a threadedtweet, Smith gave some historical perspective on the minimum wage: The federal minimum wage hasnt been raised in a nearly a decade. Taking into account inflation, the federal minimum wage is actually worth less than what it was worth 50 years ago. And prices for everything from milk to prescriptions has skyrocketed. The federal minimum wage hasnt been raised in a nearly a decade. Taking into account inflation, the federal minimum wage is actually worth less than what it was worth 50 years ago. And prices for everything from milk to prescriptions has skyrocketed. We wondered if Smith was correct, so we looked at the data. Back in 1968, the minimum wage was set at $1.60. That is equivalent to $11.76 in todays dollars, which is well above todays minimum wage level and an all-time high when adjusted for inflation. (We used the Bureau of Labor Statisticsinflation calculatorfor this purpose.) Over the last 50 years, the situation in 1968  greater purchasing power for the minimum wage than today  has been common, though not universal. By contrast, we only found seven years in which todays minimum wage is able to buy more than a previous minimum wage could. (Those years were 1989, 1995, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.) Heres the full chart, with the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage shown in red: All told, then, the minimum wage has been worth more than it is today for 86 percent of the time over the past 50 years, and less than todays during 14 percent of that time. Smith said, Taking into account inflation, the federal minimum wage is actually worth less than what it was worth 50 years ago. Smiths strict comparison with 50 years ago is accurate, and her comparison even holds for most years out of the past 50, suggesting that the year she picked is not an unreasonable choice. We rate the statement True. The idea that potatoes can be a catch-all form of sustenance for human beings has been popularized at various times by public campaigns and movies, but health experts are split on the potential impact of "surviving" on just one type of food. This claim has been widely circulated online in meme form, with the slight modification of adding butter to the "menu" of the all-potato diet:   Katherine Basbaum, a cardiovascular dietitian for the University of Virginia health system, is skeptical of this meme's assertion. She told us that potatoes and butter would provide enough macronutrients for the body at a "very basic level," but added that remaining alive and remaining healthy are two very different things:  There's a big difference between what your body needs to survive and what your body needs to work as best as it possibly can  to be as efficient, to be as healthy, to be as strong and it possibly can. There's a big difference between that and merely surviving. If you were hard-pressed and you had to do it, you could absolutely survive on it. Is it nutritious? Is it healthy and balanced? Absolutely not. Dana Hunnes, senior dietitian at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, disagreed slightly. She told us that this type of diet could be sustainable for persons who consumed enough potatoes to support their body weight and muscle mass. However, she said she would advise anyone looking to pursue that kind of regimen to instead eat a wider variety of fruits and vegetables. "You can certainly survive healthily  it's been done," Hunnes said. "Would I recommend it for people? No. Because I think you'd be bored in that diet." At least two public campaigns have touted the supposed merits of an all-potato diet. In 2010 Chris Voigt, head of the Washington State Potato Commission, promoted the merits of tubers by living off of them for two months. promoted "I'm not encouraging anyone to go on this crazy diet, nor would my doctor," he said at the time. "This diet was just a bold statement to remind people that there is a lot of nutrition in a potato." Voigt lost 23 pounds during that experience and denied rumors that he had abandoned his plan early. lost That type of short-term effort, Basbaum said, was unlikely to cause a person much damage provided that they not only had a clean bill of health but also no family history or risk of heart or kidney disease. Butter, she told us, is extremely high in saturated fats and can lead to unhealthy cholesterol levels.  "If somebody came in here saying, 'I heard about this potato and butter diet,' I would tell them not to touch it with a 10-foot pole," she said.  Similarly, potatoes on their own are rich in potassium but are best enjoyed in moderation because of the threat they pose to the kidneys, which manage potassium intake for the body. "If someone goes from a regular balanced diet getting the normal amount of potassium to just eating potatoes (like 20 a day or whatever), that's dangerous. It's not a good idea. You're overloading your kidneys with all of this potassium," Basbaum said. "If you have someone with pre-diabetes or diabetes or at risk for developing Type 2 diabetes, I don't really want to put them on an all-starch diet. You're risking increased levels of blood sugar and the body producing way too much insulin for your own good." Six years after Voigt's efforts, an Australian man, Andrew Taylor, also made news when he announced that he lost 114 pounds after spending the year eating around eight or nine pounds of  potatoes per day on a "spud fit" diet. announced Taylor posted before-and-after pictures touting his weight loss, but Basbaum did not interpret the results as being fully positive. "As a dietitian I don't look at that picture and [say] 'That dude lost a bunch of weight, good for him," she said. "I look at the before and after photo and I can tell this guy is malnourished. You can see the wasting in his shoulder and his clavicle area. You can see that he's lost muscle tone, he's got barely any muscle tone in his arms. Obviously I couldn't diagnose him, but we do nutrition-based physical exams with our patients and you can tell that that guy wasn't optimum health. Not by a long shot."  