On taxes, President Barack Obama wants to raise the top rate to 44.8 percent.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. -- the author of a budget plan that won approval from the Republican-held House but which was assailed by Democrats because it proposes significant changes in how Medicare works -- gave a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago on May 16, 2011. In it, he criticized President Barack Obama on tax policy.Ryan said that his own budget plan makes the tax code simpler, flatter, fairer, more globally competitive and less burdensome for working families and small businesses. By contrast, the president says he wants to eliminate deductions, but he also wants to raise rates. That includes raising the top rate to 44.8 percent. That would amount to a $1.5 trillion tax increase on families and job creators.A reader e-mailed us to ask whether the president really wants to raise rates to 44.8 percent, since the most widely discussed Obama tax proposal is to reinstate marginal income tax rates that were in effect for the wealthiest taxpayers before approval of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush. As the reader pointed out, Obamas proposal to let Bushs tax cuts lapse would raise the top marginal income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent -- not to the 44.8 percent that Ryan cited.We began by asking Ryans staff what he had meant by using that figure. Spokesman Conor Sweeney forwarded us a document that provided the reasoning that Ryan used to get to the 44.8 percent.Heres the relevant portion of that document:Top statutory rate, 2010: 35 percentExpiration of 2001/2003 lower rates, 2011: 39.6 percentPEP/Pease provisions reinstated, 2011: 41.6 percentNet 2.3 percent Medicare tax on wages/salary: 43.9 percent0.9 percent nondeductible Medicare tax,2013: 44.8 percentWeve already discussed the references to the 35 percent and 39.6 percent figures. Heres a rundown of the rest:PEP/Pease. These are two caps on how much income is subject to taxation for wealthy Americans. (Most Americans do not earn enough to trigger them.) The first, the personal exemption phase-out, limits the benefit of the personal exemption for taxpayers earning above a set amount of income. The second sets a similar cap for itemized deductions. The two taxes were steadily reduced under the Bush tax cuts, disappearing entirely for 2010. The two caps are set to be revived in 2012, like the rest of the Bush tax cuts, unless Congress and the president agree to  intervene.Ryans staff and tax experts we consulted with disagreed somewhat over how big a hit the PEP and Pease revivals would be, but their estimates ranged from about 1 to 2 added percentage points. So on the low end of that scale, Ryans estimate is slightly high, but the difference is modest.Medicare taxes. Currently, the Medicare tax is 2.9 percent, split evenly between the employee and the employer. The new health care law would add a 0.9 percent, nondeductible tax to the employees side, so the new total is 3.8 percent, of which 2.35 percent is borne by the employee and 1.45 percent by the employer. To that employee share, Ryan added almost a percentage point to account for what he sees as lower employee salaries due to the employers share of the payroll tax. On balance, Ryan estimates the combined net increase from Medicare taxes to be 3.2 percent.So for Medicare taxes as well, Ryans staff made some assumptions that would be open to critique. But once again, the range of possible rate increases is fairly small -- about one percentage point.So even if you dont buy Ryans assumptions, the most hed be off in his final number is about 2 percentage points.Now, how about the way Ryan described his number?Usually, weve seen politicians use the term the top rate to refer to the marginal income tax rate for the highest tax bracket, not that tax rate plus several other taxes. So, one could say that using the 44.8 percent figure is a subtle way of adding an extra 5.2 percentage points to Obamas tax proposal, making it look more draconian.But when we asked both liberal and conservative economists what they thought about Ryans phrasing, most were largely untroubled.For non-tax people, I suppose he could have specified that 44.8 would be the combined marginal tax rate, though it's not clear that would have helped the average person understand, said Dan Mitchell, an economist with the libertarian Cato Institute. Short of engaging in lengthy digressions, I'm not sure what Ryan could have done differently.If Ryan had used a specific definition of the tax rates in his speech, such as the effective marginal income tax rate, then that would be misleading, added J.D. Foster, an economist with the conservative Heritage Foundation. But he didnt, Foster said, and that gives him some space to define what he means.Dean Baker, a liberal economist, said hed give Ryan a pass on this. Ryan left out that most of the rates listed in the document would be reverting to prior levels, rather than being imposed for the first time by Obama, Baker said. However, on balance, Baker said he feels that Ryans statement is largely true.So where does this leave us? On Ryans number, its possible to argue that the actual rate is as low as 42.8 percent rather than 44.8 percent, but thats open to debate. On his description of what the number means, Ryan -- particularly given that he was working from a prepared speech -- could have been clearer by saying something like, The various parts of Obamas tax agenda would together push the highest marginal tax rate up to 44.8 percent.Still, the figure Ryan used is close to what the tax rate would be if Obamas agenda is followed, and a cross-section of economists we asked thought that Ryans presentation of that number was reasonable. On balance, we rate it Mostly True.
