迷你词

以文会友

2020年10月29日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

皎皎野蓼,花若神明

作者简介:草酱,职业橡皮章手作人,植物插画师,擅长植物与手作的跨界创作。

好久不见,这里是草酱。

 

霜降已至,天气芬芳甜如蜜糖。我挑了个阳光微微的日子,往野外散步。没走一会儿就望见了一片蓼花,开在绿油油的菜地边。浅粉、新绿,恍惚间以为春天到了。

愉悦蓼

这些都是愉悦蓼,花朵浅粉色,密密地,安安静静开一片,清丽得很,让人心情倍感愉悦。

 

愉悦蓼

回过头继续溜达,不一会儿居然有大片粉色雾霭映入眼帘——是长箭叶蓼的花!瞬间惊喜,太美了叭!

 

长箭叶蓼

这片长箭叶蓼长在浅水池塘中,塘里错落生着香蒲,叶子已经枯了。

 

诗经《郑风·山有扶苏》里有句“山有乔松,隰有游龙”——游龙即是对另一种常见蓼花——红蓼的称呼。红蓼有着长长的花穗,确实有那么点游龙的意思。这句诗是个起兴,说山上长着高大的松树呀,湿地里长着红蓼。

 

蓼属植物确实有很大一部分都喜欢长在湿地、水边,长箭叶蓼也不例外。

 

长箭叶蓼又叫戟叶箭蓼。与“游龙”和愉悦蓼的长花穗不同,长箭叶蓼的小花朵们都挤在一起,呈圆穗状,是一个头状花序。花茎多分枝,红色,上面长满了细细的腺毛。

 

小蜜蜂飞来飞去,在这座粉色的城池中忙活。

长箭叶蓼花丛中,昆虫忙碌

池塘边还长了很多禾本科的野草,也带了秋色,并着稀稀落落几根香蒲。相机将长箭叶蓼的粉色雾霭也捕捉到照片中,是江南秋天蜜糖般色彩和气氛啊。

 

带着秋色的禾草和香蒲

 

除了这些,还有全身长刺的杠板归夹杂其间,这种很有辨识度的植物也是蓼属成员。

 

杠板归果实

杠板归正在结果,一串果实上能同时看到绿色、粉色、紫色和蓝色,相当奇幻。果实可以吃,微甜。三角形的叶片也能吃,酸酸的,我觉得味道并不好。

 

但每逢看到了,我总还是冒着被刺的风险,弄几颗果实、一片叶子来吃——喂养自己的荒蛮和孩子气。

到中午,再慢慢踱步到小店,嗦碗鱼丸粉干,秋天要一直这么过就好了。

 

 

 

作者:草酱

图文编辑:蒋某人

本作品采用 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) 许可协议进行许可

//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.zh

转载请务必保留以上声明


 

2020年10月29日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

邮政工作人员在选票垃圾箱事件中被起诉,没有政治动机的证据

选票在运往肯塔基州单一邮政编码的居民途中,于 2020 年 10 月中旬在一个垃圾箱中发现未开封的选票。

【原文】

On Oct. 15, 2020, news first broke that over 100 absentee ballots had been discovered in a dumpster in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Just under two weeks later, U.S. Attorney Russell Coleman announced that a postal worker named DeShawn Bojgere was charged with “willfully obstructing the passage of mail” in violation of United States law. “Bojgere admitted to special agents with the U.S. Postal Service that he was responsible for discarding the mail in the construction dumpster,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in an Oct. 26, 2020, news release. Bojgere no longer works for the Postal Service.

The incident, both before and after Bojgere’s statement, has been used by several conservative publications as evidence validating claims made by U.S. President Donald Trump that mail-in voting is susceptible to fraud. “President Donald Trump and Republicans have sought to say that mail-in voting leads to a number of problems, delays, and could facilitate election rigging” wrote the Epoch Times on Oct. 27, 2020. “Legacy news outlets and Democrats have attempted to push back against Trump’s claims, asserting that he is spreading misinformation. However, in recent days, there have been incidents involving mail being dumped,” the Epoch Times continued. On Oct. 17, 2020, Trump shared a local news report of the story on Twitter alongside the text “bins full of ballots in a dumpster”:

The event is factual, but claims of any political or ballot-based motivation are unsubstantiated.

Is This Voter Fraud or Election Meddling?

No evidence exists that this incident was politically motivated or even motivated by the presence of the absentee ballots. According to the DOJ, Bojgere dumped “a large quantity” of mail in the dumpster. While this included “approximately 111 general election absentee ballots” intended for residents of the 40299 zip code, it also included those residents’ other mail as well. This included “approximately 69 mixed class pieces of flat rate mail, 320 second class pieces of mail, and two national election campaign flyers from a political party in Florida.” All of this mail was from “a single route for one scheduled delivery day.”

Bojgere was not charged with any election-related crime. According to the DOJ, he was charged with a postal crime under Chapter 83 section 1703 of United States Code, which reads, in part:

Whoever, being a Postal Service officer or employee, unlawfully secretes, destroys, detains, delays, or opens any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail entrusted to him or which shall come into his possession, and which was intended to be conveyed by mail, or carried or delivered by any carrier or other employee of the Postal Service, or forwarded through or delivered from any post office or station thereof established by authority of the Postmaster General or the Postal Service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

What Happened to the Voters Impacted?

In Kentucky, voters must request a mail-in ballot. Speaking to the Courier Journal after the ballots’ discovery, Jefferson County Clerk’s office spokesman Nore Ghibaudy said that these particular ballots had been sent out Oct. 3, and that some voters had already expressed concern about having not received them. Following their discovery in the dumpster, Ghibaudy said, the missing ballots were sent to their intended target. For those in Kentucky who have not received a requested ballot, he added, they could go to any polling site, sign an affidavit saying they did not receive the ballot, and vote in person.

“Especially in these times, Americans depend on the reliability and integrity of those that deliver the U.S. Mail,” Coleman said. “Conduct by Postal employees that violates that duty will result in swift federal prosecution.”

To read up on mail-in ballot laws and deadlines in your state, check out Snopes’ state-by-state voter guide.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月29日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

艾米·康尼·巴雷特是否推翻了让监狱看守因强奸女囚犯而支付损害赔偿的决定?

该法 “并没有使公共雇主绝对保险公司免受所有不法行为”,这是一个由三名法官组成的小组,审理一名监狱看守的性攻击案件。

【宣称】

艾米·康尼·巴雷特推翻了下级法院的裁决,要求监狱看守负责赔偿一名女囚犯,他曾多次强奸。

【结论】

混合物

【原文】

In June 2017, a federal jury awarded $6.7 million in damages to Shonda Martin, a woman who testified that she had been raped multiple times by guard Xavier Thicklen while she was being held in the Milwaukee County Jail in 2013:

Martin arrived at the jail in February 2013 at the age of 19. She soon learned she was pregnant. She testified she could not control her activities or movements in jail; the guards did. Thicklen raped Martin in jail. He had sexual contact with her three times while she was pregnant, including vaginal intercourse, and two times after delivery.

[Thicklen] told her he was in gray and she was in blue, and his co-workers would believe him and not her. She understood him to mean “he’s in authority and … he has power over me.” She understood him to mean his co-workers would believe anything he said; he could falsely say she tried to grab or hit him, or tried to take his taser or gun, and she would be punished. She testified, “I believed everything he said…. I knew that his authority over me would trump anything that I said.”

Martin testified that during each sexual assault, Thicklen was in uniform, armed, and on duty working for County. All five assaults occurred in jail. Every time, he had to use his keys, power, and authority. He told her he would be fired if people found out. He took steps to hide the assaults. For example, he assaulted her off camera. Finally, on December 3, 2013, she reported the sexual assaults when she was concerned he possibly gave her a disease which spread to her child. An investigation began that day. She was transferred the next day. Thicklen was dismissed and prosecuted.

This case (Martin v. Milwaukee County) came to widespread public attention over three years later, in October 2020, after President Donald Trump nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Barrett had been involved in an appeal of the case two years earlier, during which, a popular meme held, she had “reversed the lower court’s decision to award” money to the victim:

As is often the case, the meme presented a simplified version of facts that could be considered misleading.

Barrett was part of a three-judge Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel that heard an appeal from Milwaukee County. That panel did not “overturn” the damages award to Martin; rather, it ruled that because Thicklen’s actions in sexually assaulting Martin were outside the scope of his employment, Thicklen alone — and not the county — was liable for paying those damages:

Here, we may take it as granted that the sexual assaults occurred during the authorized time and space limits of Thicklen’s employment (although there may be some question about whether Thicklen was actually authorized to be in the particular locations of the sexual assaults at the times he perpetrated them).

But even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Martin and the verdict, we hold no reasonable jury could find the sexual assaults were in the scope of his employment …

Uncontested evidence at trial demonstrated County thoroughly trained Thicklen not to have sexual contact with inmates. County expressly forbade him from having sexual contact with an inmate under any circumstances, regardless of apparent consent. County’s training warned him that such sexual contact violates state law and the Sheriff’s Office’s mission.

Martin argues [Thicklen] might have intended to exert power, dominion, and control over her by sexually assaulting her. But that inference, while reasonable, still does not bring the sexual assaults within the scope because under that theory he would still have pursued purely personal goals. Any power, dominion, and control asserted or achieved through these sexual assaults would “belong to” and “benefit” only him, not County, on these facts. Olson reminds us that an employee’s being “at least partially actuated by a purpose to serve the employer” is a sine qua non of scope.

Martin presented no evidence at trial that the sexual abuse was similar in kind to work Thicklen was employed to perform. This case is distinguishable from cases involving excessive force by police officers. Some force, even deadly force, is sometimes permissible for police officers. But the rapes in this case were not part of a spectrum of conduct that shades into permissible zones. Inmate rape by a guard usually involves no gray areas.

Even though all of the judgments against Thicklen (who was not a party to the appeal) were allowed to stand, in a practical sense the ruling meant the victim would likely collect little in damages, since Thicklen was not required to be indemnified by the county and likely does not possess assets worth anything close to $6.7 million — a fact the panel recognized:

As an aside, we note our conclusion is consistent with the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s understanding of the public policy behind [the state’s indemnification statute]. Wisconsin courts have determined that the purpose of the statutory indemnification is to enable public employees to perform their duties without fear of having to pay out of pocket for such performance. Indemnification here would not further this purpose. We have sympathy for Martin, who loses perhaps her best chance to collect the judgment. But [the law] does not make public employers absolute insurers against all wrongs.

Critics of Barrett’s have noted that in a similar case heard by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2018 (Cox v. Evansville Police Department), involving sexual assaults committed by police officers, that court arrived at the opposite conclusion:

Two on-duty police officers — one in Fort Wayne and one in Evansville — sexually assaulted women, who then brought civil actions against the officers’ city employers. We address two theories of employer liability: (1) the scope-of-employment rule, traditionally called respondeat superior, and (2) the rule’s common-carrier exception, which imposes a more stringent standard of care on certain enterprises. We hold that the cities may be liable under the scope-of-employment rule and that the exception does not apply.

Resounding in our decision today is the maxim that great power comes with great responsibility. Cities are endowed with the coercive power of the state, and they confer that power on their police officers. Those officers, in turn, wield it to carry out employment duties — duties that may include physically controlling and forcibly touching others without consent. For this reason, when an officer carrying out employment duties physically controls someone and then abuses employer-conferred power to sexually assault that person, the city does not, under respondeat superior, escape liability as a matter of law for the sexual assault.

Investing officers with considerable and intimidating powers comes with an inherent risk of abuse. When that abuse is a tortious act arising naturally or predictably from the police officer’s employment activities, it falls within the scope of employment for which the city is liable. Thus, if an on-duty police officer commits a sexual assault by misusing official authority, the sexual assault is within the scope of employment if the employment context naturally or predictably gave rise to that abuse of official authority.

Oddly, perhaps, in 2019 another three-judge Seventh Circuit panel (not including Barrett) similarly reversed a lower court’s ruling to hold a Wisconsin county responsible for paying damages over the sexual assault of female inmates by a male jailer:

Darryl Christensen, a former Polk County jailer, was convicted in 2016 of sexually assaulting five female inmates hundreds of times over a three-year period.

Two of his victims, identified as J.K.J. and M.J.J., sued Christensen and Polk County over the assaults in federal court.

The complaint claimed the county sheriff’s department was indifferent to the risk of assault because it allowed one male officer with the ability to prevent the entrance of other jailers to supervise female inmates in areas without cameras. The county also deliberately chose not to accept state training materials regarding sexual assault in jails.

A jury awarded the women $11.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages, of which the county was responsible for paying $4 million. Given that Christensen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for his conduct, this figure is the only part of the award the women will ever possibly receive.

But in June [2019], a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit reversed the ruling against the county, holding that it could not be held accountable for the actions of a “rogue guard” who knew that he was violating jail policy, his training and the law.

In that case, however, the full court voted to rehear the issue, and in a non-unanimous decision — with Barrett joining the majority — the court vacated the three-judge panel’s opinion and upheld the original jury verdict that held both the county and Christensen liable for the latter’s abuse of female inmates:

“Darryl Christensen’s long-term abuse of J.K.J. and M.J.J. more than justified the jury’s verdict against him. And the jury was furnished with sufficient evidence to hold Polk County liable not on the basis of Christensen’s horrific acts but rather the county’s own deliberate choice to stand idly by while the female inmates under its care were exposed to an unmistakable risk that they would be sexually assaulted — a choice that was the moving force behind the harm inflicted on J.K.J. and M.J.J.,” U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Scudder wrote for the full court’s majority.

Based on the evidence presented at trial, “the jury was entitled to conclude that if Polk County had taken action in response to the glaring risk that its female inmates’ health and safety were in danger, J.K.J. and M.J.J.’s assaults would have stopped sooner, or never happened at all,” Scudder said.

His opinion was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Diane Wood, Michael Kanne, Ilana Rovner, David Hamilton, Amy Barrett and Amy St. Eve.

U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Brennan, who authored the original opinion, wrote a blistering 62-page dissent, and was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Diane Sykes and William Bauer.

“Under the majority opinion, a single subordinate employee may secretly override municipal policy and create a new policy under which that public employer is accountable. That is vicarious liability, a collapse into respondeat superior against which the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned for 60 years,” Brennan said.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月29日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

拜登是否承认选民欺诈行为?

民主党美国总统候选人是否在选举日前不到两个星期就大规模的选民欺诈招认?几乎没有

【宣称】

2020 年 10 月,乔·拜登承认犯有选民欺诈行为。

【结论】


【原文】

In the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election, the campaign of U.S. President Donald Trump claimed Democratic nominee Joe Biden had “admitted” to perpetrating electoral fraud. 

On Oct. 24, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted out a short video clip of Biden, along with the following text:

BIDEN ADMITS TO VOTER FRAUD!

Joe Biden brags about having the “most extensive VOTER FRAUD organization” in history!!

In the video, which was originally posted by @RNCResearch, the Republican Party’s opposition research division, the former vice president can be seen saying:

In the interest of providing readers with all the relevant context, a transcript of that question and Biden’s response can be found here. In brief, Biden encouraged prospective voters not to be intimidated by what he cast as efforts by Republicans and the Trump administration to suppress voting, especially by people of color. He outlined what he presented as his campaign’s efforts to ensure the integrity of the election, including a dedicated telephone helpline, backed by hundreds of attorneys offering support and advice, as well as poll-watchers who will “police and watch” the election. 

Immediately after he referred to “the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,” (the soundbite highlighted in the RNCResearch clip), Biden said:

“What the president is trying to do is discourage people from voting by implying that their vote won’t be counted, it can’t be counted, we’re going to challenge it and all these things.” 

“If enough people vote,” Biden added, it would “overwhelm the system” and effectively ensure that Trump’s purported efforts at voter suppression would not be successful.

It’s clear from watching the clip in its proper context that Biden was describing his campaign’s efforts to combat voter suppression and intimidation, as well as misinformation about the widespread perpetration of voter fraud. It would make no sense for a political candidate whose campaign was engaged in large-scale electoral fraud to publicly say as much, in those words, and that’s not what Biden was doing.

Providing additional context, the Biden campaign confirmed for Snopes that he used shorthand to refer to his campaign’s election protection initiative, which involves educating prospective voters, countering attempted voter suppression and intimidation, having lawyers on hand to provide advice to voters whose ballot is disputed or challenged, as well as the national hotline mentioned by Biden, and several similar, state-specific hotlines. 

In a statement sent to Snopes, the Biden campaign’s National Press Secretary TJ Ducklo wrote: 

The President of the United States has already demonstrated he’s willing to lie and manipulate our country’s democratic process to help himself politically, which is why we have assembled the most robust and sophisticated team in presidential campaign history to confront voter suppression and fight voter fraud however it may present itself. The American people will decide the outcome of this election on November 3rd through a free and fair election, as they always have.

By describing his campaign’s program to combat voter suppression and protect the integrity of the election as a “voter fraud organization,” Biden left open his remarks to possible misinterpretation, but crucially, only if that phrase was presented outside its original context, which the Trump campaign did. If the remarks are viewed in their proper context — Biden’s whole response to Pfeiffer’s question — it’s abundantly clear that Biden was not, for some unexplained reason, confessing to perpetrating electoral fraud on a historically massive scale, less than two weeks before Election Day.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月29日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

这是另一张梅拉尼亚·特朗普 “身体双” 的照片吗?

基于一张照片的阴谋理论不会削减它,如果真的有数百张其他照片和视频反对它。

【宣称】

照片显示了美国总统唐纳德·特朗普进入海军一号与个人站在第一夫人梅拉尼亚·特朗普。

【结论】


【原文】

U.S. Election Day is Nov. 3, 2020. Check your state’s vote-by-mail options. Browse our coverage of candidates and the issues. And just keep fact-checking.

