The Love Machine
Claim:  Vending machines in Japan offer for sale panties purportedly worn by schoolgirls.   . Origins:  Used underwear that has supposedly been previously worn by schoolgirls is being offered for sale in vending machines in Japan. Though we don't know the current price for such items, in 1993 they sold for the equivalent of US $50 apiece. We'd read that this practice ended in 1993 and reported as much in the original of this article (which was penned in 2001), but since that time numerous readers living in Japan have written to say that not only haven't the machines gone away, but that they've themselves seen them. Japan is home to a thriving bura-sera industry    of which traffic in the soiled panties of schoolgirls represents only one part  with "bura-sera" or "buru-sera" the term for a specific male fascination relating to that country's schoolgirls. "Buru" is anglicized Japanese (Japlish) for "bloomers" and "sera" for "sailor"; the term refers to the sailor suit, the predominant style of girls' junior and high school uniforms. Dozens, if not hundreds, of magazines are exclusively devoted to bura-sera photographs, pictures that feature girls clad in school garb, holding up their skirts to display their panties. Usually in such photos the girls' faces are hidden, but that is not always the case. Girlish youth and innocence are considered sexy in Japan, a culture with a long history of regarding women more as sex toys than as people. This obsession with untouched adolescence results in the sad sight of women in their thirties emitting girlish giggles and clutching teddy bears in an effort to maintain their appeal to the opposite sex. Although it can fairly be said Western society also prizes youth in a woman, there the fascination has to do more with the looks of a girl than it does with her immaturity and presumed sexual innocence. A pretty 26-year-old who would be considered lovely in the West would in Japan be viewed by many as hopelessly long in the tooth. Western society looks for firm, youthful bodies housing the attitudes of grown women  we like them young, but we don't like them to act young. In the West, a teen's sex appeal is dependent upon her ability to look and act much older, thus the fascination with makeup and plunging necklines, accoutrements that make her appear less of a child and more of a woman. In Japan, this ideal is reversed  sexy in the Land of the Rising Sun adds up to childlike behavior and modes of dress that express this ideal. Sometimes this amounts to the adoption of clothing styles highly reminiscent of high school uniforms, but even when a girl dons an evening gown, she will strive to look like a kinderling caught parading in Mom's finery. Likewise, childish outbursts, pouting, and tantrums are viewed as charmingly erotic because such actions work to further the violated schoolgirl image.  In a sexual culture so dominated by roricon (Japlish for "Lolita complex"), buru-sera fetishism finds its footing. Those whose way of life has taught them to lust for young girls find outlet for their interest through viewing suggestive photos of teen girls and handling items previously worn by them.  For a price, girls supplying buru-sera items for resale will don a new pair of panties at a porn shop in the morning on their way to school, then change back into their own underwear at the end of the day at the same shop, leaving its proprietor with a saleable item. Girls can also turn a profit on their own used undies by offloading them to the same people.  Generally,  the more worn the item, the higher the price it will fetch.  Porn shops featuring buru-sera items also vend girls' used school uniforms.   There is no guarantee that all the panties marketed as having been worn by schoolgirls actually have been. Such details are not  scrupulously vetted; no regulatory body checks to ensure the veracity of claims made about these items.  However, it is clear that at least some of the used undies do come from teen girls, thus this "underwear of a Japanese schoolgirl" story is no myth. Japan has a tradition of vending through machines what Western society would view as unusual consumables. In addition to the many items one would typically expect to find offered for sale in this manner, porn magazines, disposable cameras, new pantyhose, horoscopes, and many other goods are routinely mechanically vended. Part of the appeal of such machines is attributable to a matter of convenience, but concern for privacy also fuels the mania. There is less chance of embarrassment in buying condoms from a machine than from a store where the sale must be rung up and bagged by a clerk. Likewise, purchases of "pink" videos (what in the West are termed "blue movies") are less likely to be blush-producing experiences when these transactions can be effected without anyone else's looking on. There was thus a waiting market for "schoolgirl panties" machines, in that those looking to obtain such items would not have to brave a bura-sera shop to fulfill their desires. These mechanical points of sale appeared in 1993 in Chiba City (Chiba Prefecture), in an area known for its porn magazine and adult video vending machines. Almost immediately, an outcry was raised against them, but there was a problem in getting them removed: Whereas sellers required licenses to distribute other types of goods, no such requirement was on the books for soiled underwear, because no one had foreseen the possibility of trade in such an item. These machines existed outside the law in the sense that no specific statute existed that could be invoked to combat them.  The solution was as creative as it is odd-sounding  the machines were countered by invoking the Antique Dealings Law, a statute which stipulates that an antique dealer or a dealer in second-hand items must obtain permission from local authorities. Lacking those permissions, the items could not be vended. In September 1993, three businessmen were charged with selling used panties without a permit under the provenance of this law.  This supposedly ended the presence of such salespoints in that country, but like we said at the top of this piece, countless readers have since written to tell us that the machines can still be found. Barbara "vend me your rears" Mikkelson Additional Information:    Teenage Sex and Buru-Sera Shops  Last updated:  8 July 2007    Sources:   Annells, Jonathan.  "Hot Pants, Hot Customers and Hot Prices."   South China Morning Post.  12 September 1993  (p. 4).    The Daily Yomiuri.  "Dealers of Used Female Underwear Charged."   21 September 1993  (p. 2).    Mainichi Daily News.  "'Bura-Sera' Vending Machines Stir Local Concern."   12 September 1993.    Tokyo Business Today.  "The Next Fad: Vending Machines for Panty Perverts."   November 1993  (p. 64).