Claim:  U.S. law specifies that merchants do not have to accept more than 100 pennies in payment.  Origins:  This is one of the pieces of misinformation that makes me wish web sites like this one had been around when I was a kid so I have could pointed my father toward it and told him to shut up already.  I can't recall how many times he solemnly intoned that "Pennies are not legal tender in quantities greater than 100" and therefore merchants were   "legally" allowed to refuse any offer of payment that included more than one hundred one-cent coins (and, presumably,  could not "legally" refuse payment offered in any other form of legal tender).  As with so many other things he was dead wrong (and I knew it even then), but I had no way of proving him wrong.  I can now, though. Title 31 (Money and Finance), Subtitle IV (Money), Chapter 51 (Coins and Currency), Subchapter I (Monetary System), Section 5103 (Legal Tender) of the United States Code states: United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts. What this statute means, in the words of the United States Treasury, is that "[A]ll United States money ...  is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal law mandating that a person or organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services." In other words, U.S. currency and coins can be used for making payments, but merchants do not necessarily have to accept it for all forms of business transactions. If a shoemaker wants to sell his products for 8000 jelly beans per pair, he's entitled to do so; the buyer cannot demand that he accept the equivalent value in legal tender instead.  However, legal tender is the default method of payment assumed in contractual agreements involving debts and payments for goods or services unless otherwise specified.   So, for example, if an automobile dealer signs a contract agreeing to sell you a car for $8,000, but when you begin making monthly payments he rejects them and insists he wants to be paid in gold instead, you can go to court and have your debt discharged on the grounds that valid payment was offered and refused. Up until the late 19th century, pennies and nickels weren't legal tender at all.  The Coinage Acts of 1873 and 1879 made them legal tender for debts up to 25 cents only, while the other fractional coins (dimes, quarters, and half dollars) were legal tender for amounts up to $10. This remained the law until the Coinage Act of 1965 specified that all U.S. coins are legal tender in any amount. However, even in cases where legal tender has been agreed to as a form of payment, private businesses are still free to specify which forms of legal tender they will accept.  If a shop doesn't want to take any currency larger than $20 bills, or they don't want to take pennies at all, or they want to be paid in nothing but dimes, they're entitled to do so (but, as mentioned earlier, they should specify their payment policies before entering into transactions with buyers).  Businesses are free to accept or reject pennies as they see fit; no law specifies that pennies cease to be considered legal tender when proffered in quantities over a particular amount. Additional information:        Designation of legal tender   (United States Code, Title 31)        What is legal tender?   (United States Treasury FAQ)   Last updated:  16 May 2011   Landers, Ann.   "Ann Landers."  29 January 1996   [syndicated column].   Viets, Elaine.  "A Penny Saved Can Be a Lot of Trouble."  St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  24 April 1994. Claim:  Paul Ryan has sponsored two Congressional bills that have been passed into law. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] Is it true or false that Paul Ryan managed to get only 2 bills passed during his 13 years in the House of Representatives? If true, what were they? Rumor is one of them was to name a post office after himself.  In his 13 years in Congress, Paul Ryan got only two bills passed. One was to change the name of the post office in his home town. Origins:  In August 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney tapped as his vice presidential running mate Congressman Paul Ryan, who has represented Wisconsin's 1st district in Congress since 1999. That selection focused attention on the legislative record of Ryan, including the number of bills he sponsored that had been passed into law. According to the Library of Congress' THOMAS legislative  THOMAS information source, Rep. Ryan in his Congressional career has been the primary sponsor of two bills that have been passed and enacted as law: a 2000 bill to name a United States Postal Service facility in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, and a 2004 bill to modify the excise taxes on arrows used as archery equipment.  (In the former case, the bill did not name a USPS building after Ryan himself, as mentioned in one of the examples reproduced above, but after Les Aspin, a Democratic Congressman who for twenty-two years represented the same Wisconsin district that Ryan currently does.)  During his tenure in Congress Rep. Ryan has also sponsored 73 bills that were not passed and signed on as co-sponsor of another 975 bills. name arrows In general, several thousand bills are introduced in every Congress, but only about 5% of them  roughly an average of one per Congressmember per term  are eventually passed into law.   introduced Last updated:  16 August 2012 In July 2021, photographs and videos started circulating on social media that supposedly showed the world's smallest cow, a 51 centimeters (20 inches) tall dwarf cow in Bangladesh named Raani (possibly spelled Rani): photographs   This is a genuine photograph of a very small cow in Bangladesh. It was taken by Munir Us Zaman, and is available via Getty Images with the caption: A dwarf cow named Rani (bottom), whose owners applied to the Guinness Book of Records claiming it to be the smallest cow in the world, walks next to a goat at a cattle farm in Charigram, about 25 km from Savar on July 6, 2021.  While this is a genuine photograph of a dwarf cow, Raani has not yet been officially declared the world's smallest cow. But Raani's owner, Abu Sufian, has already filed paperwork with the Guinness Book of World Records.  Sufian said: "Guinness has acknowledged our entry and will be doing an independent verification, but we are confident that Raani will get the award." Sufian said At the time of this writing, the official record holder for world's smallest cow (or world's shortest cow) belongs to Manikyam, a 61-centimeter-tall cow in India that has held the record since June 2014.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=walK6YEmFUURaani is certainly smaller than Manikyam and it seems likely that this itty-bitty bovine will soon be crowned the world's smallest cow. Raani, a Bhutti or Bhutanese cow, is reportedly 23 months old. France 24 reports that the other Bhuttis on this farm near Charigram in Bangladesh are more than twice Raani's size.  