Was it Denzel Washington who said, "Simply because you do not post it on social media does not imply that you are not working on significant goals"?
On April 17, 2022, the Anxiety Freedom Today Facebook page shared a post with a quote credited to movie actor Denzel Washington, including the words, "Just because you don't share it on social media doesn't mean you're not up to big things. Live it and stay low-key. Privacy is everything." It was somewhat ironic that the post about the state of social media led many of its users to respond with the words, "So true!" Facebook post quote Denzel Washington  Washington has talked before on the subject of the state of social media. It's also entirely possible that Washington might agree with the sentiment of this quote. However, there's no record he ever said these words. The quote was misattributed, meaning that it originally came from someone else. Washington Washington The quote appeared to have originated in a 2016 tweet from author Idil Ahmed on the @idillionaire Twitter account: tweet  This was not the first time this sort of thought was put into words. However, this was the first record of these exact words that we could find. not the first time It wasn't until 2018, two years after @idillionaire's tweet was created, that Washington's name first appeared with the quote. A fake tweet screenshot began going around that purportedly came from the @Denzel Twitter account. However, that account doesn't exist: Washington   This isn't a real tweet. It was likely made using a fake tweet creator website. Also, it could be debated that if Washington were to join Twitter, he probably wouldn't use this profile picture. And as of April 2022, Washington did not appear to have an official Twitter account. An account named @OfficialDenzel was active on Twitter in the past. However, that account is not verified by the social media platform, and it's unclear if it has any affiliation with the actor. Washington verified After the quote about social media appeared in the fake tweet screenshot with Washington's name and face, it was shared as text and in memes: Washington      From these posts and memes, the quote then spread to websites that collect quotes from famous people. For example, Goodreads.com has a page dedicated to the misattributed quote, even though Washington never said the words. (Over the years, we've found that these kinds of websites that collect quotes aren't reliable sources of information, no matter how high they show up in Google search results.) page Washington Again, there's no record of Washington ever saying, "Just because you don't share it on social media, doesn't mean you're not up to big things. Live it and stay low key. Privacy is everything." However, as we mentioned, he has given his thoughts before about the state of social media. Washington For example, he once talked to CBN News about the subject in this Facebook video from November 2017: video  In the video, Washington said the following about the potentially negative effects of social media: Washington Turn it off. That's what I'd say. It's hard for young people now because [] they're addicted. If you don't think you're addicted, and I'm talking about anyone, from the highest to the lowest. If you don't think you're addicted, then see if you can turn it off for a week. It got quiet in here, didn't it? Didn't it get real quiet? It's a tool, so we should use it. God has blessed us with free will. Now it's free will magnified. Free will on steroids. You're free to go in any direction you want. It will allow you, and it's not the enemy. It's just a reflection of our own free will. And we all want to be liked. But now we want to be liked by 16 million. And now, some of us will do anything to be liked. We used to do anything to be liked, but it was by the person in front of you. Now it's to be liked by 16 million people that you don't know. We have to ask ourselves what is the long-term if not the short-term effect of too much information. The video, which was also reposted elsewhere, resulted in various users replying (again, on social media) about the effects of social media with the words, "So true!" reposted Washington also spoke about the subject in a YouTube video that was posted in 2017: Washington YouTube video  In sum, while it's true that Washington has spoken before about the potential dangers of social media, there's no record he ever said the following quote: "Just because you don't share it on social media doesn't mean you are not up to big things. Live it and stay low key. Privacy is everything." Washington As a parting thought, we also noticed that the quote was being misattributed with Washington's name on Reddit. At the bottom of the page, the very last comment appeared to receive no attention or upvotes. However, it made a strong point through the use of humor: misattributed Washington Reddit   Ahmed, Idil. Twitter, 5 Nov. 2016, https://twitter.com/idillionaire/status/795016449915879424. Anxiety Freedom Today. Facebook, 17 Apr. 2022, https://www.facebook.com/anxietyfreedomtoday/posts/1894667707400613. CyberGhostUltimate. "Just Because You Dont Share It on Social Media, Doesn't Mean You Are Not up to Big Things. Live It and Stay Low-Key. Privacy Is Everything. - Denzel Washington." R/Privacy on Reddit, 4 July 2021, www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/ode5ls/just_because_you_dont_share_it_on_social_media/. Denzel Washington Warns Young People about an Overlooked Danger That Could Be Destroying Them. CBN News, 2017, https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10159957363410393. deyavelii. Denzel Washington Speaks on Social Media. YouTube, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8ZV2DwgG8E.