Amid political controversy engendered by the protests of National Football League athletes who refused to stand during pre-game renditions of the national anthem in late September 2017 to display solidarity with black victims of police violence a gesture supported by many Democrats but condemned by President Trump and conservative Republicans a meme was circulated via social media making the point that the Democratic Party was not always a standard bearer for racial equality. protests This is an example from Twitter:   The centerpiece of the post is a reproduction of an illustration typically captioned "Democratic Party Logo until 1966," featuring a drawing of a crowing rooster and the slogan "White Supremacy, For the Right." And although the description is somewhat misleading ("White Supremacy" was never a slogan of the national Democratic Party, for example, nor have we seen evidence that the image was "purged from the Internet"), this was, in fact, the emblem of the Alabama Democratic Party between 1904 and 1966. 1904 First, regarding the rooster, it's often mistakenly assumed that the donkey was always the symbol of the Democratic Party, when in fact the party began using a crowing rooster as its mascot around 1840. This version of how that came to pass is from a biographical sketch of Indianapolis lawyer and Whig politician Thomas D. Walpole published in 1876: sketch In 1840 [Tom Walpole] was an ardent and enthusiastic Whig, and rendered great service to the Whig party, and contributed largely to the success of General Harrison. It was during this canvass that Tom gave to the Democratic party their emblem, which they have claimed ever since, the chicken cock, or rooster. George Patterson, then editing the Democratic paper, wrote, just before the August election of that year, to Joseph Chapman, of Greenfield, that the Democratic party would be beat, and that there was no hope, but, said he, "Crow, Chapman, crow." By some means Tom got possession of the letter, and exposed it. A year or two subsequent to this circumstance Messrs. George and Page Chapman became proprietors and editors of the Democratic paper and placed a rooster at the head of their paper, and from this circumstance it was generally supposed that they were the persons to whom the letter was addressed and the original crowers; but such is not the case. It is to Tom Walpole the Democratic party is indebted for the emblem of the rooster. Other sources grant full credit to Joseph Chapman for dreaming up the rooster symbol, but in any case, although it was never officially adopted as the emblem of the national Democratic Party, it very quickly became an unofficial one and remained so until cartoonist Thomas Nast's depictions of Republicans as elephants and Democrats as donkeys captured the public imagination in the late nineteenth century (to date, the national Democratic Party has never officially adopted any animal as its symbol). The forerunner of today's Democratic Party was born during the 1820s and '30s, coalescing around the populist presidential candidacy of national war hero and southern slaveholder Andrew Jackson. Although egalitarianism and freedom of the individual were much-touted ideals of "Jacksonian Democracy," in reality the Democratic Party of the time took white supremacy for granted and had little to no interest in defending the freedom and equality of African Americans, native Americans, or any other racial minorities. Still, the party was conflicted over the expansion of slavery and split in two during the 1860 elections, with the Northern Democrats opposing expansion and Southern Democrats favoring it. The Democratic Party remained dominant in the South after the Civil War, opposing Reconstruction and enacting laws to suppress black voters and enforce racial segregation. The Alabama Democratic Party went further than most, calling for the adoption of a new state constitution in 1901 that explicitly disenfranchised black voters, and celebrating its success in that effort by officially embracing the slogan "White Supremacy" three years later. TheMonroe Journal of Claiborne, Alabama reported on 2 June 1904: calling The state executive committee adopted the game cock as the Democratic Party emblem. Above the bird will be the words "White Supremacy" and below "For the Right." To be sure, there were a few Alabama Democrats who objected to the emblem after its adoption, though not for the reasons you might suppose. For example, Democratic Congressman J. Thomas Heflin was perfectly fine with the racist slogan, but felt the image of the rooster was undignified: I think that the emblem is not what it should be, and that it fails to impress the people with the dignity of the Democratic Party. To my mind it would have been much better to have had, instead of the rooster, the picture of a handsome young woman, holding the Constitution in a scroll aloft, with the words "Here We Rest" prominently shown upon it. I see no objection to the use of the two expressions already adopted, but do not think that the design is worth of a great party like ours. Dignified or not, that emblem would appear at the top of every Alabama state ballot for many decades to come, as noted, for example, in this November 1940 report by theChicago Tribune: In Alabama the disfranchisement of the Negro is proclaimed proudly by the Democratic party on the official ballot in all elections. At the head of the Democratic column on the ballot appears the emblem of the rooster. Arched over the rooster's head are the words: "White Supremacy." Below the rooster appear the words: "For the Right." By the early 1950s, however, the Alabama Democratic Party's proud embrace of white supremacy was becoming a liability for the national party. In 1952, New York Gov. Thomas Dewey, a Republican campaigning on behalf of Dwight D. Eisenhower, gave a speech laying the racist logo at the doorstep of Eisenhower's Democratic rival Adlai Stevenson (from the Dixon Evening Telegraph,9 October 1952): Gov. Thomas E. Dewer says the "White Supremacy" slogan on Alabama's Democratic ballot convicts that party's top nominees of "rankest hypocrisy." In a state-wide radio and television address Wednesday night, the New York governor ripped into Gov. Adlai E. Stevenson and Sen. John J. Sparkman