Is a Woman the Family 'Breadwinner' for Running a Foster Care Scam?
The item reproduced below originated as an e-mail sent to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh in July 2010 by Dr. Sebastian J. Ciancio, a urologist practicing in Danville, Illinois. In that e-mail, the doctor encouraged the radio host to "share this story with your listeners so that they know how the ruling class spends their tax dollars." In this example collected from the Snopes inbox in August 2010: I was speaking to an emergency room physician this morning. He told me that a woman in her 20's came to the ER with her 8th pregnancy. She stated "my momma told me that I am the breadwinner for the family." He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money for the family. The scam goes like this: The grandma calls the Department of Children and Family Services and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for these children. DCFS agrees and states that the child or children will need to go to foster care. The grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and thus receives a check for $1500 per child per month in Illinois. Total yearly income: $144,000 tax-free, not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid) plus a monthly "Link" card entitling her to free groceries, etc, and a voucher for 250 free cell phone minutes per month. This does not even include WIC and other welfare programs. Indeed, grandma was correct in that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" in the family. Variations: In December 2010 the following photograph was added to circulating versions of this item, even though the pictured family has no connection to the story and no mention of race appeared in the original text:  In 2014, the setting was moved from Illinois to Florida. The gist of this "story" is the claim that an Illinois woman who was pregnant with her eighth child (while still in her 20's) admitted to an emergency room physician that she was deliberately having children and giving them up to foster care in order to earn money for her family, with her grandmother volunteering to raise the children and collecting $1,500 per month from the state for each child, for an annual tax-free income of $144,000 (plus additional benefits). Is the story true? It's a second-hand account, and Dr. Ciancio declined to identify the physician who supposedly told it to him, which makes verification of that aspect of the tale difficult. Nonetheless, whatever a pregnant patient may have told an unnamed emergency room physician, the scenario described simply isn't possible. According to payment rates published by the State of Illinois' Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), monthly payments for licensed relative home care range from $384 to $471 per child, depending upon the age of the child: payment rates  The maximum monthly payment (for a child age 12 and over) is $471 per month, not $1,500 per month, so the largest amount of money a foster parent caring for eight children would receive in a month (assuming all of those children were at least 12 years old) would be $3,768, for an annual total of $45,216  a far cry from the $144,000 yearly income claimed above. (And even the $45,216 figure is a generous projection, given that it's an obvious impossibility for a woman who is pregnant with her eighth child to already have eight children all over the age of twelve.) Pickel, Mary Lou.  "Tea Party at the Capitol."
  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  28 February 2009.
The author of a Wisconsin income tax overhaul sees the flat tax in the Flatland to the south as a beacon for Republicans trying to ease the Badger States heavy tax burden on the middle class. We have a long ways to go in Wisconsin, state Rep. Dale Kooyenga, R-Brookfield,told reporters.Everyone in Illinois pays 5 percent. Illinois millionaires  pay less of a rate in taxes than Wisconsins lower income, middle-class families. Researchers deem Illinois personal income tax structure regressive because a uniform tax rate ultimately takes a bigger bite from lower incomes than higher ones. Wisconsin pioneered the opposite approach, a progressive system in which tax rates rise with earnings. Kooyenga argues change is long overdue. Wisconsin was the first state to enact an income tax in 1911, he  wrote in a May 27, 2013postingon the conservative Right Wisconsin website. The complexity of the Wisconsin tax code has exponentially grown as Madison politicians believed the tax code was their magic wand which could be used to accomplish political and social objectives. His conclusion: As a direct result, our tax code picks winners and losers and is one of the most progressive tax codes in the country. Kooyengas plan reduces rates and collapses several tax brackets. It comes on top of Gov. Scott Walkers tax-cut proposal. Combined they reduce taxes by nearly $790 million over two years. Top earners would likely receive the majority of the $444 million in tax savings under Kooyengas plan, and those with modest incomes would land in the same tax bracket as very high earners, theJournal Sentinel reported.Kooyenga acknowledges that, but says everyone deserves tax relief and that the top 10 percent right now pay over 50 percent of the tax revenue in Wisconsin. But Kooyengas claim wasnt about the impact of his plan. Rather it was about the tax system as it stands today. Does Wisconsin have one of the most progressive tax codes in the country? The rankings Kooyengas plan focuses on the personal income tax, so well confine our analysis to that rather than all taxes in the code. We found two 50-state studies comparing income tax burdens by income level, and Kooyenga cited the same research when we asked him for backup. AMarch 2013 studyof 2010 tax data by the non-partisanMinnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, a research organization, concluded that: -- Among 42 states with an income tax (and the District of Columbia), Wisconsin is the 9th most-progressive when comparing married couples with $10,000 of gross income to those with incomes of $150,000, $250,000, $500,000 and $1 million. -- Wisconsins ranking drops lower, in a range from 11th to 15th most progressive, when comparing a couple earning $35,000 to each of those four higher levels. The ranks were 11, 12, 15 and 15. Minnesota came in number 2. The second study cited by Kooyenga is aJanuary 2013 examinationby the nonpartisan, liberalInstitute on Taxation and Economic Policy(ITEP) in Washington, D.C. (The group is a partner organization to Citizens for Tax Justice, which hascriticized the Walker and Kooyenga tax cutsas costly and regressive. Also, on May 30, 2013, ITEP released areview of Kooyengas plan, concluding that the top 20 percent of earners, a group with an average income of $183,000, would receive more than two-thirds of the benefit.) In any event, the groups earlier 50-state study -- the one cited by Kooyenga to back up his claim -- found that Wisconsins income tax was the 12th most progressive in the nation. That ranking is not revealed in the report, which deals with a broader variety of state and local taxes, but the group made it available to us from its unpublished database. So, the two studies rank the income tax here in a range from 9th to 15th most progressive. That puts Wisconsin among the top 21 to 36 percent of most progressive income tax states, depending on the comparison point and the study. Of course, thats just among the states that levy a personal income tax -- the tax that is the main way to add a progressive element to a tax system. Four states that dont levy a personal income tax are on the ITEPs top-10 most regressive list for their overall tax systems, so its safe to say Wisconsins income tax approach is more progressive than in those additional states that dont even use this progressive tool. Of the two studies, the ITEP research is more up to date, but is limited to non-elderly taxpayers. It, unlike the Minnesota study, accounted for the effect of reductions that Walker initiated in 2011 in the earned income tax credit for low-income workers, a cut of 19 percent, or $56 million over two years. That change made the income tax less progressive, but we dont know how it affected Wisconsins ranking vs. other states, some of whom made similar changes. Digging deeper From the ITEP study, Kooyenga highlighted tables showing that Wisconsins top 20 percent of earners pay an effective income tax rate considerably higher than the