Did an AR Dragon Fly Over a Baseball Stadium?
A video of a large, augmented-reality, fire-breathing dragon flying over a baseball stadium is frequently shared on social media. While viewers were undoubtedly aware that this footage didn't actually show a real mythical creature's visit to a ball game, some social media users seemed a bit confused about what this video actually showed. Is it a hologram? CGI? Virtual reality? At the opening of the South Korean baseball championship they used a 3D hologram using 5G technology. Realistic Dragon flew over the stadium.Just unbelieveble!!! pic.twitter.com/y3jR64aXXB pic.twitter.com/y3jR64aXXB  Godfather IV (@godfatheriv) August 13, 2019 August 13, 2019  This video shows an augmented reality (AR) dragon. AR, which refers to technology that mixes the real world with computer-generated (CGI) images, is different from virtual reality (VR), the use of computer technology to create a simulated environment. Unlike a hologram, the CGI objects can only be seen via some sort of screen: virtual reality According to information from Live Science and The Franklin Institute, respectively:  Live Science The Franklin Institute Augmented reality is the result of using technology to superimpose information  sounds, images and text  on the world we see. Picture the "Minority Report" or "Iron Man" style of interactivity.  Augmented reality (AR) is one of the biggest technology trends right now, and its only going to get bigger as AR ready smartphones and other devices become more accessible around the world. AR let us see the real-life environment right in front of us  trees swaying in the park, dogs chasing balls, kids playing soccer  with a digital augmentation overlaid on it. For example, a pterodactyl might be seen landing in the trees, the dogs could be mingling with their cartoon counterparts, and the kids could be seen kicking past an alien spacecraft on their way to score a goal. In other words, this dragon didn't actually "fly over" this stadium. It was only viewable via a screen.  This video was created by the company SK Telecom for the SK Wyverns' opening day (a wyvern is a "winged two-legged dragon with a barbed tail") of the 2019 Korean Baseball Organization season. The dragon was visible on the stadium's large LED screen and home televisions. While the people at this game couldn't see this dragon with the naked eye, they were able to see this mythical beast via their phones.  Korea.com reported that fans could also interact with the dragon by pressing the "cheer button" on a smartphone app: reported An augmented reality (AR) image of a wyvern, a mythical dragon-like creature, on March 23 suddenly appeared on the opening day of the 2019 Korea Baseball Organization (KBO) season at Incheon's SK Happy Dream Park, home of the defending league champions SK Wyverns. An image of the team's mascot was shown on the world's largest LED baseball scoreboard at the stadium. In addition, the flying creature put on an interactive performance when fans pressed the cheer button on a smartphone app. Fans who watched the event on TV or their smartphones could also see this high-tech spectacle.   For the wyvern's performance, SK used its self-developed AR and virtual reality (VR) technologies such as eSpace, a hyperspace platform for replicating the real world in cyberspace, and T real Platform, which enables AR content to be freely created and shared. The use of the latest 5G wireless technology also allowed large-scale AR streaming. A second video of this augmented reality dragon was posted to the SK Telecom YouTube page. That video shows fans downloading this app and interacting with the dragon via their phones:  In November 2019, a similar video supposedly showing a "hologram" lion roaring at stadium in Argentina went viral on social media: Estudiantes de La Plata celebrated reopening their stadium with the most incredible hologram show ?? pic.twitter.com/cKCsJAKwD3 pic.twitter.com/cKCsJAKwD3  ESPN FC (@ESPNFC) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   Again, this was not a hologram visible to the naked eye, but an augmented reality display that could only be seen on screens. Emspak, Jesse.  "What is Augmented Reality?
  Live Science. 1 June 2018. The Franklin Institute.  "What is Augmented Reality?
  Retrieved 15 August 2019. Landers, Chris.  "Korea's SK Wyverns Used Augmented Reality to Bring a Fire-Breathing Dragon to Opening Day."
  MLB.  25 March 2019. Hwaya, Kim.  "Augmented Reality Dragon Wows Baseball Fans on Opening Day."
  Korea.net.  27 March 2019.
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 Throughout the 2020 presidential campaign, U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has frequently referred to his roots in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Some social media users questioned whether this was the same "Scranton" from the U.S. sitcom "The Office" (and whether Scranton was indeed a real American city). Meanwhile, Biden's political rival, U.S. President Donald Trump, accused Biden of exaggerating his connections to the small Pennsylvania city.  This topic came up once again during the final presidential debate of 2020. Twice during the debate, Biden mentioned his small-town roots while talking about middle-class families. Here are transcripts from these two moments: mentioned Where I come from, in Scranton and Claymont, the people don't live off of the stock market. This isn't about me. There's a reason why he's bringing up all this malarkey. There's a reason for it. He doesn't want to talk about the substantive issues. It's not about his family and my family. It's about your family, and your family's hurting badly. If you're making less than, if you're a middle class family, you're getting hurt badly right now. You're sitting at the kitchen table this morning deciding, well, we can't get new tires, theyre bald, because we have to wait another month. Or, so are we going to be able to pay the mortgage? Who's going to tell her, she can't go back to community college? They're the decisions you're making in the middle class families like I grew up in Scranton and Claymont. They're in trouble. We should be talking about your families but that's the last thing he wants to talk about. Later in the debate, Trump disputed Biden's connections to Scranton: And he doesn't come from Scranton. That's like, what -- he lived there for a short period of time before he even knew -- And he left. And the people of Pennsylvania will tell you that. In the past, Trump has pushed an exaggerated version of this claim, saying that Biden "wasn't born here" in Scranton. wasn't born here The president is wrong. Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Here's a November 1942 newspaper clipping of Biden's birth announcement from The Tribune, a local Scranton newspaper: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/61652359/ For fans of "The Office," this is the same Scranton that serves as the home of the fictional paper company Dunder Mifflin.  