A rumor that U.S. first lady Melania Trump uses “body doubles” to take her place in public events has been a persistent feature of the Trump administration. Snopes has previously debunked several instances of the claim. In October 2020, the claim gained renewed attention with a Tweet by comedian and producer Zack Bornstein:

The reference to the Christmas tree (a nod to leaked remarks Melania Trump made about her disdain for her Christmas-decoration duties in the White House) suggests this specific accusation may not be a serious one, but the claim has nevertheless gone viral. The purported evidence is simply that the person pictured entering the helicopter in that photograph doesn’t really look like her:

Though her appearance at the debate, based on Facebook analytics from CrowdTangle for the term “Fake Melania,” did not inspire any suspicion at the time, one could perhaps argue that the purported imposter’s face was too concealed by sunglasses or a mask in these instances to be useful. That same AP photographer, however, also documented the moment when the first couple touched back down at the White House around 1:00 a.m. EDT on Oct. 23. Melania wore neither sunglasses nor a mask:

(Photos by Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

“But these photos are too blurry or ambiguous to be of use, either,” a persistent believer might argue. Fine. Other photographers also take pictures of presidents moving to and from the White House. For example, here’s a couple of high-resolution photographs showing Melania’s full face from that same moment taken by Tasos Katopodis for Getty Images:

(Photos by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

No widespread suspicion of a “body double” gained any traction from any of these other photographs, debate-stage appearances, or videos, despite the fact that they all necessarily involve the same person. For that reason, we rank this claim, like the other “Fake Melania” claims, as “False.”

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月28日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

亨特·拜登是为了他死去的兄弟的寡妇离婚了吗?

关于候选人及其家属的有趣故事的传播通常与总统选举周期的开始同时进行.

【宣称】

【结论】

【原文】

When presidential campaign season is upon us, so naturally are rumors and gossip about candidates and their families. Thus in late April and early May 2019, Facebook users shared a meme delineating some of the more lurid details from the divorce records of Democratic candidate Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden:

The younger Biden began dating his former sister-in-law Hallie after his brother, Beau Biden, died of brain cancer, and after separating from his wife Kathleen in 2015. Joe Biden confirmed the relationship in 2017 by telling the New York Post‘s Page Six that “We are all lucky that Hunter and Hallie found each other as they were putting their lives together again after such sadness. They have mine and Jill’s full and complete support and we are happy for them.”

The details reproduced in the above Facebook post about the divorce were originally disclosed in 2017, when the Delaware News Journal, citing court filings, reported that Hunter Biden’ ex-wife Kathleen had accused him of failing to “sufficiently provided for the family after the couple formally separated in October of 2015. In late 2016, Hunter ordered his office to cut Kathleen’s $17,000-a-month payment to $7,500.”

The news media also widely reported in 2014 that Hunter Biden had been kicked out of the Navy Reserve that year for failing a drug test. Citing “senior U.S. officials,” NBC News reported on 16 October 2014 that Biden had tested positive for cocaine.

It’s unclear whether Hunter left his wife because of his relationship with Hallie; however, the News Journal reported that divorce records described a relationship that was already generally rocky, in which accusations of infidelity flew both ways:

In response to Kathleen’s original complaint, Hunter denied that his conduct precipitated the couple’s split and maintained that he has sufficiently supported the family during his separation from his wife. Further, Hunter’s attorney has requested that Kathleen furnish all documents, including letters, cards and emails “between you and any person that you had a romantic or sexual relationship with other than your husband during the marriage.”

We reached out to the attorneys cited by the News Journal as representing Kathleen and Hunter respectively but did not receive responses by the time of publication.

On 30 April 2019, Page Six again purportedly broke news related to Biden familial drama when it reported that Hunter and Hallie had ended their relationship, citing an anonymous source. Neither Hallie nor a “source close to the family” would comment when reached by Page Six, however.

Although it’s a common trope that the news media have “ignored” certain stories because of political bias, the stories about Hunter Biden’s love life and military history have been widely covered. Aside from the purported split of Hunter and Hallie, however, some current readers may not have known about them because they are not new and thus hit the news cycle years ago.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月27日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

什么是独创主义?揭开神话

独创主义是一个想法,我们应该解释宪法的原有含义。

【原文】

This article is republished here with permission from The Conversation. This content is shared here because the topic may interest Snopes readers; it does not, however, represent the work of Snopes fact-checkers or editors.


Originalism has featured prominently in each of the last three Supreme Court confirmation battles – those of Neil Gorsuch in 2017, Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and now Amy Coney Barrett. Each time, misconceptions about this theory of constitutional interpretation have swirled: Isn’t originalism self-defeating because the Founders weren’t originalist? Don’t originalists ignore the amendments written after 1789? Do originalists think the Constitution applies only to horse-drawn carriages and muskets?

As a constitutional law professor, the author of “A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism,” and an originalist, I’d like to answer some frequently asked questions about originalism – and to debunk some of the myths.

This is also why originalism can and does justify Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark school desegregation decision. The 14th Amendment’s privileges or immunities clause – which provides that no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizens – was an anti-discrimination provision with respect to civil rights under state law. If education is a civil right – and it is – then once it is acknowledged that segregation was never about equality but rather about keeping one race of Americans subordinated to another, segregated public schools obviously violate the Constitution.

Is originalism just a conservative ploy?

That brings us to the final misconception: Isn’t originalism just a rationalization for conservative results? The short answer is “no.” Originalists take the bitter with the sweet. They may not like federal income taxes or the direct election of senators, but they accept the original meaning of the 16th and 17th amendments on those points. Moreover, originalists often believe – whether on abortion or same-sex marriage, for example – that controversial political and moral questions should be decided by the democratic, legislative process, a process that can lead to progressive, libertarian or conservative outcomes.The Conversation


Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor of Law, Arizona State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月27日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

墓地和墓地有什么区别?

无论词源或墓地历史如何,最终,每个人都会死亡。

【原文】

With the arrival of Halloween 2020, we inevitably receive questions about those most hallowed of scary places: the graveyard and cemetery.

A meme that has been making the rounds since 2019 resurfaced with details about burial places that we at Snopes had never heard of previously, so we decided to excavate some history. 

The meme claimed that the difference between a graveyard and a cemetery was that a graveyard adjoins a church, while a cemetery does not. The meme also claimed that one can bury ashes in a cemetery, but not in a graveyard. 

We dug in to discover interesting tidbits that showed not only are the above claims incorrect, but the alleged differences between the two forms of burial grounds boil down to etymology, history, and religious rules.

“The Work of the Dead” described the shift within the Church’s approach to cremation:

As corporeal resurrection became less theologically and emotionally exigent, the representational power of putting a dead body in ground from which it would rise again incorruptible diminished; cremation—in a sense the rapid release of a spirit from its fleshly prison—became more plausible.

Now, the most straightforward answer on where one can bury ashes of the deceased, according to experts, is: it depends, but the meme was definitely not accurate. John Troyer, director of the Centre for Death and Society at the University of Bath, told us, “You can bury cremated remains in graveyards. I’ve watched it happen.”

According to Sloane, “Some graveyards may prohibit the interment of ashes. Some cemeteries may have done so as well, say Catholic cemeteries where for decades […] cremation was prohibited.”

Laqueur agreed, saying “It depends on who controls the graveyard […] when it’s not religion, it depends on the community. In other words, if a cemetery is owned outside of a small Southern town, it is perfectly possible that they wouldn’t allow X,Y, and Z, that they would allow somewhere else.”

By 1885, Britain had its first legal cremation in the country’s first legally authorized crematorium. In the 1950s, the Catholic church allowed cremated remains to be buried with religious services as long as the ashes remained together and were not scattered, according to “The Work of the Dead.” Today, Catholic church guidelines urge that cremated remains be preserved in cemeteries or other approved sacred places, and “raises no doctrinal objections to this practice, since cremation of the deceased’s body does not affect his or her soul.”

The Catholic church also stated: “When, for legitimate motives, cremation of the body has been chosen, the ashes of the faithful must be laid to rest in a sacred place, that is, in a cemetery or, in certain cases, in a church or an area, which has been set aside for this purpose, and so dedicated by the competent ecclesial authority.” The Catholic church is still, however, opposed to the scattering of ashes. 

Conclusion

Today, the difference between graveyards and cemeteries is non-existent. Historical differences existed between churchyards and cemeteries that gradually went away in modern day usage. The interment of ashes is also dependent on the rituals of the community the burial site is tied to. The information in the above meme is misleading and incorrect, which goes to show that some claims should just remain buried.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月27日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

黑甘草的幽灵和危险的一面

黑色甘草可能看起来和味道像一个无辜的治疗,但这种糖果有一个黑暗的一面。

【原文】

This article is republished here with permission from The Conversation. This content is shared here because the topic may interest Snopes readers; it does not, however, represent the work of Snopes fact-checkers or editors.


Black licorice may look and taste like an innocent treat, but this candy has a dark side. On Sept. 23, 2020, it was reported that black licorice was the culprit in the death of a 54-year-old man in Massachusetts. How could this be? Overdosing on licorice sounds more like a twisted tale than a plausible fact.

I have a longstanding interest in how chemicals in our food and the environment affect our body and mind. When something seemingly harmless like licorice is implicated in a death, we are reminded of the famous proclamation by Swiss physician Paracelsus, the Father of Toxicology: “All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison.”

Some people take dietary or health supplements that already contain licorice, which increases the risk of toxic effects from eating black licorice candy. Certain medications such as hydrochlorothiazide are diuretics that cause increased urination, which can lower potassium levels in the body. Glycyrrhizin also lowers potassium levels, further disrupting the balance of electrolytes, which can produce muscle cramps and irregular heart rhythms.

People with certain preexisting conditions are more susceptible to black licorice overdose.

For example, patients who already have low potassium levels (hypokalemia), high blood pressure or heart arrhythmia are likely to have greater sensitivity to the effects of excessive licorice. Those with liver or kidney deficiencies will also retain glycyrrhizin in their bloodstream for longer times, increasing their risk of experiencing its adverse effects.

What to do?

If you’re a fan of black licorice, there is no need to ban it from your pantry. Eaten in small quantities from time to time, licorice poses no significant threat to otherwise healthy adults and children. But it is advisable to monitor your intake.

With Halloween approaching, be sure to remind your kids that candy is a “sometimes food,” especially the black licorice. The FDA has issued warnings about the rare but serious effects of too much black licorice, advising that people avoid eating more than two ounces of black licorice a day for two weeks or longer. The agency states that if you have been eating a lot of black licorice and experience an irregular heart rhythm or muscle weakness, stop eating it immediately and contact your health care provider.

Some scientists have further cautioned against the routine use of licorice in the form of a dietary supplement or tea for its alleged health benefits. A review article from 2012 warned that “the daily consumption of licorice is never justified because its benefits are minor compared to the adverse outcomes of chronic consumption.”The Conversation


Bill Sullivan, Professor of Pharmacology & Toxicology; author of Pleased to Meet Me: Genes, Germs, and the Curious Forces That Make Us Who We Are, Indiana University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月27日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

狗的鼻子没有界限 — 你的狗的爱也不爱你

我的狗在想什么?我是否在尽一切努力确保我的幼崽内容?

【原文】

This article is republished here with permission from The Conversation. This content is shared here because the topic may interest Snopes readers; it does not, however, represent the work of Snopes fact-checkers or editors.


I have discovered one positive amid the pandemic: I love working with two dogs at my feet.

As someone who studies dog cognition, I often wonder: What is Charlie learning when he stops to sniff the crisp fall air? What is Cleo thinking when she stares at me while I write? Are my dogs happy?

A golden retriever type dog looks up adordingly at its owner.A golden retriever type dog looks up adordingly at its owner.
The average dog spends a lot of time gazing at its owner – creating a ‘love-loop.’
Murat Natan/EyeEm via Getty Images


Dogs attach to their owners in much the same way human infants attach to their parents. Like babies, dogs show distress when left with a stranger and rush to reunite upon their person’s return.

A recent study found that dogs that have been deprived of food and owners choose to greet their owners before eating. Further, their brain’s reward centers “light up” upon smelling their owners. And, when your eyes meet your dog’s, both your brains release oxytocin, also know as the “cuddle hormone.”

All of this research shows that you can make your dog happier with just one ingredient: you. Make more eye contact to release that cuddle hormone. Touch it more – dogs like pats better than treats! Go ahead and “baby talk” to your dog – it draws the dog’s attention to you more and may strengthen your bond.

Understanding your dog’s mind can not only sate your curiosity about your companion, but can also help you ensure your pup lives a good, happy life. The more you know about your furry friends the more you can do to meet their needs.

And now I am off to gaze into Cleo’s bright blue eyes, give Charlie a belly rub, and then let them take me on a “sniffy” walk.The Conversation


Ellen Furlong, Associate Professor of Psychology, Illinois Wesleyan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月27日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

独家:俄罗斯回声遵守仍然活跃的 “宾夕法尼亚为特朗普” Facebook 集团自 2016 年起

早在 2016 年美国总统大选之前,一个可能的俄罗斯行政帐户就在秋千州集团中活跃,直到 2020 年 10 月,我们联系 Facebook 提出问题后才消失。

【原文】

Snopes may be known for debunking urban legends, hoaxes, and folklore, but our journalistic efforts go far beyond that. Investigations into coordinated inauthentic behavior seek to expose bad actors and their methods. These stories also document patterns of the shortcomings of social media platforms, in particular when it comes to U.S. politics.

A Snopes investigation has uncovered a Facebook account, likely Russian, that managed a Pennsylvania for Trump Facebook group from April 2016 through October 2020. The discovery was made with only weeks remaining before the Nov. 3, 2020, general election.

The Facebook account had participated in the group for the key swing state ahead of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and its activity during that year paralleled descriptions of fake personas mentioned in the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, “Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election.” Following Donald Trump’s victory in that election, the account created posts to defend Russia from accusations of foreign interference. We contacted Facebook with questions about the administrative account, and hours later it was no longer accessible.

“Gina Grin” was the name on the admin account, and it may have been an alias. We will refer to her in this story as a woman, but the identity behind the account could not be definitively confirmed. She was still active around mid-October 2020, less than a month to go before Election Day. A second account named Gina Grin Scofield also vanished the same day. Facebook did not respond to our questions about either account.

More than 6 million ballots were cast in Pennsylvania for the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Donald Trump edged out former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in that state by only 44,292 votes.

Second, we know that in 2016, Russians sought to access election systems in Pennsylvania. We also know that they staged rallies in the swing state. The New York Times reported that Russia created fake American Facebook profiles, in particular documenting the case of a fake Pennsylvania man named Melvin Redick. And The Washington Post reported that Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin “by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively.”

Third, on Oct. 13, 2020, Snopes reached out to Facebook about this story, and hours later, both Gina Grin accounts disappeared. In the email, we detailed the Moscow conference and other data. We also referenced a video that featured a woman speaking Russian. That video was the only one posted to a YouTube channel named Gina Grin, and other than that video, a Google search for “Gina Grin” (with quotes) showed no trace of any other people or aliases with the same name.

In our conversation with Linvill, we shared some of the red flags associated with Gina Grin’s Facebook account. He referenced the Internet Research Agency in his response.

I’m not saying this is definitely an old IRA account, but it sure as hell, you know literally everything on this checklist you gave me of things that looked suspicious to you, yeah. Appeared to pretend to live in a swing state. Check. IRA did that. Posted a celebrity profile photo and pretend to be the pictured woman. Check. IRA did that. Mirrored the profile photo. Check. I know the IRA to continue to do that. Pretended to own dogs and used pictures from Pinterest. Check. They do that. Posted links to the DNC emails. Check. Check. Check. Posted consistently negative about Hillary Clinton. Obviously check. Shared reassurances for people [unsure of voting for Trump]… I mean like all of these, even and especially the one about accidentally having a Russian page in there (Молекулярная диагностика 2021). These are run by humans. They make mistakes. I’ve seen all kinds of errors made by the Russians.

We also spoke with Nina Jankowicz, who studies disinformation with The Wilson Center, and is the author of “How to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News, and the Future of Conflict.” We shared some of our research, and she told us that it’s “definitely suspicious that someone like this would like a Molecular Diagnostics conference page, especially if they purport to be in Pennsylvania, very strange, and you wonder if they were perhaps logged into Facebook under the troll account, and hadn’t moved back to their personal account.”

She said that while she has run into accounts like these that are run by American citizens, the “pattern of posting” for this one sounds like it stands out. “They made it look like a real person’s account that is populated by normal Facebook posts.” She also told us: “It seems to me that, there are a lot of [sleeper accounts] that fall through the cracks and this one seems to have been pretty robust. Even if this was an account based in the United States, and this person was of Russian descent, or something like that, it still seems to be a fake account and violates Facebook’s terms of service for misrepresentation. I think they need to do a lot better in these cases.”

It is unknown how far Gina Grin’s reach stretched out onto the vast Facebook landscape before both accounts were removed on Oct. 14. The person who controlled the accounts may have access to other profiles, though we were unable to find any evidence of additional accounts. What we do know for sure is that Grin was a member of at least nine Facebook groups more than four years earlier in May 2016, including Pennsylvania for Trump, the original name of the group before it was changed to Support Melania Trump. Grin was also an admin in the group New York’s Trump Train Picking Up America!! until October 2020, and was a member of Wisconsin for Trump. Wisconsin is also a swing state.

Page 80 of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report noted that ex-Trump campaign official Rick Gates recalled an Aug. 2, 2016, conversation between Konstantin Kilimnik and ex-Trump aide Paul Manafort, and that “Kilimnik wanted to know how Trump could win.” Four states were specifically mentioned by Manafort as “battleground” states: Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

Gina Grin posted more times in the Facebook group in 2016 than in any year to follow. In Pennsylvania for Trump, she shared at least 110 posts between April 21 and Election Day, Nov. 8. As reported by The Associated Press, Russian efforts were underway “to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf.”