national average. Similarly, for the lowest 20 percent, Wisconsins burden is lower than the 50-state average. Thats true, and it demonstrates the progressive nature of the Wisconsin system. The progressive income tax offsets the regressive effect, for example, of the sales tax. Aside from the graduated rate structure that rises with income, the states sliding standard deduction is powerfully progressive, as is the itemized deduction credit, notes Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance president Todd Berry. But the ITEP study also shows that by the time earnings reach an average of $28,000, Wisconsins personal income tax bite is already over the national average for the second 20 percent. PolitiFact Wisconsin in November 2012 reviewed a claim by state Rep. Robin Vos that on income taxes, Wisconsin is one of the best places in the country to be poor but top 4 or 5 worst for middle-income earners. We rated itMostly True. Wisconsin, in the 2013 ITEP study, is not singled out as at the very highest end as either progressive or regressive. Unlike most states, Wisconsin allows a large capital gains tax break, ITEP executive director Matthew Gardner wrote in an email. Since the benefits of this tax break go primarily to the best-off taxpayers, the capital gains tax break makes Wisconsins income tax much less progressive than you would think from just looking at the tax rates. Gardner said it would be reasonable to say that Wisconsin is in the upper tier of least regressive states based on its #12 ranking. But, in his view, its hard to describe the Wisconsin income tax -- or the tax system as a whole -- as among the most progressive in the US. In the Minnesota study, the rankings drop quite a bit when the comparison income is set at $35,000 instead of $10,000. The reason for that is related to the tax credits for very low earners that we mentioned earlier. Wisconsin has a prominent credit, helping to account for its progressive ranking. Such credits phase out as income rises, however, so those people would have a tax liability, unlike lower earners whose bill is wiped out by the credit, said Aaron Twait, research director at the Minnesota center. A few other states keep the credits in place at higher incomes, bumping up their progressive rating. Kooyenga could have balanced off some of the regressive effect of his plan by increasing tax credits for very low-income earners. But he notes that many workers in that category receive the credit even though they did not earn enough wages to have Wisconsin taxes withheld. Its a wage supplement in the form of a refund. That, in Kooyengas view, is one of the inappropriate social objectives in the tax code, his office told us. Our rating PItching his plan to begin flattening the Wisconsin state income tax code, Kooyenga said Wisconsin has one of the most progressive tax codes in the country. Kooyenga was talking about income taxes, and its clear from two national studies that Wisconsins tax is more progressive than two-thirds to four-fifths of the states that levy such a tax, depending on the study. So Wisconsin is clearly in the upper tier, but not in elite of the elite. We rate the claim Mostly True. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survived a recall vote this month, prompting pundits to weigh in on what that means for public sector unions that had campaigned aggressively for his ouster. Remember, Walker is the Republican governor who pushed through a number of changes unfriendly to organized labor in the Badger State, including an end to automatic union dues deductions from public paychecks.Here in the Beaver State,Steve Bucksteinof theCascade Policy Institute, a think tank that promotes limited government,tweeted: Did you know Wisconsin's AFSCME union has lost 50%+ of its members since no longer requiring membership? The tweet links to a June 14 online post by Buckstein called End Forced Unionism Now, where he quotes from an opinion column by syndicated writerCharles Krauthammer, also published in The Oregonian:Without the thumb of the state tilting the scale by coerced collection, union membership became truly voluntary. Result? Newly freed members rushed for the exits. In less than one year, AFSCME, the second largest public-sector union in Wisconsin, has lost more than 50 percent of its membership.The question is a simple one: Did membership in Wisconsins American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees drop by 50 percent since dues became optional?Heres a quick reminder of what happened in Wisconsin: In March 2011, Walker signed a bill that drastically changed bargaining rights for some but not all state, local and school employees. As pointed out by Krauthammer, dues are no longer taken out of paychecks automatically, curtailing the unions money base.According to PolitiFact Wisconsin, the law limits the ability of public unions to bargain collectively for anything except raises controlled for inflation. It ended bargaining over benefits, overtime and work conditions. Unions have to recertify every year with fresh votes. And he increased employee contributions for pensions and health care.We asked Buckstein for his sourcing; he said he relied on the Krauthammer column. Krauthammer cites no source for the information, but a quick check online shows a May 30 news article in the Wall Street Journal: Wisconsin Unions See Ranks Drop Ahead of Recall Vote.The reporters write that membership in the states second-largest public-sector union fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed AFSCME's figures. That is indeed more than half its membership. Another story in the Wall Street Journal a few days later puts the drop at 45 percent.The union disputed the figures then, and disputes them now to PolitiFact Oregon. However, Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, declined to give updated figures, saying that even people on the inside dont have an accurate count. Certainly numbers are down, they say. (A spokesman for Walker said the state does not have figures. )But what the union really objects to is the underlying premise in the syndicated column, and by association, Bucksteins post: That premise is that union membership numbers dropped dramatically because people were given a choice between joining a union or not joining a union.According to the original Wall Street Journal news article, some members didnt re-up because of the financial pinch of health care and pension costs. Bargaining was so curtailed that anotherfact check by PolitiFact Wisconsinfound four experts who agreed the law could mean the end of some public unions in Wisconsin.Buckstein acknowledges that numbers probably went down more in Wisconsin because of the changes as a whole. But he stands by the idea that more members may opt out when deductions become optional.Oregon is a great example, he says. A check with the Department of Administrative Services finds that 24 percent of the more than 24,000 people eligible to be represented by the states two biggest state government unions pay a share in lieu of member dues. In other words, they pay in, but are not members. The fair-share option may not be available to all employees, and depends on the terms of the bargaining contract. In either case, the money is deducted automatically from workers paychecks.People on various sides of the political spectrum have their own theories about why there was a decrease in Wisconsin: higher premiums, limited bargaining subjects, complicated recertification votes, optional dues, all or some, or none of the above. We cant rule on reason.What we can rule on is that membership has gone down about 50 percent, according to news reports, since Walker implemented his changes. That decrease may or may not hold when numbers finally shake out. The tweet is accurate, but needs additional information.We rule the statement Mostly True. One of President Barack Obamas signature issues at the moment is a push to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour. Its such a popular policy, he said in aspeechon March 5, 2014, that even Republicans have little quarrel with it. When I talk about (raising the) minimum wage, Obama said, not only is it good policy, but the majority of the country, including half of Republicans, agree with it. We wondered whether polling data backed up this claim. So we looked at independent polls taken recently that asked about the minimum wage. A review of the polling data suggests a more nuanced situation than Obamas claim