Racist Product Color Descriptions
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.
Claim:   The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is seizing bank accounts from innocent American citizens under civil forfeiture laws. : Civil forfeiture laws enable law enforcement agents and the government to seize the assets of Americans who are neither guilty nor even suspected of any wrongdoing.      Civil forfeiture laws are new or exclusive to the IRS.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Just read a Facebook post.  It was an article regarding the IRS seizing bank accounts of innocent American citizens who have done nothing criminally wrong.  Inspite of the problems this has caused individuals the IRS seems relatively unconcerned except they want to collect money for whatever reasons.  Is this true?  Does the IRS have the right to just take the money of American citizens from their accounts? Are they an acting collections agency for the government now? I found this article a tad disturbing to say the least. Thank you for amy information you might have regarding this article and subject matter. Origins:  On 5 October 2014, the issue of civil forfeiture  and its effects on American citizens entered the spotlight after HBO host John Oliver addressed the matter at length on his show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. During the segment, Oliver and guest Jeff Goldblum focused on seemingly arbitrary, unfair, and corrupt civil forfeiture practices allegedly perpetrated by law enforcement agents in a number of jurisdictions.  Oliver's civil forfeiture segment sparked a number of conversations about the laws surrounding confiscation of assets under related laws. Then, on 25 October 2014, the New York Times profiled an individual who claimed the IRS had seized more than $30,000 in assets from her checking account under laws meant to ensnare drug cartels and organized criminals: For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away  until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes  in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up. It seems Hinders' run-in with the IRS was triggered by her practice of keeping deposits under the mandated reporting threshold of $10,000. Deposits that exceed $10,000 must be reported to the government under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, but Hinders told the Times that she believed large deposits created unnecessary paperwork for bank employees: Bank Secrecy Act My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork. I didn't actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.   Former federal prosecutor David Smith, an expert on such seizures, told the paper that the practice of civil forfeiture has shifted to focus on individuals not historically targeted by such laws: They're going after people who are really not criminals. They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.   Richard Weber, Chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, described the seizures as "structuring" related, referring to suspicion triggered by a large number of deposits near the $10,000 threshold for reporting under the Bank Secrecy Act. In response to sudden interest in the IRS's policies regarding "structuring cases," Weber issued a statement indicating the IRS will curtail its seizure activities in cases where no crime is suspected: statement After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year and in order to provide consistency throughout the country (between our field offices and the U.S. attorney offices) regarding our policies, I.R.S.-C.I. will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with "legal source" structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level. While the act of structuring  whether the funds are from a legal or illegal source  is against the law, I.R.S.-C.I. special agents will use this act as an indicator that further illegal activity may be occurring. This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.'s mission and key priorities. The policy involving seizure and forfeiture in "illegal source" structuring cases will remain the same.   The IRS is just one of several agencies engaging in civil forfeiture, and Oliver's segment also addressed its application by local and regional law enforcement:  Prior to Oliver's segment and the Times' profile, civil forfeiture practices had been extensively profiled in the media: In general, you needn't be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with "probable cause" is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner's guilt or innocence. One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. "The protections our Constitution usually affords are out the window," Louis Rulli, a clinical law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading forfeiture expert, observes. A piece of property does not share the rights of a person. There's no right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption of innocence. Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve. Although the IRS has pledged to restrict its civil forfeiture activity to mainly "illegal source" cases, the practice is not limited to the tax agency and remains legal. Last updated:  28 October 2014    Stillman, Sarah.  "Taken."   The New Yorker.  12 August 2013. In late 2021, online advertisements were displayed on websites, claiming: "He Found Treasure Inside His Grandparents' Barn." Our research led us to a Reddit user named EvilEnglish who posted in 2013 that he really did find what could be described as a "treasure" that was left behind in his grandparents' safe in Tennessee. online advertisements However, the truth of the story had been twisted over the years by the ads and slideshow articles. First, the two pictures in the ad had nothing to do with the Reddit user, his grandparents, or where the "treasure" was found in the safe. The photograph of the supposed Redditer is of Chris Seiter, a writer for exgirlfriendrecovery.com, and the picture of the old house appeared to also be unrelated. exgirlfriendrecovery.com We found multiple photographs in the 60-page slideshow article that resulted from clicking the ad that also had nothing to do with what actually happened, despite the fact that they were credited to him. Further, the discovery was made in EvilEnglish' grandparents' farmhouse, not a "barn." article  Despite being credited to the Reddit user, these two pictures appeared to have nothing to do with the real story about the treasure found in the EvilEnglish's grandparents' home or safe.  In the original story that was posted in 2013, EvilEnglish, who did not provide his real name, said that his father died in 2009. That led to his inheriting his grandparents' farmhouse in middle Tennessee, a property they had owned between around the late 1970s and 1997. posted As he wrote on Reddit, it was under a damp and loose carpet in the closet under the staircase that he found and eventually opened a "secret safe": My dad passed away a few years ago and he inherited an old farmhouse in middle Tennessee from my grandparents. The house was a home for my grandparents for 20 some odd years. They bought this house in the late '70s/early '80s to escape the oppressive summer heat of the South. My grandfather was an avid sportsman and enjoyed collecting various firearms. My grandmother was a collector of coins and other antiques and curiosities. My grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1998, but I think the last time they had traveled to the Tennessee house was around 1997. After my grandfather passed away, neither my grandmother nor father returned to the house. My father passed in 2009 and we've been working to close out his estate and traveled to the farmhouse to prepare it for sale. Lots and lots of work to do here as it is an old house. I was working in a closet below the staircase and saw that the rug was pretty disgusting. I started pulling up the rug and noticed a block of concrete. This was very out of place since all of the downstairs flooring is hardwood. I pushed the carpet back further and saw a round cap with a circular indentation on it. I pulled off the cap and... a secret safe! I gave the handle a tug, but it wouldn't budge. If you twist the handle it will still spin. I called several locksmiths in TN, but it is impossible to get someone to come out on a Sunday up there. I should also say that early last year my brother-in-law and I were moving some of the furniture. He went to move one of the coffee tables and when he went to pick it