On the evening of Nov. 14, 2020, #RIPDrake rose to become the number one Twitter trend in the United States.   However, it was not true that the rapper had passed away. Twitter pinned a message at the top of the #RIPDrake trend informing viewers that it was a death hoax: "No, Drake is not dead. The rumors arose after users began to share photoshopped images of articles saying the rapper had died":   Some tweets shared screenshots of reports supposedly taken from TMZ and Genius. The fake TMZ headline read "Drake dead at 34 after a drive-by shooting." The fake Genius headline, which may have been shared more widely, read: "Drake's Family Releases Info Saying Drake Passed Away." A number of tweets spread the rumor, while others reacted after finding out it was not true: spread the rumor American and European leaders find themselves scrambling to respond to Russias deployment of troops in the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine. With military action on no ones wish-list, diplomacy and economic sanctions are the only moves effectively in play. Secretary of State John Kerry said on CBSFace the Nationthat he had been on the phone with his counterparts among the G-8 nations. Every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia with respect to this invasion, Kerry said. Theyre prepared to put sanctions in place, theyre prepared to isolate Russia economically, the ruble is already going down. Russia has major economic challenges. This fact-check zeros in on the value of the Russian ruble. It has declined but partly because thats what the Russians wanted. A big drop In the early part of 2013, the ruble was worth 3.3 U.S. cents. Today, its value has tumbled by 15 percent, to 2.8 cents. A little less than half of that fall came in January as the situation in Ukraine deteriorated. Heres the picture over the past year, taken from the currency exchange serviceXE.com:   There is no question that the violence and political turmoil in Ukraine took a toll on the ruble. Russian banks have about $28 billion in loans in the country. Before the Russian troops moved in, investors were already worried. Last week,two of the largest banks in Russiasaid they would suspend any new lending in Ukraine. But the rubles decline has deeper roots. In 2010, the Russian Central Bank announced it wanted to get out of the business of setting the rubles value on the international market. It had in mind a gradual glide path for the currencys fall, andin October, it gave the ruble even more leewayto drop further. The countrys economy grew less than 2 percent last year, and it has struggled to keep inflation in check. The ruble got pretty over-valued in the big energy boom from 2001-08, said Mark Adomanis, a management consultant and contributor to Forbes. That hurt Russian manufacturing and letting the ruble fall potentially could help. With a weaker ruble Russian goods become more competitive on international markets, Adomanis said. That said, a free fall is not what the Russian Central Bank has in mind. In January,the bank signaled that it would stepin to prop up the ruble. But the overall policy remains the same. Our ruling Kerry said the ruble is going down, and it is. The Russian currency has lost about 15 percent of its value against the dollar since early 2013. It is not all because of the situation in Ukraine, however, a fact that viewers may not have picked up on by hearing Kerry's statement. The currencys decline is also part of Russian policy to reduce inflation and make domestic manufacturers more competitive. Theres a little more going on here than Kerrys statement would suggest. We rate his claim Mostly True. FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release?  Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial."    Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015]   There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or some similar wording. This is about the speech of Nick Hanauer, apparently a Seattle venture capitalist. The language of this sensational claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the claim. Is it true? What is the source of the rumour?   Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a spate of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual:  Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating claiming that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive (to rich people) nature. On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known (and widely reported upon) protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street): article Occupy Wall Street TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer  the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com  to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic  specifically, Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials told Hanauer initially they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as described as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. But in 2015, many social media users continued to assert Hanauer's talk was banned: Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer  Rich People Dont Create Jobs (VIDEO) #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48 #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48  Hannah Kennison (@HannahKennison1) July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015   Nick Hanauer on His Banned TED Talk & Why the Middle Class are the Job Creators https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ  Jonathan Goodman (@GoodmanJonathan) July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015   if you are interested in #economics, then it is worth listeningBanned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer 'Rich people don't... https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g #economics https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g  Mudassar Bashir (@mb62020) June 15, 2015 June 15, 2015   Nick Hanauer too politically controversial: rich people dont create jobs, consumers do - via Reese Jones https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz  VritTV (@Verite_TV) June 11, 2015 June 11, 2015   In late May 2012 a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during the course of which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson on why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted.     The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. asked shuttered version Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk is explicitly attacking what he calls an article of faith for Republicans. He criticizes Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings  some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one [uncensored] TED Talk video in 2011. video Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Nick Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a coverup. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." titled While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality) his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated:  27July 2015 Originally published: 27July 2015 Some April Fools' Day jokes outlive their marginal and ephemeral usefulness and continue to be spread as valid bits of information long after April 1 has come and passed. One example of such occurred in 2020, when a jape about a toll-free phone number that could be used for tracking the status of $1,200 economic stimulus payments being sent to U.S. taxpayers continued to circulate via social media: economic stimulus     The federal government has not yet announced an automated system for tracking stimulus payments. Persons who call the number shown above may end up "stimulated," but not in an economic sense -- it connects callers with a phone sex line. The IRS reportedly will start issuing stimulus payments via direct deposit beginning on April 9. Taxpayers who receive paper checks (because the IRS does not have their bank account information on file) may be receiving their payments anywhere between April 24 and September 11, depending upon their adjusted gross income. start issuing Mengle, Rocky.  "When Will I Get My Stimulus Check?."