suggests. Our first look at the data showed that a minimum-wage hike is popular among Americans broadly. For instance, when theCBS News-New York Timespollasked, Do you favor or oppose raising the minimum wage to $10.10? in February 2014, the poll found 65 percent support. And that was actually down a bit from the 72 percent support registered in the January edition of the poll. Similarly, aPew Research Center/USA Todaypoll from January asked whether respondents supported an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour and found 73 percent support. But what about Republicans specifically? More than half of Republicans favor a minimum-wage increase, polls found, but in most of these polls, less than half of Republicans supported raising the wage to $10.10, the amount Obama is seeking. One poll that did not specify a target amount for the minimum-wage hike was conducted byQuinnipiac University. It asked, Would you support or oppose raising the national minimum wage, which is now $7.25 an hour? Among Republicans, 52 percent expressed support, while 45 percent said they opposed it. That provides some support to Obamas claim. But once respondents were asked by other pollsters about the $10.10 figure -- a roughly 40 percent increase from todays federal minimum wage -- Republican support sagged. The clearest example is aCBS-New York Timespollfrom February that asked, As you may know, the federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour. Do you favor or oppose raising the minimum wage to $10.10? Republicans expressed 42 percent support, 54 percent opposition. Another clear example was anABC News-Washington Postpollfrom December, 2013 that asked, The minimum wage in this country is now $7.25 an hour. What do you think it should be? Among Republicans, only 21 percent favored keeping it the same or lowering it, but even fewer respondents -- 7 percent -- favored a minimum wage in excess of $10. Two other polls showed Republican support close to 50 percent, but falling just short. However, the differences were within the margin of sampling error -- it's possible that more than half of Republicans were in support of a $10.10 wage, though also possible that the actual support level was even lower than the official result. ACBS-New York Timespollfrom January that asked the same question as the February poll found that Republicans expressed 48 percent support, 51 percent opposition to a $10.10 wage. And anNBC News-Wall Street Journalpollfrom December 2013asked, I'm going to mention a number of different amounts and for each one, please tell me if you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose raising the hourly minimum wage to that amount. When presented with the $10.10 rate, 47 percent of Republicans expressed support. One poll clearly supported Obamas position. The JanuaryPew Research Center/USA Todaypoll found 53 percent of Republicans backing a $10.10 minimum wage, with 43 percent opposed. The significance of the $10.10 figure is not academic. According to a March 6accountin theWashington Post, early last year, White House strategists rejected (the $10.10 figure), worried that it could destroy jobs and anger the business community just as the regulation-heavy Affordable Care Act was about to take effect. Instead, former officials say, the White House settled on a more cautious path,unveiling a $9-an-hour minimum wageproposal  a target even lower than Obamahad proposedduring the 2008 campaign. However, thePostreported, the lower amount disappointed advocates for the working poor, as well as congressional Democrats, who were already pushing to set the $7.25 wage closer to $10 an hour. Over the past year, Obama reconsidered, casting off initial concerns in favor of unifying his party ahead of this falls midterm elections. In other words, White House officials had long realized there was a difference in the degree of public support for a $10.10 minimum wage and a smaller hike, so it would be misleading for Obama to now imply that majority Republican support for an unspecified minimum-wage hike means that Republicans automatically support the presidents proposal to raise the wage to $10.10. Our ruling Obama said, When I talk about (raising the) minimum wage ... half of Republicans agree with it. Republicans do support a minimum-wage hike if you don't specify a dollar figure. But once you mention the $10.10 target Obama wants, his case gets shakier. We rate the claim Mostly True. As President Donald Trump prepared on 8 January 2019 to deliver a televised speech to the nation making the case for billions of dollars to construct a wall along the roughly 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, some social media users circulated an inaccurate meme containing the claim that the preceding Obama administration, with the help of Democratic lawmakers Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, had given Iran $150 billion in cash.   President Trump battled Congress over his request for $5.7 billion to fulfill a 2016 campaign promise to "build the wall." The resulting impasse over budget appropriations for the wall's construction led to a protracted shutdown of the federal government. build the wall impasse shutdown As with many memes, the one above paired two topics that were unrelated to each other, along with a generous helping of inaccuracy. The "enemy of the U.S." referred to Iran, which was never given a $150 billion cash payment by President Barack Obama with the help of Pelosi and Schumer. Instead, billions of dollars worth of Iranian assets were unfrozen as a result of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated with that country, which had nothing to do with the U.S. federal budget or border wall construction. nuclear deal Trump floated the "$150 billion" figure in conjunction with his desired border wall construction in a 12 December 2018 Twitter post: The Democrats and President Obama gave Iran 150 Billion Dollars and got nothing, but they cant give 5 Billion Dollars for National Security and a Wall?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2018 December 12, 2018 The $150 billion figure is an estimate of the value of Iranian assets that were unfrozen as a result of Iran's agreeing to the terms of the nuclear agreement reached with seven nations in 2015, including the U.S., an agreement formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In other words, Iran gained access to assets that already belonged to them, assets that had been frozen in various financial institutions around the world due to sanctions imposed to curb Irans nuclear program. But Iran didn't get $150 billion in cash, nor did they receive any money at all from U.S. taxpayers -- they only regained access to assets that had been frozen in several different countries (not just the U.S.), and the $150 billion figure was merely an upper estimate. agreement Moreover, that $150 billion figure was the highest estimate of the value of Iran's frozen assets, with multiple sources reporting much lower figures. For example, Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, supplied written testimony to a U.S. Senate committee in August 2015 stating that U.S. assessment of the total liquid assets Iran would regain control of as a result of the nuclear agreement was "a little more than $50 billion": testimony We must also be measured and realistic in understanding what sanctions relief will really mean to Iran. Estimates of total Central Bank of Iran (CBI) foreign exchange assets worldwide are in the range of $100 to $125 billion. Our assessment is that Irans usable liquid assets after sanctions relief will be much lower, at a little more than $50 billion. The other $50-70 billion of total CBI foreign exchange assets are either obligated in illiquid projects (such as over 50 projects with China) that cannot be monetized quickly, if at all, or are composed of outstanding loans to Iranian entities that cannot repay them. These assets would not become accessible following sanctions relief. Nader Habibi, professor of economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University, told us via email his best estimate was that between $30 billion and $50 billion of unfrozen funds were made available to Iran as a result of the deal. On 8 May 2018, President Trump announced that he was pulling the U.S. out of the nuclear deal with Iran, which had been negotiated over the course of two years. Associated Press.  "Democrats and Obama Did Not Give $150 Billion to Iran."