Grin joined Pennsylvania for Trump (now Support Melania Trump) on April 21, 2016. On the same day, she made her first post, featuring a poll showing that Donald Trump was trending to win the Republican primary. Eight days later, she shared a story from Conservative Treehouse that purported to show U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s campaign “collapsing.” The blog called the “Never Trump” campaign “ridiculous” and said of Cruz: “He’s just not a likable man.” Grin also posted a Conservative Tribune story: “BREAKING: 1 Hillary Email SHOWED Terrorists How to Kill Amb. Chris Stevens.”

According to the Senate intelligence committee report, April 2016 was the same month that ex-Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos “likely learned about the Russian active measures campaign from Joseph Mifsud.”

The Committee found Mifsud was aware of an aspect of Russia’s active measures campaign in the 2016 election and that Mifsud told Papadopoulos what he knew. The timing of Mifsud’s visit to Moscow and his subsequent conversation with Papadopoulos are consistent with the timeline of the GRU’s cyber penetration of the DNC and DCCC, several weeks before any information about that activity was public. Furthermore, the information Mifsud conveyed to Papadopoulos was consistent with the GRU’s information disclosure operations intended to damage the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

The Republican-led committee’s report also noted: “Mifsud played a central role in Papadopoulos’s attempts to engage the Russian government on behalf of the Trump Campaign.”

By June, Gina Grin was posting more often. Page 80 of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report noted:

“Information suggests Kilimnik understood that some of the polling data showed that Clinton’s negatives were particularly high; that Manafort’s plan for victory called for focusing on Clinton’s negatives as much as possible; and that given Clinton’s high negatives, there was a chance that Trump could win.”

In June, Grin shared negative stories about “Crooked Hillary” and so-called “Clinton Foundation Scandals.”

She also posted about Trump’s polling with Black voters and stories from the far-right Gateway Pundit. One of Grin’s shares attempted to ease the minds of Republicans who were unsure of voting for Donald Trump: “If you’re voting for Donald Trump but you’re feeling anxiety about it, here’s why you can relax and vote with enthusiasm. Read this and you will feel much better.” Another 2016 share mentioning Rush Limbaugh also attempted to reassure voters of Trump’s candidacy.

On July 13, 2016, Gina Grin posted: “The surge begins – Go Trump!,” linking to the Politico story that referenced Pennsylvania: “Swing-state stunner: Trump has edge in key states.” Near the end of the month, she shared “The Hillary Recession,” a story from the conservative blog Townhall. In the same month, then-presidential candidate Trump said: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 [Hillary Clinton] emails that are missing.” 

Leading into August 2016, Grin shared negative, back-to-back posts about Muslim peoples. Breitbart stories were common on Grin’s timeline, and often shared to the group as well. She posted to her profile a reference to Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin in a small group called Bernie to Trump, with the headline: “Putin: Hacked Emails Reveal That Clinton Threatened Sanders’ Wife.” She shared a long debunked “Clinton kill list,” falsely claiming that Bill and Hillary Clinton had arranged for all 66 people on the list to be murdered. Also in August, she shared a meme from Joe Walsh that said: “I remain much more bothered by what Hillary has done than by what Trump has said.”

Gina Grin did not post in Pennsylvania for Trump between Aug. 25 and Oct. 12. It is not known why she was absent, but her return to the group occurred only six days after the Access Hollywood tape , in which Trump could be heard making demeaning sexual remarks about women, was released.

In October 2016, Grin pushed on her profile a conspiracy theory about George Soros, a wealthy backer of liberal causes. She also shared three different stories that bore similarities to three Snopes debunkings published in 2016. One of the false stories said Ohio and Pennsylvania voters were called “white trash” in a “leaked [Democratic National Committee] email.” Later in the month, she posted in Pennsylvania for Trump that she received a letter that was “sent and paid by the PA Democratic Party.”

Grin claimed: “They are targeting suburban moms like me with propaganda and lies to scare them into voting for Hillary.” A Google cache archive with the full post showed she shared her message to the Ban the Democratic Party page. One sentence in her post contained what were perhaps some telling grammatical errors, including “call Christmas a Christmas,” “stomping the American flag,” and the absence of the word “the” before “NFL tolerates disrespect”:

“I have a problem explaining to my children why it is offensive to call Christmas a Christmas, why burning and stomping the American flag is not a punishable crime, and why NFL tolerates disrespect to our National Anthem.”

On Nov. 1, Grin posted a story that claimed: “Hillary’s campaign manager is a Russian puppet!” On Nov. 2, Grin posted to the group that “intel operatives” in the United States leaked the Clinton campaign emails, “not Russia.” The source was the conspiracy theory website Infowars, and it was not the only Infowars story she shared that day. Grin also posted a link to a story falsely claiming an indictment was imminent for Hillary Clinton.

In the final days of the campaign, Grin shared a Fox News story themed on Philadelphia, plus stories from Sean Hannity’s website, Hannity.com, and 100PercentFedUp.com. On Nov. 7, the day before the election, Grin shared to her profile a post that read: “BOOM!!!! REMEMBER, we need EVERY #TRUMPVOTER to turn out tomorrow!!! #Pennsylvania.” On the same day, she also posted to the group a story about health insurance premiums rising “by roughly 33 percent on average under Hillary Clinton.” She also encouraged evangelicals to find friends to vote for Trump.

In the early morning hours of Nov. 9, 2016, Donald Trump was declared the winner in the U.S. presidential election.

Downplaying Russian Interference

On Dec. 11, 2016, Grin posted to her profile that “the pathetic Left blames Russians for hacking the election for Trump” and that: “In the liberal mind, the Russians make the best scapegoat.” On the same day, she said that blaming Russia makes “zero sense.” The next day she posted: “I voted for Trump – not Putin.” Grin also said that Obama talking about Russia was him “trying to delegitimize the man taking his place.”

On Dec. 16, Grin posted a link to Infowars, claiming the story “rips apart the narrative that Putin directly ordered Russian ‘hacking’ in the 2016 U.S. election.” She also linked to a story from American Thinker, and in doing so, continued to attempt to defend Russia following the 2016 U.S. presidential election. More stories over the coming days mentioned Russia, Pennsylvania, and Putin.

The 2018 Midterm Election

Gina Grin’s account also showed involvement in the 2018 midterm elections. In October, the account posted memes like this one referring to bombs, featuring U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters and former President Barack Obama. Another meme featured Democratic Party politicians with Soros, with the words: “They tried pipe bombs, whores, Russia collusion, migrant caravans. But they cannot stop the RED WAVE.”

In November, another meme posted by Grin encouraged the “Red Wave,” meaning the hope of a big wave of Republican voters. Another meme, posted after Democrats gained control of the U.S. House of Representatives, demanded a recount.

Support for ‘We Build The Wall’

On Dec. 19, 2018, the likely Russian admin account operating under the name Gina Grin showed support for We Build The Wall, a fundraising effort for privately funded border wall construction on the U.S.-Mexico border. She told followers and friends, “it’s legit,” directing them to “USE #GoFundTheWall as a hashtag on social media,” and shared the direct link to the GoFundMe page.

On Dec. 31, 2018, Grin posted again about the charity, this time with some grammatical errors: “Brian Kolfage’s is not afraid of the death threats. His Wall GoFundMe raises $18,449,708. I hope he decides to run for Congress soon.”

In August 2020, prosecutors arrested and charged Kolfage, former Trump White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, and others with scheming to defraud donors to fund their personal expenses and lifestyles.

The Loss of Bre Payton

In December 2018, Gina Grin politicized the tragic death of conservative writer Bre Payton. Payton wrote for The Federalist and made numerous appearances on Fox News Channel.

Grin posted: “On Friday, December 28, the 26-year-old The Federalist reporter suddenly died of the H1N1 flu. Coincidence or…not. Earlier, on December 13, Bre Payton broke a story about Mueller destroying text messages. The story was published in The Federalist.”

Grin’s attempt to push an outlandish conspiracy theory led to hundreds of shares, likely resulting in thousands of Facebook users seeing the post. One commenter responded to Grin, saying: “Someone kill that fuck Mueller.”

In fact, The Associated Press reported on Dec. 29, 2018, that Payton “died suddenly” after doctors determined that she “had H1N1 flu — also known as swine flu — and meningitis.” The conspiracy theory pushed by Grin implied foul play. That conspiracy theory was false.

The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

In all of 2019, Gina Grin only posted seven times in the Support Melania Trump Facebook group, formerly known as Pennsylvania for Trump. On Jan. 1, 2020, Grin appeared to begin preparations for the 2020 U.S. presidential election, posting a new group cover photo on New Year’s Day. She also posted, in part: “As a reminder, the purpose of this group is to endorse and support Melania Trump as our First Lady in all of her undertakings.”

On March 28, she announced group rules. This was the same month the first spike of COVID-19 cases began in the U.S. A screenshot of Grin’s photos shows that she pushed memes about Dr. Anthony Fauci and a debunked conspiracy theory that claimed the novel coronavirus was created in a Wuhan, China, lab. She appeared to question the veracity of the U.S. COVID-19 death toll, and falsely claimed that COVID-19 stood for “Chinese Originated Viral Infectious Disease” (in reality, “CO” stands for the word “corona,” “VI” for “virus,” and “D” for “disease”).

On May 25, 2020, a Black man named George Floyd died after a white Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for roughly nine minutes. In the following days and weeks, the world saw chaotic demonstrations protesting racism and killings by police. The likely Russian Gina Grin account made several postings in response. She posted a meme that played on a Facebook feature used by people to mark themselves safe after potentially deadly events such as mass shootings and tsunamis. It read: “Marked safe from white guilt.” Her memes also mocked the idea of Black Lives Matter, the name of the movement protesting police brutality. “Here’s your hero,” read another meme that showed a picture of George Floyd and a list of his purported past offenses. One meme was a screenshot of a @NYPDTips tweet, with a caption from Grin that read: “Yeah, the police are always picking on us.”

She also called U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts a “POS” (likely because of these June 2016 votes), and supported pre-election proceedings to nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to sharing photos of the first lady as well as various news stories about her, Grin would often post about removing trolls from the group.

Grin appeared to be an active commenter throughout 2020 and posted a significant number of times on her own profiles. However, her accounts had been much more active in the Facebook group four years earlier, sharing 11 times as many posts in the group in 2016 as she did in 2020.

‘Veteran of the First Gulf War’

Gina Grin was not the only admin in the Facebook group. A person identified as Warren Potter joined the group on May 27, 2016, a little over a month after Grin became a member. In a Jan. 10, 2018 post, Potter acknowledged the work done by Gina Grin. We reached out to Potter about his experiences in the group, and he told us: “I can assure you there is absolutely no foreign influence in the Support Melania Trump group. I am very much an American as are all of the moderators and admin in the group. I as a former Boy Scout, veteran of the first Gulf War and a truck driver am as American as you can get.”

He also told us that a friend originally created the group, and that this friend eventually left Facebook because of “censorship.” Gina Grin once posted a name next to the Pennsylvania for Trump group: Jeff Vince. This may have been Potter’s friend.

Another admin account named Dale Greenland joined the group at 12:01 a.m. on Aug. 20, 2020, and appeared to become an admin on the same day. Other group managers included Susy Torres and Ron Conard.

Facebook Goes Quiet

Snopes reporters noticed in early October 2020 that the Support Melania Trump Facebook group appeared to be unavailable. On Oct. 11, Snopes reached out to Facebook, asking if the platform had taken action on the group. On Oct. 13, Facebook responded, saying that no action had been taken on Support Melania Trump.

This was the only response that Snopes received from Facebook for this story.

Snopes independently confirmed that the Support Melania Trump Facebook group, formerly named Pennsylvania for Trump, was still active. It had not been removed. An admin had switched the group’s visibility to “Hidden,” meaning that only members could find it. Admin Potter claimed that the group was switched to this status to slow the flow of new members and pending posts since admins didn’t have time to manage the group as it grew larger and larger. “All of the admins have jobs and families and none of us have the countless hours it takes to do it.”

Snopes reached out to Facebook again later in the day on Oct. 13, asking about Gina Grin’s accounts and the connections to Russia, adding that the group was once targeted at swing state voters in Pennsylvania. As mentioned before, Gina Grin’s accounts disappeared hours after we sent this second email to Facebook. Facebook appeared to have removed both accounts.

In two later emails on Oct. 15 and 16, we asked Facebook if Support Melania Trump was still active, since there is no way of knowing, without being a member, if a hidden group is still active. We also asked if Facebook had a statement regarding the accounts for Gina Grin. Facebook did not respond to either email.

In our conversation with Nina Jancowicz, she said that she believes Facebook groups are the “underexplored angle on all of foreign interference right now,” and that “it’s underexplored, in part, because the platforms make it really difficult to explore.”

The group admin hid the group, so it was a secret group, and if you’re not in the group you can’t see what’s going on in it. […] In reality, it’s still relying on user reports to be tipped off about that data, and so without researchers or reporters that are looking at this stuff, there’s a lot that they won’t find.

Jancowicz added: “Things like this are really difficult to track, and we shouldn’t be doing Facebook’s work for them.” In the past, journalists have exposed accounts, pages, and groups that violate the company’s Community Standards. We asked her if Facebook perhaps lacks a proactive approach to finding content that violates its policies. She told us she believes the platform “just does not have the capacity or perhaps the political will, in some cases, to do this active research, basically.”

Gina Grin’s accounts disappeared only after Snopes asked Facebook about their likely connection to Russia, and this was only 20 days before the 2020 U.S. presidential election. One of the accounts was an admin in an American swing state Facebook group for more than four years, across nearly two U.S. presidential elections and one midterm. One of Grin’s viral disinformation posts was shared 149,000 times. It was even fact-checked by FactCheck.org and cited in a Utah Law Review paper.

It’s likely that the activity created by Gina Grin’s accounts reached millions of Americans between 2016 and 2020.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月27日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

北达科他州法律是否让美国原住民投票变得更加困难?

批评一系列选民身份证限制的人提供了充分证据,证明这些法律会对美洲原住民产生不成比例的影响。

【宣称】

H.B. 1369,北达科他州选民身份证法,包括不成比例地影响美国原住民选民的限制。

【结论】


【原文】

In October 2018, with the November mid-term elections just weeks away, reports emerged that the U.S. Supreme Court had issued a ruling that would keep in place North Dakota laws which, according to their critics, could prevent thousands of Native Americans — who favor Democratic candidates — from casting their ballots.

On 12 October, the NDN Collective, a group that advocates on behalf of the rights of indigenous peoples, posted a widely-shared meme with the message that “The government [says] if you’re a tribal resident, you get a PO Box, not a street address. Also the government [says] you can only vote with a street address. THIS is voter suppression, North Dakota”:

As NDN indicated, these words were originally published by the social justice activist Brittany Packnett, in a tweet the previous day:

The government: if you’re a tribal resident, you get a PO Box, not a street address.

Also the government: you can only vote with a street address.

THIS is voter suppression, North Dakota. //t.co/yjvNvJQVDw

— Brittany Packnett (@MsPackyetti) October 11, 2018

On 13 October, the progressive writer Brandon Weber posted the same meme along with his own introductory message: “The U. S. ‘Supreme’ Court this week agreed to allow the elimination of voting rights for 70,000 Native Americans in North Dakota alone. This is an attack on all voters.”

The Supreme Court’s Involvement

The Native American voters and their attorneys then took the case to the highest court in the country, filing a motion on 28 September which asked the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the Eighth Circuit’s ruling. This would have left District Court Hovland’s order in place, preventing North Dakota from requiring residential address IDs for voting in November.

However, on 9 October the Supreme Court voted to deny the motion brought by Brakebill and the other plaintiffs. (Contrary to one viral rumor, Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not take part in the court’s deliberations.) This meant that Hovland’s order, which required North Dakota to accept IDs that list P.O. box addresses, was suspended, leaving the provisions of H.B. 1369 in place and forcing tens of thousands of would-be voters to obtain acceptable forms of ID by November.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan both dissented from the court’s majority ruling, with Ginsburg writing:

The risk of voter confusion appears severe here because the injunction against requiring residential-address identification was in force during the primary election and because the Secretary of State’s website announced for months the ID requirements as they existed under that injunction. Reasonable voters may well assume that the IDs allowing them to vote in the primary election would remain valid in the general election.

If the Eighth Circuit’s stay is not vacated, the risk of disfranchisement is large. The Eighth Circuit observed that voters have a month to “adapt” to the new regime. But that observation overlooks specific factfindings by the District Court:

(1) 70,000 North Dakota residents — almost 20% of the turnout in a regular quadrennial election — lack a qualifying ID; and (2) approximately 18,000 North Dakota residents also lack supplemental documentation sufficient to permit them to vote without a qualifying ID.

It’s important to note that, contrary to some news reports, the U.S. Supreme Court did not precisely “uphold” North Dakota’s voter ID laws on 9 October 2018.

The court did not issue any ruling on the constitutional or legal merits of H.B. 1369 itself (or 1332 and 1333, which remain on the statute books but are unenforced due to Hovland’s 2016 District Court injunction). Rather, the Supreme Court issued a very narrowly defined ruling on a specific legal question, leaving a lower court’s ruling in place by declining to reverse the Eighth Circuit’s stay of the U.S. District Court’s injunction covering the state of North Dakota’s enforcement of H.B. 1369.

It is true that many tribal members in North Dakota do not have residential street addresses and instead rely upon P.O. boxes, thus leaving them vulnerable to the restrictions implemented under H.B. 1369.