of Alabama after holding up to TV viewers the official Alabama ballot showing: A rooster emblem, with the words "White Supremacy" above it and the words "For the Right" below it. "There it is," Dewey said, "the rooster and the banner of White supremacy Ku Klux Klan Jim Crow banner  flying over the election for Stevenson and Sparkman in this ear 1952." Though the Democrats lost that election, the emblem would remain intact on the ballot for another 14 years, until leaders of the Alabama Democratic Party finally modified the slogan in 1966 for purely pragmatic reasons: The party needed "Negro" voters. The Montgomery Advertiser reported: In an unexpected display of strength, the Loyalist faction of the State Democratic Executive Committee removed the "white supremacy" label from the party emblem Saturday in a move admittedly designed to keep Negro voters in the fold. ... The only change made in the emblem was removing the words "white supremacy" and substituting "Democrats." The rooster was untouched. Charles W. McKay of Talladega offered the resolution changing the emblem. McKay gained fame a number of years ago when he authored the "Nullification Resolution" in the Legislature which sought to declare null and void the Supreme Court's school desegregation decision. McKay made it clear that the emblem change was necessary if the Democrats were to attract Negro votes this year. "We can't afford to spend a lot of money nominating candidates this spring and then take a stick and run off 150,000 to 175,000 voters who might vote Democratic," he declared. Ironically (though the irony may well have been lost on McKay), it was only because the voter suppression measures instituted decades earlier by his own state party had been knocked down by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that many of those potential new black voters would even have access to the polls. As to the Alabama Democratic Party rooster, it, too, was finally sent into forced retirement, but not till 1996 (30 years later), when it was replaced with the image of a donkey. Bridges, Edwin C. Alabama: The Making of an American State. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2016. ISBN 9780817358761, p. 159. Cotter, Patrick R. "Democratic Party in Alabama." Encyclopedia of Alabama. 3 May 2017. Frederick, Jeff. Stand Up for Alabama: Governor George Wallace. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2007. ISBN 9780817315740, p. 29. Henning, Arthur Sears Henning. "Alabama Ballot Boasts of White Supremacy." Chicago Tribune. 29 November 1940. Ingram, Bob. "Loyalist Faction Wins; 'White Supremacy' Goes." The Montgomery Advertiser. 23 January 1966. Nowland, John H.B. Sketches of Prominent Citizens of 1876. Indianapolis: Tilford & Carlon, 1877, p. 106. Seidman, Steven. "The Rooster as the Symbol of the U.S. Democratic Party." Ithaca College. 12 June 2010. Warren, Sarah A. "Constitutional Convention of 1901." Encyclopedia of Alabama. 15 October 2014. Associated Press. "Democrats Make Donkey Symbol." The Montgomery Advertiser. 27 April 1996. Dixon Evening Telegraph. "Demos Run Under 'White Supremacy Tag in South." 9 October 1952. The Gaffney Ledger. "Action State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabama." 25 May 1904. A photograph of Barack Obama carrying (and presumably reading) the best-selling book, The Post-American World, is a real one, snapped by Doug Mills of the New York Times in Bozeman, Montana, in May 2008: What does Obama read?Hussein Obama with a book in his hands. He's reading "The Post-American World"  it's a Muslim's view of a defeated America!  However, the characterization of the pictured book as "a Muslim's view of a defeated America" is erroneous: The book does not posit a "defeated America," nor does it express a Muslim point of view: The The Post-American World was written by Fareed Zakaria, an Indian-born political journalist (commonly described as a "political moderate") who specializes in world affairs and has written for (and edited) U.S. national news publications, hosted U.S. television news programs, and authored several books on international issues. A Village Voice profile described Zakaria (a naturalized citizen of the United States) thusly: Fareed Zakaria written hosted authored Although he was a rising star in the serious foreign-policy world of the '90s (The Nation once described him as a "junior Kissinger"), it was his post-9/11 Newsweek cover story "Why They Hate Us" that put him on the mainstream map as someone who could make sense of the now threatening outside world. And he has continued to win himself a substantial following with his thoughtful critiques of the Bush administration's activities in Iraq. He is America's go-to man for global chaos, providing some urgently needed outside perspective on our never ending war on terror.His own upbringing was open-minded and secular; he sang Christian hymns at school and celebrated Hindu as well as his own Muslim holidays. "I do know a lot about the world of Islam in an instinctive way that you can't get through book learning," he says thoughtfully, but admits he finds the role of token Muslim explainer in the American media slightly uncomfortable. "I occasionally find myself reluctant to be pulled into a world that's not mine, in the sense that I'm not a religious guy." The following review (from Publishers Weekly) summarizes the thesis of The Post-American World  When a book proclaims that it is not about the decline of America but the rise of everyone else, readers might expect another diatribe about our dismal post-9/11 world. They are in for a pleasant surprise as Newsweek editor and popular pundit Zakaria (The Future of Freedom) delivers a stimulating, largely optimistic forecast of where the 21st century is heading. We are living in a peaceful era, he maintains; world violence peaked around 1990 and has plummeted to a record low. Burgeoning prosperity has spread to the developing world, raising standards of living in Brazil, India, China andIndonesia. Twenty years ago China discarded Soviet economics but not its politics, leading to a wildly effective, top-down, scorched-earth boom. Its political antithesis, India, also prospers while remaining a chaotic, inefficient democracy, as Indian elected officials are (generally) loathe