up, the tabletop came off of the base. Underneath the tabletop of the coffee table was a hidden, standalone safe. It was pretty heavy, but we were able to load it into the truck. He took it to work and was able to cut it open. Inside of it were several pistols (.22s, a 357, and a few others) there were also about 300 single one-dollar bills. We found out that they were "Barr Notes" and supposedly rare because that particular Secretary of the Treasury died like 29 days in office. Anyhow, most of the locksmiths in the area seem to only want to come out during the week. I'm trying to work out for an off day for upcoming Friday to return to Tennessee! On April 30, 2013, EvilEnglish posted to Reddit that the safe had been unlocked, revealing "treasure" from his grandparents' past. posted Inside, he found "dozens of rare coins, pocket watches and wristwatches, jewelry, and stacks of soggy money," according to KSL.com. according to KSL.com The money may have been wet after a pipe leak that had occurred in the years before the safe was found. The original Imgur album of photos, as well as multiple YouTube videos, are no longer available. Readers looking for pictures of the grandparents' "secret safe" can find them within the same news article from KSL.com, or from this HuffPost article from May 1, 2013. this HuffPost article In the album, the pictures showed the "Major Safe. Co." logo in the floor being looked at by the professional who found a way to open it. All of the found "treasure" from the safe was displayed on the kitchen counter. In an old Reddit comment, EvilEnglish wrote: "Funny that as a boy, in that very house, my grandma read me 'Treasure Island,' and I always dreamed of finding something like this!" Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us As the 2012 elections loom and President Barack Obama pushes for his jobs plan, a key issue is how middle-class families have fared over the past generation.Obama and other Democrats would like to see the Bush-era tax cuts expire for couples making more than $250,000 and also raise taxes on hedge-fund millionaires paying relatively low capital gains tax rates. For their part, Republicans claim Obama is engaging in class warfare against job creators.In a Sept. 27, 2011 speech at St. Anselm Colleges New Hampshire Institute of Politics in Manchester, David Axelrod, one of Obamas top strategists, said there has been a hollowing out of the middle class in this country in recent decades as wages have essentially flat-lined for many workers.There was a census report just a couple of weeks ago, and what it said was that the average white male worker, the typical white male worker in this country, is making in real terms what he was making in 1973, said Axelrod, a former White House aide and now a senior adviser to Obamas political campaign. In total, the average worker is making what they were making in 1996, but we know prices havent gone along accordingly.If true, thats quite a ride back in time. Asked for substantiation, Katie Hogan of the Obama campaign referred us to a U.S. Censusreportreleased last month, and articles in theNew York Timesand theNew Yorkerwebsite crunching some of the numbers.The report itself didnt have the precise numbers to back up Axelrods first claim -- that the typical white male worker made the same amount -- adjusted for inflation -- in 1973, when Richard Nixon occupied the White House.But a related censusspreadsheetshows that real wages have not only failed to grow but have actually declined slightly for white males working year-round and full time. But first, a semantic point near and dear to the heart of economists. Even though Axelrod said average in his statement, its clear by his subsequent use of the word typical and the reports to which we were referred that median income, not the mean, is what applies here.In 2010, according to census data, the median earnings for a full-time white male worker were $50,074. By comparison, in 1973, the median for that category, in 2010 dollars, was $50,513. So Axelrod not only was correct that white men were no better off, adjusted for inflation, in 2010 than they were 37 years ago, they were taking home about $8.44 less per week.And when measured by the purchasing power of those dollars, the gap is even bigger. Because wages havent kept up with prices, as Axelrod asserted, the typical white male worker's purchasing power has eroded by almost 11.5 percent in 37 years.Heidi Shierholz, a labor market economist for the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank in Washington, said Axelrods statement about white male workers is unambiguously true, and that wages havent kept up with major gains in productivity.The growing wealth of the country actually didnt translate into higher standards of living or wages for typical workers, she said. Where it [the wealth] went was to the top.In the second part of Axelrods statement -- that the average worker is making what they were making in 1996 -- it appears that the Obama strategist got some numbers mixed up.A censustableshows that median earnings for all full-time workers who clocked at least 50 weeks of labor increased by about 7 percent in real terms between 1996 and 2010, to $41,919. This came as earnings by women, and their participation in the labor force, grew at a faster rate than that of men, though the female-to-male earnings ratio was still 77.4 cents to the dollar in 2010.Given the report Hogan, the Obama campaign press aide, cited, however, along with a number widely reported in the press last month, what Axelrod apparently was referring to when he spoke of average workers making what they did in 1996 were census numbers that showed total household income, adjusted for inflation, has barely increased. Median household income in 2010 was $49,445, only a $333 increase, or 0.7 percent, in inflation-adjusted dollars from 1996.Some important factors are at play in household income numbers. For starters, households are smaller now, meaning there are fewer wage-earners to be counted. But womens participation in the labor market has also increased. What that means, essentially, is that wage-earners in middle-class American households are working more  to maintain the same level of income.One of the ways families made up the difference was more work, Shierholz said of the stagnant wage issue. Its largely an hours story.A paper Shierholz co-authored after the new census numbers were released also showed that median income for working-age households fell by more than 10 percent in the past decade, to $55,276.Given such factors, she said the second half of Axelrods statement captures the flavor of what the EPI and others have labeled a lost decade in terms of income.Our ruling Axelrod was on the money in talking about the erosion of earnings for white male workers since the early 1970s, and basically on track in comparing how things stand today for the typical American family compared to 1996. We rate his statement Mostly True. On 10 May 2016, the Facebook page "Occupy Democrats" published a post claiming that Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly lost custody of his two children because he abused his ex-wife: post   Clicking through the link led to an articlefromOccupy Democrats, this one in February 2016: Notorious FOX pundit Bill OReilly has been denied custody of his children by a New York appeals court after they were convinced that he was unfit to care for them after a vicious domestic violence incident. His kids, a 12-year-old boy and 17-year-old girl, will stay with his ex-wife Maureen McPhilmy. The court ruling announced that: Viewing the totality of the circumstances, there is a sound and substantial basis for the Supreme Courts determination that it is in the best interests of the children for the mother to be awarded primary residential custody. Particularly relevant in this case are the clearly stated preferences of the children, especially considering their age and maturity, and the quality of the home environment provided by the mother. The right-wing propagandist and shameless liar initially lost custody of his kids following OReillys horrific attack on his ex-wife; his daughter told a court psychologist that he was choking her mom or had his hands around her neck and dragged her down some stairs. Thearticle did not back theheadline's assertions: it stated first that O'Reilly specifically lost custody of the children because he was deemed "unfit to care for them" following a "vicious domestic violence incident." But the portion of a court document quotedsimplysaid