However, Secretary of State Jaeger has written to tribal leaders, outlining the process by which anyone without a street address can acquire one and then obtain written confirmation of the new address — either as a means of obtaining a new form of ID, or as supplemental documentation (as allowed under H.B. 1369) to be brought to a polling station on Election Day:

If you encounter anyone who says to you that they do not have a residential street address to provide to either the [Department of Transport] or the tribal government to obtain an ID, please encourage them to reach out to the 911 Coordinator in the county in which their residence exists to start the simple process to have the address assigned.

The North Dakota Association of Counties maintains a list of all 53 County 911 Coordinators. A simple phone call to this individual can start this no charge process that can usually be completed in an hour or less when the individual can describe the location of the home. After the address is assigned, the office assigning it will provide a letter upon request that confirms this new address. This letter can be used either to obtain an ID or as supplemental documentation for voting purposes for those individuals whose ID includes a mailing address rather than a residential address.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月27日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

白宫是否给莱斯利·斯塔尔一本关于特朗普医疗保健成就的空白书?

“对于特朗普总统来说是一个完美的隐喻,” 批评家声称。到底发生了什么事

【宣称】

2020 年 10 月,白宫新闻秘书凯利·麦克纳尼给《60 分钟》记者莱斯利·斯塔尔一本关于美国总统唐纳德·特朗普在医疗保健方面取得的成就的大书,这本书是空白的。

【结论】


【原文】

U.S. Election Day is Nov. 3, 2020. Check your state’s vote-by-mail options. Browse our coverage of candidates and the issues. And just keep fact-checking.

In October 2020, readers asked Snopes to examine widely shared claims that a big book of “healthcare accomplishments” given to “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl at the White House had, in fact, been blank. 

Stahl was at the White House to conduct a high-profile interview with U.S. President Donald Trump on Oct. 20, 2020. The interview became controversial in its own right when Trump, accusing Stahl of “bias, hatred and rudeness,” took the highly unusual step of releasing the White House’s own footage of the interview — three days in advance of its scheduled airing on Sunday, Oct. 25. The president bristled at Stahl’s questions throughout, and terminated the interview five minutes early. 

On Oct. 20, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted out a photograph that showed her in the White House, along with Stahl, who appeared to struggle with the weight of a heavy book of what McEnany described as “just a small part of what President Trump has done for healthcare in the United States”:

The following day, Trump himself posted four additional photographs of Stahl with the book, along with the following caption: “Kayleigh McEnany presenting Lesley Stahl… with some of the many things we’ve done for Healthcare. Lesley had no idea!”

In one of the photographs, Stahl has opened the book and is examining what appears to be a blank page:

On this basis, social media users published multiple memes and posts claiming that the entire book was blank, which many observers claimed was ironic or symbolic of what they presented as Trump’s lack of accomplishments:

Those claims were false. On Oct. 21, 2020, the right-leaning Washington Examiner reported that:

The Washington Examiner has obtained a PDF of the contents, which shows its 512 pages contain 13 executive orders and 11 other pieces of healthcare legislation enacted under Trump. Further investigation confirmed that it matched the physical book’s contents. White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said: “This book contains all of the executive orders and legislation President Trump has signed…”

Far from being blank, its pages include passages from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 setting out the repeal of the individual mandate, last month’s executive order detailing Trump’s vision for healthcare, and a slew of other documents. On top were pages of another document, entitled “America First Healthcare Plan.” McEnany said: “The America First Healthcare Plan lays out President Trump’s second term vision…”

Snopes asked the White House and the Trump campaign for a digital copy of the book, or some other evidence demonstrating its contents. We did not receive a response before publication. We will update this fact check if we obtain a copy of the book ourselves.

A spokesperson for CBS News confirmed for Snopes that the book was not blank, though the page Stahl was looking at in the widely-shared photograph did happen to be blank. The CBS spokesperson confirmed that the Washington Examiner’s description of the contents of the book was accurate. 

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月26日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

拜登叫美国黑人 “超级捕食者” 吗?

在两次辩论中,美国总统唐纳德·特朗普错误地将乔·拜登的言论与希拉里·克林顿的一句话混为一谈。

【宣称】

乔·拜登在谈到 1994 年《暴力犯罪控制和执法法》时称美国黑人为 “超级捕食者”。

【结论】

主要是假的

【原文】

U.S. Election Day is Nov. 3, 2020. Check your state’s vote-by-mail options. Browse our coverage of candidates and the issues. And just keep fact-checking.

In both of the televised debates during the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, President Donald Trump asserted that his opponent, former vice president Joe Biden, had referred to Black Americans as “superpredators.” In the first debate on Sept. 29, for example, Trump declared: “You did a crime bill, 1994, where you call them super predators. African-Americans are super predators and they’ve never forgotten it. They’ve never forgotten it.”

In the second debate, on Oct. 22, Trump stated: “Again, [Biden’s] been in government 47 years. He never did a thing except in 1994 when he did such harm to the Black community, and he called them super-predators. And he said it, ‘super-predators,’ and they have never lived that down.”

However, Trump appeared to have mistakenly conflated a remark made by Biden with one made years later by Hillary Clinton.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which, among other provisions, banned the manufacture of various “military-style assault weapons,” expanded the federal death penalty to encompass several dozen additional offenses, and provided new and stiffer penalties for violent and drug trafficking crimes committed by gang members.

Back in 1993, when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was under consideration by Congress, Biden was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. A day before the Senate voted on that body’s version of that bill, Biden delivered remarks in support of the bill during which he said the word “predators” more than once, but he didn’t use the term “superpredator,” nor did he state he was referring to Black people:

It doesn’t matter whether or not the person that is accosting your son or daughter, or my son or daughter, my wife, your husband, my mother, your parents — it doesn’t matter whether or not they were deprived as a youth. It doesn’t matter or not whether or not they had no background that enabled them to become socialized into the fabric of society. It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re the victims of society. The end result is they’re about to knock my mother on the head with a lead pipe, shoot my sister, beat up my wife, take on my sons — so I don’t want to ask what made them do this. They must be taken off the street. That’s number one. There’s a consensus on that.

Unless we do something about that cadre of young people, tens of thousands of them, born out of wedlock, without parents, without supervision, without any structure, without any conscience developing, because they literally have not been socialized, they literally have not had an opportunity … we should focus on them now. If we don’t, they will — or a portion of them will — become the predators fifteen years from now, and Madam President, we have predators on our streets that society has in fact in part because of [our] neglect created.

Over two years later, while delivering a Jan. 1996 speech at Keene State College in New Hampshire, First Lady Hillary Clinton spoke approvingly of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act her husband signed into law. During that speech, Clinton used the term “super-predators” in reference to young gang members:

The first challenge is to take back our streets from crime, gangs, and drugs, and we have actually been making progress on this count, as a nation, because of what local law enforcement officials are doing, because of what citizens and neighborhood patrols are doing, we’re making some progress. Much of it is related to the initiative called community policing, because we have finally gotten more police officers on the street. That was one of the goals that the President had when he pushed the crime bill that was passed in 1994.

He promised a hundred thousand police, we’re moving in that direction, but we can see it already makes a difference because if we have more police interacting with people, having them on the streets, we can prevent crimes we can prevent petty crimes from turning into something worse. But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs, just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob

We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore; they are often the kinds of kids that are called super-predators: no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel, and the President has asked the FBI to launch a very concerted effort against gangs everywhere.

Although Clinton also hadn’t specifically referenced Black people when she used the term “super-predators,” her remarks were certainly construed to mean as much by some, and when she was running for president twenty years later, Clinton acknowledged that she shouldn’t have used that term:

In that speech, I was talking about the impact violent crime and vicious drug cartels were having on communities across the country and the particular danger they posed to children and families. Looking back, I shouldn’t have used those words, and I wouldn’t use them today.

My life’s work has been about lifting up children and young people who’ve been let down by the system or by society. Kids who never got the chance they deserved. And unfortunately today, there are way too many of those kids, especially in African-American communities. We haven’t done right by them. We need to. We need to end the school to prison pipeline and replace it with a cradle-to-college pipeline.

As an advocate, as First Lady, as Senator, I was a champion for children. And my campaign for president is about breaking down the barriers that stand in the way of all kids, so every one of them can live up to their God-given potential.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月25日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

拜登是否提议禁止水力压裂?

特朗普竞选已经在水力压裂和化石燃料方面敲定了民主党候选人。但拜登实际上说了什么?

【宣称】

在 2020 年的总统选举中,民主党候选人乔·拜登的水力压裂政策是彻底禁止它。

【结论】

主要是假的

【原文】

U.S. Election Day is Nov. 3, 2020. Check your state’s vote-by-mail options. Browse our coverage of candidates and the issues. And just keep fact-checking.

On the morning after the Oct. 8, 2020, vice presidential debate between Republican U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and Democratic U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Snopes readers asked us to look into one of the debate’s flashpoints — the Democratic ticket’s stance on hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, a controversial method of accessing fossil fuel deposits, typically natural gas. 

In particular, readers asked Snopes whether Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was proposing a ban on fracking. At one point in the Oct. 8 debate, which took place at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Pence told Harris:

“I know Joe Biden says otherwise now, as you do, but the both of you repeatedly committed to abolishing fossil fuel and banning of fracking.”

A week earlier, the reelection campaign of U.S. President Donald Trump published an ad that claimed Biden “will end fracking” and contained a brief clip of Biden saying “no more — no new fracking.”

Snopes asked the Biden-Harris campaign whether Harris still held the view she expressed in the September 2019 town hall, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. During the primaries, her climate change platform did not mention fracking, but did propose an end to the extraction of fossil fuels from publicly owned lands. 

So it’s true to say that, when asked about it, Harris has in the past articulated unambiguous support for a ban on fracking, but it must also be noted that her official policy platform during the primaries did not call for such a ban, and she has also since signed on to the Biden plan, which proposes an end to new oil and gas drilling on federal lands, but does not call for an outright ban on fracking. 

Biden and Harris on Fossil Fuels

During the Oct. 8 vice presidential debate, Pence said:

“I know Joe Biden says otherwise now, as you do, but the both of you repeatedly committed to abolishing fossil fuel and [the] banning of fracking.”

The official Biden-Harris platform proposes to end fossil fuel subsidies, and to encourage a worldwide ban on fossil fuel subsidies. During a campaign event in Somersworth, New Hampshire, in February 2020, Biden told hecklers (9:45), “We are going to get rid of fossil fuels,” but then he added, “We’re going to phase out fossil fuels.”

At a town hall event in New Castle, New Hampshire, in September 2019, Biden told an audience member (25:17), “I guarantee you we’re going to end fossil fuel.” This prompted an attack by Pence during the October 2020 debate. The vice president said: “Joe Biden looked a supporter in the eye and pointed and said, ‘I guarantee, I guarantee that we will abolish fossil fuels.'”

However, what Pence failed to mention was what Biden said next: “Before 2050, God willing. No, it can’t be done by 2030. No. There is not one single person that’s argued it can be done by then. But it can be done by 2050, it may be 2045.”

During the primaries, Harris’ platform called for “replacing dirty fossil fuels with clean renewable energy,” proposed to “phase out all fossil fuel development on public lands” and stated: “We must begin intentionally and deliberately transitioning away from fossil fuels, shifting from being an exporter of fossil fuels to an exporter of clean energy technology.”

There’s no doubt that both Biden and Harris, like many others, are proposing a broad, long-term transition away from fossil fuels to what is known as “clean energy.” In their platforms, both have emphasized new employment opportunities and protections for workers whose jobs and livelihoods are affected by that transition, which they say will take decades. As we’ve shown, Biden has explicitly stated that the phasing out of fossil fuels cannot be completed until 2045 at the earliest — a 25-year transition.

The Trump-Pence rhetorical strategy has been to falsely present that movement as a sudden halt or overnight legal prohibition on fossil fuel production that would prove catastrophic to employment prospects in the United States. In reality, the Biden-Harris platform is much more nuanced. 

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月25日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

拜登的标志是否提及中国的 “三红旗”?

阴谋往往是在旁观者的眼中。

【宣称】

2020 年民主党总统候选人乔·拜登的三条红色条纹是对中国社会主义政策的点头。

【结论】


【原文】

U.S. Election Day is Nov. 3, 2020. Check your state’s vote-by-mail options. Browse our coverage of candidates and the issues. And just keep fact-checking.

In October 2020, messages started to circulate on social media claiming that the three red stripes on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s logo were a reference to the so-called “three red banners” that outlined the socialist policies of Mao Zedong, the chairman of the Communist Party of China in the 1950s:

This is a genuine image of one of the logos the Biden-Harris ticket has used in their campaign as well as a genuine screenshot (to the right) from a Wikipedia page about the three red banners. However, the logic used to connect these two dots — Mao described a portion of his socialist policies as “three red banners,” therefore, items with three red stripes are about socialism — does not hold up under the lightest scrutiny.

For starters, “three red banners” is a reference to an ideological philosophy, not a specific visual design. In other words, China did not have a physical flag representing the three red banners in a similar fashion displayed on Biden’s logo. This claim is attempting to connect a textual description of a 1950s policy with a visual representation of the letter “E” in the campaign logo. 

Here’s how QZ described Mao’s “three red banners”:

The long history of China’s obsession with numbered policies starts with Mao.

The Three Red Banners—the “General Line for socialist construction,” the “Great Leap Forward” and the “people’s communes”—laid out how Mao’s socialist policies would transform China. But they are the de facto culprits of the Great Famine, Yang said.

The first banner is an ideological slogan that calls on Chinese people to build a socialist state. The Great Leap Forward, initiated by Mao in 1958, aims to transfer China into an industrialized country. And the people’s communes put households together in rural areas where they shared everything from food to farm tools — a way to discount individuality and centralize more manpower and resources for agricultural and industrial production.

The claim that Biden’s logo is a reference to the socialist policies of Mao in China during the 1950s is based solely on the fact that Biden’s logo contains three red lines. 

As the “three red banners” does not refer to any specific visual design, one could connect these socialist policies to any item adorned with three red stripes. By this logic, anybody living in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Ohio, or working for the New York City Fire Department could be labeled a communist as these entities all use flags containing three red stripes. 

In addition to the logical flaws of this comparison, Mekanism, the ad agency that created Biden’s logo, has already explained what this logo is supposed to symbolize.

Aimee Brodbeck, the company’s designer and art director who led the team that created the logo, said that the stripes and the colors of the logo were nods to the American flag. More specifically, Brodbeck explained that the three stripes represent the three branches of the U.S. government. 

“The logo is approachable and strong, just like the Biden name. By incorporating nods to the American flag, the logo is a representation of Biden’s investment in America. The 3 stripes represent the branches of government and the strength of unity with Biden. The logo also nods to the familiarity of the Obama “O” logo where 3 stripes are seen.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月25日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

罗布·唐纳森先生是否就艾米·科尼·巴雷特的提名发表演讲?

当你不存在的时候,很难做一个令人感动的演讲。

【宣称】

罗布·唐纳森参议员发表演讲反对艾米·科尼·巴雷特的提名美国最高法院。

【结论】

误导

【原文】

In October 2020, a lengthy piece of text started to circulate on social media that supposedly originated with a speech Sen. Rob Donaldson delivered to fellow members of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee during its hearing on judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The full Facebook post appears at the bottom of this article. Here are the first two paragraphs of this viral piece of text:

Speech from Senator Rob Donaldson in the Judiciary Committee hearing with Judge Barrett:

Mr. Chairman, I will ask no questions because there’s no point in doing so. We all know this is a pro forma charade with the outcome already locked up. I will simply take a few moments to address Judge Barrett directly.

Judge Barrett, I feel genuinely sorry for you. You have strong credentials and merits. However, you are here not because of them. You are here only because you are a token, a pawn. Throughout the rest of the history of this country, your name will have an asterisk by it, denoting that your place on the Supreme Court is illegitimate, the result of hypocritical, amoral conniving to turn the Court into a far-right political rubber stamp by two-faced mandarins of a Republican Party destined to go down in flames, consumed by its own internal rot and the fire of its own hubris and ethical decrepitude.

This is not the text of a speech delivered by a Sen. Rob Donaldson opposing the nomination of Barrett to the Supreme Court. How do we know? Because Sen. Rob Donaldson does not exist. 

Donaldson’s name is not listed among the members on the Judiciary Committee, nor does this name appear in the official list of current U.S. senators. 

This message was originally penned by a Facebook user named Rob Donaldson, but this person is not a sitting U.S. senator. This message, which was originally shared privately with their friends on Oct. 16, is an imaginary speech Donaldson envisioned delivering if he were a senator. When Donaldson’s friends urged him to make it public, this detail was lost, and this post was shared as if it came from an actual speech delivered by a sitting senator. 