to use the brutally efficient tactics that are the staple of Chinese governance. Paradoxically, India's greatest asset is its relative stability in the region; its officials take an unruly population for granted, while dissent produces paranoia in Chinese leaders. Zakaria predicts that despite its record of recent blunders at home and abroad, America will stay strong, buoyed by a stellar educational system and the influx of young immigrants, who give the U.S. a more youthful demographic than Europe and much of Asia whose workers support an increasing population of unproductive elderly. A lucid, thought-provoking appraisal of world affairs, this book will engage readers on both sides of the political spectrum. As for what the chief executive reads in his spare time, according to deputy press secretary Bill Burton, President Obama brought the following books with him to his August 2009 vacation at Martha's Vineyard: In 2015, President Obama's summer reading list, as announced by the White House, included the following books: arner, Dwight.  "What Obama Is Reading."
  The New York Times.  21 May 2008. Joffe, Josef.  "The New New World."
  The New York Times.  11 May 2008. Press, Joy.  "The Interpreter."
  Village Voice.  9 August 2005. Wolf, Richard.  "President's Reading List a Hefty One."
  USA Today.  24 August 2009. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Nov. 23, 2020, U.S. General Services Administrator Emily Murphy  an appointee of President Donald Trump  wrote a letter to President-elect Joe Biden that allowed him to start a formal transition of power. The paperwork, obtained by Snopes and displayed below, was the first formal recognition by Trump's government of a Biden presidency. letter formal transition of power The document from the head of the General Services Administration (GSA), an executive branch agency that oversees presidential transitions, raised questions about whether it meant that Trump himself acknowledged defeat to Biden. Concession statements to Americans or phone calls to winning candidates represent an informal step in the country's election process that typically occurs when one candidate secures the majority of electoral votes. Biden reached that milestone  winning key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, by comfortable margins  weeks before Murphy's letter. However, Trump broke democratic norms by refusing to concede publicly. electoral votes.   Instead, the president's campaign filed a barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions across the country and accelerated a misinformation campaign online that denied or falsely presented the election results. While legal experts said the litigation did not contain enough evidence to reverse Biden's win, Trump's supporters viewed the effort as a commendable, tough, not-going-to-back-down approach to electoral politics. barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions misinformation campaign "It is not a stain on our national honor for a candidate to refuse to concede when there are open and compelling disputes about an electoral outcome," read a Nov. 23 statement by supporters of the Conservative Action Project, an initiative founded by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III. statement Despite not receiving Trump's concession, Biden filled his Cabinet for the White House, addressing the country under the "Office of the President Elect," and states certified results of the popular vote in order to begin the process of voting for president through the Electoral College. Office of the President Elect states certified results Cue Murphy's letter on Nov. 23. The document carried out the government's obligation under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act to allow presidents-elect and their appointees, aids, and other staff  otherwise known as a transition team  to access millions of federal dollars and set up White House operations before swearing-in ceremonies that would take place the January after general elections. 1963 Presidential Transition Act       Murphy submitted the paperwork after election officials in Michigan certified Biden's win there, and a conservative Republican judge in Pennsylvania shot down a Trump campaign lawsuit, The Associated Press reported. Pennsylvania Murphy's letter said: [Because] of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results, I have determined that you may access the post-election resources and services described in Section 3 of the Act upon request. The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detailed in the Constitution. So, in short, a member of the Trump administration, Murphy, filed paperwork to change Biden's official title in government systems to "apparent president-elect" and, as a result, granted him new privileges that only someone with that job title in federal government gets. But it was a wrong interpretation of that procedural step to claim Trump had therefore conceded the 2020 presidential race. Let us note here: No constitutional mandate or federal law requires losing presidential candidates to acknowledge defeat in order for the election's processes to continue. Rather, concession speeches have been an informal tradition that often symbolized a losing candidate's willingness to help with a peaceful transition between presidencies.  transition between presidencies The Associated Press reported: reported In recent days, senior Trump aides including chief of staff Mark Meadows and White House counsel Pat Cipollone had also encouraged him to allow the transition to begin, telling the president he didnt need to concede but could no longer justify withholding support to the Biden transition. [...] Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the GSA action is probably the closest thing to a concession that President Trump could issue. Even after Murphy's letter, the Trump campaign sent supporters emails promoting false claims about the election outcome to solicit donations, including messages to sell "COUNT ALL LEGAL VOTES" T-shirts.   Additionally, on Twitter the president said: "Remember the GSA has been terrific, and Emily Murphy has done a great job, but the GSA does not determine who the next President of the United States will be."   