  Kiplinger  3 April 2020. Claim:  The drawback of a laborer's illiteracy frees him to become a success in another field. LEGEND Example:  [Brunvand, 1993] My grandfather used to tell  about a country lad who went to the big city to seek his fortune, but had no luck finding a job.  One day, wandering through the red light district, he spotted a Help Wanted sign in a window. They were looking for a bookkeeper, but after the madam quizzed the boy about his education and discovered that he could neither read or write, she turned him away. Feeling sorry for him, she gave him two big red apples as he left.  A few blocks down the street, he placed the apples on top of a garbage can while tying his shoe, and a stranger came along and offered to buy them. The boy took the money to a produce market and bought a dozen more apples,which he sold quickly.  Eventually he parlayed his fruit sales into a grocery store, then a string of supermarkets.  Eventually he became the wealthiest man in the state. Finally he was named Man of the Year, and during an interview a journalist discovered that his subject could neither read or write. "Good Lord, Sir," he said.  "What do you suppose you would have become if you had ever learned to read and write?" "Well," he answered, "I guess I would have been a bookkeeper in a whorehouse."1 Origins:  According to folklorist Jan Brunvand, after writer Somerset Maugham was accused of stealing the plot of his 1929 short story "The Verger," he explained that he'd heard the tale from a friend and that it was a well known bit of Jewish folklore.  Maugham's claim is supported by this find, harvested from a 1923 joke book: Some fifteen years ago there landed in New York a friendless and almost penniless Russian immigrant who found lodgings on the East Side and at once, with racial perseverance and energy, set out to earn a living. He was of a likeable disposition, and speedily made acquaintances who sought to aid him in his ambition.  One of them sponsored him for the vacant post of janitor, or shammos, to use the common Hebraic word, of a little synagogue on a side street.  But when the officers of the congregation found out the applicant was  entirely illiterate they reluctantly denied him employment, inasmuch as a shammos must keep certain records.  The greenhorn quickly rallied from his disappointment.  He got a job somewhere.  He prospered.  Presently he became a dabbler in real estate. Within ten years he was one of the largest independent operators in East Side tenement-house property and popularly rated as a millionaire.  An occasion arose when he needed a large amount of money to swing what promised to be a profitable deal.  Finding himself for the moment short of cash, he went to the East Side branch of one of the large banks. It was the first time in his entire business career that he had found it necessary to borrow extensively.  He explained his position to the manager, who knew of his success, and asked for a loan of fifty thousand dollars. "I'll be very glad to accommodate you, Mr. Rabin," said the banker.  "Just sit down there at that desk and make out a note for the amount." The caller smiled an embarrassed smile.  "If you please," he said, "you should be so good as to make out the note and then I should sign it." "What's the idea?" inquired the bank manager, puzzled. "Vell, you see," he confessed, "I haf to tell you somethings: Myself, I cannot read and write.  My vife, she has taught me how to make my own name on paper, but otherwise, with me, reading and writing is nix." In amazement, the banker stared at him. "Well, well, well!" he murmured admiringly.  "And yet, handicapped as you've been, inside of a few years you have become a rich man!  I wonder what you'd have been by now if only you had been able to read and write?" "A shammos," said Mr. Rabin modestly.2 Some like to question the legend's basis on the grounds that if the work-seeker couldn't read, he couldn't have made out what the sign in the window said. "Illiterate" is often mistakenly interpreted as "incapable of making head or tail out of so much as one written word." In real life, any number of folks who cannot read and thus have no hope of making sense of a printed page have learned to recognize by sight a goodly number of key words and phrases, including "help wanted." The illiterate among us manage to catch the right buses, "read" road signs, and order off menus, all by way of having memorized what certain words look like. They exist in mainstream society undetected for years, sometimes fooling even their immediate families. A good story never goes out of style, as this example shows: [Collected on the Internet, 2001] An unemployed man goes to apply for a job with Microsoft as a janitor. The manager there arranges for him to take an aptitude test  (Floors, sweeping and cleaning). After the test, the manager says, "You will be employed at minimum wage, $5.15 an hour. Let me have your e-mail address, so that I can send you a form to complete and tell you where to report forwork on your first day. Taken aback, the man protests that he has neither a computer nor an e-mail address. To this the MS manager replies, "Well, then, that means that you virtually don't exist and can therefore hardlyexpect to be employed. Stunned, the man leaves. Not knowing where to turn and having only $10 in his wallet, he decides to buy a 25 lb. flat of tomatoes at the supermarket. Within less than 2 hours, he sells all the tomatoes individually at 100% profit. Repeating the process several times more that day, he ends up with almost $100 before going to sleep that night. And thus it dawns on him that he could quite easily make a living selling tomatoes. Getting up early every day and going to bed late, he multiplies his profits quickly. After a short time he acquires a cart to transport several dozen boxes of tomatoes, only to have to trade it in again so that he can buy a pickup truck to support his expanding business. By the end of the second year, he is the owner of a fleet of pickup trucks and manages a staff of a hundred former unemployed people, all selling tomatoes. Planning for the future of his wife and children, he decides to buy some life insurance. Consulting with an insurance adviser, he picks an insurance plan to fit his new circumstances. At the end of the telephone conversation, the adviser asks him for his e-mail address to send the final documents electronically. When the man replies that he has no e-mail, the adviser is stunned, "What, you don't have e-mail? How on earth have you managed to amass such wealth without the Internet, e-mail and e-commerce? Just imagine where you would be now, if you had been connected to the internet from the very start!" After a moment of thought, the tomato millionaire replied, "Why, of course! I would be a floor cleaner at Microsoft!" Moral of this story: 1. The Internet, e-mail and e-commerce do not need to rule your life.  2. If you don't have e-mail, but work hard, you can still become a millionaire. 