  14 December 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie.  "Schumer and Pelosi Tap Themselves to Respond to Trump Speech."
  The New York Times.  8 January 2019. Bozorgmehr, Najmeh.  "Iran to Keep Most Unfrozen Overseas Assets in Foreign Banks."
  Financial Times.  8 February 2016. Cunningham, Erin, and Bijan Sabbagh.  "Iran to Negotiate with Europeans, Russia and China About Remaining in Nuclear Deal."
  The Washington Post. 8 May 2018. Dahl, Fredrik.  "Iran Has $100 Billion Abroad, Can Draw $4.2 Billion: U.S. Official."
  Reuters.  17 January 2014. Habibi, Nader. " Irans Frozen Funds: How Much Is Really There and How Will They Be Used?"
  The Conversation.  11 August 2015. In December 2021, a video was circulated on social media that supposedly showed a "human sleeve," an artificial replacement body that would allow a person to "live" for eternity by using their stored consciousness. The conspiratorial website "Before Its News," for example, shared this video claiming that it showed a "whistleblowers" video of clones in Hollywood:   The video, which can be viewed below, does not show a "human sleeve" or a clone. This video features a marketing display for the show "Altered Carbon." A posting of the "human sleeve" video went viral after it was posted to TikTok in October.    This video shows a booth at the 2018 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas. While the presenters at this booth acted as if they were showcasing new cloning technology, this was really just a marketing ploy by Netflix for their new show "Altered Carbon." The Wrap reported at the time: Wrap reported Wandering through the seemingly never-ending Las Vegas Convention Center on Tuesday, it was hard to miss the crowd gathered around around the PsychaSec display. Hosts draped in all-white were showing off two artificial bodies that, in a few years, humans could pay to trade their own crappy body for. At the same time, the host touted the companys ability to plant chips into a persons head and download every experience and memory theyve had. Sounds pretty trippy, right? Unfortunately, PsychaSec isnt real. But even the CIA wouldve had a hard time getting the booth hosts to admit it ...  I pulled aside another tall, attractive young host and told her just give me the truth: this is just a cool ad for Netflix. She kept smiling and towed the itll be out in a few years line. I then pointed out gullible people, like me, were walking away confused because they were displayed next to real products and wouldnt acknowledge Netflix at all. Finally, I got her to give me a wink, confirming its all a put-on. Thank you. Here's another video of this "Altered Carbon" advertisement that features the same two "human sleeves."  In Engadget's write-up of the event, they also noted that Netflix's "Psychasec" booth may have been a little too convincing: also noted Venture beyond tech whales like Samsung and Sony, beyond the rows of smart speakers and giant TVs, and you'll discover that there are weirder things to be found at CES. That might be why Netflix's trojan horse public relations move, establishing a fictional vendor booth deep within the Las Vegas Convention Center, worked a little too well. Well, I cheated. I was already briefed (through a press release) that "Psychasec" wasn't a genuine CES exhibitor, despite this full-fledged stall you see here. Nope, this is a fictional company from Altered Carbon, the next big-budget sci-fi series from Netflix, which seems to borrow heavily from Blade Runner, at least in visual delivery. The video of "human sleeves" does not show any real cloning technology. This video actually features a marketing stunt by Netflix for the series "Altered Carbon" that was put on display at CES in 2018.    Burch, Sean. Netflix Really Wants You To Believe #PsychaSec Is Real. https://www.thewrap.com/ces2018-netflix-really-wants-you-to-believe-psychasec-is-real/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2021. Johnson, Lauren and 2018. The Most Disturbing Booth at CES Is Actually an Ad for Netflixs New Sci-Fi Show. https://www.adweek.com/performance-marketing/the-most-disturbing-booth-at-ces-is-actually-an-ad-for-netflixs-new-sci-fi-show/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2021. Netflix Hid a Fake Biotech Booth in the Middle of CES. Engadget, https://www.engadget.com/2018-01-10-netflix-fake-ces-2018-altered-carbon.html. Accessed 10 Dec. 2021. Claim:  President Obama said women should not choose to be stay-at-home-moms.  Example:  [Collected via email, November 2014] Obama wants stay at home moms back in workforce  Obama does not like stay at home moms.  Many sites are reporting that Obama doesn't want women to be stay-at-home moms based on this speech.  Obama's speech on Stay at Home Moms Aren't worth a Hill of Beans....also, it's a choice we don't want Americans to make.  Video with comment by President Obama on Stay-at-Home Moms: 'That's Not a Choice We Want Americans to Make.' I'm just seeing this posted on Facebook and wondering if it's true or taken out of context. Origins:  On 31 October 2014, President Obama delivered a speech titled "Remarks by the President on Women and the Economy" at Rhode Island College in Providence. Plucked from the context of a broader speech about paid leave for parents and general household costs such as daycare, one snippet of the President's words grabbed the attention of political blogs and social media users. A short portion of the President's remarks became a story unto themselves following the speech, with a common claim attached to those words holding that President Obama had "slammed stay-at-home moms" in the cited portion of his speech. One widely-circulated extract from his remarks read that way to some who hadn't caught the entire speech: Sometimes, someone ... usually mom ... leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. That's not a choice we want Americans to make. So let's make this happen. By the end of this decade, let's enroll 6 million children in high quality preschool ...  Taken out of context, it appeared to some President Obama  was advocating all stay-at-home moms should return to the workforce without question and place their children in government-run preschools (presumably ones of questionable quality, or, at the very least, schools chosen by the government and not by the families themselves). What President Obama actually said, however, did not pertain to the worth of stay-at-home moms versus that of working parents. Explaining his recent experiences in discussing the challenges that mothers in the workforce face, President Obama said: I kept on hearing about my mom struggling to put herself through school, or my grandmother hitting that glass ceiling. And I thought about Michelle, and I told some stories about when Michelle and I were younger and getting starting, and we were struggling to balance two careers while raising a family.  And my job forced me to travel a lot, which made it harder on Michelle, and we would feel some of the guilt that so many people feel  we're working, we're thinking about the kids, we're wondering whether we're bad parents, we're wondering whether we were doing what we need to do on the job.  And as the catch-22 of working parents, we wanted to spend time with our kids, but we also wanted to make sure that we gave them the opportunities that our hard work was providing.  And then, of course, I think about my daughters.  And the idea that my daughters wouldn't have the same opportunities as somebody's sons  well, that's unacceptable.  