The tweet accurately suggested that presidential elections are technically unfinished until the Electoral College casts its votes and Congress certifies that count, no matter what the administrator does or says. However, it was a misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes to regard those post-Election Day procedures  steps that officially cement Americans' pick for president  as an opportunity to defy the will of the voters without providing compelling evidence of error or fraud. Hours after that tweet, Trump called reporters to a White House briefing room. He gave one-minute remarks about the economy and exited the room without taking questions from reporters. As he walked out, journalists shouted questions about his lack of a concession, and the president did not acknowledge them, White House footage of the event showed. White House footage In short, while a government agency under Trump's administration for the first time officially acknowledged Biden the "apparent president-elect" in a letter that grants him access to federal assets before his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20, 2021, it is false to claim that Trump had conceded defeat to the president-elect. Republican Senate candidate George Allen recently accused Democratic opponent Tim Kaine of being a tax hiker, even on people of modest means.During a July 21 debate in Hot Springs, Allen criticized Kaine for actually proposing tax increases that would be hitting people earning as little as $17,000 a year.We checked to see if Kaine, who was governor from 2006 to 2010, really did try to raise taxes on people at that income level.The Allen campaign, in awebsite post, backed Allens statement by citing news articles about a proposal Kaine unveiled in December 2009 as part of his farewell biennial budget proposal for 2010-2012. Kaine called for adding a 1 percent income tax surcharge and giving all proceeds to localities in return for them scrapping the car tax they levy on personal vehicles.Legislators in 1998 adopted a five-year plan to phase out the personal property tax on most cars and reimburse localities for their lost revenues. But the program was more expensive than anticipated and legislators eventually capped the state reimbursement at $950 million a year. The remaining share is paid by vehicle owners.Ending the car tax would mean the state wouldnt have to provide the annual $950 million payment to localities, Kaine said in aspeechto the General Assemblys money committees. Kaine wanted to use the savings to help balance the states recession-wracked budget.News articles from the time said Kaines policy would raise the maximum state income tax rate from 5.75 percent to 6.75 percent. That maximum rate applies to all taxable income above $17,000 after deductions and exemptions are taken into account.The state charges gradually higher income tax rates up to that level. Virginia puts a 2 percent levy on the first $3,000 of taxable income, 3 percent of the next $2,000, 5 percent on the next $12,000 and then 5.75 percent on all taxable income above $17,000.Thebilladvancing Kaines proposal did not say the added tax would only be levied on taxable income of $17,000 or more. The added 1 percent surtax would have pertained to all income levels, according to Joel Davison, a spokesman for the Virginia Department of Finance.Virginia does not require individuals with a state adjusted income below $11,950 and married couples with a state adjusted income below $23,900 to pay state income taxes. So they wouldnt have been affected by the tax increase.Kaines proposal was killed by the General Assembly.It should be noted that some people earning $17,000 would have benefitted from Kaines plan if their savings from the elimination of the car tax outstripped their increased income tax. There are no estimates of the number of Virginians who would fallen into this category, but we suspect it would be a small group. Heres why:For starters, we can eliminate those who didnt own cars.Now, lets consider those who did own vehicles. A single filer with no children earning $17,000 would have a taxable income of $13,070 after taking the standard deduction and exemption. A 1 percent income tax increase for that person would come to almost $131 a year.The car levy paid by that person would depend on where he or she lived because each locality sets it own tax rate based on the assessed value of the vehicle. In Richmond, a person wouldnt pay a $131 levy unless they had a car worth about $9,000. In rural Henry County, a vehicle would have to be valued at about $17,500 to merit a $131 tax.Our rulingAllen said that Kaine proposed a tax increase that would have affected people earning as little as $17,000 a year. Not everyone at that level would have paid more under Kaines plan, but its a safe bet that large number of them would have seen their overall tax bill rise.We rate Allens statement True. On the heels of a disappointing jobs report, Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers for President Barack Obama, shined the best light he could on the administrations economic record during the June 5, 2011, edition of ABCsThis Week with Christiane Amanpour.Two days before his appearance, the government announced that the economy had created a net of only 54,000 jobs in May -- a number well below expectations, and also below the number of jobs created in the previous few months.Amanpour pressed Goolsbee on the issue:What would you do to get this off the slow burner? she asked.Goolsbee responded, Well, I would say two or three things. The first is, the president has never stopped talking about jobs. For him, the growth strategy is the No. 1 issue. Now, we must live within our means. We have a moment that we can talk about long-run deficit reduction. And the vice president's leading an effort to do that, that the president has asked him to. But the president is getting up every day -- on Friday, he's going out to Ohio to talk about jobs in manufacturing, (and) manufacturing is having its best employment year in almost 15 years.We thought wed check whether Goolsbee was right about manufacturing employment.We turned to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the governments official source for employment numbers. There are two ways to look at the