thatit was in the best interest of the children to remain in their mother's care. Occupy Democrats cited Raw Story, which in turn cited Gawker,which reported that O'Reilly had "lost custody" of his children in February 2016, but that article, again, did notsuggestthat O'Reilly was denied custodial care of the children due to violent behavior: Raw Story Gawker The lengthy decision affirms the holding of a Nassau County Supreme Court justice last year that the children, now aged 13 and 17, should live full-time with their mother (the former couple had been splitting residential custody). As we reported at the time, OReilly appealed that ruling, thereby delaying its enforcement (and, of course, extending his multi-front battle against McPhilmy and her new family). The Appellate Division issued its 1,400-word opinion on February 24, a little over a month after attorneys for OReilly and McPhilmyknown in court documents as Anonymous 2011-1 and Anonymous 2011-2presented oral arguments at the divisions courthouse in Brooklyn Heights. According to the opinion, the courts four justices unanimously ruled in McPhilmys favor based upon the clearly stated preferences of the children[.] The February 2016 court documents fromto the hearing can be read in full here. They make little mention of contentionbetween O'Reilly and his ex-wife (aside from a brief description of ongoingacrimony, not violence): here Here, viewing the totality of the circumstances, there is a sound and substantial basis for the Supreme Court's determination that it is in the best interests of the children for the mother to be awarded primary residential custody. Particularly relevant in this case are the clearly stated preferences of the children, especially considering their age and maturity, and the quality of the home environment provided by the mother (see Matter of Manfredo v Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498, 500 [2008]; Matter of O'Connor v Dyer, 18 AD3d 757 [2005]). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not err in denying the father's motion for an award of sole decision-making authority with respect to the children, and continuing instead the existing provisions of the judgment of divorce, which call for joint legal custody and joint decision-making authority. While ordinarily it is not appropriate to award joint legal custody and decision-making authority where the parties are antagonistic toward one another (see Irizarry v Irizarry, 115 AD3d 913 [2014]), in this case, the record supports the court's finding that, despite their antagonism, the parties have been able to agree on most decisions concerning the children (see Matter of Thorpe v Homoet, 116 AD3d 962, 963 [2014]). Moreover, the record supports the court's finding that if either parent were awarded sole decision-making authority, there would be a danger that it would be used to exclude the other parent from meaningful participation [*3]in the children's lives. In addition, the court appointed a parenting coordinator, who can assist the parents in resolving any disputes they may have concerning decisions about the children. It ispossible that arguments or physical altercations between Bill O'Reilly and his ex-wife were a factor in the court's 2016 decision to uphold the family's custody arrangements, but if that were the case, the ruling on which news reports did not indicate such a circumstance. The appellate court's opinion read as a standardcustody arrangement, and the sole factor emphasized in it was the preference (not safety) of the children. Occupy Democrats' May 2016 rehash of the February 2016 news insinuated that custody hinged on allegations made by his "young daughter." However, that "young daughter" was described as 17 yearsoldas ofFebruary 2016 court documents, and no reference was made to any "damning" accusations levied by her. It istrue O'Reilly was accused byGawkerin May 2015 of abusing his ex-wife verbally and physically, but  despite reporting to the contrary  those accusations weren't referenced or hinted at in the February 2016appellate court's decision to uphold a custody arrangement involving his children.  Garcia, Arturo.  "Foxs Bill OReilly Loses Custody Of Teen Children After New York Appeals Court Ruling."
Raw Story.  29 February 2016. Taylor, Colin.  "Family Values Hypocrite Bill OReilly Loses Custody Of Kids After Choking His Wife."
Occupy Democrats.  20 February 2016. Trotter, J.K.  "Bill OReilly Loses Custody Of Children In New York Court Ruling."
Gawker.  29 February 2016. Trotter, J.K.  "Court Transcripts: Bill OReillys Daughter Saw Him 'Choking Her Mom.'"
Gawker.  20 May 2015. 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 early March 2020, amid the COVID-19 coronavirus disease outbreak that would later grow into a pandemic, the massive retail and delivery company Amazon launched the Amazon Relief Fund, which among other things, offers grants to contract and seasonal workers so they can receive sick pay if they contract the coronavirus. The $25 million fund established by Amazon sparked an online backlash after a liberal newsletter pointed out that seasonal and contract workers would have to file an application to receive the funds, and that Amazon, a behemoth corporation whose founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the world, solicited public donations for the program. Anger over the idea that a famously profitable corporation was soliciting donations from the public to fund sick leave for some of its workforce during a pandemic was initiated by reporting from Popular Information, described as a "newsletter about politics and power." The letter's founder, Judd Legum, posted this Twitter thread on March 24, 2020:We reached out to Amazon for comment and received the following statement: reporting Twitter thread  We are not and have not asked for donations and the Amazon Relief Fund has been funded by Amazon with an initial donation of $25 million. The structure to operate a fund like this, which hundreds of companies do through the same third-party, requires the program to be open to public contributions but we are not soliciting those contributions in any way. Amazon truly did launch a $25 million fund to provide sick leave for contract workers and seasonal employees through a grant program to which those workers must file applications before receiving benefits. Although the wording on the page has since been updated to indicate that donations are not expected, initially the language did indicate that Amazon was seeking  or at the very least suggesting  donations. An archived version of the page from March 19, 2020, included this statement (shown in the screen capture below): "The Fund relies primarily on individual donations from individuals and support from Amazon.com Services LLC to fund this program."The page has since been updated. The highlighted sentence above was removed and the page now explicitly states that donations from the public are not expected, as follows:We reached out to Legum, who told us via email that he believed Amazon changed the wording on the relief fund page "because the optics were clearly bad and the company is trying to cover up its actions." Legum added that in his view, "Amazon has ample resources to simply pay their contractors while they are out sick during this pandemic." updated archived version  updated  According to Amazon's announcement, the Amazon Relief Fund will provide their delivery partners and drivers "the ability to apply for grants approximately equal to up to two-weeks of pay if diagnosed with COVID-19 or placed into quarantine by the government or Amazon." announcement Additionally, the statement reads, "this fund will support our employees and contractors around the world who face financial hardships from other qualifying events, such as a natural disaster, federally declared emergency, or unforeseen personal hardship. Applicants can apply and receive a personal grant from the fund ranging from $400 to $5,000 USD per person." The company also announced it is offering unlimited unpaid time off for hourly staff during the month of March. announced Whether or not Amazon actively solicited donations, the original wording on its Amazon Relief Fund page did call for individuals to donate to the fund. Even though the wording has been updated to state explicitly that no donations from the public are expected, a "Donate" button still exists on the page, which could be interpreted as an invitation to do so. We therefore rate this claim  Legum, Judd.  "Amazon Soliciting Public Donations to Pay Workers' Sick Leave."