3. Since you got this story via e-mail, you're probably closer to becoming a janitor than you are to becoming a millionaire. 4. If you do have a computer and e-mail, you probably have already been taken to the cleaners by Microsoft. The   legend's message is twofold: that sometimes seeming adversity is actually the Hand of God arranging future events in our favor, and that often the most momentous decisions we make swing on little more than the expediency of the moment. Taking the second point first, we observe that if the young farm boy in the first example had been able to read and write, he would have gained the job he sought, that of a bookkeeper in a brothel, and thus would never have become the grocery tycoon he ultimately turned out to be. As to what led him to seek the bookkeeping position, he quite by happenstance chose to walk down a particular street, coincidentally on a day when a "Help Wanted" sign was posted in one of the windows. On another day, that sign wouldn't have been there, or he would already have had a job somewhere else.  It is ever thus  the directions of lives change depending upon which ad is answered, which interview is given, even which bus is taken. A chance encounter can lead to a marriage and the begetting of children, and just as certainly the slightly different choice of ad or bus can result in those two people's never meeting. Career direction is likewise up for grabs. As much as we like to feel we're masters of our fate, often we're the very last factor to have much influence on unfolding events, even within the confines of our own lives. But there's another message to this legend, one of the power of divine intervention and why it doesn't pay to second-guess God.  Today's disappointment can be a necessary, though momentarily painful, ingredient in tomorrow's success, as the snubbed bookkeeper or janitor finds out. Children of the moment that we are, we tend to forget this truth when caught up in sorrow over not getting what we'd set our hearts on, and tend only to remember it again when things ultimately turn out far better than they would have if we'd gotten our shortsighted way.  Barbara "father of the chide" Mikkelson Sightings:  In Somerset Maugham's 1929 short story "The Verger," an illiterate church caretaker is fired by the vicar when his lack of education comes to light. The ousted verger goes on to become a tobacconist, eventually owning a string of shops in London. Last updated:  20 April 2011 The Baby Train   2.  Cobb, Irvin S.  A Laugh a Day Keeps the Doctor Away.  New York: Garden City Publishing, 1923  (pp. 190-191).  Asimov Laughs Again   Botkin, B.A.  Sidewalks of America.  Indianapolis-New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1954  (pp. 430-431).   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 196). The Big Book of Urban Legends For several years an image allegedly depicting a "front fin bones of a Grey whale" circulated on social media platforms such as Reddit, 9GAG, Facebook, and X, formerly known as Twitter, reaching (at least) hundreds of thousand of views. Reddit 9GAG Facebook X ? Whales have arm, wrist & finger bones in their front fins. This is the front fin bones of a Grey whale.byu/Browndog888 inNatureIsFuckingLit ? Whales have arm, wrist & finger bones in their front fins. This is the front fin bones of a Grey whale. u/Browndog888 NatureIsFuckingLit  The copied-and-pasted description of the viral image read "Whales have arm, wrist & finger bones in their front fins. This is the front fin bones of a Grey whale." We tracked down the source of the image. TinEye and Google reverse-image search results indicated that the image has been shared online at least since 2017.When we investigated further, we found out that the photo was authentic and it dated back to February 15, 2017. The image was shared on various Chinese-languagenewswebsites and in numerous social media posts. TinEye Google various Chinese-language websites posts Bone of whale's fin, spine section & teeth. Good proof that humans evolve from marine lives https://t.co/eQwqFioBL6 pic.twitter.com/5HoI2ISNd9 https://t.co/eQwqFioBL6 pic.twitter.com/5HoI2ISNd9  China Xinhua News (@XHNews) February 15, 2017 February 15, 2017  Xinhua News Agency, an official state news agency of the People's Republic of China, andChina Central Television(CCTV) were among the first to share the picture of this seemingly unlikely discovery. "Bone of whale's fin, spine section & teeth. Good proof that humans evolve from marine lives," the X caption of Xinhua News Agency's post read. However, the in-question photo did not show the fin of a gray whale, but rather that of a sperm whale. The CCTV post with the image in question read: Xinhua News Agency China Central Television Two sperm whales became stranded near the Yangkou Port in Rudong County, East China's Jiangsu Province on Feb. 14, 2016, and they were later made into specimens in Shanghai and Dalian. Now, one specimen has returned to the port for exhibition. A 2018 research paper with the title "The myodural bridges' existence in the sperm whale" referenced the 2016 incident, as the whale was shared by Chinese authorities for the purpose ofscientific research: research paper A 15.1-meter long sperm whale was acquired opportunistically examined in this study from stranding with the permission of Chinese Authorities for Animal Protection. It died naturally in the beache of Nantong (Jiangsu province, China). The cadaver was permitted for scientific research under the approval of the Ethics Committee of Dalian Medical University. Some social media users were surprised that whales' bones had a so humanlike appearance. American Museum of Natural History explained that "the sperm whale's flippers, or pectoral fins, help the animal maneuver through water." explained   (American Museum of Natural History) Moreover, the museum underscored that the sperm whale's bone structure is similar to human bones: They also share bone structure with the human arm and hand.In fact, the bones of cetacean flippers are the same kinds of bones as in the human arm, with an upper arm bone, two forearm bones, and hand, wrist, and finger bones. In whales, fingers are elongated and may have additional bones. The joint between upper arm and forearm is immobile, creating an effective paddle. Whales Online, a magazine published by the Group for Research and Education on Marine Mammals (GREMM), published an articlereferring to the whales' front limbs (emphasis ours): article The front limbs of whales' land-roaming ancestors grew much shorter and transformed into pectoral fins. The bones are no longer articulated and do not allow for any movement. The only point of articulation is the shoulder. These fins serve both as a stabilizer and a rudder. Five digits for toothed whales and right whales, four for rorquals: some are very long, with many more phalanges than in land mammals. The bones of the hand are embedded in a fibrous, rigid and resistant tissue and do not appear at the surface of the skin. And here's what the whale's full skeleton looks like: looks like   (baleinesendirect.org screenshot) Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/cctvcom/posts/sperm-whale-specimen-transported-back-to-porttwo-sperm-whales-became-stranded-ne/10155111753959759/. Accessed 7 Sept. 2023. "https://Twitter.Com/XHNews/Status/831759371986153472." X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/XHNews/status/831759371986153472. Accessed 7 Sept. 2023. Liu, Pei, et al. "The Myodural Bridges' Existence in the Sperm Whale." PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 7, July 2018, p. e0200260. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200260. "Skeleton." Baleines En Direct, https://baleinesendirect.org/en/discover/life-of-whales/morphology/skeleton/. Accessed 7 Sept. 2023. Amid discussions of statehood for Washington, D.C., in late April 2021, a meme spread on social media positing that the Dakota territory was split into the states now known as North and South Dakota in the late 1800s for the purpose of giving the Republican Party more political power, namely more senators and electors. One example is a meme from U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.:   The meme read, "Congress split the Dakota territory in half in 1889 to admit two new states with 4 Republican senators. So spare us the fake outrage over DC statehood." The text was taken from a tweet posted by journalist Ari Berman on April 22. tweet The meme generally responds to congressional Republicans who have stated that allowing D.C., a heavily Democratic region, to become a state will shift the balance of political power in Congress. Noting the racial demographics of D.C. versus other states, some Democrats have accused Republicans of stonewalling D.C. statehood because of racism. stated racial demographics accused It also characterizes current Republican opposition to D.C. statehood as hypocritical, noting that the national Republican party has benefited historically from addition of new states with Republican populations. Writing for The Atlantic in 2019, Boston College historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote: The Atlantic The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states. In 1889 and 1890, Congress added North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyomingthe largest admission of states since the original 13. This addition of 12 new senators and 18 new electors to the Electoral College was a deliberate strategy of late-19th-century Republicans to stay in power after their swing toward Big Business cost them a popular majority. The strategy paid dividends deep into the future; indeed, the admission of so many rural states back then helps to explain GOP control of the Senate today, 130 years later. Like most things viewed through the lens of history, the reasons North and South Dakota exist as two separate states are complicated by changing context. Business interests, local efforts, and national political wrangling all played a role, but without a doubt, adding North and South Dakota to the growing union of states had the effect of benefiting the national Republican party politically, and they didn't hide that motivation. But comparing the statehood process for North and South Dakota to current advocation for Washington, D.C. statehood is comparing apples to oranges, said Michael Card, associate professor of political science at the University of South Dakota.  That period in American history was drastically different to the current circumstances in many ways  namely, at that time, a large number of states were in the process of being added into the Union. One of the major factors in deciding statehood was population counts of non-indigenous American settlers. That figure was set at 60,000 in 1787. set at 60,000 Another contextual difference was that the nature of the political parties have evolved over time, meaning the Republicans and Democrats of today are not representative of the parties with those names from the late 19th century in many ways. Many of the non-indigenous settlers in the southern part of what was then Dakota territory were Union veterans of the Civil War and their families, who were Republicans. Many likely moved far away from the battlefields in the American South in an effort to get away from traumatic memories, Card noted. Scandinavian and Canadian immigrants tended to settle in the north. As USA Today pointed out, "the Republican Party was much more concerned with protecting African Americans and their voting rights from its founding through the early 20th century. In the mid-20th century, both parties' stances on racial equity began to switch." That switch came after Democratic legislators passed voting and civil rights legislation i the 1960s. pointed out Another important point of context the population counts in North and South Dakota justified statehood and that Democrats, who were at that time were in control of national government and aware of the territory's Republican leanings, had slowed the statehood process, in hopes of gaining a political toehold in the region. slowed the statehood But they couldn't stall forever. According to historian Elwyn B. Robinson in the book "History of North Dakota," there were 190,983 inhabitants in North Dakota in 1890, while there were 348,600 in South Dakota. And in the end, it was Democrats in Congress and Democratic U.S. President Grover Cleveland who relented, signing legislation granting statehood to North and South Dakota, along with Montana and Washington. In "History of North Dakota," Robinson noted that local advocacy also came into play when it came to the creation of the two states. At the local level, there was an internal push for statehood from a small group of influential men who were unhappy with the outside control that came with Dakota being a territory, and who wanted political equality of status.  