issue. One is to look at manufacturing jobs for the first five months of the year over the past decade and a half. The other is to look at the full-year totals for manufacturing jobs, which means determining the total for 2011 by extrapolating a full year from the first five months data.First, well look at the January-to-May figures.For 2011, the manufacturing sector has gained 76,000 jobs. To find gains that robust, you have to go back to 1994, when manufacturing gained 107,000 jobs from January to May.So by this standard, its 17 years, and Goolsbee actually understates his point.Now the full-year figures.For 2011, manufacturing jobs -- if they continue at their current pace -- would increase by 182,000. Thats the most for any year going back to 1997, when 288,000 jobs were created over the full year. And that was 14 years ago, which fits Goolsbees statement of almost 15 years.At this point, we should note three bits of context.First, despite the gains for the year, manufacturing jobs fell by 5,000 during the previous month, as Amanpour pointed out in the interview. (Goolsbee countered that durable goods manufacturing jobs went up, and they did, by 8,000. Durable goods are those designed to last for multiple years, such as cars and dishwashers. )Second, despite the recent gains, over the past decade and a half, the manufacturing sector has shrunk -- consistently and inexorably.Since January 1994, the manufacturing sector has shed 5,160,000 jobs, leaving todays number of manufacturing jobs 31 percent lower than it was at the start of 1994.And the actual shrinkage is even more stark than this statistic shows. Since January 1994, the labor force has grown by 18 percent. That means that simply maintaining its share of American employment would have required the manufacturing sector to increase by almost one-fifth since 1994, when in fact it declined by nearly one-third.The continual slide means that when you look at figures for the past decade and a half, most periods have shown a net loss of jobs. Since 1994, manufacturing jobs only showed a net increase six times for the January-to-May period, and only five times for the full-year period.In other words, it didnt take much for the manufacturing job gains under Obama to stand out. On the other hand, it also means that the administration has some justification for citing the accomplishment.Third, manufacturing jobs have increased for two years running (and two January-to-May periods running) -- but the combined gains havent come close to canceling out the manufacturing jobs lost during Obamas first year in office.In 2009, the economy lost more than 1.1 million manufacturing jobs. Counting the projection for 2011, the manufacturing sector will have rebounded by the end of this year by only 282,000 jobs, replacing only about a quarter of those lost since the start of 2009. While Obama isnt solely to blame for this hemorrhaging -- the recession did start under his predecessor, George W. Bush -- this does make the overall assessment of the sector under Obama more downbeat than Goolsbee indicated on the show.On balance, we feel that Goolsbees decision to highlight manufacturing jobs may be aimed at  downplaying the otherwise disappointing jobs numbers for May, but his facts are mostly on target, though he didn't provide the context of the large manufacturing job losses in 2009. Since assigning responsibility for the 2009 losses is a complicated business, well lower Goolsbee just one notch and rate his statement Mostly True. On 2 January 2017, the "USA Today News" web site reported that Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fighter Ronda Rousey had been discovered dead in her home following a routine wellness check: reported On the morning of January 2, 2017, Ronda Rousey was found in a bathtub in her Venice residence, dead. Despite an immediate medical response, EMTs were unable to revive her. The cause of death is still unknown, however a preliminary autopsy has been confirmed to be underway. First responders told us that they discovered what appeared to be a needle used for drugs, as well as a bag of an ambiguous powdered substance. While no drug use has been substantiated, her mother had previously spoken to the media about Rouseys previous depression & drug abuse. Rouseys mother had this to say, All of those who have criticized Ronda for taking a loss so to heart, for not just shrugging it off dont understand that what made Ronda so successful is that she cares DEEPLY about winning to an extent that I dont believe the average person can wrap his/her head around. After her last fight, where she lost to Amanda Nunes in less than one minute, Rousey went silent  no one has heard a thing from her on social media, or from interviews. Her whereabouts and status were completely unknown to the public until this tragic happening was uncovered by two police officers discovered her body on a wellness check. However, the report that Ronda Rousey was found dead on 2 January 2017 was merely fake news that appeared solely on the fly-by-night "USA Today News" web site and was reported neither by the legitimate USA Today news outlet nor any other credible source. "USA Today News" in no way resembles the actual USA Today web site:    The "USA Today News" article included an image of a large law enforcement presence in a residential neighborhood, a picture that appeared to come from a blog devoted to the television show House and did not depict any real event involving Ronda Rousey. blog An Orlando businessman vying for Marco Rubios soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat announced his candidacy by saying fresh blood is needed to change the worst economic climate the countrys ever faced. It's time to restore America's prominence both here at home and abroad, Todd Wilcox, a former Green Beret and CIA veteran, said in a statementannouncing his candidacyon July 8, 2015. The economy is growing at a dismal rate. More businesses are closing than are opening for the first time in our nation's history. The recent recession obviously has been an economic low point, but are the number of new businesses being eclipsed by the number of businesses closing for the first time ever? Well, its certainly true for as long as the government has been tracking that