Scranton Biden lived in Scranton until he was 10 years old. His father struggled to find work and eventually landed a job cleaning boilers in Wilmington, Delaware. Biden's father made the two-hour commute for a time, but in 1953 he moved the family to Claymont to be closer to work. The New York Times reported: reported Though Scranton was sharing in the postwar economic boom, Joe Sr. had trouble finding steady work, and nothing that measured up to his previous success. For a time, he commuted to Wilmington to clean boilers for a heating and cooling company. In 1953, he moved the family there. [...] After a few years in a drab apartment in Claymont, Del., the Bidens moved to a nondescript split-level home on Wilson Road in Wilmington, where they stayed until the children were grown. While the Bidens moved out of Scranton when he was 10 years old, the family maintained some connections to his hometown. In 1987, Jean Finnegan Biden, the former vice president's mother, told the Scrantonian Tribune, "Scranton's our hometown... we have fond memories of it." In 2008, Delaware's The News Journal published an article about Biden's hometown friends and his authentic connection to the city: Scrantonian Tribune  Mon, Sep 1, 2008  Page 10  The News Journal (Wilmington, Delaware)  Newspapers.com  Mon, Sep 1, 2008  Page 10  The News Journal (Wilmington, Delaware)  Newspapers.com In an interview with GQ, Biden talked about his childhood in Scranton and noted that his family spent most holidays and summers visiting friends in Scranton until he was about 16 years old. Biden also said that a few of his friends from Scranton were in his wedding: GQ I go back [to Scranton] lot. For the last thirty-five years, any time Scranton needs something I don't know how to say no to them. For real. I really don't. You know, it's still home. I moved outta there when I was 11 years old, but probably till I was 16, we spent every holiday up there. And almost every summer. And when I got married, to Neilia, my deceased wife, there were six, seven guys in the wedding and three of them were from Scranton. In short: 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, in November 1942. This is the same Scranton that is featured in the show "The Office." Biden lived in Scranton for about 10 years until his father moved the family a few hours away to Clayton after getting a job in Delaware.  The Associated Press.  "The Office sheds light on Scranton, Pa."
  3 March 2006. Tavernise, Sabrina.  "Biden Says He Gets Places Like Scranton. Some in Town Arent So Sure."
  The New York Times.  23 Otober 2020. Calefati, Jessica.  "Fact-Checking Trumps Frequent Claim That Joe Biden Abandoned Scranton.'"
  PolitiFact.  29 August 2020. Depaulo, Lisa.  "$#!% Joe Biden Says."
  GQ.  19 November 2010. Solender, Andrew.  "He Wasnt Born Here: Trump Birthers Biden Near Scranton Ahead Of DNC Acceptance Speech."
  Forbes.  20 August 2020. Broder, John.  "Fathers Tough Life an Inspiration for Biden."
  The New York Times.  23 October 2008. USA Today.  "Debate Transcript: Trump, Biden Final Presidential Debate Moderated by Kristen Welker."
  23 October 2020. Urban Legends Reference Pages: Inboxer Rebellion (DarkProfits)  Claim:  Your credit card has been used to place an order with DarkProfits.com.  .Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003]Origins:  This spammed message  warning recipients that DarkProfits.com has received an "order made by using your personal credit card information"  is not really a scam but merely another in a series of pranks directed at the DarkProfits web site.  No charges have been placed on anyone's cards. This item is just one more "joe job" prank (an attempt to pin blame on an uninvolved third party by forging messages in their name) intended to get people riled up at DarkProfits.com.DarkProfits has been targeted by other "joe jobs"  a September 2003 mailing that offered all manner of illegal goods for sale, and one that appeared in January 2004 that announced the recipient's credit card had been charged $149.95 by DarkProfits.com for "1 Month Child Porn Unlimited Online Access."  Both of these were just more of the same leg pull.Last updated:  30 January 2004   .Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003]Origins:  This spammed message  warning recipients that DarkProfits.com has received an "order made by using your personal credit card information"  is not really a scam but merely another in a series of pranks directed at the DarkProfits web site.  No charges have been placed on anyone's cards. This item is just one more "joe job" prank (an attempt to pin blame on an uninvolved third party by forging messages in their name) intended to get people riled up at DarkProfits.com.DarkProfits has been targeted by other "joe jobs"  a September 2003 mailing that offered all manner of illegal goods for sale, and one that appeared in January 2004 that announced the recipient's credit card had been charged $149.95 by DarkProfits.com for "1 Month Child Porn Unlimited Online Access."  Both of these were just more of the same leg pull.Last updated:  30 January 2004 Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003]  Origins:  This spammed message  warning recipients that DarkProfits.com has received an "order made by using your personal credit card information"  is not really a scam but merely another in a series of pranks directed at the DarkProfits web site.   No charges have been placed on anyone's cards. This item is just one more "joe job" prank (an attempt to pin blame on an uninvolved third party by forging messages in their name) intended to get people riled up at DarkProfits.com. joe job DarkProfits has been targeted by other "joe jobs"  a September 2003 mailing that offered all manner of illegal goods for sale, and one that appeared in January 2004 that announced the recipient's credit card had been charged $149.95 by DarkProfits.com for "1 Month Child Porn Unlimited Online Access."  