  Popular Information.24 March 2020. Galetti, Beth.  "COVID-19 Update: More Ways Amazon Is Supporting Employees and Contractors."
  DayOne, the Amazon blog.11 March 2020. Palmer, Annie.  "Amazon Launches $25 Million Relief Fund for Delivery Drivers and Seasonal Employees Amid Coronavirus Outbreak."
  CNBC.  11 March 2020. Greene, Jaye.  "Amazon Workers Test Positive for Covid-19 at 10 U.S. Warehouses."
  Washington Post.25 March 2020. [CORRECTION 03/25/20]: A previous version of this article erroneously stated that Amazon was offering "unlimited paid time off" to hourly staff during the month of March; that has been corrected to "unlimited unpaid time off." 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 In September 2020, social media users began circulating a text meme charting the decrease in abortion rates in the U.S. during previous presidential administrations, attributing the greater drop in those rates during Democratic administrations to a difference in approach (i.e., making it illegal vs. making it unnecessary):     As we noted in an earlier article on a similar topic, following the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that protected a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction, the abortion rate rose immediately afterward until it peaked in the 1980s, and it has fairly consistently declined since that peak through presidential administrations of both parties: article Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace.     Although it is true that the abortion rate has experienced greater declines during Democratic administrations than Republican ones, we can't draw any definitive conclusion that, as the meme tries to suggest, this difference is primarily due to varying approaches by the two main political parties. The simple idea presented by the meme has a number of flaws, chief among them that political factors that might influence the abortion rate (e.g., policies, legislation, judicial appointments and rulings) do not neatly conform to presidential terms of office -- what takes place during one administration generally continues to have an effect throughout subsequent administrations. As well, events occurring at state and local levels (not necessarily directly tied to federal actions) can have a substantial impact on the availability and prevalence of abortions. More important, though, is that we cannot definitively determine to what extent political factors influence the abortion rate. As the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion-rights research organization) observed, recent declines in the abortion rate appear to have been driven not primarily by abortion restrictions but by a broader decline in pregnancies: observed Abortion restrictions target either individuals ability to access the procedure (such as by imposing coercive waiting periods and counseling requirements) or providers ability to offer it (such as through unnecessary and intentionally burdensome regulations). Any one of these restrictions could result in some people being forced to continue pregnancies they were seeking to end; this could, in theory, lower the abortion rate. With the available evidence, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which factors drove recent declines, and to what degree. However, previous Guttmacher analyses have documented that abortion restrictions, while incredibly harmful at an individual level, were not the main driver of national declines in the abortion rate ... Rather, the decline in abortions appears to be part of a broader decline in pregnancies, as evidenced by fewer births over the same period. What's driving that decline in pregnancies, then? We don't know that for sure, either, but likely a combination of social, cultural, economic, medical, and political factors: combination Experts say the decline isnt due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including changing economics, delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education, the greater availability of contraception, and a decline in teen pregnancies. The trend seen in the United States is also seen in much of the developed world, including Western Europe, said Dr. John Rowe, a professor at Columbia Universitys Mailman School of Public Health. One important factor driving this is the changing roles of women in society, Rowe said. In general women are getting married later in life, he explained. They are leaving the home and launching their families later. [Dr. Helen Kim, an associate professor at Northwestern Universitys Feinberg School of Medicine] said the concept of the ideal family size may be changing. There are shifts where having smaller families is a trend, she added. I cant speak on this as a sociologist, but this is what Ive seen among my peers and colleagues. One of the biggest factors is the decline in teen pregnancies, Rowe said. Thats good news ... And that makes a huge difference to their lives. The Guttmacher Institute posited a similar mix of factors to explain the decline in the abortion rate: Because both abortions and births [have] declined, it is clear that there were fewer pregnancies overall in the United States ... The big question is why. One possible contributing factor is contraceptive access and use. Since 2011, contraception has become more accessible, as most private health insurance plans are now required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs. In addition, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and private insurance coverage under the ACA, the proportion of women aged 1544 nationwide who were uninsured dropped more than 40% between 2013 and 2017. There is evidence that use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods -- specifically IUDs and implants -- increased through at least 2014, especially among women in their early 20s, a population that accounts for a significant proportion of all abortions Another possible contributing factor might be a decline in sexual activity. Findings from one national survey suggest a long-term increase in the number of people in the United States -- mostly younger men -- reporting not having sex in the past year. Yet another possibility is that infertility is increasing in the United States, thereby reducing the chances of getting pregnant and subsequently seeking to obtain an abortion. More generally, there are a host of other potential factors that could be driving declines in pregnancy rates, from individuals evolving desires about whether and when to become parents to peoples changing economic and social circumstances. Finally, it is possible that ... there could have been an increase in self-managed abortions happening outside of medical facilities, which the census would be unable to capture. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also offered a combination of potential explanations for lower abortion rates: combination Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. As we stated four years ago, "causation between the presidency and abortion rates [is] difficult to demonstrate in any case, because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement." That observation remains true today. Carroll, Linda and Shamard Charles, M.D.  "Americans Aren't Making Enough Babies to Replace Ourselves."