Heavily-restricted diets gain popularity, Hunnes told us, because some people are seeking "the magic bullet" to keep them healthy. "If someone says anecdotally, 'This works for me,' I think there's a lot of power in people being able to see with their own eyes what's happening to someone else," she said. "I think that's the makings of a fad, particularly if a celebrity gets caught on to it or if a person has a lot of followers on Facebook or Instagram social media, posting those types of images is very powerful for people." For her part, Basbaum said that restricting oneself to that extent gives some dieters a feeling of control because it limits their margin of error.  "But at the end of the day, these diets that ask you to either eat only one thing or ask you to eliminate an entire nutrient  take no fat or no carbohydrates at all  they don't work. They work for a time just like all diets," she added. "But they don't work for everybody and they're not sustainable. What happens when you go off of it?" In popular culture, the popular novel The Martian (which was adapted into a 2015 feature film) featured a subplot in which stranded astronaut Mark Watney grew potatoes on the surface of Mars and ate them to keep himself alive. Subsequent research by the International Potato Center (CIP) in Peru produced "encouraging results" regarding the prospect of growing potato crops on the red planet. research produced "With this study, we have the basis for contributing to the so-called 'Bioregenerative Food System' proposed by space agencies, based on a space agriculture using local resources  such as soil  in future missions to Mars," lead researcher David Ramirez said at the time. Pawlowski, A.  "'Spud Fit': Man Loses 115 Pounds Eating Nothing But Potatoes for a Year."
  The Today Show.  19 December 2016. BBC News.  "Is a Potato-Only Diet Good for You?"
  29 November 2010. Saltzman, Sammy.  "Chris Voigt Ends Potato-Only Protest Diet: Why?"
  CBS News.  30 November 2010. International Potato Center.  "Crop Harvested Under Red Planet Conditions Will Set Course for Martian Farming."
  18 December 2015. International Potato Center.  "Research Reveals Potential for Growing Potatoes on Mars, And Challenging Areas of Earth."
  9 February 2018. FACT CHECK:  Did President Obama order that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people?  Claim:   President Obama ordered "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people.   false WHAT'S   President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging federal agencies to more frequently use behavioral research insights in the creation and adoption of policy.     WHAT'S   President Obama ordered that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on American citizens; President Obama specifically directed agencies to implement any form of behavioral insight usage; the word "experiment" appeared anywhere in the Executive Order. Example:    [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] President Barry ORDERS BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ON AMERICAN PUBLIC!! https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3  TheFightingIrishDame (@TheIrishDame) September 16, 2015 September 16, 2015   Shock Executive Order: Obama Authorizes Behavioral Experiments On U.S. Citizens: To A ... - https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe  State of Globe (@StateofGlobe) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Obama Executive Order Instructs Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens: https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e  Bill Periman (@BillPeriman) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Origins:   On 15 September 2015 the web site Daily Caller published an article titled "President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments on American Public" which claimed that the chief executive had "authorized federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens": President Obama announced a new executive order which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives. The article was aggregated by other news outlets such as DC Clothesline, which similarly claimed the President's executive order had instructed "Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens": Does anyone actually believe "behavioral experiments" on the US citizenry are about "designing government policies to better serve the American people?" Think Pavlov's dog. And, can someone point to the Constitution and show where government has the authority to "experiment" on the citizenry in any shape, form or fashion? It's not there. Government possesses no authority whatsoever to conduct any type of experimentation, behavioral or otherwise, on the citizens of this nation. Both Daily Caller and DC Clothesline used the phrase "behavioral experiments" (conjuring up frightening scenarios of federal gaslighting), and the second article placed the phrase in quotes, suggesting specifically that the Obama administration had "ordered" sinister-sounding "behavioral experiments" be inflicted upon Americans. The 15 September 2015 Executive Order referenced by the articles is available on the White House's web site for open review. Tellingly, the word "experiments" does not appear anywhere within it; only words such as "encourage[d]," "identify," "review," and "improve." The executive order about "Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" actually decreed: web site decreed To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. Alongside the Executive Order, the White House issued a document titled "Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order; White House Announces New Steps to Improve Federal Programs by Leveraging Research Insights." Aiming to provide details not included on the Executive Order about how "behavioral insights" could apply to the creation and implementation of policy, that document explained: document Behavioral science insights  research insights about how people make decisions  not only identify aspects of