History of North Dakota Statehood was a quiet revolution, accomplished by less than two hundred men. The first leaders were Yankton politicians, but all came from southern Dakota and all were Republicans. With few exceptions, they were conservative, middle-class business and professional menbankers, lawyers, ministers, railroad employees, and newspaper editors. They were of the older American stock and came from New England, New York, or the states of the Old Northwest. They were Republicans because Dakota was a one-party regiona result of the long years of territorial status when the Republican party had control of the United States government. The idea of splitting the northern region off from the southern one started with this group, but not because of political power in Washington, D.C., Robinson wrote: "From the beginning the Yankton leaders, a small oligarchy with much influence, planned for the division of the territory at the forty-sixth parallel. Division seemed natural. The railroads ran east and west, so that southern and northern Dakota had little contact with each other." When Robinson described the decision to ultimately split the territory into two when admitting it into the Union though, he noted that it was pushed hard by the Republican Indiana senator who would become the 23rd U.S. president, Benjamin Harrison: Finally, the program of division, with southern Dakota becoming a state and northern Dakota a territory, was dropped in favor of a bill to admit two states. Senator Benjamin Harrison of Indiana pushed it hard and the large population of Dakota (in 1890, North Dakota alone had 190,983 inhabitants and South Dakota 348,600) made further denial seem unjust and irresponsible. In the presidential campaign of 1888 the Republican platform called for admission of two states. Ordway and the Dakota Democrats finally dropped their single-state bill. Both Republicans and Democrats voted for the Omnibus Bill of February 22, 1889, authorizing the framing of constitutions in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington. When the bill finally passed the House of Representatives, some of the members threw books and papers into the air in celebration and there was a general handshaking of congratulation. A step toward equality of status had been taken. Updated rating to "Mixture" and added additional context. Texas women are paid less than men, Wendy Davis stresses. In a March 10, 2014,tweet, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee pointed out that her Republican opponent, Attorney General Greg Abbott, passed up a chance to say whether he would have vetoed a Davis-sponsored measure related to ensuring equal pay for Texas women that didnt make it into law. Davis, a Fort Worth state senator, wrote: While@GregAbbott_TXdodges questions on the Texas Equal Pay Act, women are still paid 82 cents for every dollar a man earns in Texas. Well leave it to Abbott and Davis to debate the 2013 measure vetoed by Gov. Rick Perry. But we wondered: Are Texas women still paid 82 cents for every dollar earned by a man? We found that pay gaps persist, though comparisons can be dicey. Comparing women and men doing 'same' job In August 2013, werated as Mostly Falsea related Davis claim: Texas women make an average of $8,355 less per year than men doing the very same job. Thats not necessarily correct for individuals doing the same job. In 2010, $8,355 was the general gap between median salaries of full-time working Texas men and women, according to federal estimates, and the 2012 gap was nearly $500 less than that. Significantly, the research cited by Davis did not drill down to salaries for men and women doing the same jobs. In contrast, 2013 survey results indicated a $2,000 gap between the median pay for Texas men and women with comparable professional experiences holding the same or similar jobs. Annual U.S. Census Bureau surveys But Davis recent 82 cents claim wasnt specific to people doing the same jobs. Responding to our request for back-up information, Davis spokeswoman Rebecca Acua pointed us to an April 2013fact sheetfrom the National Partnership for Women & Families, an advocacy group for workplace fairness and other issues. The sheet opens: In Texas, on average, a woman who holds a full-time job is paid $35,301 per year while a man who holds a full-time job is paid $43,160 per year. This means that women in Texas are paid 82 cents for every dollar paid to men, amounting to a yearly gap of $7,859 between men and women who work full time in the state. That statement is footnoted to the one-year American Community Survey undertaken in 2011 by the U.S Census Bureau and abureau chartindicating median earnings in the past 12 months by sex by work experience for residents 16 and older. These aligned with the partnerships fact sheet. Latest available estimate Kliner pointed out, too, that comparable results based on the2012 ACSwere posted online by the bureau in September 2013. The 2012 estimates indicate that median earnings for Texas men who worked full time year-round in the past 12 months were $44,802; for Texas women meeting these criteria, median earnings were $35,453  or 79 cents for every dollar earned by men who worked full time. Because Davis said women still earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, we calculated the comparable figure for previous years, according to the bureaus surveys. We found the comparable figure to be 80 cents in2006,2009and2010, 79 cents in2007and 78 cents in2008. Separately, we downloaded a bureau chart showing slightly different estimated median earnings for full-time male and female civilian workers in Texas based on the bureaus 2012 survey. Theresulting chartindicated a median wage for full-time working men of--$45,166 for men, $35,518 for women. By this metric, we calculated, civilian full-time female workers in Texas earned an estimated 79 cents for each dollar earned by full-time male workers. In 2011, a bureauchartsuggests, the comparable figure was 81 cents. Kliner told us the partnership relies on bureau estimates not limited to civilian workers because it believes that delivers a more complete view of the workforce. It is also the chart that has been used historically, so it allows for comparisons over time, she wrote. Upshot: The latest available estimate is that Texas women working full time earned 79 cents for every dollar earned by such men in 2012. That was a penny better than in one of the previous six years, the same or a penny less than the result in four of the years and three cents less than the 82 cents estimated for 2011 and relied upon by Davis. Experts note caveats Experts we queried agreed with our math while offering caveats. By email, Lloyd Potter, the state demographer, pointed out that any focus on earnings for full-time workers leaves out part-time workers. Women, he wrote, are more likely to be employed part-time. Still, Potter said, if we just looked at part-time workers, again, youd probably find women earn less. In our 2013 fact check, we noted theres a range of how many hours full-time workers log, and men are more likely than women to be on the job for 41 hours or more per week, according to theBureau of Labor Statistics. Because more men work overtime,that should translate into higher earnings for them -- because they are paid more, or because their longer hours lead to more job success -- and contribute to the wage gap. Though more nuanced analysis shows that job differences explain