statistic. Beyond that is anyones guess. Wilcox, a Republican, told PolitiFact he was citing aMay 2014 storyfrom theWashington Posts Wonkblog that said as much. The story was about a Brookings Institution study released that month called Declining Business Dynamism in the United States: A Look at States and Metros, which examined business creation and destruction in the U.S. since 1978. The report said that business failures had held steady over most of that period, while business entries had steadily declined. Starting in 2008, the two points intersected for the first time in their 35-year history of the U.S. Census BureausBusiness Dynamics Statisticsdata. The trend continued through 2011, the last year of available data in the study.The studys authors said they couldnt speak to the causes for this trend, which they called noteworthy and disturbing. But they noted that it is clear that these trends fit into a larger narrative of business consolidation occurring in the U.S. economy -- whatever the reason, older and larger businesses are doing better relative to younger and smaller ones. Where Wilcoxs claim falters is that the data isnt for the entire 239-year history of the United States, but just the 35 years examined in the study. The Business Dynamics Statistics database only has figures from 1976 to 2012. What truly happened prior to that is largely anyones guess, economists told PolitiFact. I am not aware of any standard measures before then. I suspect that other measures do exist, but I doubt that they are systematically measured, year in and year out, UCLA economics professor Lee Ohanian said. While its possible there have been other periods of history where a similar trend has occurred, such as during the Great Depression, there is no dependable source of data measuring it, they said. Its somewhere between plausible and impossible to prove, said Robert Litman, one of the authors of the Brookings study. He suggested it would be more accurate to say that for the first time since the government began tracking these things, fails have exceeded starts. Our ruling Wilcox said, More businesses are closing than are opening for the first time in our nation's history. Hes right that more firms are now closing up shop than starting up, a trend that started in 2008. But the stat hes citing is from a study of a 35-year period from 1978 to 2011, not all of American history. The Census Bureau database used for that study has only been measuring entries and exits since the 1970s. Economists, including the studys author, told us Wilcox overreached a bit, because this trend may have happened before. There are no dependable sources of information to prove this is the first time this has occurred. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half True. A photograph supposedly showing a man hand-feeding a polar bear in Russia sometime in the 1970s is frequently shared by historical-picture social media accounts:   The seemingly dangerous situation depicted in the image, as well as the fact that these accounts don't always provide accurate captions, led many viewers to be a little skeptical that this was a genuine photograph.  provide accurate captions But this picture is quite real. It was taken near the Siberian town Cape Schmidt off the coast of the Chukchi Sea sometime in the 1970s and shows a man named Nikolai Machulyak. Machulyak was a bit of a local celebrity at the time due to his frequent encounters with polar bears. When rumors of a man who had "tamed the beasts" reached author V. Filimonov, he set out to find him. In August 1977, Filimonov published an article about Machulyak entitled "  " ("I Ask For Your Friendship) in the Russian travel magazine   ("Around the World"): Around the World   Machulyak explained that a young polar bear was abandoned after a hunter killed its parent in December 1974. Machulyak fed the young polar bear, which he named "Masha," for the remainder of the winter months until the bear left in the spring of 1975. A year later, he encountered a larger polar bear. While it seemed at first as if the bear was about to attack him, he soon realized that something quite different was happening. Here's how Machulyak explained the origins of this story to Around the World magazine (loosely translated via Google): In December 1974, a Chukchi hunter killed a polar bear that devastated its yaranga. After her there was a pestoon - a young bear, which I fed for five months: she had not yet learned to hunt. Called her Masha. In the spring of 1975, she left, and almost a year later I saw her again ... ... And suddenly this bear rushes to me. Often a person does not manage to unravel the intentions of the beast, but here I felt: this is not an attack. All bears are usually on the same face ... but then I realized - Masha! I stopped her with a wand. I always carry such a wand with me. Light, sixty centimeters. Masha was at a loss - this was visible in her face, at will, bypassing the wand, approaching me. She clearly recognized me ... And yet it was scary. After all, 11 months have passed since our last meeting. I immediately brought meat from the trap. She ate willingly. The Around the World article also included journal entries that Machulyak had written about his experiences with Masha. In them, he recounts his various encounters with her, such as the time he fed her seal meat from his hands. Masha wasn't the only polar bear that Machulyak encountered during this period. At one point, a larger bear named "Marya Mikhailovna" pushed Masha from her den. Machulyak was able to befriend this bear, too, as well as her cubs.  The Russian Geographical Society collected and published several other photographs of Machulyak and this family of polar bears: Russian Geographical Society   Although Machulyak had multiple encounters with these polar bears, he said that he always approached with caution: The beast is the beast. But every time I set myself up before a meeting. I mentally tell Masha, and not only to her, but to any bear: "I ask for your friendship. Here is my hand in advance  palm up, there is no weapon, there is a can of condensed milk in it that you love. You are a beautiful, strong and amiable beast to me. I want to have a friend in you, and in friendship I will not be more faithful." . .  "  ."