programs that can act as barriers to engagement, but also provide policymakers with insight into how those barriers can be removed through commonsense steps, such as simplifying communications and making choices more clear. That same study on financial aid found that streamlining the process of applying  by providing families with assistance and enabling families to automatically fill parts of the application using information from their tax return  increased the rates of both aid applications and college enrollment. When these insights are used to improve government, the returns can be significant. For instance, the Federal Government applied behavioral science insights to simplify the process of applying for Federal student aid and has made college more accessible to millions of American families. Similarly, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which codified the practice of automatically enrolling workers into retirement savings plans, is based on behavioral economics research showing that switching from an opt-in to an opt-out enrollment system dramatically increases participation rates. Since the implementation of this policy, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation have led to billions of dollars in additional savings by Americans. Another germane fact sheet tidbit came in the form of detail pertaining to a new committee formed to facilitate the order's initiatives: The Executive Order also formally establishes the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), a group of experts in applied behavioral science that translates findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences into improvements in Federal policies and programs for the benefit of the American people. The passage excerpted above indicated that behavioral insights data targeted by the initiative stemmed not from government-led "behavioral experiments," but rather "findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences."  Another passage supported inferences that non-governmental research groups would be tasked with submitting the bulk of relevant findings to the SBST for consideration in the drafting of future policy: The Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA) is launching a Behavioral Science and Policy Series to identify promising avenues for applying behavioral science to public policy at the Federal level in order to improve Americans' lives. Through this series, by September 2016, working groups will deliver white papers that propose particular applications of behavioral science that can be applied, tested, and implemented at the Federal level in the near term. A less harrowing interpretation of the executive order than that fostered by conservative news sites was offered by the Houston Chronicle in a 17 September 2015 article: article Dr. Andrew Harper, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Texas Health Medical School, said behavioral science is an old discipline, used to maximize communication effectiveness, that is only now being applied to government-authored materials. "For example in healthcare there are simple things we want people to do  eat a balanced diet, sleep well," he said. "When just saying 'do it' doesn't work, we look to behavioral science to inform us on strategies that might work better." According to the executive order, research will be used to inform even the basic layout of federal agencies websites and other outreach information. The newly-founded team will consider "how the content, format, timing and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals." In other words, researchers will conduct clinical studies to determine how agencies could more effectively present information in a way that will move people to action. The Executive Order didn't come to pass without some objections, however. The University of Oxford's Practical Ethics in the News Blog featured an editorial that questioned how scientifically rigorous the selection and application of such data might be, implying the initiative's mission was too ambiguous. Author Joshua Shepherd conceded that the proposal was overall "a good thing," but said "the order raises a number of ethical and practical issues": editorial Given recent evidence that many results from experimental and social psychology fail to replicate, there might be reason to worry here. The executive order does not define what counts as an 'insight' from behavioral science. Is it the result of one study? A couple? Deployment of an insight that is nothing more than an experimental artifact could be damaging, or wasteful. Suppose a genuine insight exists. Even so, implementing it is not straightforward. Other experts didn't think that the potential flaws outweighed the benefits. University of Michigan professor Andrew Hoffman outlined the potential practical effects of such initiatives on policy in a Scientific American article, positing that their application to the drafting of policy was "long overdue": article [Hoffman] says that people might react rebelliously to a gas tax imposed by the government. A rise in its cost spurred by market forces, on the other hand, might prompt them to drive less. In that way, federal policies should consider the complicated ways that people filter, interpret and process messages. You can't expect to put a price on something  whether that's gas, plastic bags or emissions  and get an expected result, he said. These are things that sociology, psychology, political science have been focusing on for decades, Hoffman said. So to bring in the notion that humans are not perfectly rational, utility-maximizing beings in the formation of policy is long overdue. It is true that President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging and facilitating the application of behavioral research insights, with a stated goal of creating more efficient policy and stronger compliance. Moreover, some credible questions were raised about how rigorous standards for inclusion of such data might be. But the order neither referenced nor described "behavioral