Here’s the full version of the speech that Rob “Not An Actual U.S. Senator” Donaldson would have delivered if he had the opportunity during Barrett’s confirmation hearing:

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月24日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

十月下旬,南方的稻田才刚开始变得金黄。在田埂边、水沟里散乱生长的薏苡却已经开始枯黄。

十月下旬,南方的稻田才刚开始变得金黄。在田埂边、水沟里散乱生长的薏苡却已经开始枯黄。


 (Coix lacryma-jobi),为禾本科薏苡属植物,我们常吃的薏米仁,就是从薏苡的果实中剥出来的。


秋天的薏苡 

霜降后的薏苡果实也像是盖了霜,整个表面发白,远看像是许多珍珠撒在了枯黄的植株上。

摘下果实,虽然表面看起来龟裂,显得脆弱,但实际上仍坚硬无比。很难想象人们是如何从中剥出薏米仁,尤其是完整薏米仁的。

不过野生薏米里的果仁比较细小,费老大力气砸开也吃不到什么东西。


我们所食用的,一般是薏苡的栽培变种(C. lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen)经过培育后的薏苡果壳更薄、果仁更大,淀粉含量更高。相信大家都吃过有薏米仁的八宝粥,品尝过含有薏米的各种甜品。

薏米任[1]

除了吃以外,薏苡还可以用来串手串和珠链。薏苡坚硬的果壳前后方各有一个小孔,用来串东西再合适不过了。


夏天的

时间往前推移两个月,薏苡正在开花。这时的薏苡外壳里还没结薏米仁。


正在开花的

“触角”状的柱头

外壳前方的小孔中,两枚毛茸茸的触角吐露,这是雌花的柱头。下方挂着雄花序。


雄花序


要等到柱头枯萎后,穗状的雄花序才打开,露出风铃似的花药。没错,薏苡正是靠风力来传粉的。


图片摘自《本草图谱》

开花时的薏苡珠子外表看起来油光锃亮,而且只要轻轻一拔就可以把里面的“芯子”——雌雄花拔掉,最适合串珠链。

图片摘自《本草图谱》


绿色的薏苡珠子放着放着,会逐渐变为苍白色。有时也会显现出暗红色脉纹,接着整个变成暗褐色,有些地方流传着薏苡珠子会吸人血的传闻,大概就是这个缘故。

[1]薏米仁 By Eukbimga – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, //commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6686044


作者:蒋某人
图片:蒋某人(除注明外)
本作品采用 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) 许可协议进行许可
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.zh
转载请务必保留以上声明


2020年10月24日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

为什么封锁对全球温度没有什么影响

封锁对全球温度的影响微不足道。那到底发生了什么事?

【原文】

This article is republished here with permission from The Conversation. This content is shared here because the topic may interest Snopes readers; it does not, however, represent the work of Snopes fact-checkers or editors.


Countries across the world took unprecedented action in the first few months of 2020 to control the spread of COVID-19. At its peak, one-third of the world’s population was in lockdown. Around the world, car travel fell by 50%, the number of flights plummeted by 75% and industrial activity fell by around 35%.

With so many cars parked, aeroplanes grounded and factories closed, global carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions fell by around 17% compared with the same period in 2019. But greenhouse gases such as CO₂ weren’t the only emissions to fall, and not all pollution heats the planet. Some of the industrial activities that shut down – particularly heavy industry, including steel and cement making – also produced aerosols, which are tiny particles that linger in the atmosphere for weeks and reflect heat from the Sun.

What we’ve described here are model simulations – they’re not perfect, but they’re our best method for investigating global atmospheric changes. Simulating the effects of all these different pollutants is difficult. In fact, the struggle to simulate how aerosols affect the climate is one reason we cannot predict exactly how hot the climate will get.

The lockdown offered an invaluable test for our theories about how pollutants affect the climate. From this, we’ll be able to improve our models and make better predictions. We’ll also know better how to plan a strategy that reduces emissions from different sectors without inviting a sudden and sharp increase in global heating.

The post-pandemic climate

The long-term effects of the pandemic on our climate will be determined more by what happens to long-lived greenhouse gases, such as CO₂ and methane. These remain in the atmosphere for centuries and decades respectively, compared to a few days to weeks for NOₓ, SO₂ and black carbon. CO₂ emissions dropped during lockdown, but not enough to stop levels in the atmosphere growing. Global heating won’t stop until emissions reach zero.

It may seem daunting that the near shutdown of society didn’t cause a big enough reduction in emissions to stop climate change. But this just shows the limits of doing less of the stuff we normally do, instead of changing how our economies and infrastructure are powered. While lockdown measures have brought temporary reductions in emissions, there are better ways of doing this that cause less harm to society and people.

Only a decisive shift from fossil fuels will stabilise global temperatures. That’s why the decisions governments take to revive economic growth after COVID-19 will be pivotal. The 2008 financial crisis caused a similar slowdown, but emissions soon rebounded as a direct result of economic rescue packages which invested heavily in fossil fuels. We cannot afford to make the same mistake again.The Conversation


Scott Archer-Nicholls, Postdoctoral Research Associate in Atmospheric Science, University of Cambridge and James Weber, PhD Candidate in Atmospheric Chemistry, Pembroke College, University of Cambridge

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月24日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

涂片宣传活动寻求 “红丸” 潮流与假冒史诺佩斯内容

我们会给他们这个:“史诺普斯-穿刺者行动” 不是我们听说过的最糟糕的名字

【原文】

In October 2020, a series of threads was posted to the anonymous internet forum 4Chan as part of operation “Snopes-Piercer,” a smear campaign with the stated goal of “red-pilling some normies” — internet slang for a propaganda technique in which distorted, fabricated, or skewed information is used to further a self-determined “truth.” In order to “red-pill” these people (one thread noted that “boomers” were the primary target), the plan was to create and circulate doctored screenshots of Snopes fact checks to make it appear as if Snopes fact-checkers addressed claims that we had not.

Over the next few days, users created and shared these fake Snopes screenshots in a number of additional 4chan threads. These images were also posted on social media sites, like Twitter. The fact-checking website Leadstories addressed one doctored image that supposedly showed a Snopes fact check of photos allegedly depicting Hunter Biden, the son of 2020 U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, writing:

Lead Stories emailed Snopes October 16, 2020 to check the authenticity of the claim about Snopes. Founder and Executive Editor David Mikkelson wrote back almost immediately to say that Snopes did not publish a fact check titled “Are the photos of Hunter Biden smoking crack real?” and has never published a piece stating that a photo of Hunter Biden asleep with a meth pipe is real.

The meme is formatted and structured similarly to Snopes’ fact checks, leading with the question, “Are the photos of Hunter Biden smoking crack real?” and then following up with the claim, “It is claimed that the above photo is of Hunter Biden, asleep with a crack pipe.” It even includes the Snopes’ logo and the design Snopes uses for a false rating. But Lead Stories conducted a search of Snopes.com and found no instance of this post anywhere on its website. Similarly, a Google search turned up no instance of this purported fact check.

The doctored image involving the Biden photos is still circulating on Facebook, but the social media network has added an overlay atop noting that the post contains false information. Here is how it currently appears:

In 2018, after Nike and Starbucks voiced support for the Black Lives Matter movement, some social media users determined the “truth” about these companies was that they were racist against white people. With insufficient evidence to prove this “truth,” another attempt was made to create “evidence” in support of this false reality. A series of doctored ads containing racist language were created and shared as if they had originated with these companies. 

These smear tactics have also been used in an attempt to “red-pill” or convince people that the LGBTQ community is connected to pedophilia. As there is insufficient evidence to support this “truth” (and ample evidence to debunk it), nefarious netizens set out, again, to manufacture “evidence” to further this false reality. This time, it came in the form of a doctored flyer claiming that the LGBTQ community was adding the letter “P” to their name (i.e., “LGBTQP”) in order to include pedophiles. The Black Lives Matter movement, antifa, and the environmental group Extinction Rebellion have also been subjected to these smear campaigns. 

If Starbucks and Nike were truly discriminating against white people, if Black Lives Matter was calling white people the enemy, if antifa was calling for the murder of children, if Snopes was being controlled by puppetmasters, why would all of this doctored content be necessary in order to prove these “truths?”

Because “red-pilling the normies” isn’t about awakening the world to reality. It is, like in the movie “The Matrix,” about people escaping into a fantasy world of their own creation. “The Matrix” is not real. Agent Smith is not real. Neo is played by actor Keanu Reeves who, despite what the red pill might tell us, can’t actually stop bullets with his mind. 

These red pill campaigns all follow a basic formula. The user decides what they want to be true and then they set out to find, or manufacture, the evidence to support that truth. A concerted effort is then made to spread these false narratives to as wide an audience as possible in order to “red-pill” the general population.

In this formula, the desired “truth” comes first. The “evidence” comes second. It goes without saying that this method is antithetical to the mission of Snopes, fact-checkers in general, journalists, and anyone seeking an objective view of reality.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月24日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

生病了 COVID-19?这就是为什么你可能会患有大流行疲劳

随着各种与健康有关的行为发生变化,至少有一半的人在六个月内复发。

【原文】

This article by is republished here with permission from The Conversation. This content is shared here because the topic may interest Snopes readers; it does not, however, represent the work of Snopes fact-checkers or editors.

As the pandemic drags on, following COVID-19 prevention guidelines can feel like more and more of a challenge.

This kind of fatigue is not unique to pandemic precautions like sticking with social distancing, masking up and keeping your hands washed. With all kinds of health-related behavior changes – including increasing physical activity, eating healthy and decreasing tobacco use – at least half of people relapse within six months.

Think back to the start of April. Much of the United States was under stay-at-home orders. New York City was experiencing close to a thousand COVID-19 deaths a day, and new cases of this previously unknown disease were popping up all over the country.

Coronavirus fears had people either ordering necessities for delivery or rushing through stores as fast as possible, avoiding everyone. When they got home, shoppers wiped down their groceries, vigorously washed hands, maybe even took a shower and changed into clean clothes. People got used to staying home.

In the pandemic setting, this is like thinking about the way the world was before COVID-19. A drink after work with a group of friends, a game of pickup basketball or a live concert are all things that people miss in today’s world – and it’s hard not to dwell on the things you’re not getting to do. But while thinking about them can bring back fond memories, it can also encourage you to engage in risky behaviors.

Staying safe and sane

Case counts are rising. The weather is getting colder in many areas, making outdoor dining and socializing less feasible. People need to double down on a level of precaution that can be sustained for months to come, keeping safe while not adding to their social isolation.

Some recommendations must be strictly followed. Hand-washing increased dramatically after the start of the pandemic. Hopefully, this will remain high, since it is a basic way to ward off many infectious diseases and one you can sustain without any negative effects on mental health.

Masks are also important. A study from August showed that 85% of Americans wore masks most of the time in stores. This needs to stay high to help limit the number of new cases.

That leaves physical distancing, which is probably the most difficult. Public health experts often advocate a harm reduction approach for behaviors where abstinence is not feasible – it’s a way to minimize but not eliminate risk. Crowds and large gatherings still need to be avoided. If Zoom and other video chats have grown stale, hosting your own small get-togethers is a possibility. Be aware, though, that while there are ways to minimize the dangers, socializing in a group comes with risks. Remember, your get-together is only as safe as your riskiest friend.

Pandemic fatigue is real, and it’s draining to stay on high alert month after month after month. Understanding it better might help you strengthen your resolve.The Conversation

Jay Maddock, Professor of Public Health, Texas A&M University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月24日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

猫总是坐在一个正方形贴在地板上吗?

猫有一个声誉,不服从它们的主人 — 为什么他们现在开始听?

【宣称】

猫总是会坐在一个正方形的边界内贴在地板上。

【结论】

主要是假的

【原文】

Cats took over the internet yet again in fall 2020 when a number of social media posters shared their furry, feline friends sitting within the confines of a square taped to the floor.

It’s not the first time the “cat in a taped square” has infatuated internet cat lovers. The trend first went viral in the mid-2000s when cat lovers noticed that making a square on the floor with tape created a welcoming space for their cat “like a magnet drawn to its partner.” The phenomenon was rediscovered in April 2017 when cat lovers again shared the odd behavior on Twitter.

Nobody has had a more productive day than my mother pic.twitter.com/LK6KX9KM1x

— Danielle Matheson (@prograpslady) April 10, 2017

This claim is partly true, though there are some caveats to note.

Cats have been observed sitting within the boundaries of a square or circle shape that is taped to the floor, according to Monique Udell, an applied animal behaviorist and associate professor at the Oregon State University. But to be fair, cats don’t always sit within the boundaries of a square as many social media users pointed out. Rather, it’s likely that videos shared online of cats exhibiting this behavior are the result of representation or confirmation bias.

“A quick look at the data on cat behavior towards the tape circle [or square] would suggest that this phenomenon may not be as robust as it might seem online,” explained Udell. “Certainty some cats do enter the circle some of the time, however online we might also be seeing representation and confirmation bias, where videos that confirm the idea that cats sit in taped squares are more likely to be posted and shared than a video where a cat may just walk away from the circle.”

Many cats are known to investigate or rest in boxes or nooks and make nests when they are ready to give birth. But Udell said that linking this protective behavior to intentionally sitting in taped shapes on the floor is “a bit of a stretch.” Udell and her team recently conducted a study that involved placing a taped 1-meter circle on the floor and next to the cat’s owner, who sat in the middle. Though the research was in review at the time of writing, it was found that cats spent over 70% of the 2-minute testing period sitting within the circle next to their owner. But when a cat was left alone in the room, they spent just 6% of the two-minute period.

The claim that a cat always sits in a square taped to the floor is inaccurate. Confirmation bias aside, it could be that a cat is simply trying to be closer to its owner — or the action is simply a coincidence.

“Another way to look at it is: How many circles and squares can you see right now in your environment (patterns on flooring, items left on the floor, or a welcome mat) that your cat is not sitting on — this might be a clue that something deeper is going on, either with cat behavior, with human psychology, or both,” said Udell.

In the wild, felines must distinguish places to hide for their survival. But an inability to distinguish between actual hiding spaces and a simple shape on the ground would be detrimental to their ability to hide from predators or hunt prey. Though science may not have a definitive answer about a cat’s inclination to sit in a taped box, Udell added that this sort of exploration helps to guide scientific discovery, particularly as it relates to humanity’s furry felines.

“However, the fact that people are curious about why cats do this behavior is promising, because the truth is we cannot know for sure why cats behave the way we do unless we ask these questions and support science that aims to find the answers,” said Udell. “There is a lot that we can learn about cat behavior, and the more we come to understand our feline friends the better we can meet their welfare needs and improve our interactions with them.”

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月24日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

这是米奇·麦康奈尔手的伤痕和变色的照片吗?

美国参议院多数党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔成为猜测的话题后,照片似乎显示他的手看起来瘀伤和变色。

【宣称】

一张 AP 分发的照片显示了参议院多数党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔的双手看起来有伤痕和变色。

【结论】


【原文】

On Oct. 21, 2020, social media users began circulating an image said to show the hands of U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, with those appendages looking unusually — and alarmingly — dark and mottled:

Uhhhhh look at this picture of Mitch McConnell's hands that @lizzyratner found on AP pic.twitter.com/Y4LJL7mAdh

— Annie Shields (@anastasiakeeley) October 21, 2020

This image is indeed an Associated Press-distributed photograph of the 78-year-old U.S. senator from Kentucky, taken on Oct. 20 and captioned as follows:

“Hands of U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are seen as he talks to the media after the Republican policy luncheon on Capitol Hill in Washington on October 20, 2020. Photo by Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Sipa USA”

Why McConnell’s hands exhibited purplish bruises and bandages — a conspicuous change from just a week earlier, when his hands appeared fine — has prompted much speculation, with guesses ranging from claims that the senator has contracted COVID-19 to the possibility that he has a vascular disease and/or is undergoing dialysis and is taking blood thinners. As neither McConnell nor any of his representatives have publicly commented on his condition, a definitive answer is not yet available.

When reporters queried McConnell about his health after pictures of his hands went viral, the senator’s answers were mostly non-responsive:

In light of all the rampant conjecture on the internet, a few reporters in Washington, D.C., asked McConnell about it Thursday, according to dispatches from the Capitol Hill press pool.

Politico reporter John Bresnahan asked if he had some kind of health issue. McConnell countered by saying he has been worried about Bresnahan’s health and asking how he was feeling.

Bresnahan said he was feeling OK. “Good for you,” McConnell replied.

“But I’m serious, is there anything going on we should know about?” Bresnahan followed up.

“Of course not,” McConnell said.

Another journalist asked about the bruising, too, and McConnell said there were no concerns. He did not respond when asked if he was being treated by a doctor.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月23日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

史诺佩斯报道 2020 年美国总统辩论

美国总统唐纳德·特朗普和民主党总统候选人乔·拜登将在纳什维尔举行选举季的最后一次辩论,斯诺佩斯将实际检查它。

【原文】

U.S. Election Day is Nov. 3, 2020. Check your state’s vote-by-mail options. Browse our coverage of candidates and the issues. And just keep fact-checking.

The second and final 2020 U.S. presidential debate takes place at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee. Reporters Dan Evon, Jessica Lee, and Bethania Palma, along with Assignments Editor Camille Knox and Operations Editor Jordan Liles are covering the debate. This was originally scheduled to be the third presidential debate, but the Oct. 15 debate that was slated to take place in Miami was canceled, prompting dueling town halls on different television networks by the two candidates.

We are also happy to welcome Connor Klentschy, who will be assisting the team. He is a student of Jevin D. West, Assistant Professor, DataLab, iSchool, University of Washington.

Our team will also be presenting new fact-check content in the days to come, just as we have been doing for more than 25 years. We encourage readers to sign up for our newsletter for our analysis, and to support our newsroom and fact-checking efforts by becoming a Snopes Member.

Refresh When Debate Begins

Once the debate begins, please refresh this page. With each update, the newest content will be placed at the top of this story.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月23日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

纽约客的杰弗里·图宾在缩放电话暴露自己后被暂停?

这一事件由准备参加选举夜间报道的同事亲眼目睹。

【宣称】

记者杰弗里·图宾被停职从纽约客后,据称他在缩放会议期间暴露自己。

【结论】


【原文】

On Oct. 19, 2020, the news outlet Vice published a story reporting that journalist Jeffrey Toobin was suspended from his job as a reporter for The New Yorker for “masturbating on a Zoom video chat between members of the New Yorker and WNYC radio last week.”

The Vice story touched off a news and social media frenzy. With stories and comments about Toobin’s alleged deed swirling online, readers asked Snopes whether reports that Toobin had been suspended after exposing himself during a work Zoom call were true.

A spokeswoman for The New Yorker told us by email that, “Jeffrey Toobin has been suspended while we investigate the matter.”