That's not acceptable. President Obama then addressed the advances women have made in education and in graduating college and continued by explaining females are disproportionately affected by a lack of protective policy pertaining to sick leave and paid family leave: But here's the challenge  that's all good news  the challenge is, our economy and some of the laws and rules governing our workplaces haven't caught up with that reality.  A lot of workplaces haven't caught up with that reality.  So while many women are working hard to support themselves and their families, they're still facing unfair choices, outdated workplace policies.  That holds them back, but it also holds all of us back.  We have to do better, because women deserve better.  And, by the way, when women do well, everybody does well. So women deserve a day off to care for a sick child or sick parent without running into hardship.  And Rhode Island has got the right idea.  You're one of just three states where paid family leave is the law of the land.  (Applause.)  More states should choose to follow your lead. The quoted bit came soon thereafter. President Obama made a case for paid leave and for the economic gains to be had if daycare and preschool were affordable to all mothers. He said: THE PRESIDENT: Without paid leave, when a baby arrives or an aging parent needs help, workers have to make painful decisions about whether they can afford to be there when their families need them most.  Many women can't even get a paid day off to give birth to their child.  I mean, there are a lot of companies that still don't provide maternity leave.  Of course, dads should be there, too.  So let's make this happen for women and for men, and make our economy stronger.  (Applause.)  We've got to broaden our laws for family leave. Moms and dads deserve a great place to drop their kids off every day that doesn't cost them an arm and a leg.  We need better childcare, daycare, early childhood education policies.  (Applause.)  In many states, sending your child to daycare costs more than sending them to a public university.  AUDIENCE MEMBER:  True! THE PRESIDENT:  True.  (Laughter.)  And too often, parents have no choice but to put their kids in cheaper daycare that maybe doesn't have the kinds of programming that makes a big difference in a child's development.  And sometimes there may just not be any slots, or the best programs may be too far away.  And sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result.  And that's not a choice we want Americans to make. It's clear from the context of President Obama's full remarks on 31 October 2014 his view wasn't one that "slammed" stay-at-home moms and stated "we" don't want anyone to choose to be a stay-at-home mom; rather, the choice to which he referred was for women to fairly have the option of deciding whether to remain in the workforce or to stay at home with their children, without (in the latter case) having to lose their place on the employment ladder and thus be relegated to earning lower wages for the rest of their working lives.  In short, President Obama did not "slam" stay-at-home moms; he instead argued current policies affecting mothers are unfair and should be changed to allow, among other things, expanded maternity leave and affordable daycare and preschool options to ensure women have more choice in deciding how to balance their economic and family lives. remarks Last updated:  3 November 2014 In late October 2021, a misleading copypasta meme spread on Facebook that attributed port bottlenecks and shipping delays to "California's liberal trucking laws." The meme circulated on various platforms including Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. Here is a version of the meme that was posted to Facebook:   The meme above reads, in part: So ships are piling up at Long Beach waiting to get unloaded. The port is jammed full of containers with no place to stack more. The liberal media is blaming it on the trucking industry while the nation's store shelves are becoming bare ... Well there's more to the story. Could Gavin Newsom and California's liberal trucking laws be the blame ? ? The NEWS says the California port situation is caused by a driver shortage. Not so fast: It is in part caused by a California Truck Ban which says all trucks must be 2011 or newer and a law called AB 5 which prohibits Owner Operators. The two state laws mentioned are AB5, a 2019 law intended to prevent employers from wrongly classifying workers as contractors, and something called "California Truck Ban." The meme also mentions a September 2020 executive order by California Gov. Gavin Newsom that seeks to phase out fuel-burning vehicle engines by 2035 in an effort to combat global warming. AB5 executive order The meme is referencing congestion at the ports in San Pedro Bay in Southern California and the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, which collectively handle an estimated 40 percent of the nation's imports. The back-up is resulting in something of a crisis in shipping delays right before the 2021 winter holidays. congestion 40 percent crisis The meme above attempts to lay the blame for the crisis at the feet of Newsom, along with California labor and environmental laws. But from a broad perspective, the disruption in the supply chain is a global phenomenon sparked by a confluence of major calamities in 2020 and 2021, including labor shortages, facility closures, and an increased e-commerce demand resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, extreme weather, and a massive container ship that had become lodged in the Suez Canal for nearly a week. global phenomenon Here we will look at whether the two laws and executive order mentioned in the meme are to blame for the slowdown at the Southern California ports. There is no law called the "California Truck Ban." But from the description above  that "all trucks must be 2011 or newer"  it appears the post is referencing the California Truck and Bus Regulation. That regulation doesn't currently block registration of vehicles from the year 2010 and older, however. Regulation The Truck and Bus Regulation requires trucks serving the ports to have engines from 2010 or newer as of Jan. 1, 2023. If they don't, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) would deny registrations to non-compliant vehicles. But the rule, which was adopted in 2008, has taken effect gradually over several years. It's not new, whereas the situation at the L.A. and Long Beach ports in the fall of 2021 is acute. requires In an email, Stanley Young, spokesperson for the California Air Resource Board, told Snopes, "As of 2021 only trucks with engines older than 2005 would have their registration denied." Young added that 96 percent of the trucks currently serving the major ports in California are already compliant with the regulation. "Despite what you may have heard or read, there is simply no evidence to support any claims that the current congestion at our ports has any connection to the states efforts to clean up Californias trucks," Young stated. "Since trucks at major California ports have been required to have 2007 or newer engines since 2014, and since these engines are legal until at least 2023, its impossible that any shortage of vehicles at ports is the result of CARB regulations." Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) is a California law that went into effect in January 2020, although it has faced an onslaught of legal challenges preventing it from being implemented. The law is intended to prevent companies like Uber and Instacart from misclassifying so-called gig workers as independent contractors, rather than employees.  Truckers often operate under an "owner-operator" model, in which they own their own vehicles, which they then use to transport goods as contractors for trucking companies. Both the California Trucking Association (CTA) and freight transport company Cal Cartage Express filed legal challenges against AB 5. Cal Cartage lost its case but the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to decide whether to hear a petition by CTA. Until it does, AB 5 remains in limbo for the trucking industry. Matt Schrap, CEO of the the Harbor Trucking Association (which represents drayage truck companies serving the ports of L.A. and Long Beach) said it's not a shortage of truckers that's driving the delays, and pointing the finger at AB 5 doesn't take reality into account. Instead, Schrap said that the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns spurred an explosion of online buying that ramped up sharply during the pandemic lockdowns, and the ports of L.A. and Long Beach don't have the infrastructure to handle the sudden influx. explosion "Its like jamming ten lanes of freeway traffic into five lanes," Schrap said in a phone interview with Snopes. Currently, the bte noire for truckers and trucking companies at the ports of L.A. and Long Beach is an excess of empty shipping containers piling up at the ports, which often block truckers from picking up and dropping off cargo. "Were struggling with these empty containers," Schrap said. "That is really whats working us over." Schrap said he expects that the situation will start to improve, because with the sudden attention on the issue, officials are taking steps to help resolve it, like placing fees on cargo ship companies that leave behind empty containers, and potentially allowing empty container stacking on empty parcels of land at the ports. placing fees But these are just Bandaids on a larger problem, which is that the Southern California ports need investment in infrastructure to prevent crises like these, Schrap stressed. "Were in this problem because of the underinvestment in the infrastructure that supports the American consumers buying habits," Schrap said. "It's a temporary solution to a longstanding problem." Newsom issued an executive order in September 2020 seeking to phase out gas-burning vehicles by making all new vehicles sold as of 2035 and beyond zero-emission. But Newsom's order wouldn't make the current fuel-powered trucks illegal as of 2035. The executive order explicitly states that while California will require new vehicles sold as of 2035 and beyond to be zero-emission, older vehicles will not be illegal to own and operate, and can still be purchased and sold. executive order A news release from the governor's office announcing the order states, "The executive order will not prevent Californians from owning gasoline-powered cars or selling them on the used car market." FreightWaves. "CTAs Last Hope To Protect California Trucking From AB5: US Supreme Court," 10 August, 2021, https://www.yahoo.com/now/ctas-last-hope-protect-california-184730483.html.  Goodman, Peter S., and Erin Schaff. Its Not Sustainable: What Americas Port Crisis Looks Like Up Close. The New York Times, 10 Oct. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/11/business/supply-chain-crisis-savannah-port.html. Koetsier, John. COVID-19 Accelerated E-Commerce Growth 4 To 6 Years. Forbes, 12 June 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/06/12/covid-19-accelerated-e-commerce-growth-4-to-6-years/. No SCOTUS Review of California Laws Impact on Trucking Industry. Reuters, 5 Oct. 2021, https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/no-scotus-review-california-laws-impact-trucking-industry-2021-10-04/. Lynch, David J. Stubborn Supply Chain Woes Are Resisting Bidens Remedies. Washington Post, 26 October 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/26/supply-chain-ports-fees-biden/.  Swanson, Ana. Angling for a Merry Fishmas Despite Global Shipping Delays. The New York Times, 31 Oct. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/business/economy/global-shipping-delays-shortages.html. Updated to note AB 5 remains in limbo for the trucking industry pending legal actions. Claim:  The magnitude of the 17 January 1994 Northridge earthquake was deliberately under-reported in order to spare the government from having to pay out emergency relief funds.  Status:  False. Examples:  [Harvey, 1994] Urban Myth No. 5,212: It's linked to the earthquake, of course  what isn't these days? The [Los Angeles] Times has heard from several callers who claim there's a conspiracy to hide the fact that the quake's magnitude was really 8.0. One caller quoted an unnamed structural engineer who said that only an 8.0 temblor could have inflicted the damage of the Northridge quake. And why the conspiracy? The unfounded rumor that FEMA is obligated to give outright grants, rather than loans, to damaged houses and businesses after quakes of 8.0 or more.  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Right after the Northridge earthquake in 1994, word was going around that the State of California coerced CalTech to declare the magnitude of the earthquake under 7.0. This was due to a hidden clause in the state laws saying state income tax in California is suspended that year for affected areas when there is a major earthquake over 7.0 on the Richter Scale. Origins:  On 17 January 1994, Los Angeles area residents were shaken awake at 4:31 A.M. by the seismic event that would come to be known as the Northridge quake. In the usual way of earthquakes, those few seconds of violent shaking took a terrible toll.  The quake killed 57 people, injured another 9,000, and caused property damage in the $13-$15 billion range. It closed seven freeway sites and two hospitals, and left 150,000 people without water, 40,000 without natural gas, and 25,000 without homes.  It was devastatingly awful. Folks were shocked when the quake was reported to have registered a mere 6.7 on the Richter scale. They were thus prepared to believe almost anything that would confirm the quake's intensity to have been much higher. After the Northridge quake, a bogus fax on fake Caltech letterhead (misstated as "Cal Tech") was circulated throughout the Los Angeles area. It purportedly assigned an "intensity scale" to different Los Angeles ZIP codes, with the strength  of the quake measured in one ZIP code area listed as a whopping 9.5. The numbers quoted in the fax were, in fact, estimates of the intensity of the shaking around the Los Angeles basin based on the modified Mercalli scale, which uses the Roman numbers I through XII. (The Mercalli scale is a measurement derived from observable earthquake damage; the Richter scale is based on seismometer readings.  The Mercalli scale is thus largely a subjective measurement, while the Richter scale is generally considered to be more objective and scientifically accurate.)  Parts of Santa Monica and the San Fernando Valley experienced Mercalli IX-level intensity, which was misconstrued on the fax as a 9-level Richter scale measurement (instead of  the officially reported 6.7).  