    .  August 1977.   .  "  ."
  1 April 2014. President Barack Obamas upcoming State of the Union address gave Republicans and Democrats on the Sunday news shows another chance to make their case about the countrys economic performance over the past five years. OnFox News Sunday,Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer pointed out the country has added 8 million jobs since the health care law passed in March 2010. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, offered a different take on the state of the labor force onFace the Nation. Why are jobs and economic growth so dismal? he asked. Weve got the lowest labor force participation in over three decades, since 1978. And if President Obama wants to give an honest, candid State of the Union address this week, hell address the fact that his economic policies are not working. It's difficult to say how Obama's policies are causing the economy to stall or succeed, but we can examine Cruz's specific claim about labor force participation. Cruz, whose press office did not respond to our request for comment, is correctly breaking down data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. The labor force participation rate is another measurement of the health of the labor market. The unemployment rate is the number of people who are not working as a percent of the labor force. There are multiple lenses through which to view jobs data. Another measure, thelabor force participation rate, refers to the percentage of Americans who are considered to be in the labor force as a part of the overall population. To be counted in the labor force, someone must be working or actively looking for work. In December (and also October), the labor force participation rate was 62.8 percent. In January and March of 1978, it was also 62.8 percent. We know what youre thinking: Cool numbers, PolitiFact, but what do they mean? Take a look at the trend. The labor force participation rate had been increasing since 1948, the first year the labor force participation rate was calculated. Then, it was 58.6 percent. It peaked in the late 1990s and 2000 to just more than 67 percent, before more recently hitting its lowest point in 36 years. Its fallen 2.9 percentage points since Obamas first month on the job in January 2009. Whats happening is the subject of an ongoing debate. There is understandable concern about the countrys long-term unemployed anddiscouraged workers. The economic recovery from the 2007-09 recession has been slow, which may have propelled people to go back to school, stay at home with their kids or give up on a search altogether when they could not find jobs in their field. Still, many economists attribute at least a portion of the drop to an unsurprising reason: the retirement of baby boomers, which does not exactly qualify as an American horror story. The trick is to determine how much of the drop represents the impact of a lagging economy, which is worrisome, and how much is due to non-worrisome factors, such as the aging of the adult population, said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, ina 2013 PolitiFact interview. Theres no reason to believe things will change anytime soon. The labor force will become older, slowly add workers as the overall population grows and become more racially diverse in the next decade, according to theBureau of Labor Statistics. BLS researchers say the labor force participation rate will continue to slowly fall until hitting 61.6 percent in 2022 -- a projected decline of 1.2 percentage points since December 2013. The past decade saw a much more dramatic drop, declining 3.6 percentage points since December 2003. Our ruling Cruz said, Weve got the lowest labor force participation in over three decades, since 1978. Were pretty confident Obama isnt asking Cruz for State of the Union talking points, and hes especially not interested in one that may suggest todays economic policies arent working. Cruz has his statistics right. But well note at least part of the trend has been years in the making and appears strongly tied to the inevitable aging of the baby boomer population. In other words, its not all Obamas fault, and its not going to change the minute he leaves office. We rate Cruzs statement Mostly True. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland seems determined to be regarded as your energy governor. In his race for re-election this November, the governor touts his efforts toward energy reform at almost every opportunity.He was at it again during a campaign address on July 6 when he said, The energy reform bill I proposed gave Ohio one of the nations most aggressive renewable energy policies and has pushed our utilities to innovate.And while other states that failed to act saw electricity rates jump 70 percent, Strickland said, Ohios electricity rates are 10 percent below the national average.Stricklands spokeswoman, Allison Kolodziej, acknowledges that Ohios electricity rates were already well below the national average before Strickland took office in January 2007. But she said the governors push for Senate Bill 221  which became law in 2008 and placed tighter reins on utility companies seeking to set market-based pricing  prevented Ohios rates from skyrocketing as rates did in other states where wholesale market pricing was unchecked.The question: Are Ohios rates today a full 10 percent below the national average as the governor claimed? The governors campaign staff said it relied on information from the U.S. Department of Energys Energy Information Administration, or EIA, for its figures.According to EIAs most recent average retail price report, released June 16 and updated through March, Ohios average electricity price for all sectors this year was 8.72 cents per kilowatt hour. The national average was 9.5 cents. That means Ohios rate thus for 2010 for all sectors is about 8 percent below the national average  not 10 percent.In 2009, however  the last full year of available figures  Ohios average was 8.63 cents per kilowatt hour and the national average 9.75 cents, meaning a year ago the state was 11 percent below the national average. That means Stricklands statement is not accurate today but was a year ago.Kolodziej said the campaign is relying on 2009 figures because the full 2010 year figures are not yet complete.The premise of Stricklands statement is that Ohio is still trending below the national average when it comes to electricity rates, and thus is better off than many other states in terms of utility costs. The context of his point was accurate.But while the full 2010 figures are not yet available, there were more up to date figures the governor could have relied on during his speech that, while not as flattering as 2009, could have still effectively made his point  just more accurately.We rate this statement as Mostly True. Comment on this item.