experimentation" upon the American people, nor did it in any way suggest that the order's details involved using anything other than existing, ongoing research carried out by social and behavioral science experts. Last updated:     17 September 2015 Originally published:   17 September 2015 House Democrats are advocating legislation that would send Americans a new round of checks to help with financial problems caused by the coronavirus pandemic. A Facebook post says that under their proposal, immigrants in the country illegally also stand to benefit, getting billions of dollars. Pelosis new coronavirus bill allows illegals to receive billions in relief funds in past, current, and future payments, said text over a photo of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi holding a gavel, with a crowd of people, purportedly immigrants, in the background. The caption on the May 12Facebook postsaidthe payments would not just be a one-time check, they would give them past, current any future payments of YOUR money as 33 million Americans are unemployed. The post is from We Build The Wall, Inc., a group that's raising money to build sections of barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. The post was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnership with Facebook.) Pelosi does support a bill that would allow immigrants who are in the country illegally and who pay taxes to get coronavirus emergency aid from the federal government. But the Facebook post needs clarification and additional information. The Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act, or theHEROES Act, was introduced May 12 and passed the House May 15,208-199, with only one Republican vote. Among thekey provisionsof the roughly $3 trillion bill, it gives nearly $1 trillion to state and local governments, creates a $200 billion hazard-pay fund for essential workers, and provides $75 billion to support coronavirus testing, contact tracing and patient isolation. The bill also offers a new round of direct payments to families  $1,200 per person and up to $6,000 per household. The payments would go out to people who filed tax returns for 2018 or 2019 (and to some who didnt), with the total amount based on income. For instance, a single person who earned less than $75,000 would get $1,200; those who earned $75,000 or more would receive less. The proposal seeks to augment the financial assistance that started mid-April when one-time checks were sent under theCoronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act. Under the CARES Act, however, U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents were ineligible for a check if they filed a joint tax return with a spouse who used anIndividual Taxpayer Identification Number, or ITIN. ITINs are issued by the IRS to people who dont have a Social Security number, including immigrants in the country illegally, so they can use it to pay federal income taxes. (Some international students and researchers and their spouses also use ITINs.) The IRS in 2014saidITIN filers pay over $9 billion in annual payroll taxes. RELATED:Claim about stimulus check eligibility for Americans married to immigrants missing context Pelosi and other House Democrats havesaidthat mixed-status families should not have been left out of the CARES Act. So the proposed HEROES Act includes them in its aid package, and retroactively makes ITIN filers eligible for the CARES Act payment as well. The left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, using IRS data,estimatedthat this provision would benefit more than 4.3 million adults and 3.5 million children in households of ITIN filers or of mixed immigration status, paying them a total $16.4 billion ($7 billion under the CARES Act and $9.4 billion under the HEROES Act). The beneficiary figures include ITIN filers as well as their spouses and children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Meg Wiehe, deputy executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said it was difficult to discern from the IRS data exactly how many prospective beneficiaries are immigrants in the U.S. illegally. Julia Gelatt, senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said a lot of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents can get support through unemployment insurance, stimulus payments, food stamps and other public benefits. ITINs are used for federal tax reporting, but they do not provide legal immigration status, and immigrants in the country illegally are generallyineligiblefor federal public benefits, such as food stamps. The goal of the HEROES Act, as it relates to unauthorized immigrants and their family members, is to help people who are struggling financially and who have no access to other financial support, Gelatt said. The HEROES Act financial assistance isnt exclusive to ITIN filers; U.S. citizens and green-card holders who file taxes using a Social Security number would also benefit, with the same aid amounts and income thresholds. The payments to all eligible people are estimated to costmore than $400 billion. A Facebook post said, Pelosis new coronavirus bill allows illegals to receive billions in relief funds in past, current, and future payments. The HEROES Act, a proposal backed by Pelosi, would allow immigrants who are in the country illegally and who pay taxes to receive federal relief funds during the coronavirus pandemic. Immigrants who pay taxes using an ITIN would be eligible for an aid payment under the HEROES Act, and retroactively under the CARES Act, which corresponds to the current and past payments cited in the post. Its unclear what is meant by future payment. We contacted We Build the Wall for comment, but did not hear back. A tax policy group estimated that if the HEROES Act became law as written, about $16.4 billion would go to households of ITIN filers or of mixed status. Beneficiaries would include U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who live in a household with an ITIN filer. The post is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True.