  NBC News.  13 January 2019. Nash, Elizabeth and Joerg Dreweke.  "The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver."
  Guttmacher Institute.  18 September 2019. Kasprak, Alex.  "Abortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations and Rise During Republican Ones."
  Snopes.com.  11 November 2016. Classic Disney cartoons have proved to be a consistent source of conspiracy theories, rumors, and urban legends. For instance, we've previously investigated claims that Winnie the Pooh was actually a girl (false), that the Seven Dwarfs were modeled on cocaine addiction (False) and that a topless woman could briefly be spotted in VHS copies of "The Rescuers" (True). urban legends false False True In January 2019, we encountered yet another Disney rumor: This time, the internet asked, is the Goofy cartoon character actually a cow rather than an (anthropomorphic) dog? Although this dog vs. cow debate wasn't entirely new in 2019, that time around it was supposedly supported by an "investigative article" published in 2012 by the website Reel Rundown. While that article did contain some factual information regarding the history of the Goofy character, which is likely the reason why some people have accepted it as a truthful account of Goofy's supposed sordid past, it is peppered with exaggerations, speculation, outright fabrications, and was clearly written with humorous intentions. Reel Rundown Reel Rundown presented their argument as if they were uncovering a vast Disney conspiracy theory aimed at covering up Goofy's unsavory bovine heritage. In the introductory section, entitled "Goofy Is Not a Dog -- The Cover Up," the author argued that Goofy was actually a foreign-born cow and that Disney was forced to conceal this fact due to the political climate in the 1930s: Goofy has always been thought of as a "dog with human features" according to Disney's Mouselinks. However what the Disney establishment isn't telling you is the goofy is really a cow. To be specific an Aberdeen-Angus Cattle. A fact that Disney would love to cover-up considering that Goofy's national origin is anything but American. In 1939 with American nationalism at an historic high, Goofy's true heritage could have created a huge scandal for Disney. A Scandal that would have finished Goofies [sic] career just as it was starting to take-off." The next section, "Goofy's Heritage Revealed," was even more outlandish. Reel Rundown imagined Goofy as a living, breathing, physical animal who was born "Dipalwa Dawala" to Egyptian immigrants in Scotland and was "discovered by Disney talent scouts during a livestock sale." During the "Dark Years" section of the article, the website upped the absurdity and claimed that Goofy's son died from Mad Cow disease. For those who took the time to read the article, it should have been obvious that it was a work of humorous fiction. However, it seems that some readers stopped at the headline and were left convinced that Goofy was actually a cow, not a dog:   Although this article was clearly written in jest, some of its curious claims have been spread in support of the "Goofy is a cow" argument. We'll dispel some of this misinformation to stop malicious propagation of rumors about this beloved Disney dog. Disney dog Was Goofy "born" to Egyptian immigrants in Scotland and named "Dipalwa Dawala?" First off, Goofy wasn't "born" anywhere: He was created by Disney animators Art Babbitt and Frank Webb in the 1930s. Goofy was introduced as a side character named "Dippy Dawg" in the cartoon short Mickey's Revue (1932) but underwent some revisions over the next few years. While Goofy has gone by a number of names during his Disney career (including Super Goof, Dippy Dawg, George G. Geef, Goofus D. Dawg, and Goofy Goof), we were unable to find any credible source listing the character as "Dipalwa Dawala." Art Babbitt introduced In fact, the only search results we could find for this term all point back to this Reel Rundown article. In other words, Goofy has never been named "Dipalw Dawala." Does Goofy's old love interest, Clarabelle the Cow, prove that Goofy is also a cow? Reel Rundown ended their humorous work of fiction with an "evidence" section claiming that Disney's history of creating same species couples (Mickey and Minnie, Donald and Daisy, etc.) pointed to Goofy's being a cow since he once had a love interest named Clarabele Cow: Goofy's love interest in the Mickey Mouse clubhouse is Clarabelle the Cow. The on-screen chemistry is obvious. Disney often couples characters with the opposite sex of the same species. Mickey and Mini, Donald and Daisey [sic] both follow this pattern. So why would the writers at Disney have Goofy and Clarabelle coupled up? While it's true that Goofy and Clarabelle Cow were once an item, this is not proof that they were the same species of animal. Clarabelle was the sometimes girlfriend of Horace Horsecollar, who was a horse and not a cow, and the Disney universe includes multiple examples of inter-species couples: Ben Ali Gator, for instance, woos Hyacinth Hippo in Fantasia; Jessica Rabbit (a cartoon human) has a rabbit husband in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Miss Piggy and Kermit the Frog have an ongoing (if one-sided) relationship in the Muppet canon. Outside the Disney universe, Bimbo, a cartoon dog, was the occasional love interest of Betty Boop (a human female), and of course, Tillie Tiger once planted a kiss on Elmer Elephant:   The Reel Rundown article was clearly a jape. However, it made us curious about Goofy's actual origins and whether the character was originally intended to represent a dog. In Art Babbitt's character analysis of Goofy from 1934 (available via the website of animator Michael Sporn), Goofy is described as a "composite of an everlasting optimist, a gullible Good Samaritan, a half-wit, a shiftless, good-natured coloured boy and a hick." In his description of how Goofy should be drawn, Babbit mentioned two real-world creatures, neither of which was a cow: website It is true that there is a vague similarity in the construction of the Goof's head and Pluto's. The use of the eyes, mouth and ears are entirely different. One is dog, the other human. The Goof's head can be thought of in terms of a caricature of a person with a pointed domelarge, dreamy eyes, buck teeth and weak chin, a large mouth, a thick lower lip, a fat tongue and a bulbous nose that grows larger on its way out and turns up. His eyes should remain partly closed to help give him a stupid, sloppy appearance, as though he were constantly straining to remain awake, but of course they can open wide for expressions or accents. He blinks quite a bit. His ears for the most part are just trailing appendages and are not used in the same way as Pluto's ears except for rare expressions. His brow is heavy and breaks the circle that outlines his skull. A description of the character from Disney.go.com also compares Goofy to Pluto but notes that Goofy was created as more of a human character: "Goofy was created as a human character, as opposed to Pluto, who was a pet, so he walked upright and had a speaking voice." Disney.go.com When we reached out to Disney for comment, a spokesperson told us that both The Disney Animation Research Library and the Walt Disney Archives agreed that Goofy was indeed an anthropomorphic dog. Erin Glover, Director of Publicity and Communications at Disney Animation, told us: The Disney Animation Research Library and the Walt Disney Archives agree that this question was best answered by Disney Legend Dave Smith: "Goofy was originally created as a human character with dog-like characteristics, thus why he walks upright, wears clothes, talks and has animal features that resemble a dog." The Disney Domain.  "The History of Goofy."   13 April 2016. Disney.go.com.  "Characters: Goofy."   Archived 1 August 2003. Fischer, Tony.  "Is Goofy a Dog?"   Reel Rundown.  9 January 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 One of the many claims U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly made in his futile attempt to overturn his loss to Democratic rival Joe Biden in the 2020 general election was to assert that his own popular vote total was indicative of a "rigged election." How could he possibly have lost in 2020, Trump reasoned, when he received some 11 million votes more than he did in 2016, when he won?  "Perhaps the biggest difference between 2016 and 2020 is @FoxNews, despite the fact that I went from 63,000,000 Votes to 75,000,000 Votes, a record 12,000,000 Vote increase. Obama went down 3,000,000 Votes, and won. Rigged Election!!!" The answer to this question is a simple one: Neither the voting-age population of the U.S., nor the percentage of that population that actually turns out to vote, is a constant. Those figures can -- and do -- vary widely from election to election. It is true that former U.S. President Barack Obama won reelection in 2012, despite garnering some 3.5 million fewer votes that year than he did when he was initially elected in 2008. Why? Largely because some 2.2 million fewer people turned out to vote in 2012 than in 2008. (Obama still received well over 50% of the popular vote in both years, nonetheless.) 2012 2008 And it is true that Trump was elected President in 2016 after receiving about 63 million votes, yet lost his reelection bid in 2020 despite receiving over 11 million more votes than he had in the previous election. How did this happen? For two very important (and obvious) reasons that Trump consistently overlooks or ignores: 2016 2020 1) Voter turnout skyrocketed between 2016 and 2020, rising from 55.7% of eligible voters in the former year to 66.7% in the latter -- a difference of some 22 million additional voters. So even though the increased turnout brought Trump an additional 11 million votes, it also brought another 11 million votes cast for someone other than him. 2) Popular vote doesn't determine the election winner; electoral votes do. Trump won the presidency in 2016 despite receiving some 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton nationwide, because he managed to pull of narrow victories in three key states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In 2020, however, Trump's popular vote deficit was over twice as large as the previous election (he received some 7 million fewer votes than winner Joe Biden), and, more crucially, he lost all three of the key states he had managed to capture in 2016 as they flipped back to blue:  The fact that far fewer voters cast their ballots for third-party candidates in 2020 than in 2016 also seems to have worked against Trump, as his Democratic opponent in 2020 (Biden) tallied over 15 million more votes than his Democratic opponent in 2016 (Clinton) had -- a figure constituting far more than half of the 22 million additional ballots cast in 2020 over 2016. Claim:  Soon after winning the largest-ever Megabucks slots jackpot, the new multi-millionaire died a violent death.  Origins:  The potential for great wealth creates its own lore, which is why Las Vegas is a hotbed of Megabucks-related rumors. For the uninitiated, Megabucks is a network of linked progressive slot machines whose top prize starts at $10 million and continues to grow until someone gets lucky and lines up the three Megabucks symbols on the payline of his slot machine. At times when it's been a lengthy period since the previous win, the jackpot climbs to an almost unimaginable amount, and Megabucks rumors (which are always quietly simmering away in the background) become the hot gossip among the casino crowd. In general, Megabucks rumors fall into one of three categories:  The unhappy fate of previous winners.  Startling tales of flawed wins.  Where the next one is going to hit. On 21 March 2003, the largest-ever slots prize was awarded in Las Vegas when a 25-year-old man who prefers to remain anonymous hit a $39,710,826.36 Megabucks jackpot at the Excalibur casino. Scant days later, rumors were already afoot that tragedy had overtaken this lucky gentleman. According to the whispers, he had:  Fatally overdosed at The Palms (a trendy Las Vegas casino resort greatly favored by the 20- and  30-somethings).   Died in a plane crash.  Been killed in a gang fight in Los Angeles. Although the mode of the unnamed winner's demise changed from telling to telling, the basic rumor remained intact  this man so favored by Fate one day became its victim on another. His luck ran out soon after the win, said the rumor, felling him before he'd had any chance to enjoy his millions. The "overdosed at the Palms" version carried the further implication of the man's good fortune having been his undoing. In the unspoken subtext   of that telling, the lucky winner had used his new wealth to hole up in a swank hotel and dabble in drugs. In attempting to live like a rock star, he instead died like one. The rumor (all versions of it) was false. According to Connie Fox of International Game Technology (IGT), the maker of Megabucks machines and the distributor of its prizes, the young man has not been harvested by the Grim Reaper. He lives on, wealthy and anonymous. IGT It is possible memories of a tragedy that befell a previous Megabucks winner have fueled this tale of good luck turned chillingly bad. On 11 March 2000, 37-year-old Cynthia Jay-Brennan, a cocktail waitress who had hit a $34.9 million jackpot at the Desert Inn just six weeks earlier, was left a quadriplegic by an auto accident that claimed her sister's life. The pair had been sitting in their car at a red light when their vehicle was rear-ended by one being operated by a drunk driver. Five others were injured in the resulting chain reaction accident. A year later, 58-year-old Clark Morse, the driver who caused this carnage, was sentenced to 28 years in prison. Morse was a habitual drunk who had been previously arrested at least 16 times on driving under the influence charges and had at least five DUI convictions, yet he had not prior to this incident been jailed for his inebriated forays behind the wheel. On the one hand, it would be easy to see the 'dead Megabucks winner' rumor as a misremembering of the circumstances that have placed Cynthia Jay-Brennan in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. Yet