Caltech (actually the U.S. Geological Survey at Caltech) had not under-reported the figure  the Northridge quake was a 6.7 no matter who measured it. Earthquake data is almost instantaneously shared among a number of organizations worldwide, and one group's under-reporting the magnitude would have been quickly picked up by the others. Even if Caltech had wanted to suppress the real numbers, it would have been unable to do so without the cooperation of a number of other scientific organizations. The scary fax played into what people wanted to believe.  Those who'd lived through the quake swore it had to have been much stronger than the 6.7 that was being reported. From this belief was the legend born: if Caltech was fudging the magnitude of the event, there had to be a reason. Inventive sorts that humans are, it wasn't long before someone advanced the plausible-sounding explanation that the amount and type of aid provided to disaster victims by the government was predicated upon the severity of the event; by convincing Caltech to under-report, the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) slipped off the hook. According to this rumor, since the quake's intensity was under 7.0, FEMA only had to provide loans to earthquake victims rather than outright grants, which saved the agency billions of dollars. The rumor, of course, was false. FEMA never gives loans to those disadvantaged by disaster; its assistance comes in the form of grants to those affected. That agency works with the Small Business Administration (SBA), which provides low-interest loans.    Also, FEMA bases its aid on need, not upon a standardized chart that determines how much can be allocated according to what scientists measure.  Likewise, insurance companies base their earthquake policy liability on damage estimates, not on magnitude scales. This makes sense  under a system like the one hinted at in the legend, survivors of a large earthquake in a relatively unpopulated zone would be eligible for free aid while those trying cope with the aftermath of a lesser disaster in a far more densely populated area would be saddled with repaying government loan debts (or would receive no financial assistance at all). An extreme hypothetical example could see millions of free dollars directed towards the rebuilding of one house in Alaska while 200,000 uninsured and homeless Californians had do without, all because Alaska was hit by an 8.2 while California had to cope with only a 6.7.  The legend took off the way it did for reasons other than just the usual mistrust of government and science that marks such whispers. Getting up close and personal with the unthinkable heightens the experience, which explains in part why this legend was so widely believed by Los Angeleans: they'd been shaken out of bed and back to reality by this earthquake, whereas they had experienced other large quakes that had taken place in other lands merely as words on a page or images on a television screen. In a world where the ruin of the 6.9 Kobe quake (17 January 1995) was dispassionately presented by the nightly news and barely given a second thought here in California, what the authorities were telling skeptical Los Angeleans was a 6.7 felt like it was more because it had been experienced with all our senses, not just the television-dulled ones.  There was yet another reason for this legend's running rampant: its location. The quake's epicenter was in the heart of the San Fernando Valley, a heavily-populated area, and so felt stronger to many people because those who experienced the sensation were right on top of the worst of it.  Additionally, we humans have a desire to star ourselves in the drama of the moment. A 6.7 didn't sound worthy of the harrowing experience endured by those resident on 17 January 1994, and those who'd been through the shake and looked to regale others with their horrific accounts were especially receptive to any suggestion that the figure was far too low. On a final note, one further rumor attached to FEMA in California: that illegal immigrants who surfaced to apply for disaster relief would be rounded up, handed over to INS, and deported. That rumor did not begin with the Northridge quake, however; it was recorded in the aftermath of the 17 October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco area. While FEMA's aid is now available only to U.S. citizens, legal residents of the U.S., and the resident parents of U.S. citizens (that is, children born in the USA), at the time of the Loma Prieta quake, the assistance it directed was available to citizens and non-citizens alike. As for alerting the INS to potential illegals, FEMA pointed out at that time that it didn't ask about the citizenship status of aid applicants, with  questions about citizenship status not even being presented on any of its forms. (That has since changed  FEMA Form 90-69 is specifically for that purpose.) Barbara "not a milked shake" Mikkelson Additional information:        Federal Emergency Management Agency   (FEMA)        Earthquake Myths   (U.S. Geological Survey)   Last updated:  18 July 2007    Sources:   Harvey, Steve.  "Only in L.A."    Los Angeles Times.  2 March 1994  (p. B2).    Jackson, Robert and Miles Corwin.  "Aid Centers Open But No Money Yet."    Los Angeles Times.  23 October 1989  (p. A1).    Mitchell, Sean.  "Warning: The Following L.A. Stories Are Not True."    Los Angeles Times.  24 November 1996  (Magazine, p. 32). In late 2019, social media users began seeing posts touting that "LOWES has announced that everyone who shares this link will be sent a $150 coupon for its anniversary TODAY ONLY":  This coupon offer was fake, just another iteration of similar scams that have made the online rounds several times before. In May 2015, a fraudulent offer for $100 Lowe's coupons started circulating on Facebook. The message linked Facebook users to a fraudulent web site adorned with the Lowe's logo, and instructed them to follow a simple set of instructions:  Scams like these require users to pass the fake coupon on to their Facebook friends, which widens the pool of potential victims. Next, they direct people to fill out a simple survey, which seems like a harmless task but is used to coax sensitive information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and credit card numbers out of victims. Finally, users who complete the survey will never receive a free Lowe's gift card but instead will likely sign up for difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" or have their personal information used for nefarious purposes. The Better Business Bureau provides these three tips to identify scams on Facebook: Facebook Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Lowe's also posted a warning about this scam on their Facebook page: Facebook  In April 2017, two years after we first debunked the initial coupon scam, a new version of it appeared, taking in unsuspecting Facebookers yet again:  Those who clicked on this image on Facebook were taken to a page with a dubious URL& (in this case, https://www.lowes.com-holdit.us/?sfpzbJt) and asked to take a simple survey and then to "like" and "share" the page:  Needless to say, anyone who attempted to redeem these coupons at Lowe's will be unsuccessful (and probably a little embarrassed), and if they have followed the online instructions, they have set themselves and their friends on social media up for, at best, a like-farming scam. A simple racket, certainly, but an effective one. scam On June 18, 2022, Facebook user Cindy Jennings posted that her kitchen had experienced what appeared in a picture to be a large fire. According to her post, the fire was caused by a plugged-in air fryer that had undergone a power surge when electricity was turned back on inside her home. "So please unplug your air fryers when not in use," the end of the post read. Readers asked us if this story was true, as it was being copied and pasted by other users.  