According to Vice, Toobin was participating in an election night coverage simulation exercise that took place during the week of Oct. 12. The simulation included some of the magazine’s star writers, all of whom were playing roles of various entities that could be pivotal on Election Day, such as the presidential candidates, the political parties, and the courts. Two witnesses who spoke to Vice on the condition of anonymity stated they saw Toobin masturbating:

The two sources described a juncture in the election simulation when there was a strategy session, and the Democrats and Republicans went into their respective break out rooms for about 10 minutes. At this point, they said, it seemed like Toobin was on a second video call. The sources said that when the groups returned from their break out rooms, Toobin lowered the camera. The people on the call said they could see Toobin touching his penis. Toobin then left the call. Moments later, he called back in, seemingly unaware of what his colleagues had been able to see, and the simulation continued.

Vice quoted Toobin as stating, “I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera. I apologize to my wife, family, friends and co-workers. I believed I was not visible on Zoom. I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video.”

Besides being suspended from The New Yorker, CNN reported that Toobin has taken time off from his position as a legal analyst for the cable news outlet “while he deals with a personal issue.”

Video conferencing has played a big role since the beginning of the COVID-19, as many employees have been working from home. Although Toobin’s incident is a high-profile one, news outlets have been running regular stories detailing “Zoom fails.”

These incidents range from a boss who went through a meeting as a potato because she couldn’t figure out how to take the potato filter off her screen, people accidentally broadcasting nudity or bathroom breaks, and children walking in on parents’ Zoom calls and making obscene statements.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月23日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

唐纳德·特朗普还清一个好撒玛利亚人的抵押贷款吗?

旧城市传说的更新版本声称唐纳德·特朗普奖励了一个陌生人谁帮助他换一个扁平轮胎通过还清那个有帮助的人的抵押贷款。

【宣称】

谁停下来改变轮胎在残疾豪华轿车的陌生人被奖励为他的努力,当车辆的乘客, 唐纳德·特朗普, 还清了他的抵押贷款.

【结论】


【原文】

Reputed to have come from Donald Trump’s publicity people, the following tale found its way into the news media via the magazine Forbes in February 1996:

This may well be the public relations gesture of the year. During the 1995 Christmas holidays, Donald Trump and Marla Maples find themselves marooned in their stretch limo with a flat tire on a busy stretch of New Jersey highway. Finally, a passing motorist spots the limo in distress and offers to help the chauffeur change the tire. Driver says, sure. Before the re-tired limo rolls off, the darkened window rolls down and an effusive Trump asks what he and his wife can do to repay the favor. Just send my wife a big bouquet of flowers, says the guy, handing Trump a card with his wife’s name and their address. Two weeks later a gargantuan bouquet of orchids arrives with a card reading, “We paid off your home mortgage, Marla and Donald.” The Trumps flackery won’t reveal the lucky chap’s name, but Informer hears Trump forked over more than $100,000 for the gesture.

Eyebrows should have been raised by this tale, as even back in the mid-1990s it was already a recognized urban legend that had been told about many other celebrities. Casting doubt on the notion that it subsequently became a true legend was the lack of checkable details provided by Trump’s people, as exemplified by 1996 news reports that noted “The Trumps flackery won’t reveal the lucky chap’s name, but Informer hears Trump forked over more than $100,000 for the gesture.”

!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=”//rumble.com/embedJS/ucxbq”+(arguments[1].video?’.’+arguments[1].video:”)+”/?url=”+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+”&args=”+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, “script”, “Rumble”);

There was no opportunity for her to have been stranded in the rain beside an Alabama highway in the weeks leading up to her husband’s death. She was sitting with him when he passed away, and none of the newspapers that commented on her vigil made mention of a last-minute dash to the hospital, an automotive breakdown, or a helpful Samaritan who got her there in time.

Another version of the car breakdown legend gives the famous person as Perry Como and has him mailing his rescuer a set of keys to a new car. This tale is told as happening all over the place, so I wonder at Perry’s ability to buy all these people cars but not provide himself with reliable transportation.

Yet another twist has the disabled car story happening to Como’s wife, and the payoff she provides is either a color TV or tickets to her husband’s upcoming concert. It’s also told of Mrs. Leon Spinks, and the reward she grants are tickets to her hubby’s upcoming fight in New Orleans. (Moral of the story: if you want the big ticket items, don’t settle for rescuing the wife of a celebrity; hold out for the man himself.)

In February 2000, a version starring Bill Gates began circulating on the Internet:

Apparently a couple returning home from a skiing trip in British Columbia spots a disabled car at the side of the road and a man in distress. Being good citizens they stop to help. The car has either a flat tire and the Good Samaritan fixes it quickly. The man was very grateful, but had no cash with him to reward them, so asked for their name and address so he could send them a little something. A week later the couple receives a call from their banker stating that their mortgage had been paid and $10,000 had been deposited in their account by a very grateful Bill Gates.

Getting back to Donald Trump, we find that on at least one verifiable occasion he’s known to have bestowed largesse on a helpful stranger. Trump’s 79-year-old mother was mugged in 1991, suffering broken bones and severe facial bruises. A passing truck driver who witnessed the assault brought down the mugger and handed him over to justice. (The robber was later sentenced to 3 to 9 years in prison). The Donald had dinner with the rescuer, his sister, and his son; offered the Samaritan a better job; and gave him a check for an undisclosed amount.

Even with a straight news story like this, a bit of manufactured memory has changed many people’s recall of the event. There are those who now swear they saw Donald Trump hand over an oversized, Ed McMahon-type check on TV. Likely this “Publisher’s Clearing House” mental image fits in better with our notion of how a celebrity would reward an ordinary fellow, hence the substituted memory.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月23日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

COVID-19 刺激立法是否因佩洛西而延迟?

总统一再指责美国众议院议长不关心美国人,因为她不同意他的 COVID-19 救济援助条件。

【宣称】

由于美国众议院议长南希·佩洛西,联邦政府没有在 2020 年秋季批准 COVID-19 经济救济一揽子计划。

【结论】

混合物

【原文】

U.S. Election Day is Nov. 3, 2020. Check your state’s vote-by-mail options. Browse our coverage of candidates and the issues. And just keep fact-checking.

After a months-long political debate over how to address America’s pandemic-stricken economy and just 13 days before the 2020 presidential election, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office announced she and U.S. President Donald Trump’s top emissary, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, were inching toward an agreement on a new economic stimulus package.

“Both sides are serious about finding a compromise,” tweeted Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for Pelosi, on Oct. 20.

The announcement came after repeated claims by Trump that Pelosi was the sole roadblock in his administration’s plans to spend about $1.8 trillion on unemployment benefits, schools, and other initiatives — adding to $3 trillion in emergency relief that the federal government approved in spring 2020. In a nationally televised town hall on Oct. 15, for instance, Trump said of Pelosi:

“We are ready to sign and pass stimulus, but she’s got to approve it,” he said. “She’s penalizing our people. I’m ready to sign a big, beautiful stimulus.”

All of that said, the Democrat-approved plan overlapped in some areas with the White House’s proposal to help small businesses and pay each eligible U.S. citizen a one-time $1,200 check.

But this was key: Trump’s GOP allies in the Senate were skeptical of any proposal greater than $1 trillion. For months, they had debated economic stimulus measures smaller than the White House’s initial proposal of about $1.6 trillion, which later grew to $1.8 trillion before Trump said he wanted to spend more than Democrats. Reuters reported: “Senate Republicans have repeatedly stated their opposition to additional COVID-19 relief spending near the $2 trillion mark and have focused instead on smaller initiatives.”

The Republicans were focusing on one-off initiatives to help businesses and families instead of a comprehensive spending bill. They supported one measure in particular that totaled about $650 billion in emergency economic relief, or about one-third the amount of Trump’s proposal.

In other words, the disagreement over funding was not along party lines, with Senate Republicans taking Trump’s side and Pelosi leading an oppositional force, like most political battles over Trump’s first term. Rather, key Republicans were skeptical of a relief package greater than $1 trillion and had not expressed support for the White House’s proposal.

As proof of that lack of enthusiasm for Trump’s COVID-19 spending plan, the leading GOP vote-counter, Sen. John Thune, told reporters on Oct. 19 that “it’d be hard” to find the necessary Republican support to pass the $1.8 trillion package.

Additionally, multiple news reports said McConnell told Senate Republicans the following day that he had advised the White House against making any deal with Pelosi before the election — significant evidence that the House Speaker was not the only barrier to a compromise. The New York Times reported:

Mr. McConnell’s counsel, confirmed by three Republicans familiar with his remarks, threw cold water on Mr. Trump’s increasingly urgent push to enact a fresh round of pandemic aid before he faces voters on Nov. 3. It underscored the divisions within the party that have long hampered a compromise.

Republicans are growing increasingly anxious that Mr. Trump and his team are too eager to reach a multitrillion-dollar agreement and are conceding far too much to the Democrats. Republicans fear that scenario would force their colleagues up for re-election into a difficult choice of defying the president or alienating their fiscally conservative base by embracing the big-spending bill he has demanded.

The Washington Post added:

Many Senate Republicans oppose a massive new spending bill and McConnell is not eager to hold a vote that would divide his conference just before the election, when most Senate Republicans want attention focused on the Barrett nomination. […]

McConnell’s remarks Tuesday indicate that even if Pelosi and Mnuchin do manage to reach a deal, any vote in the Senate would wait until after the election. If Democrats win a number of seats in the November elections, they could seize control of the Senate beginning in January.

Nonetheless, if or when Pelosi and Mnuchin reached an agreement, Trump suggested on multiple occasions without evidence that he could convince naysayers to agree to whatever he wanted. “He’ll be on board if something comes,” Trump said of McConnell’s reluctance in the Fox News interview. “Not every Republican agrees with me, but they will.”

The time window for an agreement before the Nov. 3 election was narrowing as of this report. Hammill, the spokesman for Pelosi, on Oct. 20 tweeted that Mnuchin and Pelosi had a 45-minute conversation earlier in the day that showed they were “serious about finding a compromise” and moving closer to an agreement in the coming days or weeks with the help of congressional committee chairs.

In sum, considering McConnell, the Senate Majority leader, had reportedly told the White House to not make a deal with Pelosi — proof that the House Speaker was not the only barrier to an agreement — as well as a comment by another Senate Republican that “it’d be hard” to rally his colleagues around Trump’s plan for emergency economic spending, we rate this claim a “Mixture” of truth and falsehoods.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月22日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

特朗普有没有批评拜登说他会 “听科学家的声音”?

美国总统唐纳德·特朗普在内华达州的竞选集会期间,对比他自己的方法来处理 COVID-19 大流行拜登。

【宣称】

美国总统唐纳德·特朗普嘲笑他的政治对手乔·拜登发誓要 “听科学家的声音” 关于 COVID-19 大流行。

【结论】


【原文】

As governments fight the COVID-19 pandemic, Snopes is fighting an “infodemic” of rumors and misinformation, and you can help. Read our coronavirus fact checks. 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.

With an estimated 220,000 Americans as of this writing dead from the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, readers asked whether it’s true that U.S. President Donald Trump had mocked his 2020 Democratic opponent Joe Biden for vowing to “listen to the scientists” on how to manage the public health crisis.

The statement was made by Trump during a campaign rally in Nevada on Oct. 18, 2020. It drew widespread scrutiny as the Trump administration, and Trump himself, have been criticized for failing to follow the guidance of scientists and experts when responding to the pandemic.

During the rally, Trump said (emphasis added):

“If you vote for Biden, he will surrender your jobs to China. He will surrender your future to the virus. He’s going to lockdown. This guy wants a lockdown. He’ll listen to the scientists. If I listen totally to the scientists, we would right now have a country that would be in a massive depression instead of, we’re like a rocket ship, take a look at the numbers.”

Trump appeared to be riffing on a comment made by Biden during an August 2020 interview with ABC News journalist David Muir. During the interview, Muir asked Biden how he would respond if he won the November 2020 election and was sworn in amid surging coronavirus cases, coupled with flu season.

Biden said, “I will be prepared to do whatever it takes to save lives because we cannot get the country moving until we control the virus. That is the fundamental flaw of this administration’s thinking to begin with. In order to keep the country running and moving and the economy growing, and people employed, you have to fix the virus, you have to deal with the virus.”

Muir asked, “So if the scientists say shut it down?”

Biden answered, “I would shut it down, I would listen to the scientists.”

Video of Trump’s comments in Nevada can be viewed here:

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月21日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

总统任期于 1 月 20 日中午结束

特朗普总统的任期将于 2021 年 1 月 20 日中午结束。在同一时刻,他要么开始第二个任期,要么国家将有一个新的行政长官。

【原文】

This article is republished here with permission from The Conversation. This content is shared here because the topic may interest Snopes readers; it does not, however, represent the work of Snopes fact-checkers or editors.


With so much unclear about the upcoming presidential election, it’s nice to know that there is one absolute certainty.

Mail-in ballots may take a long time to count. Many states will have recounts, either statewide or in specific areas. President Donald Trump has signaled he may not like the outcome – and it remains to be seen if he or others will accept the result.

Fortunately for the nation, these provisions have never been tested. Some are straightforward – like allowing a vice president-elect to take the place of a deceased president-elect. But if a winner isn’t declared by Jan. 20, partisan division is likely part of the problem – and that means consensus after Jan. 20 may not be possible.

One thing is clear, however. The 20th Amendment creates a hard stop. The sitting president’s term ends at noon on Jan. 20. If Congress can’t determine a winner, the Presidential Succession Act, adopted in 1947, would make the speaker of the House of Representatives the new chief executive – at least for a time.

Whether he likes it or not, and whether he wins reelection or not, Trump’s current term as president will end Jan. 20. What happens next is yet unknown, but at least that much is certain.The Conversation


Donald Nieman, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, Binghamton University, State University of New York

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月21日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

诺特的浆果农场是逃离加利福尼亚州吗?

标记为讽刺的内容的例行审查。

【宣称】

诺特的浆果农场于 2020 年 9 月宣布,他们将离开加利福尼亚州。

【结论】

带有讽刺标签

【原文】

On Sept. 3, 2020, the UncleWalts.com website published an article positing that the Knott’s Berry Farm theme park was moving out of California:

Knotts Berry Farm joins Disneyland in fleeing California

After Disneyland announced their move to Texas on Monday, another popular Southern California theme park is abandoning the state for greener pastures. Knotts Berry Farm will soon leave California and join Dollywood in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee.

This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated from a website that describes its output as being humorous or satirical in nature, as follows:

All events, persons, and companies depicted herein, including Disney, Walt Disney, and The Disney Company, are fictitious, and any similarity to actual persons, living, dead or otherwise, or to actual firms, is coincidental. Really. The same goes for any similarities to actual facts.

In addition to its disclaimer, UncleWalts.com is replete with tongue-in-cheek references regarding its satirical nature.

Their header, for example, boasts a series of fake awards, such as “Most Churros Consumed” and “Best Made-Up-Awards.” This website has previously published satirical articles falsely claiming that Disneyland was moving out of California, and that Disney was planning to build a theme park in Michigan. 

For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月20日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

你身边的银杏黄了吗?

 

秋是什么?“禾”谷成熟呈现如“火”的颜色。不仅五谷在此时成熟变得金黄,而且还有许多落叶植物一同变红变黄得如火一般。所以我们感知秋意,除了气温变化,也要看身边植物的变色情况。

 

初开始变色的银杏叶

 

最能体现秋意的植物莫过于银杏。一场秋风兼秋雨换得一地金黄的秋色,这是全国许多地方都能享受到的。许多地方都有成百上千年的古银杏,去看看年迈的古银杏是许多人赏秋时的必备活动。

 

村口的银杏

 

现在,南北方的银杏都开始变黄了,即将进入它们最灿烂的时光。乘着这个时节,我们想要发起一场公民科学活动。

 

大家或许听说过日本的“樱前线”。日本各地都会推荐樱花的最佳观赏日期,反映在地图上就成了“樱前线”。赏樱是日本地区的春日活动,樱前线不仅对人们的出行赏樱起指导作用,也能够反映春日从南到北的进程如果将历年数据做对比,还能一窥气候的变化。

 

樱前线

 

赏银杏是我国的秋日活动,那我们是否也可以用银杏的变色,来反映秋天的由北到南脚步呢? 

 

因此,我们诚邀您在享受金秋、观赏的银杏的同时,抽出一分钟时间来提交自己的银杏物候观察记录,为建立我们的“银杏前线”贡献自己的一份力量。

 

 

征集期间,每周我们都会进行抽奖活动,欢迎来自全国各地的朋友们参与进来。您可以扫描下方二维码填写银杏物候观察记录。请您在问卷中告诉我们您观察到银杏的基本信息,包括看到银杏的日期、地点、所处物候期等。欢迎持续提交同一处银杏的物候变化。

 

↓↓↓向我们展示您身边灿烂的银杏秋色吧↓↓↓

 

 

 

什么是物候?