France 24 reports: reports Rani is a Bhutti, or Bhutanese, cow which is prized for its meat in Bangladesh. The other Bhuttis on the farm are twice Rani's size. "We did not expect such huge interest. We did not think people would leave their homes because of the worsening virus situation. But they have come here in droves," the manager said. Sajedul Islam, the government's chief vet for the region, said Rani is a product of "genetic inbreeding" and was unlikely to become any bigger. Raani has become a popular tourist attraction, with thousands of people flocking to this farm to catch a glimpse of potentially the world's smallest cow. Below is a video report from WION, a news outlet covering southern Asia:  See also on Snopes: Are Cow Farts Causing Global Warming? Are Warning Signs About Parachuting Cows Real? Did a K-9 Dog Bite a Cow, Deputy Tase a K-9, Cow Kick a Deputy? Did a Cow Really Sit on the Hood of this Car? Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In mid-April 2020, social media users shared a meme implying that hospitals had a financial incentive to inflate the number of COVID-19 patients they were admitting in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. The meme contained red text that said, "So, hospitals get an extra $13,000 if they diagnose a death as COVID-19 and an additional $39,000 if they use a ventilator!" and prompted readers to ask Snopes.com to verify whether the statement is true:The idea that hospitals are getting paid $13,000 for patients with COVID-19 diagnoses and $39,000 more if those patients are placed on ventilators appears to have originated with an interview given on the Fox News prime-time program "Ingraham Angle" by Dr. Scott Jensen, a physician who also serves as a Republican state senator in Minnesota.  During the April 9, 2020 interview, Jensen suggested to host Laura Ingraham that he believed the number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. was being artificially inflated. "The idea that were going to allow people to massage and sort of game the numbers is a real issue because were going to undermine the (public) trust," he said. interview suggested Ingraham then played footage from a press conference with comments from Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in which Fauci called claims that the number of coronavirus cases are being "padded" a conspiracy theory. In an exchange that followed, Jensen suggested that Medicare, the national health care plan for the elderly, was paying hospitals set amounts for each patient diagnosed and treated for COVID-19: INGRAHAM: Dr. Fauci was asked about the COVID death count today. Here's what he said, in part. [Cut to briefing] REPORTER: What do you say to those folks who are making the claim without really any evidence that these deaths are being padded, that the number of COVID-19 deaths are being padded? FAUCI: You will always have conspiracy theories when you have very challenging public health crises. They are nothing but distractions. [Cut back to Ingraham] INGRAHAM: Conspiracy theories, doctor? So you're engaging in conspiracy theories. What do you say to Dr. Fauci tonight? JENSEN: Well I would remind him that any time health care intersects with dollars it gets awkward. Right now Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital, you'll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000, three times as much. Nobody can tell me after 35 years in the world of medicine that sometimes those kinds of things impact on what we do. We attempted to reach Jensen by phone and email, but did not get a response in time for publication. We also reached out to the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to ask whether the statement that Medicare was paying hospitals $13,000 and $39,000, respectively, for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and patients with the disease who are placed on ventilators. A spokesperson for CMS told us that whether hospitals are paid by Medicare for care of a COVID-19 patient would depend on whether that patient was covered by Medicare insurance. CMS also told us there is no set or predetermined amount paid to hospitals for diagnosing and treating COVID-19 patients, and the amounts would depend on a variety of factors driven by the needs of each patient. Pay-outs would also depend on the variance of the costs of medical care in different regions. The closest match for the numbers cited by Jensen we could locate was in an April 7, 2020, article published by the health care nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. As a starting point to estimate how much hospitals might get paid by the federal government for treating uninsured COVID-19 patients, the article used average payments for hospital admissions for similar conditions in 2017:  article For less severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for respiratory infections and inflammations with major comorbidities or complications in 2017, which was $13,297. For more severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for a respiratory system diagnosis with ventilator support for greater than 96 hours, which was $40,218. But while these industry estimates are similar to the numbers Jensen cited, they do not represent actual Medicare payments to hospitals for COVID-19 diagnoses or treatment, or even a national average of such payments.  We therefore rate this claim "Mixture." While it seems plausible that Medicare disbursements to hospitals treating COVID-19 patients could be in the range given by Jensen in the Fox News interview (if those patients are covered by Medicare), we found no evidence to support Jensen's assertion that "Medicare has determined" that hospitals will be paid $13,000 for patients with COVID-19 diagnoses or $39,000 for COVID-19 patients place on ventilators. Gillum, Jack, et al."Theres Been a Spike in People Dying at Home in Several Cities. That Suggests Coronavirus Deaths Are Higher Than Reported."
ProPublica.14 April 2020. WNBC TV."Massive Spike in NYC Cardiac Arrest Deaths Seen as Sign of COVID-19 Undercounting."
10 April 2020. Brown, Emma, et al."Which Deaths Count Toward the COVID-19 Death Toll? It Depends on the State."
 The Washington Post.16 April 2020. Levitt, Larry, et al."Estimated Cost of Treating the Uninsured Hospitalized with COVID-19."
Kaiser Family Foundation.7 April 2020. Fox News."Dr. Jensen Calls Out 'Ridiculous' CDC Guidelines for Coronavirus-Related Deaths."