The post in question was being copied and pasted as follows: FROM CINDY- Ughhh, the one thing i wanted to tell everyone in my last post but I forgot to tell you my minds not working right yet. But, what caused this was our air fryer. We left it plugged in and when the electric came back on it surged through it. We even had it plugged into a special outlet for protection- it failed anyway what i wanted to tell you was the fire inspector said this was the 6th air fryer fires he's had to do, they (firefighters) are trying to get air fryer companies looked into because of all the fires. So please unplug your air fryers when not in use Note: Jennings' post mentioned a previous post. However, that previous post was not visible to users who were not her Facebook friends. We looked to verify three key pieces of information for the readers who asked us to look into this story. We wanted to confirm that a power surge in an air fryer, which was said to have been plugged in with a surge protection product, was the cause of a fire inside Jennings' home. Second, we looked to verify with firefighters whom she said she spoke with that they had seen several air fryer fires just like this one, and that they were trying to get the problem looked at by investigators. We also wanted to find more details about any past recalls of air fryers. According to publicly-viewable information on Jennings' Facebook profile, she appeared to live inSurfside Beach, South Carolina. We attempted to reach out by phone and email using contact information that we found online. We also sent her a message through Messenger. One of our questions would be to ask if the fire she described occurred in the town listed on her profile, or if it had happened elsewhere. We did not receive any responses. In the case that the kitchen fire involving the air fryer and the power surge did happen in Surfside Beach, we contacted theSurfside Beach Fire Department. On the day after we first published this story, we spoke by phone with Keith Williams, the department's fire marshal. "We can find no calls that we have ran that would have been in this nature," Williams told us. "We can't find a call in our county database or in our municipal database that would match up to this call Ms. Jennings would have had." By email, Williams also added that he would bring the supposed incident up at an upcoming fire marshal meeting for Horry County, in order to find out if any other members were aware of an air fryer fire under the name of Jennings. After finding no luck with our Surfside Beach search, we noticed that Jennings' profile also mentioned that she was apparently originally "from Chesterville, Ohio." An online search for Jennings' name on the public-information website WhitePages.com showed a person with the same name supposedly residing in Marengo, Ohio. The listing showedan address at a mobile home park named Bennington Springs. Chesterville and Marengo are both located within the jurisdiction of the Big Walnut Joint Fire District. On the Facebook page for the Big Walnut Joint Fire District, a post was made on the morning of June 15, just three days before the air fryer fire post from Jennings. The post said that a storm had caused a power loss in the area. It also mentioned that there had been a structure fire at the Bennington Springs mobile home park. This information seemed to line up with the details in Jennings' post. post post Big Walnut Joint Fire District has been busy the last 24 hours, as a result of the storm and power loss we have responded to 18 calls for service including 2 structure fires. 1st fire was with Fredericktown Fire on Yankee Road, and 2nd in Bennington Springs mobile home park. Many of our members have gone almost 24 hours with no sleep. We want to thank the community for continuing to support the Big Walnut Fire District so we can be there for you in times like this. We soon received confirmation from the fire department that Jennings' story was true. Here's what a spokesperson for the Big Walnut Joint Fire District had to say via email: Our department, Big Walnut Joint Fire District, did have a fire on 6/14/2022 at Bennington Springs mobile home park. The picture you included is that scene. It was following a power outage that was county wide due to several tornadoes. The power had been returned to the area approximately three hours prior to the fire. The residents had left the occupancy prior to the power returning. Our investigator, who is with multiple agencies, did rule the cause as the air fryer. This is the only fire our department has experienced with the origin being an air fryer. He stated there have been others - that is from his experience at other departments. This individual is no longer with our department. I do not know the final findings declared by their insurance investigator. The air fryer had been left plugged in to a standard residential GFIoutlet. The extension cord [visible in the picture] was for the refrigerator which was being powered by a generator. With the mystery solved, we were also curious to find information on air fryer recalls that had occurred in 2022. On April 21, 2022, Best Buy recalled around 772,000 Insignia air fryers and air fryer ovens, saying it was because they could "overheat, posing fire and burn hazards." Later, on Oct. 13, 2022, NewAirrecalled 11,750 of its own Magic Chef air fryers too, also because of the same reason.It's unclear what make and model of air fryer appeared in the picture posted by Jennings. recalled recalled Note: We also found this picture and story being discussed and shared in other posts on Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook. shared Reddit Twitter Facebook "Best Buy Recalls Insignia Air Fryers and Air Fryer Ovens Due to Fire and Burn Hazards." U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 21 Apr. 2022, https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2022/Best-Buy-Recalls-Insignia-Air-Fryers-and-Air-Fryer-Ovens-Due-to-Fire-and-Burn-Hazards. "Big Walnut Joint Fire District."Facebook, 15 June 2022, https://www.facebook.com/bwjfd/posts/pfbid0XpieRQdCq8y6MrHNpKzkc3BSmRNZgm2qHD8tvkhefAA5Snr1jWdjCoirhkQ2H9TWl. ---. https://www.bwjfd.org/. Jennings, Cindy. Facebook, 18 June 2022, https://www.facebook.com/cindy.jennings.7798/posts/pfbid02o56oU9vsVh7nwphhcwyVXyz3YcTxq91thTYXMk8uLLigFPSjRvcLv3hFnJJm5JbUl. "Newair Recalls Magic Chef Air Fryers Due to Fire and Burn Hazards." U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 13 Oct. 2022, https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2023/Newair-Recalls-Magic-Chef-Air-Fryers-Due-to-Fire-and-Burn-Hazards. Surfside Beach Fire. https://www.surfsidebeach.org/182/Fire. White Pages. https://www.whitepages.com/. Dec. 1, 2022: This story was updated after the fire marshal for the Surfside Beach Fire Department responded to our inquiry to let us know they found no record of an air fryer fire under the name of Jennings. Dec. 1, 2022: This story was updated after we found a link between an address in Ohio and a Facebook post from the Big Walnut Joint Fire District. Dec. 5, 2022: This story has been updated from "Research In Progress" to "True" after we established with the Big Walnut Joint Fire District that the story was true.