 

物候就是自然界中的生物和非生物受气候和其他环境因素的影响,而出现的现象。如植物的萌芽、发叶、开花、结实、叶黄和叶落;候鸟的来往;见霜、下雪、结冰、打雷、河冻和河开等等,都叫做物候。

 

近代物候知识的发展,已成为一门科学,叫做物候学。物候学是研究自然界植物(包括农作物)、动物和环境条件(气候、水文、土壤、地形等)的周期变化之间相互关系的科学。它的目的是认识自然季节现象变化的规律,以服务于农业生产和科学研究。

 

银杏作为落叶植物,在秋冬天会经历四个的物候期,分别是叶开始变色期、叶全部变色期、开始落叶期、落叶末期。

 

叶开始变色期

 

观测的树木叶子在秋天第一批开始变色。 对于银杏来说,叶片变黄总是从最外缘开始,并向内逐渐扩散的。只要观察到叶片边缘开始变黄,就进入了叶开始变色期。

注意× 叶变色是指正常季节性变化。夏季叶片被晒得枯黄,路旁新植的行道树因为营养不良/病虫害等原因早早变黄等异常原因不算数。

开始落叶期

观测的树上开始有脱落变色的叶片。对于大部分落叶树木,叶片开始变色往往伴随着落叶。

注意× 落叶指秋冬季的自然脱落,而不是因干旱或病虫害的危害落叶。由人工移栽的小银杏树可能会因营养不良的情况出现提早落叶,这样的情况也不能反应真实的物候变化。

叶全部变色期

所有的叶子完全变色,树冠上已经找不到绿色。

落叶末期

树上的叶子几乎全部脱落。

注意×几乎落光就算进入末期,无需等待完全落光。毕竟总有一些叶片会顽强的一直呆在树上。

 

 

插图:6+1

参考文献

[1]竺可桢, 宛敏渭. 物候学.2版[M]. 科学出版社, 1980.

[2]国家气象局气候司.《农业气象观测规范 自然物侯分册》.1993年2月16日 

 

项目介绍

“城市里的公民科学家”

“城市生物多样性保护公民科学”公益项目由阿里巴巴公益基金会主办,由桃源里自然中心和山水自然保护中心共同承办。旨在联合社会公众,关注本土物种,收集本土物种数据,建立本土物种数据库,促进城市人与自然和谐共生。在秋冬季,我们将在杭州开启包括红外相机监测、植物物候观测、西湖候鸟调查、西湖松鼠调查在内的多个公民科学项目。

观爱自然(Watching for Caring)

观爱自然(Watching for Caring)公众生物多样性保护行动,旨在配合将在昆明召开的《生物多样性公约》第十五次缔约方大会(CBD COP15),推动和激励普通公民对身边的生物多样性进行观察,通过观察了解、增加知识,享受自然的美好,建立个人与生物多样性的关系,激发公众对生物多样性的关注,并在日常生活中创造参与生物多样性保护的可能。

 

2020年10月20日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

拜登教授宪法 21 年吗?

美国民主总统候选人乔·拜登 1968 年毕业于锡拉丘兹大学法学院。

【宣称】

美国民主党总统候选人乔·拜登教宪法 21 年。

【结论】

主要是真的

【原文】

U.S. Election Day is Nov. 3, 2020. Check your state’s vote-by-mail options. Browse our coverage of candidates and the issues. And just keep fact-checking.

On Oct. 15, 2020, Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden took questions during a town hall event aired on ABC News. At one point, Biden was asked by an audience member about the Supreme Court and the possible erosion of LGBTQ rights. As Biden answered, he mentioned something about his life that many viewers apparently found surprising: Biden said that he taught constitutional law for 21 years.

Biden, who received a law degree from Syracuse University in 1968, served as an adjunct professor at Widener University Delaware Law School, where he taught constitutional law classes for approximately 20 years. Biden was not, however, a full-time professor, which some viewers may have assumed from the former vice president’s comments about “teaching constitutional law for 21 years.”

A screenshot of Biden’s faculty member page that was archived from Widener University Delaware Law School’s website in 2008 shows that the former vice president started as an adjunct professor in 1991.

While Biden truly taught classes on constitutional law at the school, we’re not entirely clear on some of the surrounding details. For instance, Biden was an adjunct professor, which essentially means that this was a non-tenured, part-time position. It’s also unclear how often Biden taught these classes.

In 2008, shortly after Biden became vice president of the United States, Widener published an article congratulating their colleague. That article noted that Biden taught a “seminar” on issues in constitutional law:

“This is an extremely big night for Delaware,” said Dean Linda L. Ammons, adding, “We are extremely proud of our colleague.” Vice President-elect and Delaware Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. has served as an adjunct faculty member at Widener Law, Delaware’s only law school, since 1991, teaching a seminar on issues in constitutional law.

As Election Day results rolled in late Tuesday night, it became clear that Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would be elected the 44th president, and that Biden would join him as Vice President. Biden’s class has always been one of the most popular seminars offered at Widener Law’s Delaware campus, and usually has a waiting list of students hoping that a seat will open. Senator Biden was also the commencement speaker at Widener University’s Chester campus in May 2006, and he received an honorary doctor of laws degree from the university in May of 2000. “If he is as good a Vice-President as he is a faculty member here, then the nation is in good hands,” noted Dean Ammons. Discussing Senator Biden’s future with the school, she declared, “He will just be on leave here, and I hope to see him back.”

Roll Call added some more details to Biden’s teaching history in an article published the same year. The Washington, D.C. news site reported that Biden taught a seminar called “Selected Topics in Constitutional Law” alongside professor Robert Hayman, and that he tried to be present for at least half of the Saturday morning classes. 

While Biden’s day job as a senator may have prevented him for teaching at every class, his schedule grew even more hectic when he was chosen as then-presidential candidate Barack Obama’s running mate in 2008. In September of that year, The News Journal, a Delaware newspaper, reported that students were “pleasantly surprised” when Biden returned to school to teach his class: 

Sun, Sep 7, 2008 – Page 17 · The News Journal (Wilmington, Delaware) · Newspapers.com

We reached out to the Biden campaign and Widener University Delaware Law School for more information about the former vice president’s time as an adjunct professor, and we will update this article if more information becomes available. 

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月20日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

疾控中心是否报告了大多数承包 COVID-19 的人都戴着面具?

美国总统唐纳德·特朗普在直播电视上声称 “85% 戴面具的人赶上 [COVID-19]” 时,放大了误解。

【宣称】

疾病控制和预防中心(CDC)进行的一项研究发现,“绝大多数” 感染冠状病毒的个体都戴着面罩或面罩,证明这两种情况都不能有效防止 COVID-19 的传播。

【结论】

主要是假的

【原文】

As governments fight the COVID-19 pandemic, Snopes is fighting an “infodemic” of rumors and misinformation, and you can help. Read our coronavirus fact checks. 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.

Even as the COVID-19 pandemic touched nearly every corner of the planet, wearing a mask remained a highly politicized topic in the lead-up to the 2020 U.S. election. During an Oct. 15, 2020, town hall broadcast by NBC, U.S. President Donald Trump pushed inaccurate information that questioned the efficacy of wearing masks, despite leading health authorities’ recommendations. 

When asked about his wavering responses to the idea of wearing a mask, Trump responded: 

“But as far as the mask is concerned, I’m good with masks. I’m okay with masks. I tell people, wear a mask. But just the other day, they came out with a statement that 85% of the people that wear masks catch it.” The president’s response is also recorded at around the 6-minute mark in the video below:

About three-quarters of study participants from both groups (71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants) reported having always worn a mask or cloth face covering when in public, but people who tested positive were more likely to have been in close contact with a person who also tested positive — and nearly twice as likely to have dined at a restaurant.

In short: the CDC study was testing what activities made a person more likely to contract SARS-CoV-2 and how mask-wearing and social distancing measures might influence infection rates. Having close contact with a person diagnosed with COVID-19 or going to locations that offer onsite dining was associated with a higher likelihood of being diagnosed with the disease.

“In this investigation, participants with and without COVID-19 reported generally similar community exposures, with the exception of going to locations with on-site eating and drinking options,” wrote the health agency. “Adults with confirmed COVID-19 (case-patients) were approximately twice as likely as were control participants to have reported dining at a restaurant in the 14 days before becoming ill.”

The study is not without limitations. First of all, the sample size is relatively small. Secondly, study participants self-reported their mask use, which could present an opportunity for false memories or poor recall. Participants were also aware of their infection and agreed to take part in the study, which could have influenced their responses.

Even so, the study suggests that increased infection rates among those who had dined at restaurants may be linked to air circulation. The direction, ventilation, and intensity of airflow may influence virus transmission even if social distancing measures are followed. People taking their masks off to eat and drink in closed-circulation spaces may also make them more susceptible to infection.

The findings held implications for public health, particularly as many U.S. states were partially open or allowed dine-in eating in October 2020. 

“Eating and drinking on-site at locations that offer such options might be important risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Efforts to reduce possible exposures where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, such as when eating and drinking, should be considered to protect customers, employees, and communities,” wrote the CDC.

As of mid-October, the CDC continued to recommend that a person wear a mask whenever in public or around people who do not live in the same household. A full list of recommendations can be found here.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月19日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

鹅掌楸 | 秋天一树黄马褂,春日一树“郁金香”

周末在植物园闲逛,看到地上散落了一堆瓜子皮似的东西。刚要吐槽是谁这么没素质,就发现这些其实是头顶鹅掌楸树散落的种子。
 
之前推送鹅掌楸的时候留了一个遗憾:没拍到花。今年春天,我在同一棵树上,终于拍到了鹅掌楸花朵。春天拍花时的情景还历历在目,没想到这就到鹅掌楸黄叶、种子四散的秋天了。
 

↑鹅掌楸散落的种子
鹅掌楸在城市园林绿化中很常见,算是落叶树种中开始变色最早的了。在杭州这边,8月份树木上就可以见到黄叶。但叶片完全变色要到11月,这时属于鹅掌楸的金秋才算开始。北方也有鹅掌楸,它们变黄要早一些。
鹅掌楸叶片是独树一帜的,根本不用担心认错,“鹅掌楸”和别名“马褂木”这两个名称,都是形容叶片的形态。两个名称中,我自然是更喜欢马褂木的。到了秋天,一树黄叶真是像极了黄马褂,颇有贵气。
 
叶片长的很大,树冠上最大的叶片能有手掌大小。而树根附近萌蘖枝上的叶片最大,大到真的能给小孩做衣服。
↑普通的叶子
↑萌蘖枝上的叶子
其实不论是杭州还是北京,园林中使用的鹅掌楸大都是杂交鹅掌楸 Liriodendron tulipifera x chinense 。
它的亲本是来自中国的鹅掌楸 Liriodendron chinense 和来自北美的北美鹅掌楸 Liriodendron tulipifera 。
这三种鹅的叶片形态是不一样的。
中国鹅掌楸的叶片相对瘦长,有四个尖。如果把叶片比作马褂,那么四个角恰好是袖子和下摆,腰部略向内收,款式修身,裁剪考究。
↑中国鹅
北美鹅掌楸的叶片相对圆胖,有六个尖。
↑北美鹅
至于两者的杂交产物——杂交鹅掌楸则介于两者之间,叶型多变。叶片可以是四个尖、五个尖、六个尖,每个尖角之间的夹角也都不同,很是随性。
↑都是杂交鹅
说来也是很奇怪。鹅掌楸这个属,抛开杂交种不谈,只有两个种,这两个种还分居太平洋两岸。
这种现象在植物学里还有个专门的称呼:东亚—北美间断分布。科学家推测,造成这一现象的原因与地质变迁和冰川期有关。
数百万年前,欧亚板块与北美洲板块之间尚没有白令海峡的阻隔,植物存在跨板块迁移的可能。在约258万年前,地球进入了第四季冰河时期,不断扩张的冰川从北至南吞没了大片地表,也吞没了大量物种,而我国长江流域以南地区和北美洲东南部部分地区幸免于难。经历了板块漂移和大灭绝的鹅掌楸,最终失去了地理上的连续性。
 
间断分布现象不局限于东亚北美一对。植物学和地质学上千丝万缕的联系,交织成难以否认的证据:在地质尺度上,地球表面所有部分都在不停的流动,人类所依存的大陆,并不比一堆秋天的落叶要稳固。
↑树下寻宝的自然爱好者
当我们踩在鹅掌楸落叶堆上时,清脆的咔嚓声让人有肆意狂奔的冲动。
在落叶层下,还藏着一样奇特的宝贝:鹅掌楸的果实。完整果序相对来说比较难找,树又高大又很难采摘。为了寻获一枝完整的果序,一队自然爱好者在树下寻宝。
↑树下寻宝的自然爱好者

 

鹅掌楸的果序由数十枚翅果环绕中轴排列而成,呈宝塔状。
它的种子同槭树一样,能够飞行。一头重、一头轻的种子将由大风点火发动。一脱离果序,便刷刷刷的转了起来,如直升机旋翼一般飞走。
↑鹅掌楸果序
在其它三个季节,鹅掌楸的颜值也是出众的。冬季、夏季,饱满的塔状树冠显得很精神。
↑后方两棵高大的树就是鹅掌楸
而在春季,鹅掌楸还会开出美丽的花朵。看它花朵杯状的花型,是不是很像一朵郁金香呢?因此,鹅掌楸又有“郁金香树”的别名。

↑杂交鹅掌楸花朵
花朵有9枚花被,其中3枚绿色,花开后向后翻转。其余6枚为黄绿色,其上还有火焰状的花纹。(三种鹅掌楸的花色有不同,中国黄,北美绿,杂交鹅掌楸介于两者之间。)
↑背后三枚绿色的花被片
花朵中央的花蕊也很好看。中央是笔头一样的雌蕊群,四周环绕着雄蕊。如果从顶上看花朵,或许会看到花瓣(花被片)上有闪闪亮亮的蜜水,这是因为鹅掌楸的花蜜由花瓣(花被片)内侧分泌,好吸引昆虫往里钻。今年春天我捡了一片花瓣(花被片),舔了舔,味道还可以。
 

↑花蕊
一棵鹅掌楸老树上能开出盛大的花事,几乎是每一支枝条的顶端都有花朵,非常壮观。
 

但总的来说,鹅掌楸花朵还是比较难见到的。行道树、园林绿化里的鹅掌楸小树开花少,而且往往开在树顶和高枝上,所以一直到今年,我才拍到它的花朵,了却一桩遗憾
作者:蒋某人
图片:蒋某人
本作品采用 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) 许可协议进行许可
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.zh
转载请务必保留以上声明

2020年10月19日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

媒体中的政治偏见不会威胁民主 — 其他不太明显的偏见

只要我们从娱乐价值和媒体对共和党和民主党的偏见角度来看待治理,我们的知情将继续比我们需要的少。

【原文】

This article is republished here with permission from The Conversation. This content is shared here because the topic may interest Snopes readers; it does not, however, represent the work of Snopes fact-checkers or editors.


Charges of media bias – that “the media” are trying to brainwash Americans by feeding the public only one side of every issue – have become as common as the hope that the presidential race will end safely … and soon.

As a political scientist who has examined media coverage of the Trump presidency and campaigns, I can say that this is what social science research tells us about media bias.

The problem is that a focus on such stories crowds out what we need to know to protect our democracy, such as: How do the workings of American institutions benefit some groups and disadvantage others? In what ways do our major systems – education, health care, national defense and others – function effectively or less effectively?

These analyses are vital to us as citizens – if we fail to protect our democracy, our lives will be changed forever – but they aren’t always fun to read. So they get covered much less than celebrity scandals or murder cases – which, while compelling, don’t really affect our ability to sustain a democratic system.

Writer Dave Barry demonstrated this media bias in favor of dramatic stories in a 1998 column.

He wrote, “Let’s consider two headlines. FIRST HEADLINE: ‘Federal Reserve Board Ponders Reversal of Postponement of Deferral of Policy Reconsideration.’ SECOND HEADLINE: ‘Federal Reserve Board Caught in Motel with Underage Sheep.’ Be honest, now. Which of these two stories would you read?”

By focusing on the daily equivalent of the underage sheep, media can direct our attention away from the important systems that affect our lives. That isn’t the media’s fault; we are the audience whose attention media outlets want to attract.

But as long as we think of governance in terms of its entertainment value and media bias in terms of Republicans and Democrats, we’ll continue to be less informed than we need to be. That’s the real media bias.The Conversation


Marjorie Hershey, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Indiana University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月19日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

“福克斯和朋友” 叫弗雷德·罗杰斯是 “邪恶,邪恶的人” 吗?

该部分引起了许多反驳,谴责对儿童电视节目主持人遗留下来的 “攻击的恶意”。

【宣称】

“福克斯和朋友” 的主持人描述儿童电视节目主持人弗雷德·罗杰斯是一个 “邪恶,邪恶的人。”

【结论】


【原文】

Fred Rogers, the beloved host of the long-running children’s television show “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood,” died in 2003. In July 2007, the hosts of Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends” morning program — Alisyn Camerota, Steve Doocy, and Brian Kilmeade — aired a segment (using titles such as “Blame Mr. Rogers,” “Was Mr. Rogers Wrong?” and “Is Mr. Rogers Ruining Kids?”) in which they took Rogers to task as an “evil, evil man” for supposedly encouraging generations of children to grow up with a sense of self-entitlement:

The opening commentary from that segment ran as follows:

These experts are saying that the kids of today who grew up with Mr. Rogers were told by him, “You’re special, just for being who you are.” Well here’s the problem [that] gets lost in that whole self business, and the idea that being hard and having high issues for yourself, discounted. Mr. Rogers’ message was, “You’re special because you’re you.” He didn’t say, “If you want to be special, you’re going to have to work hard,” and now all these kids are growing up and they’re realizing, “Hey wait a minute, Mr. Rogers lied to me, I’m not special — I’m trying hard, and I’m not getting anywhere.”

And this comes out of Louisiana State University, a professor there has examined just what damage Mr. Rogers may have done to this whole crop of kids who now feel entitled just for being them. And what he says that instead of telling them, “You’re special, you’re great,” why didn’t he just say, “You know what, there’s a lot of improvement, keep working on yourself.”

That “Fox & Friends” segment prompted numerous rebuttals condemning the “maliciousness of the attack” on Rogers’ legacy, such as the following example:

Mr. Rogers had, they claimed, destroyed an entire generation with his liberal notions of entitlement. As the originator of the snowflake concept, he was an “evil, evil man.” The show’s moderators cited unnamed “experts” and a professor at Louisiana State University.

These authorities claimed that Rodgers instilled a belief in young minds that they were special for “just for being who you are” and hard work was not required.