on the other, whispers about Megabucks winners having been struck down by  misfortune have been part of gaming culture long before the March 2000 tragedy. In one well-traveled Megabucks rumor, an elderly gambler who lined up the three winning symbols on his machine suffered a heart attack and died on the spot. (Shades of Vegas Vacation and Sid Caesar kicking the bucket after hitting a $30,000 keno jackpot, that.) That particular tale had for so long been part of the Megabucks canon that it came in for mention in a 1998 newspaper story, described even then as one of the many rumors IGT had been called upon over the years to debunk. Another whisper (also around since at least 1998) claimed that every Megabucks winner under the age of 50 was now pushing up daisies. (Not true, says Connie Fox of IGT. While she doesn't know the fate of everyone who has won Megabucks, all those she has become acquainted with or has heard of through her work are still alive.) I would hazard the opinion that such tales say a great deal more about our sense of envy than anything else. Every time a large jackpot is hit (Megabucks or otherwise), for every gobsmacked winner there are countless thousands  maybe even millions  of gamblers who were not awarded the prize. For at least some of them, a measure of solace is drawn from'misfortune followed soon afterwards' tales, both for their sour grapes ("That lucky schmuck might have won a great deal of money, but it didn't bring him happiness, did it?") and 'disaster narrowly avoided' ("Just think, if I'd won the money I'd be the one left lying dead in a pool of blood") values. The legends we tell are our way of mentally chewing over concepts that disquiet us, and very few feel at all comfortable with the realization of their feeling envious. Other rumors about the mystery man who won the $40 million Megabucks jackpot in March 2004 are undiluted expressions of envy  they assert he had no right to the prize and thus 'cheated' to get it, which in itself is another way of saying "I feel cheated because I didn't win." One version claimed the unnamed man was an illegal alien. (Which, by the way, would not have barred him from winning, but that is not generally understood by most of those who frequent casinos.) Another proclaimed him to have been under 21 at the time of the win and thus ineligible. (That couldn't happen: Under the laws governing gaming in Nevada, persons under the age of 21 are prohibited from gambling. Casinos therefore must remove underage patrons or face heavy fines, and companies like IGT that pay out slot machine wins have to very carefully vet the ages of those laying claim to any win.) This last whisper brings us to the most common wild tales associated with the big jackpot: the flawed win. Over the years, I have heard the Megabucks 'one that got away' story told three ways:  The underage winner who could not be awarded the riches he'd won.  The casino worker who was ineligible for the prize because he had, against the rules, played the machine at the property where he was employed.  The player who lined up the three winning symbols on the pay line but who hadn't wagered the full $3 necessary to qualify for the top prize. Connie Fox of IGT denies there ever having been an underage Megabucks winner. However, such rumors did attach to the anonymous UNLV student who hit the $10.9 million jackpot on 18 October 1995 at the Gold Coast  it was said he'd had to return the money. Because the winner did not want his identity made known to the public, the members of the press who had heard the tale had no way of themselves determining the actual age of the young man. IGT held an online chat session with reporters to reassure them that the prize had been fairly awarded to a legal winner. Although Megabucks has yet to have an underage claimant, other large slots jackpots have. A young man who hit a big one at Caesars Palace in 1987 was denied his prize because he was underage. Kirk Erickson, a 19-year-old from Royal, Arkansas, lined up the winning combination on  a dollar slot machine called "The Million Dollar Baby," but he was not paid the $1,061,812 jackpot for it. Erickson took the matter to court, and in 1989 a District Court judge ruled against him. As for casino workers being barred from playing the Megabucks slots at their place of employ, although individual properties might have such a policy, it is to be doubted that were such a person to play anyway and win that a prohibition against his gaming on the in-house machines would interfere with the jackpot being duly awarded. Granted, the worker would in all likelihood lose his job for having broken a casino rule, and he might have to wait until the Nevada Gaming Commission made its determination on the case before receiving his money, but there is little reason to suppose the Commission would deem the jackpot improperly gained. The one class of folks who could not possibly collect on such a win are IGT employees and all members of their households  even if one of them were to line up the three winning symbols, they could not be awarded the cash.  At least once, Megabucks has been hit by someone playing less than full coin. On 14 March 2001, Kirk Tolman, a 22-year-old Utah man, mistakenly played two dollars instead of the Megabucks-requisite three on a machine at the State Line Hotel and Casino in Wendover, a gambling establishment in Nevada just across the Utah state line. The Megabucks symbols lined up on the payline, and for want of a buck, $7.96 million was lost. The $10,000 consolation prize probably wasn't all that consoling to the man whose distracting chat with a friend had led to his not dropping the third coin into play.  An additional bit of Megabucks lore confidently states the jackpot will be hit at the newest resort casino in operation. Savvy frequent visitors to Las Vegas will sagely nod as they inform you the next Megabucks is "set to go" at whichever glitz palace just opened. That too is hogwash. Where the jackpot is hit is determined by pure chance, not by anyone high in the casino industry paying off IGT for the prestige of having one of its machines register the win. (And prestige is all that would accrue to the casino, because unlike some lotteries which distribute cash premiums to the venues that sold winning tickets, Megabucks does not award a small piece of the prize to the casino for having been the building that housed the winning machine. Although most of the money being dropped into play by jackpot seekers goes to fund the game's prizes, some goes to IGT, and some goes to the gaming establishment that hosts the machines, so casinos already receive compensation whether their Megabucks units are winners or not. Also, casinos that have been the sites of multi-million dollar strikes do very well just on the prestige alone because gamblers are attracted to luck, figuring if one guy hit the big one there, there's a fair chance they might be just as lucky if they went to the same spot.) If the Megabucks jackpot appears to be awarded more often at the newer casinos, it's due to their being better attended  more people through these gambling halls means more people playing the machines. The more people who play the machines at any one location, the greater the chances the jackpot will be hit there. And that's all there is to it.  