much of the pay gap, experts agree that much of it still cannot be accounted for. Thats where sexism comes in, some say. Finally, Potter said, the differential quoted probably is not adjusted for educational attainment or work experience. It is not. If it were, wed probably find the differential would shrink (toward equality) as women tend to have less work experience than men though educational attainment is fairly comparable among adults across sex. Austin economist Stuart Greenfield similarly said by email: In the aggregate, Sen. Davis statement is absolutely, positively correct, though he said that when one controls for work experience, education, and other factors, the earnings differential is reduced. National comparisons Greenfield also pointed out a Dec. 2, 2013, Bureau of Labor Statisticspress releasesummarizing median-pay changes among full-time workers over the years: In Texas, the ratio of womens to mens earnings trended upward from 1997 to 2004. It then fluctuated from 2005 to 2009 before climbing to a series high of 85.6 percent in 2010. However, in the last two years the Texas womens to mens earnings ratio has declined 6.0 percentage points to its lowest level since 2001. According to the 2012 survey results, Texas women fared better compared to men in their state than women in 24 states. Arizona placed first; women working full time earned 87 cents for every dollar earned by men. (For more than a decade, the graph indicates, Texas women fared better than their male counterparts in the state compared to women versus men in the nation as a whole, though conditions dipped in Texas compared to the nation in 2011 and 2012. We asked Cheryl Abbot, a regional economist for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to speak to why this was so. See herreply here.) Jennifer Lee, a researcher for the left-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities, which focuses on programs serving low-income Texans, said of the 79-cent pay difference estimate suggested by the 2012 survey: This is how the wage gap is usually calculated. If you expand who youre looking at to include all employed individuals (whether or not they work full-time or year-round), women earn 71 cents for every dollar that a man earns, Lee said by email. Lee reminded us of a February 2007 paper by Cornell University labor economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn,The Gender Pay Gap: Have Women Gone Far Enough?The paper states that 53 percent of the gender wage gap stems from variation in job, industry and union status between the genders. According to the paper, major reasons for such wage gaps include: Occupational and industry category (49% of the reason) Lee said that many women are concentrated in particular occupations. Occupations that are heavily female, such as health care support or personal care and service occupations, tend to pay low wages, she said. For example, home health aides in Texas, who are largely female, earn on average $17,430 per year, Lee said, while women also represent 63% of workers earning minimum-wage or less in Texas. When you break down earnings data by occupation, she said, this gap persists in almost all occupations. Labor Force Experience (10.5%) A portion of the gap is explained by factors related to work experience, such as interruptions in work for child care, Lee said. Unexplained (41%) Lee said a large portion of the gap is unexplained by womens choices. This could be because of conscious or unconscious biases (research shows this is particularly acute against mothers), Lee wrote, while other research shows that different attitudes around wage negotiations may contribute to the gender wage gap. Lee added: A lot of people see occupational choices and time off from work as womens choices. And while this is true, I think its important to realize that the choices we make are heavily influenced by the environment in which we make choices, the choices that are available, and how those choices are presented. So while its true that more women work in low-wage jobs, there may be reasons why women dont choose to work in some higher-wage occupations. Similarly, mothers may choose to take time off work to care for young children, but perhaps they wouldnt if child care were more available or affordable. Our ruling Davis said that Texas women are still paid 82 cents for every dollar a man earns in the state. Her figure, based on a 2011 federal survey, reflects median earnings for adults who worked full time in the past 12 months, leaving out part-time workers. Its also outdated in that according to the latest available survey, taken in 2012, Texas women earned 79 cents for every dollar earned by men (again working full time in the past 12 months), less than what Davis said. We rate this claim as Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In early August 2020, Snopes readers asked whether the following meme shared across social media accurately quoted U.S. President Donald Trump's commenting on the United States Postal Service and voting by mail:   This quote appears to be a fabricated one. Although the meme's text states that Trump made the remark on a talk radio show hosted by Fox News personality Sean Hannity on July 30, 2020, Trump wasn't a guest on  Hannity's AM radio talk show  that day. Hannity's AM radio talk show  It's true that Trump has repeatedly disparaged mail-in voting, falsely stating  that voting by mail leads to rampant election fraud (except in Florida). He even appeared to suggest in a tweet, which prompted widespread backlash, that the November 2020 election should be delayed because the widespread use of mail-in ballots during the ongoing pandemic would compromise the results. falsely stating  Florida tweet widespread backlash Some concern has also been expressed that Trump has reduced the effectiveness of the Postal Service with budget cuts, as The New York Times reported: "Fueled by animus for Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, and surrounded by advisers who have long called for privatizing the post office, Mr. Trump and his appointees have begun taking cost-cutting steps that appear to have led to slower and less reliable delivery." reduced However, we found no evidence that Trump made the remark in the above-displayed meme. It wasn't posted to his Twitter account or recorded in any statements transcribed by the White House. And Trump was not a guest on the Hannity show on July 30, 2020, so he didn't make the remark there, as suggested by the meme.   These words appear to be someone else's paraphrase of what they assumed Trump was thinking or planning. posted We therefore rate this claim  Lee, Jessica.  "Do Mail-In Ballots Increase Risk of Voter Fraud?"
  Snopes.com.  26 May 2020. Welna, David.  "Citing Election Delay Tweet, Influential Trump Ally Now Demands His Re-Impeachment."