9 April 2020. Twenty-three years into his Senate tenure, Wisconsins Herb Kohl hasnt announced whether he will seek another six-year term in 2012.But as Republicansstep up their criticismof him, Kohl is making crystal clear his disdain for the kind of rough-and-tumble campaign environment that almost surely would be part of another campaign.Compared to his last couple races when Kohl used his massive personal fortune to vanquish underfunded opponents with soft-sell TV ads, it would be a new environment for the senator who owns the Milwaukee Bucks and built the Kohls department and grocery store chains.Inremarks to reportersin Madison on April 28, 2011, Kohl ruminated about the state of todays campaigns. He said people dont like anybody in public life because of venomous attacks and sniping among congressional members, something he said he engages in hardly at all.Then he got specific: Ive been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning. And I dont get into any personal jousts with other people in public life. But thats just my style.So has Kohl really avoided any negative campaigning?Thats quite a claim in this age of mud-slinging and aggressive campaign tactics. We decided to check it out.Of course, it would be impossible to track down every campaign statement Kohl made since 1988 and copies of decades-old TV ads. So we focused our look-back to media descriptions of TV ads, debates and the candidates strategies in his four races. We also talked to the people who should know best: several of his former opponents or their aides, Kohls campaign staff, and a longtime political reporter.Kohl has of course benefited from negative attacks launched by groups supporting his campaigns, but he spoke only of his own campaigns conduct, so well limit our review to that.One more note before we begin: Because there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes negative campaigning, we asked Team Kohl what exactly he meant by his claim.Sen. Kohl has said that he believes campaigning is about telling the people of Wisconsin what hes done and what he plans to do, not tearing down his opponent or telling people not to vote for them, Kohl press secretary Lynn Becker said. He has not been deliberately malicious or factually dishonest in his campaigns or while serving in public office.Indeed, his two most recent opponents said there was no negative campaigning in their contests -- and had high praise for Kohl.He never did anything negative in his campaign. Hell have the job as long as he wants the job, said John Gillespie, founder of Rawhide Boys Ranch, who lost to Kohl in 2000.Say hi to Herb if you talk to him. Tell him I owe him a dinner, said Robert Lorge, Kohls 2006 rival.Fair enough. Those were landslide wins.What about the earlier contests?1988:Kohl was a surprise entrant in the Democratic primary, winning the nomination comfortably over former Gov. Tony Earl, Ed Garvey and Doug La Follette. Hefrustrated hisrivalsby limiting his debate participation and spending millions on TV ads.At the time,Earls media consultant David Axelrod chargedthat Kohls popular slogan -- Nobodys Senator But Yours -- was an implicit negative attack. It implied that candidates who -- unlike Kohl -- have to raise most of their campaign money are beholden to donors, said Axelrod, who later went on to help a guy named Barack Obama get elected president.Earlattacked Kohl as uninformed and error-prone, prompting Kohl campaign aide Bill Christofferson to call Earl desperate and guilty of misrepresentation.Insiders on both sides agree that Kohl ran no attack ads in the primary -- and none in the very tight general election that saw Republican state legislator Susan Engeleiterclose the gap to just a fewpointswith a series of ads targeting Kohl in the closing weeks.Engeleiter herself told us she has nothing but positive recollections of a pretty cordial campaign. She also praised Kohls dealing with her when she later was confirmed as administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.La Follette and Garvey say today that they wouldnt call Kohls primary race negative. Regarding Kohls slogan, La Follette agreed with Kohl aide Christofferson, who said:  Herb Kohl was talking about himself, not anyone else, when he promised to be 'nobody's senator but yours. 'Indeed, Kohl explicitly used his positive campaign ads as a selling point, and called his victory a blow against negative campaigning.1994:In his first re-election campaign, Kohl wasted little timeaggressively portraying Republican opponent Robert Welch, a state lawmaker from Redgranite, as an extreme conservative and flip-flopper. At an early debate, he cited Welchs no-exceptions stance against abortion and his vow never to vote for a tax hike as extreme. According to media accounts, he did not explain the flip-flop charge.Afterwards, Welch told reporters Kohl was nastier than I expected.Later, after Welch attempted to tie Kohl to President Clinton, Kohl launched arare TV ad that focused on an opponentby name. Another followed. The ads accused Welch of distorting Kohls record. One said that fellow Republicans had criticized Welchs tactics -- something deemed misleading in aMilwaukee Journal fact check.The exchange led Welch to accuse Kohl of running a multimillion dollar mudslinging campaign. Kohl said it was Welch who went negative.The rhetoric heated up. At one point in the race, after Welch accused Kohl of religion bashing, Kohl spokesman Jeffrey Gillis said that  Welch's attack again shows that he'll say or do anything to get elected.So, that seems like quite a bit of snarling.Looking back, though, Welchs campaign manager Mike Maxwell doesnt have strong opinions about the back and forth.I dont know that Kohl was particularly negative through that election, he told us. He didnt recall the distort ad that Kohl ran. He did say that some might consider the extreme charge a negative attack.Kohl, Maxwell recalled, just had overwhelming resources and then he signed (Bucks first round draft choice Glenn Robinson) six days before the election. (We could not reach Welch for comment).Kenneth Lamke, a Milwaukee Sentinel reporter who covered the 1994 race, offered the strongest opinion we heard on whether Kohl went negative against Welch. He says yes.Lamke said the extreme charge by Kohl was within bounds but uncharacteristic of Herb. Lamke viewed the attack as unprovoked and an exaggeration; Gillis, the Kohl aide, said it was a response to the drumbeat of criticism of Kohl during the Republican primary. Lamke, we should note, asked us to describe his personal politics as leans Republican.We asked several political scientists to characterize the language of the Kohl ad. They reacted cautiously because we could not provide the ad itself, just direct quotes from it in media accounts. That makes it impossible to fully judge the tone. Vanderbilt professor John Geer, an author of a much-cited book on negative campaigning, said it sounded like a tame response ad -- not the kind of classic negative ad the public doesnt like. Darrell West, of the Brookings Institution, agreed. UW-Madisons Ken Goldstein said Kohls ad met the academic research definition of negative because it focused on Welch, not Kohl. The test of whether it was unfair is whether it was accurate, he said. So Kohls campaigns have been remarkably low-confrontation affairs, with the most notable exception being 1994, the first -- and perhaps only -- time Kohl aired TV spots going after an opponent.So how does Kohl fare on his statement that he has never campaigned negatively?Clearly, Kohl has spent the vast bulk of his time and money on upbeat, positive ads. Even his opponents agree strongly with that -- one even wants to buy him dinner.The only ad that pops up as arguably negative is the 1994 distort spot against Welch. It drew some critical attention, but is viewed as a pretty tame response ad. Beyond that, Kohls campaigns have engaged in some labeling and name calling. And Kohls aggressive 1994 portrayal of Welch as an extremist was arguably negative.Kohl is mostly on target here, with some minor exceptions.Mostly True. Commercial:  Viral ad featuring the Volkswagen Polo employs suicide bomber imagery. Example:    [Collected on the Internet, 2005] [Note: This video clip is a 2.6 MB file  please be patient while it downloads.]  