The viewers of the children’s TV show all became a generation of selfish and entitled brats. Fred Rogers was, Fox and Friends alleged, an “evil genius” and “the root of all our problems.”

As per the methodology of the show, the accusation was said with just enough light-hearted banter to hide the maliciousness of the attack.

In fact, the “Fox & Friends” hosts neither cited nor identified any “experts” or “studies” that corroborated what they were asserting. The single source they repeatedly referenced was a Louisiana State University (LSU) professor who neither possessed an academic background in psychology or sociology (or any related field) nor had undertaken any type of study about the issue — he was a finance professor at LSU whose anecdotal speculations about his students had recently been quoted in a short Wall Street Journal article about “Why Young Adults Feel So Entitled”:

Don Chance, a finance professor at Louisiana State University, says it dawned on him last spring. The semester was ending, and as usual, students were making a pilgrimage to his office, asking for the extra points needed to lift their grades to A’s.

“They felt so entitled,” he recalls, “and it just hit me. We can blame Mr. Rogers.”

Obviously, Mr. Rogers alone can’t be blamed for this. But as Prof. Chance sees it, “he’s representative of a culture of excessive doting.”

Prof. Chance teaches many Asian-born students, and says they accept whatever grade they’re given; they see B’s and C’s as an indication that they must work harder, and that their elders assessed them accurately. They didn’t grow up with Mr. Rogers or anyone else telling them they were born special.

By contrast, American students often view lower grades as a reason to “hit you up for an A because they came to class and feel they worked hard,” says Prof. Chance. He wishes more parents would offer kids this perspective: “The world owes you nothing. You have to work and compete. If you want to be special, you’ll have to prove it.”

And indeed, Chance later contacted Fox to clarify the substance of his comments:

It was … quite interesting that Fox News originally reported my story as being a “professor at Louisiana State University [who] did this study that showed that Mr. Rogers had damaged generations of children.” I can certainly see that this would have been a headline-grabbing story, but of course, no such study was ever done. I sent an explanatory note that was read on Fox & Friends. Here is the text:

I made a casual observation that we have a society full of people who think they’re entitled to things they haven’t earned. The reference to Rogers was just a metaphor. As the article says, he is representative of a culture of excessive doting but he is not the problem itself. That said, it was just an observation. I have no professional qualifications to evaluate the real problems or propose solutions. Mr. Rogers was a great American. I watched him with my children and wouldn’t hesitate to do so again if I had young children. I would just want to make sure that they know that people become special by the choices they make, not by who they are and that the world owes you nothing.

Other commenters also took exception to the characterization of Rogers’ teachings as expressed by “Fox & Friends”:

Since the early 1960s when his show first went on the air, Rogers’ goal was to produce a show that would promote “self-esteem, self-control, imagination, creativity, curiosity, appreciation of diversity, cooperation, patience and persistence.”

There’s no question that this was a man who cared deeply about children and firmly believed that every child was special.

Yet, Rogers never told children were infallible or as talented as everyone else at everything. He simply told them they had value and that value was not related to a child’s particular successes or failures. As one Reddit commenter pointed out:

He frequently encouraged his young viewers to develop life skills (tying their shoelaces, reading and writing, planting a garden, riding a bicycle, caring for animals, learning a sport, et cetera).

He emphasized the importance of going to school and paying attention to their teachers, whom he humanized by pointing out that they were once children too.

He explicitly acknowledged that some of their peers would be better at certain things than they were, explaining that having our own strengths and interests is part of what makes each of us special.

Author Mark J P Wolf similarly observed in his 2017 book “The World of Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” that:

Rogers’ emphasis on personal value should not be conflated with the failed self-esteem movement in 1990s education, which included such things as the “I Love Me” sessions that schoolchildren were forced to endure in certain California schools. Rogers’ approach was subtler, more nuanced, and less insistent, and he balanced his message by keeping others in mind; the community was never allowed to be eclipsed by the individual or any form of egotism. While Neighborhood characters occasionally fell prey to self-centeredness, they would soon be corrected by the rest of the community, albeit in a calm and loving fashion.

Of course, opinions may differ as to the legacy Rogers’ left to the generations of children who grew up watching him on television, but as far was we know, “Fox & Friends” is unique (at least among national TV programs) in terming him “an evil, evil man.”

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月19日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

这是乔·拜登家的照片吗?

进行一些背景研究可以大大有助于避免提出令人尴尬的不准确的指控。

【宣称】

照片显示了美国前参议员兼副总统乔·拜登目前拥有的一座豪宅。

【结论】

字幕错误

【原文】

On Oct. 17, 2020, Eric Trump, son of U.S. President Donald Trump, tweeted a picture of a palatial-looking home valued at approximately $1.6M, asserting that it was the current residence of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and questioning how Biden could have legitimately purchased such a property on his former salary of $174,000 per year:

The salary of a U.S. Senator is $174,000 per year. This is Joe Biden’s house…. seems legit 🙄 pic.twitter.com/DtD0DzXlrY

— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) October 17, 2020

However Eric Trump was wrong on all counts: the pictured home was not currently owned by Joe Biden, it was not his current residence, and the property was — at one time — not outrageously outside Biden’s price range.

The pictured estate was a 5-bedroom, 10,000-square-foot former DuPont mansion at 6 Montchan Dr. in the Greenville area of Wilmington, Delaware, which was formerly owned by Biden. Way back in 1974, Biden (then a freshman U.S. Senator and a recent widower) was able to purchase the property for a mere $185,000 because the abandoned home was badly run-down and in need of major repairs.

After fixing up the home and living in it for two decades, Biden sold it in 1996 for $1.2 million — well over twenty years before Eric Trump’s accusatory tweet declaring it to still be “Joe Biden’s house.”

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月19日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

猫咪坐在笔记本电脑上,让你更接近吗?

这已经不是什么秘密,猫喜欢坐在你的笔记本电脑,但原因仍然是一个谜。

【宣称】

我们毛茸茸的猫朋友蔓延跨笔记本电脑作为一种方式来寻求关注,并更接近他们的主人。

【结论】

未经证明

【原文】

Despite their aloof demeanor, pet cats may be more socially bonded to their humans than the furry felines are given credit for. 

In October 2020, social media users on Twitter and TikTok shared images and videos of their cats sitting on a spare laptop in their attempt at “mirroring” their owner. The imagery created a buzz amongst cat lovers, who claimed that their kitties also sit on their laptops so that they can be closer to their owners.

“So, I read on the internet that cats get on your laptop because they’re mirroring you, and so if you get them their own laptop they’ll leave you alone — and look at this businessman!”

@bestcoastbaby

He’s got a lot of business to take care of now 😂

♬ original sound – That bitch

Snopes spoke with Kristyn Vitale, an expert in animal behavior and cognition at the Oregon State University Human-Animal Interaction Lab, who said that research cannot definitively say why cats are sitting on their owner’s laptop in an attempt to mimic their behavior. Even so, mirroring does seem to be within the cognitive abilities of cats, according to a study published in the journal Animal Cognition. So, while mirroring is a possibility, there is not enough evidence to prove that a cat is sitting on your laptop to be just like you.

But the motivation to sit on a laptop may be different among cats.

“Some cats may sit on the laptop to be closer to their owner, while other cats may sit on the laptop because it is warm or for some other reason,” said Vitale. “Every cat is an individual, so we cannot assume that all cats engage in this behavior for the same reason.”

That being said, Vitale added that it does make sense that a cat would sit on a laptop as a “way to spend time near their owner and seek attention — basically, stop looking at that computer and pay attention to me!”

Despite their antisocial stereotypes, cats have been shown to be highly social animals, many of which prefer human social interaction. Vitale has spent much of her research dedicated to understanding if cats can form social bonds with their humans (yes, they can) and how those bonds are created. Cats are facultatively social, which means that they are flexible in their living situation and can both live solitarily or socially, depending on their environment and life experiences. A 2019 study conducted by Vitale and colleagues that was published in the scientific journal Current Biology found that domestic cats respond to their owners — just like dogs, cats also form bonds with their humans

Other research has found that many cats even prefer social interaction. In one study, Vitale looked at the preference of cats for different types of rewards. Each feline was given a choice between several types of social interactions like food, toys, and scents. At least half of the cat subjects preferred interacting with humans over the other rewards, indicating that social interaction is an important component of a cat’s life.

“If a cat is not getting enough social interaction, they may engage in attention-seeking behavior, such as meowing at the person or approaching the person and spending time near to them,” explained Vitale. “If a person is working on their laptop all day, it makes sense a cat would approach the area where the human spends time as a way to solicit attention from their owner.”

In addition to sitting on laptops, cats exhibit other behaviors that help them express their love for their owner. These include “allogrooming,” which is licking their owner, and allorubbing, which is rubbing up against their owner — both of which are meant to build deeper bonds with their humans.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月18日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

刺梨

刺梨又或者叫缫丝花(Rosa roxburghii),九十月份果实成熟,色泽金黄,表面密布尖刺,简直就像河豚一样。果实去掉尖刺后可以吃,虽然植物分布很广,但产业化开发最成熟的还要属贵州,刺梨饮料、蜜饯、酒等各类产品琳琅满目,有兴趣可以尝试一下。

2020年10月18日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

“他花了他们的血像货币一样的血”:特朗普推动 Falconer 的奇怪反拜登阴谋理论

总统在民意调查中跟随拜登,一再提出毫无根据、煽动性的声称,称拜登策划杀害参与乌萨马·本·拉丹行动的 “海豹队六” 成员。

【原文】

U.S. Election Day is Nov. 3, 2020. Check your state’s vote-by-mail options. Browse our coverage of candidates and the issues. And just keep fact-checking.

Three weeks before Election Day in 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump promoted a gruesome, incoherent, and baseless conspiracy theory that holds that his Democratic opponent Joe Biden had orchestrated the killings of U.S. special forces involved in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

According to the theory, Biden ordered the deaths either to keep the members of “Seal Team Six” from disclosing that the raid was a sham that had killed only bin Laden’s “double,” or as a form of “blood sacrifice” to Iran, in return for the silence of Iranian officials on the “true” nature of the May 2011 operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan. 

Trump’s tweets marked yet another extraordinary departure from the norms of political campaign rhetoric, by a president who trailed his rival by more than 10 points in national polls, and who had previously promoted a tweet that falsely labeled Biden a “pedophile.”

At an NBC town hall event on Oct. 16, host Savannah Guthrie asked Trump why he had promoted the “Seal Team Six” conspiracy theory to his 87 million Twitter followers, to which the president replied, “I know nothing about it, that was a retweet, that was an opinion of somebody, and that was a retweet. I put it out there, people can decide for themselves, I don’t take a position.”

In 2014, as O’Neill was preparing to do a high-profile interview with Fox News, Rear Admiral Brian Losey, head of U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command, and Naval Special Warfare Force Master Michael Magaraci co-signed a letter that contained thinly veiled criticisms of O’Neill and Bissonnette, writing: 

A critical [tenet] of our ethos is “I do not advertise the nature of my work, nor seek recognition for my actions.” Our ethos is a life-long commitment and obligation, both in and out of the Service. Violators of our ethos are neither teammates in good standing, nor teammates who represent Naval Special Warfare. We do not abide willful or selfish disregard for our core values in return for public notoriety and financial gain, which only diminishes otherwise honorable service, courage and sacrifice. 

Although Losey and Magaraci did not name O’Neill and Bissonnette in the letter, the context makes it clear that they were their intended targets, and the letter therefore constitutes de facto confirmation of O’Neill and Bissonnette’s roles in the bin Laden raid. Since O’Neill and Bissonnette are demonstrably still alive, the claim that Biden orchestrated the deaths of Seal Team Six members involved in the Abbottabad mission was demonstrably false. For his part, O’Neill himself responded to Parrot’s claims on Twitter, writing: “Every SEAL from the [bin Laden] mission is alive while you are reading this.”

  • The theory appears to stitch together previously debunked claims, rather than being based on “explosive” new evidence

Snopes asked Parrot to explain how Biden had orchestrated the deaths of Seal Team Six, as well as requesting any evidence he had proving that any member of the bin Laden team was actually dead. Replying by email, Parrot said he was bound by federal law against “misprision of treason,” which makes it a crime to be aware of an act of treason and either conceal it, or fail to disclose it to a state or federal judge, a state governor, or the U.S. president. However, Parrot told Snopes he would be happy to present additional evidence to a congressional committee, “after President Donald J. Trump is reelected.”

In the absence of any explanation or supportive evidence from Parrot, the claim that Biden had arranged for the deaths of Seal Team Six strongly appears to be no more than a rehash of a years-old conspiracy theory that Snopes has already debunked

In May 2011, shortly after the announcement of the bin Laden raid, then-Vice President Joe Biden mentioned in a speech the involvement of Navy SEALs and the CIA in the operation, details that had already been publicly reported in several forums. On that basis, radio personality Jeffrey Kuhner bizarrely accused Biden of deliberately putting Seal Team Six members at risk (even though Biden never mentioned Seal Team Six), and causing the deaths of 15 Seal Team Six members who were killed in Afghanistan in August 2011, when Taliban forces shot down a U.S. Chinook helicopter.

Neither Kuhner, nor anyone else, has ever explained how Biden was personally, directly responsible for the deaths of those Seal Team Six members by being one of several individuals to mention the involvement of Navy SEALs in the bin Laden raid, without specifying the involvement of Seal Team Six, or how anything Biden said or did informed the Taliban of the fact that the helicopter in question had 15 Seal Team Six members on board, along with 23 other U.S. military forces and civilians, all of whom were killed.

The theory has even less credibility when one bears in mind that “Seal Team Six” had nearly 2,000 members, as of 2015, and the SEALs killed in August 2011 were, in any case, widely reported to have come from “Gold Squadron,” and those involved in the bin Laden raid three months earlier were widely reported to have come from “Red Squadron.”

A further nail in the coffin of the theory is the fact that the Taliban shot down the Chinook transport helicopter in the context of a U.S. assault on Taliban forces in the Tangi Valley, in Wardak Province, Afghanistan. To suggest that the Taliban shot down the helicopter specifically or exclusively based on information made public by Biden requires believing not only that they somehow knew it had Seal Team Six members on board, but also that they knew those members had taken part in the bin Laden raid (even though they came from an entirely different squadron within Seal Team Six), and that the Taliban would not have fired upon any U.S. military helicopter in that area at that time because they were under attack. This aspect of the theory is therefore logically incoherent as well as inaccurate. 

Similarly, the claim that the Obama administration had paid $152 billion in order to prevent Iranian officials from disclosing the “truth” behind the Abbottabad raid appears to be based on another, old misrepresentation of the truth already debunked by Snopes. As we reported in January 2019:

The $150 billion figure is an estimate of the value of Iranian assets that were unfrozen as a result of Iran’s agreeing to the terms of the nuclear agreement reached with seven nations in 2015, including the U.S., an agreement formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In other words, Iran gained access to assets that already belonged to them, assets that had been frozen in various financial institutions around the world due to sanctions imposed to curb Iran’s nuclear program. But Iran didn’t get $150 billion in cash, nor did they receive any money at all from U.S. taxpayers — they only regained access to assets that had been frozen in several different countries (not just the U.S.), and the $150 billion figure was merely an upper estimate.

Moreover, that $150 billion figure was the highest estimate of the value of Iran’s frozen assets, with multiple sources reporting much lower figures. For example, Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, supplied written testimony to a U.S. Senate committee in August 2015 stating that U.S. assessment of the total liquid assets Iran would regain control of as a result of the nuclear agreement was “a little more than $50 billion.”

‘I Don’t Take a Position’

Trump’s Oct. 13 retweets constituted a promotion by the president of the United States, to his 87 million followers, of extraordinary, inflammatory and baseless allegations and conspiracy theories, aimed at his electoral rival, to which very few social media users would have been exposed, if not for his interventions. In light of the content of the theories promoted by Trump, it’s worth clarifying his position on certain basic matters of fact and historical record. 

In 2012, the future president stated as fact that Navy SEALS had killed bin Laden, so it’s not clear why, in October 2020, he promoted a conspiracy theory whose key premise was the exact opposite.  

Snopes asked the White House and Trump’s reelection campaign for eight straightforward clarifications. The following is an exact transcript of the questions we asked:

– Does Pres. Trump believe that Osama Bin Laden is dead? Does he believe that he was killed by U.S. forces in Abbottabad, in May 2011?

– Does Pres. Trump accept the official version of events presented by the U.S. government, in relation to the mission to locate and capture/kill Osama Bin Laden? If not, what is his position on what happened?

– Does Pres. Trump believe that former Vice President Biden was responsible for arranging the purported deaths of, or attacks upon, members of Seal Team 6, either in order to secure their silence about the “true” nature of the Abbottabad raid, or as a form of payment or “blood sacrifice” to Iran, in order to preserve Iran’s silence as to the “true” nature of the Abbottabad raid?

– Does Pres. Trump believe that payments made by the Obama administration to Iran were made in return for Iran’s silence on the “true” nature of the Abbottabad raid?

– Does Pres. Trump believe that John Brennan, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or other Obama administration officials, knowingly allowed Osama Bin Laden to be held peacefully, under effective house arrest, in Iran, for several years after the 9/11 attacks?

– Does Pres. Trump believe that Obama administration officials arranged for Osama Bin Laden’s transfer to Pakistan, in order to allow for a later “trophy kill” orchestrated by the Obama administration?

– Does Pres. Trump believe that John Brennan is a Muslim?

– If Pres. Trump, does not believe, support, endorse or agree with the claims made by Parrot and Noe, why did he promote those claims on his Twitter account on Oct. 13?

Remarkably, neither the White House nor the Trump campaign provided a substantive response to any of those questions. 

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.