Both of these were just more of the same leg pull. illegal goods Child Porn Last updated:  30 January 2004 On 20 August 2016, the UK newspaper The Guardian (among others) published an article about a September 2016 study suggesting that the maternal mortality rate in Texas had doubled in recent years (outstripping that of countries with overall poorer health outcomes): article The rate of Texas women who died from complications related to pregnancy doubled from 2010 to 2014, a new study has found, for an estimated maternal mortality rate that is unmatched in any other state and the rest of the developed world. The finding comes from a report, appearing in the September issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, that the maternal mortality rate in the United States increased between 2000 and 2014, even while the rest of the world succeeded in reducing its rate. Excluding California, where maternal mortality declined, and Texas, where it surged, the estimated number of maternal deaths per 100,000 births rose to 23.8 in 2014 from 18.8 in 2000  or about 27%. But the report singled out Texas for special concern, saying the doubling of mortality rates in a two-year period was hard to explain in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval. From 2000 to the end of 2010, Texass estimated maternal mortality rate hovered between 17.7 and 18.6 per 100,000 births. But after 2010, that rate had leaped to 33 deaths per 100,000, and in 2014 it was 35.8. Between 2010 and 2014, more than 600 women died for reasons related to their pregnancies. No other state saw a comparable increase. The article noted that reproductive health advocates placed the blame squarely on Texas' unique targeting of reproductive health centers and practices, citing budget cuts, atypically strict reproductive health laws and efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, along with the vast size of the state (which made it difficult for many women to cross state lines to obtain gynecological care unavailable in Texas): strict defund In the wake of the report, reproductive health advocates are blaming the increase on Republican-led budget cuts that decimated the ranks of Texass reproductive healthcare clinics. In 2011, just as the spike began, the Texas state legislature cut $73.6m from the states family planning budget of $111.5m. The two-thirds cut forced more than 80 family planning clinics to shut down across the state. The remaining clinics managed to provide services  such as low-cost or free birth control, cancer screenings and well-woman exams  to only half as many women as before. Not everyone was convinced the ostensible cause and effect was so clear cut, as noted in a Townhall piece holding that conclusions about Texas' legislative efforts were politically motivated and contradicted by data: piece Apparently, the researchers did some adjusting of their own. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS), maternal mortality rates have been alarmingly increasing for years. That modest increase, lead researcher Marian MacDorman imagines, was a huge increase. In 2000, the MMR was 10.5 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (equating to 30 tragic deaths). By 2009, this rate had nearly tripled to 28.9 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (resulting in 116 deaths). Thats a modest increase? In 2010, the MMR actually decreased to 24.6. Then, MacDorman et al claimed: Texas had a sudden increase in 2011-2012. If by sudden they mean over ten years of significant increases ... sure. They completely ignored the fact that from 2010 to 2011, the MMR rose from 24.6 to 30.7 (an increase of about 25 percent). From 2011 to 2012, the increase was only 3%, rising to a rate of 31.6 ... not doubling! That didn't stop Slate.com and a host of media outlets from declaring: After Texas Slashed Its Family Planning Budget, Maternal Deaths Almost Doubled. In 2013 it rose another 25 percent to 39.5 (claiming the lives of 153 women). Heres the clincher, though. Texas MMR dropped in 2014 in rate and total maternal deaths. Neither the peer-reviewed study nor any of the leftists in the news media mention this. Both items cited the study, titled "Recent Increases in the U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate"  published [PDF] in the September issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology. Both the study's title and its objective described a nationwide focus on maternal mortality: PDF To develop methods for trend analysis of vital statistics maternal mortality data, taking into account changes in pregnancy question formats over time and between states, and to provide an overview of U.S. maternal mortality trends from 2000 to 2014. Similarly, its conclusion singled out no state by name and made no specific reference to Texas: Despite the United Nations Millennium Development Goal for a 75% reduction in maternal mortality by 2015, the estimated maternal mortality rate for 48 states and Washington, DC, increased from 2000 to 2014; the international trend was in the opposite direction. There is a need to redouble efforts to prevent maternal deaths and improve maternity care for the 4 million U.S. women giving birth each year. Texas' second namecheck in the study was benign, noting that the overall rate of maternal mortality was so low that only California and Texas served as sources of by-state data  due not to their specific outcomes, but to the size of their populations: It would be preferable to analyze data individually for each state; however, maternal death is a rare event, and the number of cases (396 U.S. deaths in 2000 and 856 in 2014) was not sufficient to support individual state analysis for all but the most populous states (California and Texas). But the "Results" portion of the introductory page noted that California's and Texas' statistics trended differently and provided a primary finding that colored media coverage of the findings: The estimated maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) for 48 states and Washington, DC (excluding California and Texas, analyzed separately) increased by 26.6%, from 18.8 in 2000 to 23.8 in 2014. California showed a declining trend, whereas Texas had a sudden increase in 20112012. Analysis of the measurement change suggests that U.S. rates in the early 2000s were higher than previously reported. Much of the research hinged on pinpointing and adjusting for what was described as "the pregnancy question" (which was "added to the 2003 revision of the U.S. standard death certificate"), defined by the World Health Organization as death certificate language recording "The death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and the site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management, but not from accidental or incidental causes." The WHO also provided for late maternal deaths via a separate but similar checkbox: "The death of a woman from direct or indirect obstetric causes more than 42 days but less than 1 year after termination of pregnancy." Although the phrasing "termination of pregnancy" typically is understood to mean "an abortion" in layman's speech, the researchers and WHO used it to mean the end of a pregnancy via live birth, stillbirth, miscarriage, or abortion. Researchers noted that state-by-state adoption of the pregnancy question vis a vis death records led to findings that required some adjustment to reach conclusions. While some states immediately adopted the guideline in 2003, others waited years. By January 2014, 44 states and the District of Columbia included