Origins:  The availability of the Internet as a tool to spread information quickly, cheaply, and (mostly) anonymously has enabled the advent of "viral marketing": buzz-generating  advertisements whose content is unsuitable for traditional media (such as television), distributed through "unofficial" channels such as web sites   and e-mail forwards.  Viral ads may not be obvious about what product they're promoting, or even obvious as advertisements at all.  (BurgerKing's "subservient chicken" promotion is a good example of the latter category.)  subservient chicken  Companies often try to obscure the connections between themselves and their viral ads, sometimes claiming that promotions were "unauthorized" or "accidentally released."  Though this technique may be effective in generating publicity, it can also backfire: If someone does indeed produce an unauthorized viral ad that creates negative publicity for the business it supposedly promotes, how can a company prove they weren't behind it?  This is the dilemma currently faced by Volkswagen regarding a viral ad seemingly calculated to offend as many human beings as possible. The spot begins with a motorist leaving his house and hopping into his Volkswagen Polo  a motorist with a distinctly Middle Eastern appearance who sports a black-and-white checkered kaffiyeh like the one commonly associated in the public mind with the   late Palestinian chairman Yasser Arafat (and thus, by extension, with terrorists and suicide bombers).  After a short jaunt, the driver pulls up in front of a busy restaurant with curbside seating (as women holding babies, talking on cellphones, and just strolling down the street flash by in the background), pulls out a detonator, and depresses the button.   Rather than causing widespread death and destruction, however, the muffled blast is completely contained by the car, leading to the end slogan: 'Polo. Small but tough.' So just who produced this offensive spot?  The ad doesn't appear to be a spoof put together by some rogue amateur filmmakers, as its production values (e.g., shot on 35mm film, probably at a cost in the tens of thousands of dollars) would indicate.  Paul Buckett, a Volkswagen spokesman, has denied that the automobile manufacturer had anything to do with it: Two creatives known to our advertising agency, DDB (Doyle Dane Bernbach) London, sent in this work on spec. The agency wouldn't have anything to do it. I can only assume the people who made it put it on the web.  We were horrified. This is not something we would consider using: it is in incredibly bad taste to depict suicide bombers.  It gives the impression we've condoned or supported it, and is potentially very damaging to Volkswagen. Our legal department is planning an action . . .' According to the UK newspaper The Guardian, the "suicide bomber" spot was created by the Lee and Dan team, a British pair who have produced a number of other advertisements (including virals) known for their quirkiness.  The duo maintained that the clip was a self-promotional work not intended for public viewing: Lee and Dan We made the advert for Volkswagen. We never really intended it for public consumption. It was principally something we made to show people in the industry but it got out somehow. About half the work we do is for our own purpose, it is self-promotional. The ad's a comment on what's happening at the moment. People see this on the news every day. The car is the hero that protects innocent people from someone with very bad intentions. The ad got out accidentally and spread like wildfire. We're sorry if it has caused any offence. Others quoted by the Guardian concurred with the self-promotional nature of the spot, if not necessarily about its release being an "accident": Matt Smith, of the ad agency Viral Factory, said he thought the advert had been made as a "test" in order to get work. "My suspicion is that it was made for a very small audience in order to get work. It's such a risky piece  it wasn't meant to be seen by a mass audience."  A spokesman for Volkswagen said the company was considering legal action and blamed the advert on "two young creatives who are trying to make a name for themselves". "We don't take these sorts of risks with our advertisements. We regard ourselves as honest and respectable." On 26 January 2004, the Guardian reported they had located the director of the clip, Stuart Fryer, who disputed Lee and Dan's claim its production had cost 40,000 and affirmed that the spot was not meant for public viewing: Both Lee and Dan have apologised for the film, which they said had a 40,000 budget, but have refused to identify themselves or explain how it was funded. But in a new development, MediaGuardian.co.uk has tracked down the director of the spoof advert, Stuart Fryer, 35. Breaking his silence for the first time, he said he was horrified by the reaction to the ad and had only ever meant it to be used on a showreel and never seen by the public. He disputed Lee and Dan's estimate of its 40,000 cost, saying the cost had been "more like 400". "If it cost that much I would like to know where the money went," Mr Fryer said. "It was made in my spare time. It's remarkable what you can do for such a low budget. "I just wanted it for show reel purposes, not seen by millions of people around the world. "I don't want to offend people, I just want to make advertisements.I wanted to show it to the Saatchis and BBHs of this world. "Little did I know that the advert that I made would be sent out on the internet and create such a fuss - it's shocked me." Volkswagen also announced that they would be going ahead and pursuing legal action against the video's creators: After a week of prevarication, the car giant has decided to go ahead and sue the people behind the advert on the grounds that it was damaging its reputation around the world and falsely linked the VW with terrorism. "We are taking legal action but because it's early stages we cannot comment further," a Volkswagen spokesman said. But the company privately admitted that it cannot locate Lee and Dan, the London based advertising creative partnership who dreamed up the film, which has been seen around the world via the internet.  "We are prepared to pursue the two individuals but need to locate them to ensure the success of our legal claim," the company said in a private memo, details of which have been obtained by MediaGuardian.co.uk. Last updated:  26 January 2005    Sources:   Brook, Stephen.  "Spoof Suicide Bomber Ad Sparks Global Row."   The Guardian.  20 January 2005.    Brook, Stephen.  "VW to Sue Polo Bomb Ad Duo."   The Guardian.  26 January 2005.    Sanders, Holly M.  "VW's Ad Is Spoof on Terror."   New York Post.  19 January 2005.    Sanders, Holly M.  "Riding the Auto-Bomb."   New York Post.  20 January 2005.    Smith, David.  "Suicide Bomber Sells VW Polo."   The Guardian.  23 January 2005. FACT CHECK Did the Obama administration deliberately and unexpectedly release Abdul Shalabi from detention at Guantanamo Bay while the news media were distracted by the Pope's visit to the U.S.?   Claim: The Obama administration deliberately and unexpectedly released Abdul Shalabi from detention at Guantanamo Bay while the news media were distracted by the Pope's visit to the U.S.   : WHAT'S  Guantanamo detainee Abdul Shalabi was repatriated to Saudi Arabia on 22 September 2015, the day on which Pope Francis arrived in Washington, D.C. WHAT'S   Abdul Shalabi's release was sudden and unexpected, and it occurred under the radar of the news media due to coverage of the Pope's visit. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2015] Rumor has it that while the pope was in DC that POTUS released Abdul Shalabi from Gitmo.   Did Obama really release Abdul Shalabi will everyone was watching the pope in DC? Origins:  Pope Francis' "Apostolic Journey to the United States of America" that began on 22 September 2015 marked the pontiff's first visit to the U.S. On 24 September 2015, the web site of former one-term congressman and conservative political commentator Allen B. West published a blog post with the clickbait headline of "While the Media Obsessed Over the Pope, Look What Obama Just Did" that asserted: While Pope Francis was in Washington smooching with the president and giving speeches about global warming, income inequality and the evils of capitalism (while being ominously silent about the persecution and slaughter of his Christian brethren around the world), the Obama administration released Abdul Shalabi from the Guantanamo Bay detainment center. That Shalabi was released yesterday as the country was focused on Pope Francis arrival in the United States could well be the administration's most blatant "Look, over theresquirrell!!" [sic] moment ever. The very idea that this man who worked side-by-side with Osama bin Laden can somehow be "rehabilitated" to no longer want to kill infidels, and, be rehabbed by the Muslim government of an Islamic nation  is beyond laughable. What does Obama think hes going to do there now, train to become a valet? Take up needlepoint? Oh, I know, maybe open a bakery and make cakes for gay weddings. The excerpt quoted above suggests that Shalabi's release was unexpected and deliberately coordinated so as to go unnoticed during media coverage of Pope Francis' arrival in Washington D.C. However, Shalabi's release was neither unexpected, nor was it ignored by the media. A widely-reproduced Associated Press article published three months earlier had announced that Shalabi, who had been on a nine-year hunger strike, had been approved for release from Guantanamo by a government review board: article A prisoner who has been on a nine-year hunger strike to protest his confinement at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can now return to his native Saudi Arabia, a government review board said. The Periodic Review Board, which has been re-evaluating dozens of Guantanamo prisoners previously deemed too dangerous to release, said in a statement published on its website that Abdul Rahman Shalabi can be released to take part in a Saudi government rehabilitation program for militants and would be subject to monitoring afterward. Shalabi began a hunger strike in 2005. He and another prisoner, who since has been released, maintained the protest longer than any others held at the base. Court records show Shalabi occasionally consumed food but also dropped to as little as 101 pounds (46 kilograms). His lawyer told the review board in April [2015] that prison officials had fed him with a nasogastric tube daily for nine years. The U.S. now holds 116 men at Guantanamo, including 52 cleared for transfer or release. Similarly, an 8 August 2015 New York Post article reported that Shalabi was due to be released soon (partly to care for his mother): article Take detainee Abdul Shalabi. His lawyers in June pleaded that the former bin Laden bodyguard was sufficiently reformed and wanted only to reunite with his family in Saudi Arabia and take care of his ailing mother. The board subsequently agreed Shalabi was no longer a significant threat to the security of the United States, and rubber-stamped his release  even though the al Qaeda operative conspired with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed while plotting the 9/11 attacks from Karachi, Pakistan. Shalabi also was said to have trained at al Qaeda camps to participate in a suicide attack or deployment to the West. The UK newspaper The Guardian also reported on Shalabi's then-pending release on 13 August 2015, and the claim that "the media" ignored Shalabi's release in favor of Papal visit coverage conflicted with the 22 September 2015 publication in the New York Times of an article reporting that: reported Although a six-agency task force decided in 2009 that Mr. Shalabi was too dangerous to release, a parolelike panel called the Periodic Review Board, consisting of representatives from the same six agencies, decided in June [2015] that he could now be safely repatriated to Saudi Arabia. In a statement explaining its reasoning, the board said Mr. Shalabi had terrorist-related activities and connections in the past, but said it was confident that the Saudi governments rehabilitation program and its ability to monitor former detainees would mitigate the risks. The board also cited the fact that Mr. Shalabis nephew, who was repatriated from Guantnamo in President George W. Bushs second term and went through the Saudi rehabilitation program, has apparently lived quietly ever since. Mr. Shalabi appeared before the board at a hearing in April [2015]. He asked that his statements not be made public. But a lawyer helping to represent him, Julia Tarver-Mason Wood, told the board that he just wanted to settle down, get married and have a family of his own, and put the past behind him. The New York Times wasn't the only high-profile U.S. news outlet to cover Shalabi's release, as a 22 September 2015 Reuters piece also announced the imminent transfer of Shalabi to Saudi Arabia. piece As noted above, it was a review board comprising officials from several different military, legal, and intelligence agencies who recommended Shalabi's repatriation to Saudi Arabia, as explained on the Department of Defense Periodic Review Secretariat's web site: explained The Periodic Review Board (PRB) is a body comprised of senior officials from the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State; the Joint Staff; and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that will review whether continued detention of particular individuals held at Guantanamo remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.  