  NPR.  31 July 2020. Shear, Michael D. et al.  "Mail Delays Fuel Concern Trump Is Undercutting Postal System Ahead of Voting."
  The New York Times.  31 July 2020. Freking, Kevin.  "Trump Encourages Mail Voting in Florida But Sues in Nevada."
  The Associated Press.  5 August 2020. On 24 October 2016, health insurance broker Tyler McClosky created a phenomenon on Facebook when he posted a screen shot of what it would cost for a family of four with a total household income of $98,000 in Lee County, Florida, to buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act's marketplace: We were able to recreate McClosky's viral post using the shopping tool at healthcare.gov and the same data he entered (two non-smoking parents with a combined income of $98,000 and two 8-year-old children in Lee County, Florida): tool   But data sent by a Department of Health and Human Services official pointed out that 81 percent of families of that size on an Obamacare plan have household incomes of less than $48,000. So the average family currently subscribing to Obamacare would not be paying nearly as much as the image above depicts in their out-of-pocket premium costs. We entered the same data but changed the income to $48,000 here:   McClosky created the post on 24 October 2016, the same day a report by the Department of Health and Human Services was released detailing an average 25 percent increase in costs to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) customers: customers Across states using the HealthCare.gov platform, the median increase in the second-lowest cost silver plan premium is 16 percent, while the average increase is 25 percent. This figure varies based on locale. For instance, a table compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that people in Phoenix, Arizona will have a 145 percent premium increase, but a tax subsidy will mean a 40-year-old, non-smoking Phoenix resident with a $30,000 annual income will not have to pay any more than last year (which is roughly $207 a month, depending on the plan selected). table According to data sent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a majority of consumers covered by the ACA (85 percent) qualify for tax credits that keep pace with premium increases, so many won't see much of an impact on their out-of-pocket costs. data But McClosky was addressing people whose income disqualifies them from that assistance. He told us he used the $98,000 annual income as an example because that is the threshold at which households of four with two children do not qualify for tax credit assistance (you qualify if you make up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line). He said he created the post because he wanted to raise awareness about what it costs to insure a family in which each adult is making an annual salary of $44,000, and neither has access to employer-based health care  a fairly common situation in the United States. His concern, he said, is that only consumers who qualify for a tax subsidy can afford insurance under ACA. If their incomes are too high to qualify for assistance, they may simply go without. While the number of uninsured Americans dropped under ACA, as of 2015, 28.5 million people still lack coverage. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation: Even under the ACA, many uninsured people cite the high cost of insurance as the main reason they lack coverage. In 2015, 46% of uninsured adults said that they tried to get coverage but did not because it was too expensive. Many people do not have access to coverage through a job, and some people, particularly poor adults in states that did not expand Medicaid, remain ineligible for financial assistance for coverage. Some people who are eligible for financial assistance under the ACA may not know they can get help, and others may still find the cost of coverage prohibitive. In addition, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid or Marketplace coverage. Eric Seiber, associate professor of health services management and policy at Ohio State, said that the health care system in the United States is the most expensive in the world, and costs have steadily increased over the years. Despite its name, the Affordable Care Act doesn't actually address the cost of health care itself: The ACA is not health care reform. Its health insurance reform. It really doesnt do that much about affordable care or patient protection beyond the subsidies and Medicaid. People's perception that their wages have been flat is an effect of compensation increases going to cover rising healthcare costs instead of into their paychecks, Seiber said. McClosky, who sells health and life insurance plans in Florida, said that the Affordable Care Act has had the effect of diminishing competition among carriers. For instance, Lee County residents can only purchase Blue Cross Blue Shield. Prices in Miami-Dade are lower than in Lee County, because there are more carriers competing with each other. McClosky says insurance carriers have been squeezed by part of the mandate which requires them to spend 80 to 85 percent on claim payouts and health care quality improvement. He pointed to Assurant, a 123-yea-old insurer that specialized in individual and small business plans. They could not survive under the ACA and filed for bankruptcy in 2015. Health care is a source of roiling political debate for years. While the cost of health plans under Obamacare will go up an average 25 percent as of 1 November 2016, the majority of consumers won't experience much change in their out-of-pocket costs when open enrollment starts for 2017, because the tax credits will buffer that increase. Further, as the New York Times pointed out, many Americans are shielded from the immediate costs of health care by employer-based insurance or the public programs: pointed out These increases really matter only for those who buy their own insurance. Most people are unaffected by the rate increases because they get their insurance through an employer or are covered through government programs like Medicare, Medicaid or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Only a small fraction of Americans who have insurance buy individual policies. There are about 10 million people in the Obamacare markets and around an additional seven million who buy health plans outside the marketplace, according to Obama administration estimates. The published rate increases apply only to people who shop in the markets, but premiums are expected to go up sharply for the other plans as well. However, as McClosky's post makes clear, whether people notice it or not, American health care costs are high  and not everyone can qualify for available assistance. Kaiser Family Foundation. "2017 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Acts Health Insurance Marketplaces."
25 October 2016. ASPE Research Brief. "Health plan choice and premiums in the 2017 health insurance marketplace."
24 October 2016. Abelson, Reed, and Sanger-Katz, Margaret. "A Quick Guide to Rising Obamacare Rates."
The New York Times. 25 October 2016. Boulton, Guy. "Milwaukee-based Assurant Health to be sold off or shut down."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 28 April 2015.