Many of the instant millionaires Megabucks and its ilk create are reluctant to sign the releases that allow their names and some information about them to be made public, worrying that strangers will appear on their doorsteps to pressure them for money.  But from what Connie Fox of IGT has seen, the ones these people have the most to fear from are their nearest and dearest, the very kith and kin they were moved to telephone in the first blush of excitement over their astonishing good fortune. Connie has gotten to know a number of Megabucks winners over the years, and she has seen through the lens of their experiences with their loved ones how a large prize can shake up relationships and redefine the pecking order. A large win can and has in some cases changed the family dynamic, overnight making the fortunate slot player the de facto head of the family  that person suddenly finds everyone looking to him for everything.  It has also changed the power balance between couples, making the partner who had previously been the follower into the decision-maker for that pair. Some couples and families weather these shifts without too much trouble, and some do not. Barbara "so there you have it  oranges, lemons, cherries, and a few sour grapes" Mikkelson Additional information: Last updated:  1 June 2014    Koch, Ed.  "When Good Luck Turns Bad."   Las Vegas Sun.  5 April 2000.    Schoenmann, Joe.  "Megabucks Slot Bursting at Seams as Record Jackpot Continues to Grow."   Las Vegas Review-Journal.  4 April 1998  (p. B1).    Wagner, Angie.  "Morse Gets 28 Years for Injuring Vegas Jackpot Winner."   The Associated Press.  20 April 2001.    Associated Press.  "Judge Denies Jackpot to Underage Gambler."   27 June 1989.    Reuters.  "$7.96 Million Jackpot Just a Dollar Away."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  17 March 2001  (p. A4). In January 2020 we received multiple inquiries from readers about an alert that was shared widely on Facebook and Twitter, purporting to be an "emergency notification" from an unspecified "Ministry of Health" about an ongoing outbreak of a new coronavirus.  Broadly speaking, the warning appeared in two forms. The most commonly shared was a text post that typically read as follows: *Urgent: Health Bulletin to the Public * *Ministry of healths emergency notification to the public that the Coronavirus outbreak this time is very very serious & fatal. There's no cure once you are infected.**Its spreading from China to various countries* *Prevention method is to keep your throat moist, do not let your throat dry up. Thus do not hold your thirst because once your membrane in your throat is dried, the virus will invade into your body within 10 mins.**Drink 50-80cc warm water, 30-50cc for kids, according to age.* *Everytime u feel your throat is dry, do not wait, keep water in hand.* *Do not drink plenty at one time as it doesnt help, instead continue to keep throat moist.**Till end of March 2020, do not go to crowded places, wear mask as needed especially in train or public transportation* *Avoid fried or spicy food and load up vitamin C.**The symptoms/ description are**1.repeated high fever**2.prolonged coughing after fever**3.Children are prone**4.Adults usually feel uneasy,*headache and mainly respiratory related**5: highly contagious*   The message was typically followed up with an exhortation to share its warnings, such as, "Please forward to help others." One version of the viral alert even concluded by pleading with readers, "Please share if you care for human life."  warnings version The second principal form in which the message appeared was as a photograph of a printed email, dated Jan. 28, 2020, and purporting to have been sent by "NWLLAB." It contained many of the same key components  it purported to come from an unspecified "MOH" (Ministry of Health), and its main recommendation to the public was again to "keep your throat moist" by drinking water. It read as follows: appeared photograph Pls tell ur families, relatives and friends MOH Health Bulletin to the Public: The Upper Respiratory Infection affecting China at present is quite serious. The virus causing it is very potent and is resistant to existing antibiotics.  (virus is not bacterial infection hence cannot be treated by antibiotics). The prevention method now is to keep your throat moist, do not let your throat dry up. Thus do not hold your thirst because once your membrane in your throat is dried, the virus will invade into your body within 10 mins. Drink 50-80cc warm water, 30-50cc for kids, according to age. Everytime [sic] you feel your throat is dry, do not wait, keep water in hand. Do not drink plenty at one time as it does not help; instead, continue to keep throat moist. Till end of March, do not go to crowded places, wear mask as needed especially in train or public transportation.  Avoid fried or spicy food and load up vitamin C.  The symptoms/description are: 1. Repeated high fever.2. Prolonged coughing after fever. 3. Children are more prone. 4. Adults usually feel uneasy, headache and mainly respiratory related illness.  This illness is highly contagious. Let's continue to pray and wait for further notice about the infection.  Please share.    Neither the printed email nor the viral Facebook message were official statements produced by any public health authority. The alert was apt to spread widely online precisely because it did not include any details about its supposed source, aside from mentioning a "Ministry of Health" in an unspecified country or region.  The message also contained erroneous advice, claiming that readers could avoid contracting the virus by "keeping your throat moist," avoiding fried or spicy food, and taking vitamin-C supplements. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the so-called "novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" outbreak is thought to have first been transmitted from animals to humans in Wuhan, Hubei Province, in China. Since then, it has spread from person to person. Previous coronaviruses like Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have been transmitted between humans primarily through "respiratory droplets"  that is, coughs and sneezes.  outbreak The CDC's general respiratory infection prevention advice applies to the 2019-nCoV outbreak, as follows: as follows No evidence exists to indicate that any public health authority is officially advising the public that a dry throat makes individuals more vulnerable to contracting the virus, and that therefore drinking water is an effective prevention method, nor that vitamin C deficiency contributes to one's vulnerability to contracting the illness, nor that fried and spicy food are a medium for transmission of 2019-nCoV.  U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Situation Summary."
  30 January 2020. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "2019 Novel Coronavirus -- Prevention and Treatment."
  30 January 2020.