Articles published three months in advance of Shalabi's repatriation acknowledged that (despite his never having been charged with a crime) he had links to Osama bin Laden al-Qaida and had "not been cleared of wrongdoing": Shalabi, 39, was among the first prisoners taken to Guantanamo in January 2002. He was never charged with a crime but the government said he had been a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and had links to the external operations chief for al-Qaida, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is facing trial by military commission at Guantanamo. The board, which was created by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2011 as part of the effort to close the prison at Guantanamo, did not clear Shalabi of wrongdoing and said it "acknowledges the detainees past terrorist-related activities." So while it's true that Abdul Shalabi was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia on 22 September 2015, the formal decision to do so was made well in advance of the Pope's September 2015 visit to the U.S., and news of Shalabi's hearing, review, and release was reported by major news outlets (inside and outside the United States) both before and during the event.  Last updated: 25 September 2015 First published:  25 September 2015 Amid tense talks between Congressional Republicans and Democrats over the 2018 federal budget, the attention of many observers turned to each side's record on government spending, benefits and entitlements, and fiscal priorities.  In that vein, a widely-shared Facebook meme took aim at Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, accusing him of supporting a modified version of a long-standing liberal bte noire  drug-testing for welfare recipients.  On 21 January 2018, Facebook user Ken Stanley wrote: wrote Tom Cotton calls for every person who receives Social Security to be drug tested those who test positive will lose benefits.     This claim is false. We searched Cotton's speeches, op-eds, and press releases, as well as the Congressional Record and news archives, and found no evidence of the Senator ever having advocated such a policy. In an e-mail, a spokesperson for Cotton told us the meme was "completely false": Senator Cotton does not support (nor has he ever supported) drug testing for Social Security recipients.  Indeed, even those who call for drug-testing for welfare recipients do not typically propose the same policy for Social Security. This is because Social Security is more widely regarded as an earned benefit (workers contribute to it through payroll taxes), while programs such as housing assistance or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) are regarded as welfare. Senator Cotton does, however, have a record of making statements and advocating policies around welfare assistance which have raised eyebrows.  In 2015, Salon and Raw Story headlines accused Cotton of "blaming" drug addiction on Social Security benefits, and claiming that receiving Social Security disability benefits causes individuals to "spiral" into drug addiction. The articles, as well as Cotton's actually comments were more nuanced.  blaming spiral In a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think thank, Cotton advocated for reform of the Social Security disability system, and drew a link between population decline and social ills (including drug addiction) in certain counties and regions, and rates of Social Security disability insurance uptake:  It's hard to say what came first or caused the other: population decline or increased disability usage. Or maybe economic stagnation caused both. Regardless, there seems to be  at least at the county and regional level  something like a disability tipping point. When a county hits a certain level of disability usage, disability becomes a norm. It becomes an acceptable way of life and an alternative source of income to a good-paying, full-time job...After a certain point, when disability keeps climbing and becomes endemic, employers will struggle to find employees, or begin  or continue  to move out of the area.  Population continues to fall, and a downward spiral kicks in, driving once-thriving communities into further decline. Not only that, but once this kind of spiral begins, communities could begin to suffer other social plagues as well, such as heroin or meth addiction and associated crime. In 2014, while running for the Senate, a Huffington Post writer accused Cotton of "calling food stamp recipients addicts." Again, his comments were much more nuanced than that description.  accused According to a Huffington Post transcript of a virtual town hall hosted by Cotton in July 2014, the then-Congressman defended voting down a Democratic bill relating to agricultural payments and federal food aid, on the basis that it did not sufficiently reform the food stamps program, including by requiring drug testing for applicants: voting I dont think that we should be using farmers as a way to pack more welfare spending into Barack Obamas government, Cotton said. Nor should we have a food stamp program that isnt reformed, that doesnt have job training and work requirements, that doesnt have drug testing requirements, so we can get people who are addicted the help they need. Or make sure that long-term addicts or recidivists are not abusing taxpayer dollars. In March 2017, Cotton joined with Republican Senate colleagues in voting to nullify an Obama-era Department of Labor rule which limited the circumstances under which states could conduct drug-testing for individuals applying for unemployment insurance.  voting rule President Donald Trump later formally reversed the guideline, effectively giving states greater powers in conducting drug screening for jobless benefits. So Senator Cotton has certainly supported drug testing for welfare programs  but never for Social Security.  reversed Gauthier, Brendan. "Tom Cotton Blames Social Security for 'Heroin and Meth Addiction' Because Reasons."
 Salon. 10 November 2015. Edwards, David. "Sen. Tom Cotton: Social Security Benefits Cause People to 'Spiral Downward' Into Heroin Addiction."
 Raw Story. 9 November 2015. Lachman, Samantha. "GOP Senate Candidate Tom Cotton Calls Food Stamp Recipients 'Addicts.'"
 Huffington Post. 17 July 2014. Brady, Rep. Kevin. "House Joint Resolution 42 -- Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Department of Labor Relating to Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Congressional Record. 31 March 2017. U.S. Department of Labor. "Final Rule --Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Provision on Establishing Appropriate Occupations for Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Federal Register. 1 August 2016. U.S. Department of Labor. "President Trump Nullifies Drug Testing Rule."