the question on their death certificates; that incongruous state-by-state data pool led to efforts on the researchers' parts to calibrate the data and parse it. The study noted that Texas (which adopted the question in 2006) demonstrated results that led to "uncertainty" in the final report: California is the only state that revised their death certificate with a pregnancy question inconsistent with the U.S. standard. The California question only asks about pregnancies within the past year. In addition, there were changes over time in specific data provided by California to the National Center for Health Statistics for deaths at less than 42 days, making use of this measure impracticable. Thus, maternal and late maternal deaths were combined for the California trend analysis. Finally, we estimated maternal mortality rates for 48 states and the District of Columbia from 2000 to 2014. California and Texas were excluded from this estimation: California because it does not provide comparable data and Texas as a result of uncertainty regarding recent trends (see Results). In that section, researchers described Texas' atypical spike in maternal mortality and noted that the laws in question were not likely sufficient to account for the spike (referencing a "future study" to obtain more information on Texas): Texas had an unrevised question about pregnancies in the past 12 months and revised to the U.S. standard question in 2006. Adjusted maternal mortality rates for Texas show only a modest increase from 2000 to 2010, from a rate of 17.7 in 2000 to 18.6 in 2010. The slope of this regression line was 0.12 (95% CI 20.22 to 0.46) (564 maternal deaths and 4,246,835 live F4 births) (Fig. 4). However, after 2010, the reported maternal mortality rate for Texas doubled within a 2-year period to levels not seen in other U.S. states. Joinpoint trend analysis was done separately for the 20002010 and the 20112014 periods because the trends for these two periods differed widely.  The Texas data are puzzling in that they show a modest increase in maternal mortality from 2000 to 2010 (slope 0.12) followed by a doubling within a 2- year period in the reported maternal mortality rate. In 2006, Texas revised its death certificate, including the addition of the U.S. standard pregnancy question, and also implemented an electronic death certificate. However, the 2006 changes did not appreciably affect the maternal mortality trend after adjustment, and the doubling in the rate occurred in 20112012. Texas cause-of-death data, like with data for most states, are coded at the National Center for Health Statistics, and this doubling in the rate was not found for other states. Communications with vital statistics personnel in Texas and at the National Center for Health Statistics did not identify any data processing or coding changes that would account for this rapid increase. There were some changes in the provision of womens health services in Texas from 2011 to 2015, including the closing of several womens health clinics. Still, in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval, the doubling of a mortality rate within a 2-year period in a state with almost 400,000 annual births seems unlikely. A future study will examine Texas data by raceethnicity and detailed causes of death to better understand this unusual finding. The study's introduction cited "[e]arlier studies [which] identified significant underreporting of maternal deaths in the National Vital Statistics System," reiterating in its "Discussion" section that variations by state impeded the research: For example, had the National Center for Health Statistics and the Texas vital statistics office both been publishing annual maternal mortality rates, the unusual findings from Texas for 20112014 would certainly have been investigated much sooner and in greater detail. The study noted that Texas demonstrated what appeared to be a spike in maternal mortality between 2011 and 2014, but researchers weren't yet confident that slashed funding for women's healthcare was primarily responsible for the change. Moreover, researchers mentioned widespread underreporting of maternal mortality across all states, positing it was "an international embarrassment that the United States, since 2007, has not been able to provide a national maternal mortality rate to international data repositories such as those run by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development." Study author Christine Morton told a reporter that the Texas-specific findings remained an unsolved puzzle: told I think everybody is at a loss to understand why Texas saw such an increase in maternal mortality rate. We posited that the documented changes in provisions in women's health services happened in this same time period, but it's hard to knowin the absence of in-depth case review of maternal mortality data in Texashow that lined up with those changes. As the Townhall columnist pointed out, Texas did demonstrate upticks in maternal mortality antedating 2011 clinic funding provisions. State data from 1970 to 2014 evidenced the 2011 to 2014 spike in maternal mortality but exhibited a maternal death rate (a number unaffected by the raw number of deaths or births in any given year) that didn't appear to correlate directly with changes in state laws. In 1970, the maternal death rate hovered at 0.3 per 1,000 live births, dropping to 0.1 in 1977 and remaining virtually static until it rose to 0.2 in 2003. That figure remained fairly constant until 2009, when it reached 0.3 at 116 deaths; 2011 saw identical numbers. In 2012, 2013, and 2014 respectively that rate was 0.3 (121 deaths), 0.4 (153 deaths), and 0.3 (139 deaths): data  So the September 2016 study on the United States' maternal mortality rate published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology identified a steady increase in maternal deaths in Texas and cited state laws and funding as a potential (not proven) factor in that post-2011 uptick. But study authors bemoaned a lack of comprehensive record-keeping nationwide that impeded research, and the first year maternal deaths began increasing in Texas was 2003 (before clinics were affected by legislative efforts to reduce abortion).   Bomberger, Ryan.  "The Truth About Texas Maternal Mortality Rates and the Epic Defunding of Planned Parenthood."
  Townhall.  26 August 2016. Goodwyn, Wade.  "Texans Try to Repair Damage Wreaked Upon Family Planning Clinics."
  NPR.  28 January 2016. MacDorman, Marian F. et.al.  "Recent Increases in the U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate."
  Obstetrics and Gynecology.  September 2016. Peters, Adele.  "Texas Has the Worst Maternal Mortality Rate in the Developed World."
  Fast Company.  26 August 2016. Redden, Molly.  "Texas Has Highest Maternal Mortality Rate in Developed World, Study Finds."
  The Guardian.  20 August 2016. As U.S. House SpeakerPaul Ryandiscussed the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, a top priority of President-electDonald Trump, he made a claim about the financial health ofMedicare. What people dont realize is, because of Obamacare, Medicare is going broke, the Wisconsin RepublicantoldFox News hostBret Baieron Nov. 10, 2016. The Affordable Care Act certainly has its detractors. When Ryan claimed the same month that Obamacare is not a popular law, our rating wasMostly True. The polls generally showed most Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it. But surprisingly for Ryan, who is regarded as a federal budget expert, his claim about the law flies in the face of evidence that it actually helps shore up Medicare. What the ACA did on Medicare https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/7de6b429-1d9a-42de-ad08-c7998eaa6ca5 Heres howMarc Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, lays it out: On one side of the ledger, Obamacare slowed the growth of Medicare spending by, among other things, reducing increases in payments made to nearly all health care providers. On the other side of the ledger, the law included a surtax on high-income earners that brings more money into Medicare. Two health care policy experts further told us that the combination of spending curbs and revenue increases forMedicare Part A-- which covers hospital, nursing home and home care services, and is financed mainly through payroll taxes -- has extended the solvency of Medicare. (Medicare Part B, which is voluntary, covers doctor visits and some medical care.) Paul Ginsburg, a professor of the practice of health policy and management at the University of Southern California, pointed us to anOctober 2016 reportfrom the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The report noted that in 2010, the Medicare trustees projected that Obamacares spending curbs and revenue increases would mean MedicaresHospital Insurance Trust Fund, which finances Part A, would remain solvent until 2029. Thats 12 years later than had been projected a year before the Affordable Care Act became law. (The projection has since been revisedto 2028.) Michael Sparer, a professor health policy and management at Columbia University in New York, put it this way, financially speaking: If Obamacare were repealed completely, it would put Medicare in worse shape, not better shape. Finally, its worth noting that bothFactcheck.organd the Washington PostFact Checkeralso concluded that Ryans claim is wrong. They both also noted that, even if the Part A trust fund did become depleted in 2028, the program wouldnt be broke, in that it is still set up to cover an estimated 87 percent of expenses. FactCheck.orgs rating was false and the Fact Checker gave Ryan its worst rating, four Pinnocchios, which is for statements deemed to be whoppers. Ryans office opted not to provide us any information to support his claim. Our rating Ryan said: Because of Obamacare, Medicare is going broke. Financially, Medicare isnt entirely in the clear, given that actuaries project that a key reserve fund will run out of money in 2028. But the Medicare trustees themselves, along with a host of experts, say the Affordable Care Acts changes to Medicare -- including holding the line on spending and raising taxes -- actually puts Medicare in better shape than before the law was adopted. Thats a long way from making Medicare go broke. We rate Ryans statement Pants on Fire. Claim:   Two Idaho pastors were threatened with legal action and arrests for refusing to perform gay weddings.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Facebook has a Fox News Radio article about a couple, Don and Evelyn Knapp, that own an Idaho wedding chapel and are supposedly facing arrest if they don't perform same sex marriages. Is this for real?  Are officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, forcing Christian ministers to perform same sex marriage against their religious beliefs?  What has happened to "separation of church and state"?  Does it now only apply to churches preaching against  orruption in government?  Has the First Amendment been rewritten so that the state can now dictate religious beliefs and practices? Origins:  On 18 October 2014, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced in a press release that they were filing a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of pastors Donald and Evelyn Knapp of Couer d'Alene, Idaho. According to the announcement, the move was to prevent the city of Couer d'Alene from "forcing [the] two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples." The ADF's release stated that Donald and Evelyn Knapp faced the threat of jail or exorbitant fines if they refused to officiate gay weddings: City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its "non-discrimination" ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here  and it's happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended." On 14 October 2014, three days prior to the ADF's press release, the Idaho state government had announced that they would no longer oppose the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting a number of same-sex couples to obtain licenses and marry in the days immediately following the state's announcement:  The marriages came a day after Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Republicans who had fought to maintain the state's ban on gay marriage, ended their opposition to a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The localized battle in Idaho received national attention on 20 October 2014, when Fox News opinion columnist Todd Starnes published an article about the ADF's lawsuit on behalf of the Knapps: According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a "religious corporation" limited to performing "one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible." But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business  not as a church or place of worship  and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance. A Couer dAlene deputy city attorney reportedly said on local television that for-profit wedding chapels could not legally turn away a gay couple without risking a misdemeanor citation, and that the Hitching Post "would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance." The Knapps maintain that the City Attorneys office made the same assertion in telephone conversations with them, while the city claims they never threatened to take any legal action against the couple.  The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows: discovery cached The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors.  At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier: description The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions: PDF Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion. This chapter does not apply to: Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies. Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice: reported The Hitching Post wants the city to pay them for wages lost during the time they thought the city was going to force them to perform weddings. The Hitching Post made their stance on gay marriage very clear last year when the initial ban was overturned. Last May they said they would close their doors if they were forced to perform same sex marriages. The Hitching Post now wants the city to pay them for the days the chapel shut down even though they did so by choice. The business also says it lost customers and received hate mail because of media attention. However, the city said they have made it clear the Hitching Post is classified as a "religious organization" and is exempt, whether it's for profit or not. City spokesperson Keith Erickson wrote in a statement that the city "never threatened any legal action against the Hitching Post, nor does it intend to do so." A  2 April 2015 news article added that the chapel closures cited by the Knapps in their suit against the city included days on which same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Idaho:  Boise-based attorney Kirtlan Naylor wrote in the city's legal response, that while the Knapps claim they lost income when they closed the Hitching Post because they would be in violation of the ordinance, they never allege "that they had any weddings scheduled on those dates, or that anybody came to their business requesting a wedding on those dates." "More so, same-sex marriage was not legal in Idaho on Oct. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14," the motion states. "Additionally, on Oct. 15, 2014, when same-sex marriage became legal, Plaintiffs would not have been subject to the ordinance because they were exempt. Therefore, they were under no legitimate threat of prosecution which would require them to close their business on that date." According to the Hitching Post owners' complaint, the Knapps closed their business due to "a constant state of fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony." However, the article referenced above also reiterated a city spokesman's statement that officials "have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind" against them. Last updated:  7 July 2015    Starnes, Todd.   "City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings."   Fox News.  20 October 2014. In February2016, links began circulating on Facebookpromising a treasure trove of Sharpie brand markers to users who completed a short series of steps:   The embedded links led toURLs which were generated seemingly at random and didn't link to Sharpie's web site. Users who clicked through to claim the promised prize were routed to pages which appeared plausibly Facebook-esque(but werehostedoff Facebook):   As evidenced by the above-reproduced screenshots, the associatedURLs don'tmatch the official domains of Sharpie or Facebook. The fake giveaway was another version of the common survey/sweepstakes scams which urge readers to share freebie bait on Facebook, which then spreads the scam to more friends and groups. Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among brandsused as enticementsbyscammers, many aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureauexplained how to identify and avoidbad actorsimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article 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. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. 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. Sen. Marco Rubio defended past support of a cap-and-trade bill in the Florida House by saying it was an attempt to protect the state from future federal regulations. Fox News moderator Bret Baier asked Rubio about the issue at a Republican presidential primary debate in Des Moines, Iowa, on Jan. 28, 2016. Baier said Rubio had wanted Florida to get ahead of other states and establish a cap-and-trade system while he was House speaker in 2008, and asked why Rubio had changed his mind. Rubio denied he backed a popular plan supported by then-Gov. Charlie Crist, claiming he was looking to insulate Florida from restrictions a future president might impose. I have never supported cap and trade, and I never thought it was a good idea, and I was clear about that at the time, Rubio said. Rubio has been very outspoken during this campaign abouthis opposition to cap and trade, which lets businesses trade pollution credits if they don't meet emission caps. But is his retelling of what happened in 2008 accurate? Cap and trade mission We literally went to the tape to find out, because the key evidence in this claim is a snippet from aMarch 13, 2008, appearanceRubio made on WFSUsFlorida Face to Face. Rubio was discussingHB 7135, an energy and climate change billchampioned by Cristthat included the Florida Climate Protection Act. That part of the law allowed the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to formulate a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse emissions from electric utilities. Florida should position itself for what I believe is inevitable, and that is a federal cap-and-trade program. Florida should do everything it can to be an early complier so it can access early compliance funds and so that it can help influence what that cap-and-trade looks like at the federal level, Rubio said on the show, which ran during the legislative session. And so Im in favor of giving the Department of Environmental Protection a mandate that they go out and design a cap-and-trade or a carbon-tax program and bring it back to the Legislature for ratification some time in the next two years. Crist used a portion of this clip during his 2010 Senate primary campaign against Rubio in an attempt to show Rubio favored a cap-and-trade program. WFSU, which operates The Florida Channel covering state government, demanded Criststop using footage of the showbecause of a law barring use of its footage in political campaigns. This limited portion of the show has been resurrected online during the presidential primary, leading someconservative sitesto question Rubios stance on the issue. But wait, as they say, theres more. Rubios campaign had complained the clip was out of context, and it appears it really was. They havepointed to a longer edit of the footagethat shows Rubio going on to say: Im in favor of them designing it. Im not in favor of them designing it and implementing it. Im in favor of them designing it and then bringing it back to the Legislature. The way were going toclean up our environment, the way were going to lower carbon emissions, is not through government mandates. That certainly changes the context of his statement. Rubios campaign did not respond to PolitiFacts questions about his potential support of cap and trade, but they haveaddressed this issue before. In 2007, Rubio wrote anop-ed for theMiami Heraldthat said Crist should be applauded for his efforts, but the government mandates he has proposed will not only fail to achieve their desired result, they carry actual negative consequences. Rubio did cite proposals from his book100 Innovative Ideas for Florida's Futureto increase ethanol production, develop bio-fuels and provide tax incentives for better fuel efficiency. But he concluded that instead of adopting measures that will have little if any impact on our environment and make life in Florida more expensive, we need a strategy that encourages environmental conservation, fuel efficiency and energy diversity, while continuing to stimulate our economy. Rubio also said in aMarch 2007 speechthat Florida was ripe to change energy policy because it was both environmentally sound and potentially lucrative. This nation, and ultimately the world, is headed towards emission caps and energy diversification, he said. Those changes will require technological advances that make those measures cost effective. The demand toward such advances will create an industry to meet it. Florida should become the Silicon Valley of that industry. Rubio did seem to change his tune a bit by 2009, when he was being criticized for his full-throated opposition of cap and trade after presiding over the passage of HB 7135. Environmentalists and scientists noted Rubio had shepherded the entire process as House speaker. The legislation was passed to move forward on cap-and-trade policy, and certainly Marco Rubio didn't stand in the way of that legislation passing and my understanding was that he was supportive of the process, John Reilly, a leading climate change expert from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology hired by Rubio to advise lawmakers,told theMiami Herald. He certainly seemed to accept the science of climate change. Rubio argued then that he wanted to take executive authority away from Crist, although the DEP countered they would have always needed legislative approval. Cap and trade planning fell by the wayside as Crist waged a losing Senate primary battle against Rubio. It has worked out as it was designed to work out, which was to stop a cap-and-trade system in Florida, Rubio said in 2009. Some critics at the time doubted that was Rubio's true plan, as it was a big gamble that the Legislature would shut down any proposed DEP cap and trade proposal. But a2015 article in theNational Journalsaid that while the bill passed (and it passed the House and Senate unanimously), Rubio did add wording that prevented the plan from being implemented. The final bill indeed only allowed DEP to develop a potential plan, and required legislative approval to become practice. TheNational Journalquoted former House minority leader and state Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, who said, I fully credit him with the gutting of the bill. Our ruling Rubio said, I have never supported cap and trade. As House speaker in Florida, Rubio did preside over the unanimous passage of an energy bill that allowed the state to develop a cap-and-trade plan for electric utility emissions. But it appears his comments on the bill have been taken out of context, and that there may have been some legislative craftiness afoot. Rubio said he wanted Florida to cook up a plan of its own before federal regulations were imposed on the state. He also voiced opposition to government mandates and inserted a roadblock to letting any plan actually be implemented, details that get left out when Rubio is accused of supporting the measure. He now is much more vocal in his opposition of cap and trade, but it looks as if he has always favored a largely hands-off approach from government. We rate Rubios statement Mostly True. In May 2022, a fake quote was attributed to former congressman Trey Gowdy in an attempt to hype the film "2000 Mules" on social media:    This is not a genuine quote from Gowdy. It doesn't appear on Gowdy's social media feeds, nor does it appear in any genuine news articles about "2000 Mules" or Gowdy.  Gowdy confirmed to The Associated Press that this quote is fake and that he had never seen or even heard of the film: Both assertions are completely false. Never said it. Didnt attend. Never heard of the movie much less seen the movie. So, its false at every level. confirmed to The Associated Press "2000 Mules" is a documentary released in May 2022 by Dinesh D'Souza, a right-wing political commentator who received a pardon from former U.S. President Donald Trump after pleading guilty to violating campaign finance laws in 2014. The film attempts to further the discredited premise that the 2020 election was marred by widespread voter fraud.  pardon from former U.S. President Donald Trump A number of news organizations looked into the movie's claims and found them to be sorely lacking. The Washington Post said the film offered the "least convincing election-fraud theory yet." The Associated Press wrote that there were "gaping holes" in the film's claims, and the Denver Post wrote that the film used "faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data." Washington Post said the film Associated Press wrote Denver Post wrote The movie has received little to no attention from mainstream conservative media outlets.  mainstream conservative media outlets Analysis | 2000 Mules Offers the Least Convincing Election-Fraud Theory Yet. Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/2000-mules-offers-least-convincing-election-fraud-theory-yet/. Accessed 12 May 2022. PolitiFact - The Faulty Premise of the 2,000 Mules Trailer about Voting by Mail in the 2020 Election. Politifact, https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/may/04/faulty-premise-2000-mules-trailer-about-voting-mai/. Accessed 12 May 2022. Press, Ali Swenson |. The Associated. Fact-Checking 2000 Mules, the Movie Alleging Ballot Fraud. The Denver Post, 8 May 2022, https://www.denverpost.com/2022/05/08/2000-mules-fact-check/. Staten, Adam. Dinesh DSouza Slams Tucker Carlson, Newsmax over New Documentary Coverage. Newsweek, 9 May 2022, https://www.newsweek.com/dinesh-dsouza-slams-tucker-carlson-newsmax-over-new-documentary-coverage-1704863. In November 2021, Democratic Congresswoman Cori Bush raised eyebrows when she made the startling claim that, during protests in Ferguson, Missouri, back in 2015, white supremacists shot at her and her fellow anti-racism demonstrators, with impunity. Bush came to prominence as a pastor and community leader during the 2014-2015 unrest in St. Louis and Ferguson, following the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old Black man. She went on to be elected as the first Black congresswoman from Missouri in 2020.  On Nov. 15, she tweeted out her reflections on the ongoing trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, an 18-year-old Illinois man charged with several counts, including murder, for his role in the shooting deaths of two men during civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020. tweeted out ongoing trial of Kyle Rittenhouse Bush wrote: When we marched in Ferguson, white supremacists would hide behind a hill near where Michael Brown Jr. was murdered and shoot at us. They never faced consequences. If Kyle Rittenhouse gets acquitted, it tells them that even 7 years later they still can get away with it.   Bush's claim was a remarkable one, and suggested that white supremacists were effectively given license to shoot at Black protesters in Ferguson, and never brought to justice for what would be very serious violent crimes. It was also one that could not be quickly or readily corroborated, which prompted significant skepticism about its veracity. Ferguson Police Chief Frank McCall no doubt added to that skepticism when he told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch he was not aware of any such incident having taken place.  significant skepticism told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch The congresswoman's claim was not fabricated out of thin air, but rather related to a specific alleged incident in January 2015. However, we have not yet been able to obtain evidence that supports her core claim, namely that known white supremacists did indeed shoot at protesters, in their capacity as protesters. Moreover, a key figure in the alleged events of that day told Snopes she never saw any individual responsible for the shooting (and therefore could not corroborate the claim that they were white supremacists), and also did not recall having seen Bush at the time.  In the absence of concrete evidence which clearly establishes the accuracy or inaccuracy of Bush's claims, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." If solid evidence becomes available, we will update this fact check accordingly.  Snopes sent a list of detailed questions to Bush's congressional staff: requesting evidence in support of her claims; asking whether she or others had reported any purported incidents to law enforcement or non-profit organizations; and seeking clarification on the number of incidents in question. In her tweet, Bush used the past continuous tense "white supremacists would hide behind," which suggested a series of events. Similarly, in a Congressional speech in February 2021, when reflecting upon her experience of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Bush said "I feel like I'm back. I feel like this was one of the days out there on the streets, when the white supremacists would show up and start shooting at us..." [Emphasis is added] Bush said In response, we received an email from Anna Bahr, a progressive political consultant from the firm Left Flank. Bahr directed us to social media posts about an alleged shooting incident at an apartment complex in Ferguson, on Jan. 19, 2015, as well as the following statement: social media posts While on the frontlines of the Ferguson Uprising, Congresswoman Bush and other activists were shot at by white supremacist vigilantes. The question we need to ask is why white supremacists feel empowered to open-carry rifles, incite violence, and put Black lives at risk across our country. The following is a summary of the claims that have been made about that supposed shooting incident, which allegedly took place at or outside Canfield Green  now known as Pleasant View Gardens  an apartment complex located just feet from where Brown was shot dead in August 2014.  now known as Pleasant View Gardens short news article on a hill Ayanna Delaine Barney, claimed went to hospital In the face of vocal online skepticism about Bush's account, in November 2021, St. Louis activist Ohun Ashe defended the congresswoman's claims, writing on Twitter: "This is TRUE! I vividly remember hiding under porches in Canfield as shots were fired at us. No one came to help us. Ferguson police would be nearby. We would come from under porches using cars as shields in between gun shots to make it out." writing on Twitter Ashe's use of the past continuous tense  "We would come from under porches"  again suggested a series of events, rather than just one. Snopes emailed her a list of detailed questions, in an effort to clarify this and other issues, but we did not receive a response. We also contacted the woman with the Facebook username Meechie Jordan, in an effort to obtain additional relevant evidence connected to the Canfield Green incident, her own hospitalization, the bullet she purportedly handed over to Ferguson police as evidence, the potential role of white supremacists in the incident, and the purported presence of Bush. We did not receive a response.  One significant figure in the alleged events of Jan. 19, 2015, who did speak with Snopes was Ayanna Delaine Barney  the woman who owns the car that was damaged during the incident, allegedly as a result of shots fired in the direction of a group of protestors.  damaged during the incident Barney told Snopes she had never reported the incident to any law enforcement agency, and did not believe anyone else had either. Asked whether she could discern the race or possible white supremacist affiliations of the alleged shooters, Barney told Snopes she never saw any shooter, in part because it was dark out at the time of the incident. She also said she had no recollection of Bush's having been present during the events in question.  Barney added that she was still at a loss as to why the alleged shooting incident took place, but she noted that some who were present at the time have since speculated that it may have resulted from a feud between protesters that spiraled out of control. We have found no evidence to support that hypothesis, but it does indicate that Bush's white supremacists claim was not universally accepted among those present at the incident on Jan. 19, 2015. We sent follow-up questions to Bush's acting spokesperson Bahr, noting the absence of evidence to support the Congresswoman's claim that white supremacists were behind the shooting, and that she was present for it, and requesting such evidence. We did not receive a response to those follow-up questions, in time for publication. Armed right-wing groups such as the Oath Keepers, were conspicuously present during the protests and unrest in Ferguson during 2014 and 2015. Indeed, Bush herself made a contemporaneous note of their presence, describing an uneasy encounter she had with heavily-armed, white Oath Keepers, during an interview in August 2015 (begins around 51 minutes). However, we have not yet been able to obtain concrete evidence about the race or ideological affiliation of the alleged shooters from the Jan. 19, 2015 incident, and Bush did not provide any such evidence.  Oath Keepers begins around 51 minutes Snopes sent Ferguson police a list of detailed questions about their investigation into the purported Jan. 19, 2015 incident at Canfield Green apartments. A spokesperson for Chief Frank McCall told Snopes the department was conducting internal research on foot of our request. However, after we made repeated attempts to obtain a substantive response from police, Ferguson City Manager Eric Osterberg told Snopes both the city and its police department was declining to comment on Bush's claims. Several individuals posted online about an alleged shooting incident at the Canfield Green apartments in Ferguson, on Jan. 19, 2015. A small number of photographs suggest, but don't definitively demonstrate, that a shooting incident of some kind did take place on that date, and may have caused damage to a car, as well as grazing a bystander. However, we could find no evidence that a police investigation ever took place, and therefore no sense of what the conclusions of any such investigation were. Bush very prominently claimed that the incident consisted of white supremacists shooting at anti-racist protesters, but has so far provided no evidence to support that characterization, and such evidence was not available from other public sources. Bush may or may not have accurately described and characterized an incident on Jan. 19, 2015. As of now, the evidence available does not allow us to make a determination either way. Until or unless that changes, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." Bogan, Jesse. New Owners of Canfield Green Apartments in Ferguson Say a Pleasant View Is Coming. STLtoday.Com, https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/new-owners-of-canfield-green-apartments-in-ferguson-say-a-pleasant-view-is-coming/article_0a1b5c3d-40d1-56de-8e37-1228d9faf8ef.html. Accessed 18 Nov. 2021. In April 2007, a dark brown leather sofa set (couch, loveseat, and chair) obtained from Vanaik Furniture and Mattress store in Toronto was discovered by the Brampton family that purchased it to bear a startlingly racist descriptor, tags pronouncing the items' chocolate shade to be "Nigger-brown":  The set had been manufactured by a furniture maker operating in Guangzhou, China. The offensive labels escaped notice both at the Toronto furniture store and at its supplier, Cosmos Furniture in Scarborough. Each of the three pieces had a similar label affixed to the woven protective covering wrapped around them.  A Chinese software company, Kingsoft Corp., acknowledged their translation program was at fault. When the Chinese characters for "dark brown" were typed into an older version of their Chinese-English translation software, the offensive description came up. (The program's 2007 version no longer produce that result.) The software had been programmed with terms garnered from a Chinese-English dictionary.  A similar controversy erupted in 2017 when consumers reported seeing a wig base cap offered for sale on web sites such as Amazon.com and Walmart.com whose description identified it as being "nigger brown" in color:  Words aren't dropped from a language in the blink of an eye: While new terms can swiftly become part of the common lexicon, that which has fallen from linguistic favor departs far more slowly. Though now widely regarded as one of the words one must not say, it wasn't that long ago that Western society routinely used "nigger" as a color descriptor of various goods, even well after it was no longer used as a descriptor of people. Around 1914, Lady's Pictorial a London magazine, routinely presented ads for soft taffeta hats in "nigger-black." A 1915 edition of the British Home Chat magazine described cloth as "nigger-brown." Writers D.H. Lawrence and John Dos Passos wrote about "nigger-grey" and "nigger-pink." And, as late as 1973, The Times of London wrote of autumnal colours in a shade that "used to be nigger brown." While Western society has now eschewed the word, in some parts of the world it continues to be used as a descriptor of an item's color. In China, "nigger-brown" pigment was available for purchase in 2007 from the Wenzhou Kunwei Pearly-Lustre Pigment Co., Ltd., and men's shoes from the Nanhai De Xing Leather Shoes Habiliment Co., Ltd., were described on its web site as: "This product is comfortable for wearing, it looks very simple and artistic. Size: 39#-46# Color: nigger-brown." described Such are the pitfalls of dealing with a global economy: goods produced and labeled in one part of the world are sold internationally, and terms that are irredeemably offensive in some places barely give anyone pause in others. Until the epithet falls out of use everywhere, look for more gobsmacked Western consumers ending up with "nigger brown" couches and shoes. Other descriptive labels commonly used in times past have since been dropped by the wayside as awareness of their potential to offend grew. In 1962, Crayola renamed as "peach" the crayon it had until then vended as "flesh," and in 1999 it changed to "chestnut" what had previously been labeled "Indian Red." (The company asserted Indian red was not meant to represent the skin color of Native Americans, but rather referred to a reddish-brown pigment found near India.) Kopun, Francine.  "Seeing Red Over Brown."
  The Toronto Star.  14 April 2007  (p. A1).
 Noronha, Charmaine.  "Racial Slur on Couch Label Blamed on Chinese Company's Faulty Software Program."
  Associated Press.  19 April 2007. Wilkes, Jim.  "Racial Slur on Sofa Label Stuns Family."
  The Toronto Star.  6 April 2007  (p. B1). Willis, Kiersten.  "Amazon and Walmart Investigating After N Brown Hair Cap Sparks Backlash."
  Atlanta Black Star.  17 July 2017.