 U.S. Department of Labor. 31 March 2017. During floor debate, a Republican legislator complained that state expenditures on TV and film productions have extended to a long-running series celebrating cheating spouses.Really?Rep. Jodie Laubenberg of Parker initially asked a House colleague about his proposed amendment to the House version of the 2014-15 state budget.Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, said he sought to shift money from the states film and music marketing fund to teacher pensions. When last we wrote about the fund, overseen by the governors office, we noted the 2011 Legislature had agreed to spend $16 million each year to market Texas as a film location and promote the Texas music industry, according to the May 26, 2011, House-Senate conference committee report.Laubenberg asked Leach: Would you like me to give you a couple of examples of things being funded with this money? At Leachs go-ahead, Laubenberg replied: How about Bad Kids Go to Hell, Cheaters, ...a TV series on spouses cheating on their wives, kind of glorifying the act of cheating--yeah, entertainment for some, unless youre the one cheated on.After listing other entertainment projects she described as helped along with state funds, Laubenberg closed: You know, if you want to watch this, fine, but I think you ought to do it on your own dime and not the states dime.To our inquiry, Laubenberg later left a message saying she had been reading from a list provided by Leach, whose office emailed us a spreadsheet listing more than 400 projects. A header on the spreadsheet says each one was paid by the Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Program through March 2013.More detail: The incentive program offers qualifying productions a shot at payments equaling 5 percent to 17.5 percent of the money they spend in Texas or 8 percent to 29.25 percent of eligible wages paid to Texas residents, according to agency information posted online, depending on budget levels and types of production, with both live-action and animated projects eligible.The spreadsheets sixth entry indicates $74,736.58 was paid March 22, 2013, to Bobby Goldstein Productions in Dallas in connection with Cheaters, which is described on the sheet as a reality show. Lower entries show previous payments to the company in connection with Cheaters, $72,714 in May 2012 and $100,082 in May 2011, respectively.By email, gubernatorial spokesman Josh Havens confirmed the state has paid about $248,000 since May 2011 to the Dallas company that produces Cheaters, which is among several hundred projects benefiting from such aid.The program met the incentive program requirements for economic impact and Texas resident employment, Havens said.By phone, the shows executive producer, Bobby Goldstein, told us that he hires more than 20 full-time and probably 30 part-time employees for the show and the company contributes a lot in taxes.So, is the legislator correct that the series celebrates unfaithfulness?Not so, Havens replied, pointing out the message that appears at the start of each episode stating that from the programs surveillance cameras, you are about to view actual true stories, filmed live, documenting the pain of a spouse or lover caused by infidelity. This program is both dedicated to the faithful and presented to the falsehearted to encourage their renewal of temperance and virtue. (We confirmed the text here. )Goldstein said: We dont make this show and make it look like somebody did something good. We point out they did wrong. Its sort of a scarlet A.We viewed excerpts of episodes placed on YouTube by viewers. Our impression was the show centers on confrontations between purported cheaters, cheatees and, often, involved third parties. A vivid example involved a cheating man punching his irate girlfriend in a parking lot; blood runs. Another excerpt showed a man being confronted in a bed as a dominatrix edges out of camera range.Critic Pete Vonder Haar described the show this way in an April 25, 2012, account in theHouston Press, an alternative weekly. The premise of the show is simplicity itself: a man or woman, suspecting their partner of philandering, contacts the steely professional Cheaters investigative team. They, in turn, put the suspected party under surveillance, amassing evidence of their infidelity for presenting to the complainant. A confrontation is arranged between the aggrieved party and their wayward lover. Hilarity then ensues, if by hilarity you mean emotional breakdowns and the occasional threat of physical violence.The article, which Goldstein called accurate, says the show is primarily taped in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, though there have been Houston-area forays.Im not one given to hyperbole, Vonder Haar wrote, but Cheaters is as great an American institution as baseball and morbid obesity. Who but the good old U.S. of A. would so brazenly combine our love of moralistic posturing (the wayward partners are referred to as suspects as if they were felons) with salacious, albeit (barely) pixelated footage of sexual transgressions.Finally, we revisited posted state guidelines for the incentives to see if any provision might restrict support for Cheaters. The guidelines say projects not eligible for the aid include those considered obscene as that term is defined in the states penal code, meaning something the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex. The code further lists explicit acts defined as obscene and also says something is obscene if taken as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.Havens said in his email that the Texas Film Commission felt the project fell well short of the definition of obscene.Our rulingLaubenberg said the state helped fund a show that glorifies cheating spouses.Mild point: The state-supported show, Cheaters, doesnt limit itself to exposing cheating spouses. Were not sure, either, that everyone would agree the show glorifies infidelity, considering its theme is to expose the practice and touch off emotional confrontations. The legislator could have clarified that an intended point of the show is that cheaters are wrongdoers.We rate the claim as Mostly True. In 1991, as the cover art for Nirvana's second studio album  a now iconic photograph of a naked baby in a pool swimming after a dollar on a fishing hook  was being prepared, there was some discussion about censoring the image by airbrushing out the nudity. Late front man Kurt Cobain reportedly replied by saying that they could censor it by placing a sticker over the baby's genitals along with the statement: "If you're offended by this you must be a closet pedophile." This quote resurfaced in August 2021 when the model who portrayed the baby, Spencer Elden, filed a lawsuit against the band claiming that he was exploited and that the artwork bordered on child pornography.  resurfaced filed a lawsuit against the band   This is a genuine quote from Cobain.  Art Director Robert Fisher was one of the first to suggest that the baby's genitalia could be censored if anyone thought that it would be problematic. A photograph showing early concept art for the album's cover includes two written comments by Fisher.  Fisher wrote: "If anyone has a problem with his dick we can remove it."  Image via cait22888 on Flickr  Flickr Cobain responded to Fisher's comments by saying that they could censor the nudity with a sticker, reading "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile." This incident is recalled in a passage from Michael Azerrad's book "Come As You Are: The Story of Nirvana." Come As You Are: The Story of Nirvana. The only thing was, the baby's penis was quit visible. "If there's a problem with his dick," Fisher said, "we can cut it off." Some people in the Geffen/DGC sales department did worry that the traditionally conservative chain stores might object to the penis and Fisher even went so far as to begin preparing cover with the penis airbushed out. Kurt had anticipated some outcry as well, and has already composed some copy to put on a sticker over the problematic member. It read, "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile." Cobain recounted his version of these events during an interview for "Hot Metal" with journalist Robyn Doreian in 1991. In Cobain's version, he doesn't quite take credit for the idea, instead saying that "we prepared" to deal with censorship issues with a sticker.  interview As with most artists signed to the Geffen label, Nirvana have complete artistic control over everyting they do. "I designed out T-shirts, and we have had control over things like how long we tour and who we tour with, and we had control over what songs we recorded." Whilst on the subject of the aesthetically pleasing cover of Nevermind, I enquire as to whether the boy is actually a photo of Kurt as a little tacker. "No, it's not," he remarks drly. Has there been any trouble from censorship groups such as the PMRC for blatantly displaying a willy on the cover? "No, surprisingly not. We prepared to alleviate that problem if anyone were to freak out about it by putting a sticker on it saying, "if you are offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile.'" The sticker wasn't needed in the end as the album was released without any alterations to the baby's body. But now, just over 30 years after the album's release, the band is being sued, as Elden alleges that the picture violates child pornography laws.  Elden alleges Sources: