迷你词

以文会友

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.

2020年10月18日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

“跟踪” 山狮实际上是保护她的幼崽吗?

“这不是好玩,” 犹他州徒步旅行者呼吸地说,他跟着一只美洲狮长达六分钟,令人痛心。

【宣称】

2020 年 10 月,一只 “跟踪” 山狮的视频显示,一位远足者在犹他州碰到她的巢穴后,母狮保护她的幼崽。

【结论】


【原文】

In what one expert called a “hair-raising” experience, a now-viral video recorded in October 2020 captured one Utah man’s experience being followed by a mountain lion — one of the largest predators found in the United States Rocky Mountains — for more than six harrowing minutes.

Snopes readers asked us to verify whether the mountain lion was stalking the hiker in a predatory fashion or, as many social media users pointed out, was in fact protecting her cubs from the perceived threat of the hiker.

Kyle Burgess, the original poster of the video, told the local Fox affiliate station KSTU that he was hiking in the Slate Canyon wilderness area of Utah around 5 p.m. when he came across what he thought were bobcats.

What he encountered turned out to be much more threatening.

“Turns out they were cougar cubs and their mother was not happy to see me. She follows me for over six minutes acting very aggressive while I walk backwards up the trail. Very scary cougar encounter,” wrote Burgess in a post accompanying the YouTube video.

Snopes spoke with Darren DeBloois, game mammals program coordinator with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, who said that the mountain lion’s body language and duration of stalking were likely in response to perceiving a threat to her cubs rather than an attempt at dinner.

“The fact that he ran into kittens first and was then pursued is considered a defensive action,” said DeBloois, adding that Burgess “appeared to do everything right” given the situation by making himself appear larger, louder, and avoiding running.

“Who knows what she would have done if he had turned around and run,” he added.

Mountain lions are known by many names — cougar, puma, panther, and scientifically Puma concolor — and are one of the largest predators of North America, though they range from the Canadian Yukon to the tip of South America, according to the National Wildlife Federation. The Cougar Fund adds that mountain lions give birth to between one and six cubs year-round and are dedicated mothers who spend more than three-quarters of their lives caring for their cubs, making them protective and territorial.

Generally speaking, mountain lions are ambush predators and will stalk their prey under cover of the surrounding landscape until the perfect moment reveals itself, at which point they will pounce and bite the neck of their prey.

DeBloois said that it is apparent the mountain lion did not perceive Burgess as a direct threat and delivered a handful of bluff charges to remind him who was in charge.

“She knew that he knew that she was there and wasn’t going to cross that line – but it could have happened. At any moment, she could have decided that this threat was big enough, and she could have done something more,” said DeBloois.

In North America, the nonprofit advocacy organization Predator Defense reports that cougars have killed 25 people since 1890. Mountain lions rarely attack humans, particularly those traveling in large groups, but human-cougar conflicts have been known to occur. In the event of an attack, experts recommend staying calm and confident, making yourself appear larger and louder while maintaining eye contact. Slowly create distance between yourself and the mountain lion, but never turn your back and walk away. If attacked, fight back.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月17日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

“拍摄你的医院” — COVID-19 阴谋理论的解剖

#FilmYourHospital 运动鼓励人们在看似空虚或不太拥挤的医院录制自己的视频,以证明这一流行病是一个骗局。

【原文】

This article by [AUTHOR NAME(S)] 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.


It’s widely believed that social media conspiracy theories are driven by malicious and anonymous “bots” set up by shadowy third parties. But my new research – which examined an extremely successful COVID-19 conspiracy theory – has shown that ordinary citizen accounts can be just as culpable when it comes to spreading dangerous lies and misinformation.

The pandemic has fuelled at least ten conspiracy theories this year. Some linked the spread of the disease to the 5G network, leading to phone masts being vandalised. Others argued that COVID-19 was a biological weapon. Research has shown that conspiracy theories could contribute to people ignoring social distancing rules.

And other research highlights that explaining flawed arguments and describing scientific consensus may help reduce the effect of misinformation.. Sadly, no matter what procedures and steps are put in place, there will always be people who will believe in conspiracies. The onus must be on the platforms to make sure these theories are not so easily spread.The Conversation


Wasim Ahmed, Lecturer in Digital Business, Newcastle 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17日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

如何 “武器化” 关于投票的误导性叙事:来自特朗普链接 PILF 行动手册的经验教训

利用内部电子邮件、宣誓证词和其他文档,Snopes 能够准确地分解公共利益法律基金会 (PILF) 如何 “生成、创造、组织和武器化” 误导性叙述。

【原文】

In the weeks after Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, his aides began searching for a narrative that could explain why he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton. Stephen Miller, a top aide now known as the driving force behind many of the Trump administration’s most draconian immigration policies, emailed a former Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney named J. Christian Adams. According to an email discussed during testimony compelled in a 2018 defamation lawsuit, this email was terse — the subject line read “vote fraud” and asked only “can you send some info on noncitizen voting.”

On Nov. 26, 2016, Adams responded to Miller by sending a report that his organization — the Public Interest Legal Foundation (or PILF) — had recently published, titled “Alien Invasion in Virginia.” The report alleged — falsely, it would turn out — to have discovered “1046 aliens who registered to vote illegally.” Evidently, this narrative worked for the Trump team. “I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” Trump tweeted the next day. In a second tweet hours later, he highlighted Virginia, New Hampshire, and California as places with significant fraud

That Adams’ work made it so rapidly to Trump’s inner circle is emblematic of PILF’s D.C. access. Adams, according to the same testimony, had “a long history working together” with former Trump 2016 campaign worker John Washburn. But as part of a June 2019 settlement in a defamation case brought by four U.S. citizens who PILF implied were foreigners, LULAC of Richmond V. PILF, PILF was required to insert a disclaimer on its “Alien Invasion” report stating that individuals whom they alleged to be felonious noncitizens “were in fact citizens and that these citizens did not commit felonies.” (In their supporting documents, PILF had gone so far as to include unredacted documents containing these innocent individuals’ home addresses.)

Now, in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election, Trump has a new narrative: Mail-in voting cannot be trusted. PILF remains deeply connected to Trump’s inner circle and has been laser-focused on publishing items that support this narrative. In August, Trump appointed Adams to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and in September, ProPublica reported that a PILF board member was giving closed-door briefings on “election administration” exclusively to Republican election officials. Here, Snopes provides a candid history of the “Alien Invasion” debacle from conception to promotion by drawing on hundreds of discovery documents in the defamation case that PILF’s work spawned. The documents betray an organization as eager to discard evidence that does not fit its narrative as it is to accept —  without any attempt at confirmation — evidence that does.

What is PILF?

PILF, founded by Adams in 2012 as the “ActRight Legal Foundation,” is a purportedly nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization providing, they told the IRS in 2018, “services and representation to states and election officials, non-profit organizations, and individuals, to assist them with the exercise of their civil and constitutional rights, with particular focus on voting rights.” PILF, alongside groups like Judicial Watch, True the Vote, and The Honest Elections Project, belongs to a coterie of nonprofits frequently cited as influential and well-heeled conservative organizations involved in challenging the expansion of mail-in voting in the 2020 election. Each of these organizations is well-connected to the others from financial and personnel standpoints, and all are united by calls for stricter voter ID laws.

Getting bigger numbers appears to have taken precedence over accuracy. In the same email exchange between Adams and his staff celebrating the first report’s placement on Drudge — which ran the headline “1000 plus Illegal Voters in Virginia” — Adams asked if Johnson remembered “our conversation on how important it was to cross the 1000 mark.” In response to a question from a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Johnson answered he believed that Adams, at least in part, meant this to convey to him that “if you get to higher numbers you’re more likely to get media attention.” Johnson did not respond to our request for comment.

It wasn’t only people outside of the project who raised concerns. In the period between “Alien Invasion I” and “Alien Invasion II,” PILF staff and volunteers also acknowledged internally that their data might be falsely identifying actual citizens as “non-citizen voters”

For example, on Oct. 4, 2016, Steven Albertson, the lawyer recruiting local activists for PILF, was informed by one of the potential volunteers, Jordan Labiosa, that a former friend of his was on a cancellation list Albertson sent out. In response, Albertson asked, “Is it possible your friend is one of the accidentals (i.e., those who are citizens but who had trouble with the forms)?” He added that “It’s looking like that’s 10-15% of what we have,” suggesting specific knowledge of false positives in the report. Albertson did not respond to our request for comment.

Adams himself, when apparently joking with Johnson about the fact that someone named George Washington Jr. was on the cancellation list, acknowledged that false positive reports could be used “against us.” Several people involved with PILF also expressed concerns that the data they were in possession of was identifying legal U.S. voters, too.

Step Three: ‘Organize’ Narrative

Organizing the narrative, emails suggest, involved getting PILF staff, volunteers, and allies behind the specific and faulty interpretation of data they were pushing. For people who actually took a close look at the data, their acceptance of that premise was not always a given.

PILF volunteer Keith Damon, for example, was tasked with converting the statewide cancellation reports used in “Alien Invasion II” into database form. He did some quick research on some names on the list, providing two examples of potential citizens in an email to PILF staff. “I now wonder if this is really a list of actual non-citizens or rather a list of people who — via the DMV — apparently indicated that they are non-citizens regardless of their true status,” he wrote to Adams and Virginia Voter Alliance President Reagan George. In response, George wrote back to Damon, claiming that, “There is no way for you and I, or for that matter, Christian to investigate all of these identified non-citizens,” adding, “If you are uncomfortable working on this let me know.” Damon and George did not respond to our requests for comment.

Adams further rationalized the use of the data even when people involved in his project had doubts about it by arguing that their work, even if flawed, would highlight a lack of proper maintenance on Virginia’s rolls. “If the fact a registrant was a citizen, their own system reported otherwise and kicked them off the rolls,” Adams wrote in response to the concerns raised by Damon. “If there are false positives, it’s state data and procedures that made them false positives. That alone makes it imperative to expose even the glitches.”

The final, and perhaps most telling, rationalization for potentially publishing the names and addresses of people they alleged were noncitizens was that, regardless of accuracy, the confusion or pushback on PILF’s work could potentially help PILF further its goal of pushing for election reforms. In response to the discussion of potential false positives in PILF’s datasets, Communications Director Churchwell argued in an email to Adams that the concerns raised by Damon and others “could be true,” but that “we still have an opportunity to convert pushback into official confusion to justify our call for top-down overhaul.” 

“The fog of war favors the aggressor here,” he added.

Step Four: ‘Weaponize’ Narrative

To weaponize its data, PILF pushed its findings to the media with a confidence it apparently lacked itself. In an email to staff while preparing a draft of “Alien Invasion I,” Adams wrote that “the noncitizen lists should be appendixes to the reports and presented as mere facts that these people registered according to public record, and that alien registration is a crime. We should NOT say things like ‘these people are criminals’ or anything approaching that as that could be libelous.” Despite Adams’ voicing of this preference, the final report described the findings as “1046 aliens who registered to vote illegally.” When Adams pitched his report to a booker for “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on Fox Business Network, he stated, according to emails discussed during his deposition, that these 1,046 individuals had “been discovered as verified 100 percent aliens.”

On Oct 3, 2016, Lou Dobbs opened a segment with Adams by telling viewers that “there is a shocking new report out now detailing how Virginia’s election officials are enabling illegal registration and voting by foreign citizens.” PILF and the Virginia Voters Alliance, he reported, had “documented 1,000 non-citizens who were allowed to vote based on official voting records.” In the segment, Adams referred to the individuals identified in PILF’s report as “aliens who got registered to vote” and who had therefore committed felonies. “There should be no surprise that Democrats are registering illegal immigrants, registering foreign nationals to vote,” Dobbs asserted without evidence, while also conflating legal and illegal immigration. “Of course not,” Adams responded.

J. Christian Adams publicizing PILF’s first “Alien Invasion” report on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on Oct. 3, 2016.

Breitbart published an even more conspiratorial take on PILF’s findings on Oct. 3: “Illegal Foreign Voting in Virginia Covered Up by Soros-Backed Democratic Officials, Says Report.” This article, like the Dobbs segment and others, also implied every name uncovered was a noncitizen, and that the people identified were felons. “When an alien registers to vote, it is a felony,” Adams told Breitbart. “When an alien votes, it is multiple felonies. … We name the names of the registered voters removed from the rolls for citizenship problems. Will DOJ prosecute any of them?”

Fox News was the first stop for “Alien Invasion II.” In a promotion of that report for “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” PILF may have betrayed its willingness to use xenophobia as a hook to reach that audience. On May 26, 2017, Adams sent an early copy of PILF’s second “Alien Invasion” report to Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson, according to deposition testimony of PILF litigator Noel Johnson regarding an email chain he was a party to. After securing the primetime slot, Adams recruited PILF employees to go through their files to look for visuals that could be used in the segment.

“Pick ones with outlandish foreign names, particularly Middle Eastern if they exist,” Adams told Johnson. “The more outlandish the handwriting the better. The more obviously foreign the better,” he added, clarifying that “the degree of outlandishness in the name is just as important as whether they voted.” Adams did not respond to our question regarding why he wanted Middle Eastern names.

“I assume I don’t need to explain this in further detail,” he wrote to Johnson.

On the May 30, 2017, Carlson segment (which did not use the visuals Adams sought), Adams asserted that the way these “aliens” got on the cancellation lists was that they lied on their initial voter-registration forms, but then, in a change of heart, told the truth while at the DMV and re-registered later on. Despite being told by several elections officials that many of the people on these lists got there as a result of failure to return a notice within 14 days of making a mistake while completing DMV paperwork, Adams did not mention this possibility.

“The assumption,” Carlson declared in response and without evidence, “is that these people are voting Democrat by and large.”

It bears repeating that the records PILF received determined neither citizenship nor party affiliation.

Present-Day PILF

PILF settled the defamation claims made as a result of the “Alien Invasion” series of reports. “Mr. Adams and his organization agreed to settle the case after it was revealed that they had received warnings from elections officials, and even from one of their own volunteers, that they were making false representations regarding the Virginia election records underlying their publications,” the nonprofit group Protect Democracy, one of three groups that filed the suit on the citizens’ behalf, wrote in a July 17, 2019, news release.

As part of the settlement, according to Protect Democracy, Adams was required to provide written apologies to the plaintiffs “on behalf of himself and PILF.” PILF was required to delete the exhibits that named alleged noncitizen voters, append a disclaimer to them acknowledging that “individuals in [the removed exhibits] were in fact citizens and that these citizens did not commit felonies,” and agree to “robust redactions of personally identifying information” if they ever published anything in the state of Virginia again.

We asked Adams how the American public could trust PILF given its actions during the creation and promotion of the “Alien Invasion” series. His response echoed many of the same rationalizations PILF discussed internally: deflecting blame toward Virginia and characterizing PILF’s work as a success on the grounds that it highlighted general problems with voter-roll maintenance in Virginia.

“Regarding the case you mention,” Adams wrote to Snopes in response, “I am pleased to say that case settled. There was no finding of any liability by the court and unfortunately Virginia election officials never apologized for knocking citizens off the rolls improperly or for publishing documents saying the plaintiffs were ‘declared noncitizens,'” adding that “we sought to protect citizens from improper removal.” 

This is a far cry from how the “Alien Invasion” project was billed in the early days of 2016 and 2017. The goal then, according to volunteer Steven Alberston’s pitch, was “to positively influence” prosecutors in various Virginia counties “to take action against documented cases of non-citizen voting.” On PJ Media, Adams wrote an article promoting “Alien Invasion II” that ended with a call to action for “law enforcement personnel” to click a link to the report’s exhibits. According to deposition testimony in which the document was discussed, Adams told PILF staff that he wanted to put his findings “in the hands of the DOJ lawyer who would prosecute these people,” adding that this person, a DOJ attorney named Mark Lytle then working in the Eastern District of Virginia, “is a friend of mine.”

Adams, in his response to our request for comment, told us that since the work with the “Alien Invasion” series, he and PILF “have relied on data-driven analysis of voter rolls, not merely on what government documents say about aliens. Our conclusions are reached using a methodology that relies on a range of robust data, not merely government reports.” It is not entirely clear, however, that this is always necessarily the case. 

In April 2020, for example, PILF published a news release that claimed in part that data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission — a government agency —  showed that “more than one million ballots went to [the] wrong address in 2018.” In this case, PILF defined a “missing ballot” as one that was sent to an address and returned as undeliverable, something election experts describe as a misleading way to refer to ballots from states that in some cases proactively sent out ballots to every voter on their rolls. No other non-government agency data were cited, and the statement was false, as ProPublica first reported

“Taken at face value,” ProPublica wrote in May 2020, “that would represent a 91% increase over the number of undeliverable mail ballots in 2016.” The truth, as they pointed out, was that “the number of undeliverable mail ballots dropped slightly from 2016 to 2018.” In reality, the number of “missing ballots” did not “nearly double” in 2018. It was actually PILF itself that had doubled the number (quite literally) in what it later characterized as an error. PILF deleted that portion of the news release and replaced it, but nevertheless, it didn’t change PILF’s broader conclusions, Churchwell told ProPublica.

That these types of errors have not prevented PILF from continuing to generate viral stories on Breitbart, or their staff and allies from obtaining high-profile government jobs, is not necessarily a testament to the quality of PILF’s work. It is likely a testament to the power of a deep bench of political and media connections and of exaggerated or sensationalized talking points. A good case study follows the publication of “Alien Invasion I.” At the time, the report was disseminated amongst an elite group of GOP activists and lobbyists and reached all the way to the inbox of Virginia Thomas — the wife of current U. S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Describing the report as “superb,” Virginia Thomas, a longtime political activist, forwarded a summary of its findings to representatives of myriad communications firms or media outlets, including CRC Communications — a favorite of some of the same conservative groups involved in funding PILF’s efforts. “Could signs be made and placed at as many polling places in VA, listing the laws people may break if they do voter fraud???” she asked.

Adams, skeptical of Thomas’ suggestion, responded that such an action would not be possible “without unleashing a leftist whirlwind” of claims about voter intimidation that “will JUICE leftwing turnout.” This fear of left-wing voter turnout is, of course, in stark contrast to the response Adams gave The New York Times Magazine in an October 2020 investigation into how “false claims of voter fraud is being used to disenfranchise Americans.” “This is all in earnest,” he said. “We’re not doing this because we’re trying to help somebody win an election.”

Earnest or not, the organization has access to powerful people, and this access appears to be increasing as the U.S. approaches the 2020 presidential election. Following Adam’s August 2020 appointment to the U.S. Commission on Human Rights, one of the first things that body did was shelve a report “analyzing threats to minority voting rights during the coronavirus pandemic.”  The document reportedly included several recommendations nearly ready for publication.

People peripherally involved in the “Alien Invasion” saga have since gained Trump-appointed government positions as well. Two of the people Adams cited as alerting him to the existence of the DMV cancellation records used for the “Alien Invasion” reports — Cameron Quinn and Don Palmer — now hold Trump-appointed government positions. Quinn was appointed by Trump to be an “Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties” at the Department of Homeland Security, and Palmer is currently the commissioner of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, appointed by Trump in 2019.

Mark Lytle, the person at the DOJ that Adams sent both of PILF’s “Alien Invasion” reports to, has also taken on high-profile positions at the DOJ. In February 2019, Lytle was assigned by the DOJ to be associate counsel to Trump, and in October 2020, according to his LinkedIn profile, Lytle was appointed to a new role: associate deputy attorney general. The latter is a senior staff position that reports to the deputy attorney general, and only eight people (according to 2018 documentation) at the DOJ hold that title. The DOJ did not respond to our request for a confirmation of that appointment. We asked Lytle about the accuracy of Adams’ testimony and if Lytle’s new role included any work related to voter fraud or election-integrity issues, but he did not respond to our request for comment.

Like the information about PILF’s methods unearthed in the “Alien Invasion” debacle, the existence of these political, activist, and media connections is vitally important to note when assessing the information that originates from PILF. It is a lot easier for a group to be taken seriously in the face of repeated mistakes when it has allies across the government, unfettered access to conservative media outlets, funding from well-heeled conservative groups, and a presidential administration hungry for a narrative the organization happens to be providing.

The Fog of 2020

The president and his allies have indicated a willingness — even an intent — to challenge the validity of votes cast by mail. “Hopefully the Courts will stop this scam!” Trump tweeted in August 2020 about the prospect of widespread mail-in voting. “Some Trump allies say their best bet is to hope that the results look close on election night, before some of the mail-in ballots are counted, allowing Trump to declare victory and have the results thrown to the courts,” the Associated Press reported on Oct. 12, 2020.

Claims of impropriety, fraud, and subterfuge leveled across both sides of the aisle will likely come in the run-up to, and aftermath of, the 2020 general election. If and when those claims originate from a group whose research and communications director considers “confusion” and “fog of war” acceptable outcomes of their “non-partisan” analysis, skepticism is more than warranted.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月17日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

谁真正击败了伊斯兰国家 — 奥巴马还是特朗普?

客观的历史记录,奥巴马总统发动并监督了大部分胜利的战争,现任总统声称自己。

【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.


One common claim by President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign has been that his administration beat IS, or what’s formally known as the Islamic State terrorist group.

It came up most recently in the vice presidential debate, when Mike Pence boasted, “We destroyed the ISIS caliphate. … You know when President Trump came into office, ISIS had captured an area of the Middle East the size of Pennsylvania. President Trump unleashed the American military, and our armed forces destroyed the ISIS caliphate and took down their leader al-Baghdadi without one American casualty.”

Under Obama, the Islamic State also lost its backup headquarters city, the Libyan town of Sirte.

Trump’s claims of conquering “almost 100% [of the Islamic State] … since our election” are false. Objective history records that Obama launched and oversaw much of the victorious war that the current president claims for himself.The Conversation


Brian Glyn Williams, Professor of Islamic History, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

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17日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

不,达斯汀 “尖叫” 钻石没有在监狱暴乱中丧生

标记为讽刺的内容的例行审查。

【宣称】

达斯汀钻石,最出名的是他的角色作为塞缪尔 “尖叫” 权力在电视连续剧 “救了贝尔”,被杀害在监狱暴乱。

【结论】

带有讽刺标签

【原文】

On Oct. 4, 2020, the Ringsssss website published an article positing that actor Dustin Diamond, best known for his role as Samuel “Screech” Powers in the TV series “Saved by the Bell,” had been killed in a prison riot:

Saved By The Bell’s, Dustin “Screech” Diamond Killed In Prison Riot At Age 43

Dustin “Screech” Diamond (43), was finishing up a 15 year sentence for a stabbing that happened after someone criticized his comedic skills and heckled him at a comedy club, when he was tragically struck down in prison resulting in his death.

With 2 months left to serve, Diamond was looking forward to getting home in time for the holidays, when on Saturday October 3, 2020 a riot broke out in the wing he resided. Dustin heard a commotion and leaned out his cell to seem what was going on. A rush of prisoners were coming his way. “Suddenly Diamond was on the ground bleeding profusely and non responsive to medical attention”, says warden Mark MacDouglas.

This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated with a website that describes its output as being humorous or satirical in nature, as follows: “Ringssss is a fabricated satirical newspaper and comedy website. Ringsssss uses invented names in all its stories, except in cases when public figures are being satirized.”

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16日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

贵阳梅花草

贵州的一处天坑地缝内,贵阳梅花草(Parnassia petitmenginii)开在阴湿岩壁上。莲座状叶丛中抽出精巧白色小花。花朵有10枚雄蕊,其中5枚转化为黄色蜜腺,吸引昆虫;另外5枚则随着花朵成熟慢慢打开。等到雄蕊花粉散尽后,中央的柱头才成熟,这样可以避免自花授粉。

2020年10月16日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

攀爬得那么努力,站得那么高,又怎能不为这一抹紫色驻足呢?

作者简介:一手画笔一手花,坐标广西。园林专业,从小深爱植物与自然,期待能一直从事植物相关工作,世间唯有美花与美食不可辜负,微博@一手画笔一手花

秋高气爽,去山上转悠,这时节最耀眼的野花,便是串串紫色的葛(Pueraria montana)了。


葛,豆科葛属粗壮藤本,在我国云南、四川、广西、湖北、贵州等地广泛分布,别名葛藤、野葛、葛麻姆,攀援覆盖能力极强,遇墙爬墙,遇石盖石,遇树上树,好好的一株桂花,硬是被它劈头盖脸铺上了一层被子,毫无拒绝的余地,就像天冷被奶奶强制穿上的秋裤,于是本应香飘十里的桂花,现却一身藤蔓、头顶紫花。


葛的茎上有着细密黄色长硬毛,叶色也带着黄色的基调,新叶嫩黄,老叶带暗黄,羽状复叶具3小叶,小叶或三裂、或全缘,叶背有白霜。


葛花期9-10月,总状花序或圆锥花序,花多而密,站在众多大树的肩膀上,一串串的紫色铺展在天上地下,这借力上天的本事,使其于众多小野花中脱颖而出。花朵旗瓣倒卵形,基部一点黄色为点睛之笔,对比色让花儿更加灵动起来。地上也都是星星点点的紫色落花,烂漫可爱,拾起一朵,抓住这个会蹬鼻子上脸的小坏蛋。


葛那么能长,自然也不是白长的,可以应用在方方面面。葛茎皮纤维可用于织布和造纸,葛根有药用和食用价值,可以冲泡食用的葛根粉便是来自此类植物的块根提取淀粉,虽然我觉得不如藕粉好吃,但也是有其独特风味及营养价值。


攀爬得那么努力,站得那么高,又怎能不为这一抹紫色驻足呢?


作者:一手画笔一手花

图片:一手画笔一手

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16日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

可怕的扎人草

与自然爱好者一起出门,聊着聊着,话题总会跑到荨麻、蚂蟥、蜱虫这些东西上。对于一个没有对野外抱敬畏之心的人来说,这三样东西就是自然要给他的上第一课。


这三样东西中,蚂蟥和蜱虫比较野,一般只有较原始的环境中有。荨麻作为一种植物就常见太多了,景区、公园、绿地里都可能有。

荨麻上的刺

这里的荨麻,指一系列的荨麻科”扎人草“,主要是荨麻属(Urtica L.)和蝎子草属(Girardinia Gaudich.)的成员。它们的茎、叶上长着骇人的针刺,如果凑近看,可以发现刺是中空透明的。刺中间填充的是荨麻毒液,可以让人的皮肤产生灼烧一般的疼痛,往往需要一整天才能缓解。大部分人对此还会过敏,起疹子,与医学上的荨麻疹症状相似。


荨麻、火麻、蝎子草、蝎麻、辣刺麻、咬人猫…… 它们的称呼,就和它们的种类一样多,和它们的分布地一样多。

西湖边的裂叶荨麻


在杭州西湖的龙井、九溪一带,溪水边遍布的是裂叶荨麻,”制裁“着那些不好好走在步道上的游客。


四川的“火麻”

在云贵川,”火麻“——大蝎子草埋伏在路边,拍植物的我已经中了好几次招。


青藏高原和内蒙草原上,各种各样的荨麻,这儿一丛那儿一丛,牛羊也要避退。

这些”扎人草“教育了我,自然野地绝不是我家客厅,不做防备是要吃苦头的。

草原上不知道什么种的荨麻

所幸只要多长个心眼,在被扎之前认出荨麻们并非难事。除了最显眼的毒刺外,它们的叶片大都毛毛躁躁的、不光滑,有着不规则的叶缘和叶裂。而要区分荨麻属和蝎子草属,主要是看叶片的生长方式,荨麻属叶片对生,而蝎子草属互生。


不过令我吃惊的是,即使是如荨麻们这样全副武装的植物,也难逃被人吃的命运。我在内蒙吃的野菜包子,在贵川喝的野菜汤,居然都是用荨麻做的。问了问当地人,要采摘荨麻吃,一般要趁着刺还没长好,采嫩芽,当然如果做好防护也可以采成熟叶片。烹饪煮熟后的荨麻一般是无害的,吃起来不会有任何不适。茎叶上残留的尖刺还是挺吓人。

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16日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

选举投票失败的特殊目录

这个问题在几乎每次美国总统选举中都会出现,即使在今年的比赛中:投票会错吗?

【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.


The question looms in nearly every U.S. presidential election, even in this year’s race: Could the polls be wrong? If they are, they likely will err in unique fashion. The history of election polling says as much.

That history tells of no greater polling surprise than what happened in 1948, when President Harry Truman defied the polls, the pundits and the press to defeat Thomas E. Dewey, his heavily favored Republican foe.

In 1936, the Digest employed the same methodology that had served it so well. After sending 10 million postcard ballots and tabulating the 2.3 million returned from around the country, the Digest reported that Republican Alf Landon was bound for a comfortable victory over President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Landon ended up carrying two states – Maine and Vermont – and lost the popular vote by 24 percentage points. Roosevelt’s victory was one of the most lopsided in presidential election history.

That also was the year Gallup, Crossley and Elmo Roper initiated their election polls, which relied on smaller samples than the Digest. With varying degrees of accuracy, all three newcomers in 1936 signaled Roosevelt’s victory.

The Digest’s debacle offers an enduring reminder that the roots of polling failure run deep. The stunning miscall occurred at the dawn of modern survey research and introduced a nagging sense about polling’s potential to mislead.

After all, if the great election oracle of its time could err so spectacularly, why would other polls be immune to failure?

The answer: They weren’t, and aren’t, immune.The Conversation


W. Joseph Campbell, Professor of Communication Studies, American University School of Communication

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16日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

据称亨特·拜登的笔记本电脑是如何从特拉华州的一家维修店到纽约邮报的?

新闻报道确认该硬盘驱动器的来源是特拉华州的计算机维修店所有者。

【原文】

With just over two weeks to go until the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the New York Post published a story that was lauded by right-leaning media and political figures as a “bombshell” and criticized by others as disinformation resurfacing an old method of political attack.

The story was based around contents found on the hard drive of a laptop that had allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden, the son of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. Citing emails found on the hard drive, the Post reported it had a “smoking gun” proving that the elder Biden had met with a Ukrainian energy firm executive while Hunter sat on the board of that firm.

The Post claimed to have confirmed a long-running line of political attack against Biden — namely that Biden had used his position as vice president in the Obama administration to benefit Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company, while his son sat on the board.

However, the Post’s “smoking gun” email doesn’t prove that Biden met with the Burisma executive on behalf of his son, and Biden’s campaign has denied any such meeting ever took place. Many noted that the story raised more questions than it answered.

Below, we unpack what we know.

An Old Political Attack

The New York Post story played on an allegation originally raised to counter those made against Trump in an impeachment inquiry.

Trump was accused of attempting to strong-arm Ukraine’s president into producing damaging information on Biden by withholding crucial military aid. Trump was ultimately impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, but the Republican-controlled Senate voted acquit him without calling witnesses or admitting new evidence. Trump and his supporters countered by turning Ukraine corruption allegations on Biden, stating that as vice president, Biden had pressured the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor so the prosecutor couldn’t investigate Burisma while his son sat on the company’s board.

The New York Post article resurfaced a 2018 statement made by Biden which has been widely taken out of context to show “proof” of that corruption: “I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” Biden stated. “Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”

Biden wasn’t admitting to pressuring Ukraine to fire a prosecutor looking into his son’s firm, however. He was describing efforts by the Obama administration to stamp out government corruption in Ukraine, which included getting rid of an ineffective prosecutor. An investigation by Senate Republicans into Biden’s activities as vice president in relation to Ukraine concluded in 2020 without finding any evidence of wrongdoing.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月16日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

投票工作人员可以通过写下选票来宣布选票无效吗?

一个毫无根据的说法在社交媒体上变成了病毒,引起了对选民欺诈行为的毫无根据的恐惧。

【宣称】

南卡罗来纳州默特尔比奇的民意调查工作人员接受了标记选票的培训,以便使选票无效。

【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, a piece of text supposedly written by a person who had just “finished poll manager training” was copied and pasted across social media. The text warned readers to be on the lookout as they cast their votes in the upcoming presidential election for poll workers who might write something on their ballots such as a star, a checkmark, a letter, etc. This, according to the viral message, would invalidate their vote. 

One popular early version of this text claimed that this recently trained poll manager was stationed in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina:

****Myrtle Beach Pay Attention*** Just finished Poll Manager training! I passed all the classes. I want you all to know something…if you are checking in at the polls and they happen to write anything on your ballot…a letter, a checkmark, a star, any writing of any kind…please request a new ballot. Your ballot will not be counted if it is written on. Please be on the lookout for this type of behavior. I know someone in Myrtle Beach who asked me about this during the primaries and I did not understand what it might have meant. Now I know. It disqualifies your ballot. BE ON GUARD!!! 

This claim, in general, is unfounded. Poll workers have practically no reason to mark ballots, and in the rare instance where they might, this would not invalidate a person’s vote. 

A spokesperson for the Maryland State Board of Elections provided a similar statement, explaining that poll workers in that state would have little reason to ever mark (or even be momentarily in possession of) a person’s ballot, but if it did occur, it would not invalidate that person’s vote. The spokesperson also explained some of the security measures that are in place to ensure a person’s vote gets counted:

A poll worker should never have possession of a voter’s voted ballot. If a poll worker ever did have a voter’s voted ballot and made a mark, it would not disqualify the ballot. It’s possible that the mark could impact the ballot’s ability to be scanned, but the voter would be present when the scanner rejected it and the voter would be issued a replacement ballot to vote.

The only time a poll worker may write on a voted ballot is if the voter made a mistake on the ballot and needed a replacement ballot. The poll worker instructs the voter to “overvote” every contest on the ballot and write “Spoiled” on the ballot, but if the voter didn’t write “spoiled” on the ballot, the poll worker may need to write it. This is unlikely to occur as the poll worker is with the voter and instructing the voter on each step.

A spokesperson for Maine’s Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions told us: “The State of Maine does not reject ballots because of a stray mark on the ballot.”

North Carolina’s representative also confirmed that a poll worker writing on a person’s ballot would “absolutely not” cause that vote to be rejected. However, it is commonplace (in fact, it’s required), for a poll worker to mark a ballot. The spokesperson explained that poll workers in North Carolina must write the voter’s “one-stop” number on their ballot, saying: 

In North Carolina, poll workers must write the voter’s one-stop (OS) number on the ballot. This is part of the process in NC that allows us to retrieve ballots if challenged, etc. They also write the voter’s precinct on the ballot so that one-stop early voting ballots can be sorted back into the proper precincts after the election for reporting and data purposes. Early voters can cast their ballot at any early voting site in their county.

In short, this text does not appear to have originated with a person who recently completed poll-manager training, and the vast majority of people sharing this message are doing so without any firsthand knowledge of this issue. It should also be noted that poll workers have practically no reason to write on a person’s ballot. In the rare circumstance where it is warranted, this would not invalidate a person’s ballot. 

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月16日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

特朗普是否说他提名艾米·科尼·巴雷特因为她的长相?

“我认为艾米比我们所拥有的女性好得多,” 特朗普据说他的最高法院提名人说。

【宣称】

美国总统唐纳德·特朗普表示,他提名艾米·科尼·巴雷特到最高法院,因为她 “比我们所拥有的女性好得多”。

【结论】


【原文】

In October 2020, as the U.S. Senate began confirmation hearings for U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court opening created after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, social media users began circulating a bit of text purportedly reproducing Trump’s explanation to reporters about why he had chosen Barrett:

The gist of this supposed Trumpian word salad was, “It’s important that the Supreme Court have a good image, so I nominated Amy Coney Barrett because she’s a good-looking woman”:

“Well, you know you have to look at what we have said in the court. I think, I think it’s important that they have a good image, they need a terrific image, so people will see they can believe me. I’m not saying any names, but you look at those people, and they are not that nice, not nice to look at, not at all. I think Amy is much, much better looking than the women we have had. I think people know this, they know. If people are more attractive, they get a fantastic amount of respect, and we need to have that now. That I can tell you.”

However, we found no source outside of this meme itself that reported or documented Trump’s having said any such thing. Neither these words nor anything like them appeared in any news stories, in any transcripts of Trump’s speeches or press events, or in his Twitter feed (including since-deleted tweets).

When Trump announced Barrett as his nominee on September 26, 2020, he referenced her academic credentials, legal experience, and qualifications, but he said nothing about her physical appearance or the need for the court to project a “good image”:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I stand before you today to fulfill one of my highest and most important duties under the United States Constitution: the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. (Applause.) This is my third such nomination after Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh. And it is a very proud moment indeed.

Over the past week, our nation has mourned the loss of a true American legend. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a legal giant and a pioneer for women. Her extraordinary life and legacy will inspire Americans for generations to come.

Now we gather in the Rose Garden to continue our never-ending task of ensuring equal justice and preserving the impartial rule of law.

Today, it is my honor to nominate one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court. She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution: Judge Amy Coney Barrett. (Applause.)

We’re also joined by Amy’s husband, Jesse — thank you, Jesse, very much — and their seven beautiful children. Congratulations to you all. A very special day.

With us as well are the First Lady — thank you, First Lady — (applause) — along with Vice President Mike Pence and his amazing wife, Karen. Thank you very much, Mike. (Applause.)

Judge Barrett is a graduate of Rhodes College and the University of Notre Dame Law School. At Notre Dame, she earned a full academic scholarship, served as the Executive Editor of the Law Review, graduated first in her class, and received the law school’s award for the best record of scholarship and achievement.

Upon graduation, she became a clerk for Judge Laurence Silberman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Amy then received one of the highest honors a young lawyer could have, serving as a clerk on the Supreme Court for Justice Antonin Scalia. A highly — (applause) — a very highly respected law professor at Notre Dame wrote to Justice Scalia with a one-sentence recommendation: “Amy Coney is the best student I ever had.” That’s pretty good. (Laughter.) Justice Scalia hired her shortly thereafter.

And we are honored to have his wonderful wife, Maureen — where is Maureen? Maureen Scalia — with us today. (Applause.) Thank you. And our great Secretary of Labor, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. (Applause.) Very good genes in that family, I will say. Very good genes.

Before joining the bench, Judge Barrett spent 15 years as a Professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School. She was renowned for her scholarship, celebrated by her colleagues, and beloved by her students. Three times, she was selected at Notre Dame, Distinguished Professor of the Year.

When I nominated Judge Barrett to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2017, every law clerk from her time at the Supreme Court endorsed her and endorsed her nomination, writing, quote, “We are Democrats, Republicans, and independents…yet we write to support the nomination of Professor Barrett to be a Circuit Judge…Professor Barrett is a woman of remarkable intellect and character. She is eminently qualified for the job.”

And I can tell you, I did that too. I looked and I studied, and you are very eminently qualified for this job. You are going to be fantastic. Thank you. (Applause.) Really fantastic.

The entire Notre Dame Law facility and faculty, everybody — everybody at that school also — we got so many letters — also wrote letters of support of Amy’s nomination to the Seventh Circuit. They wrote, in effect: “Despite our differences, we unanimously agree that our constitutional system depends upon an independent judiciary staffed by talented people devoted to the fair and impartial administration of the rule of law. And we unanimously agree that Amy is such a person.”

For the last three years, Judge Barrett has served with immense distinction on the federal bench. Amy is more than a stellar scholar and judge; she is also a profoundly devoted mother. Her family is a core part of who Amy is. She opened her home and her heart, and adopted two beautiful children from Haiti. Her incredible bond with her youngest child, a son with Down Syndrome, is a true inspiration.

If confirmed, Justice Barrett will make history as the first mother of school-aged children ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s good. (Applause.)

To her children Emma, Vivian, Tess, John Peter, Liam, Juliet, and Benjamin, thank you for sharing your incredible mom with our country. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Amy Coney Barrett will decide cases based on the text of the Constitution as written. As Amy has said, “Being a judge takes courage. You are not there to decide cases as you may prefer. You are there to do your duty and to follow the law wherever it may take you.” That is exactly what Judge Barrett will do on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I want to thank the members of the Senate. We have so many of them here today. Thank you very much. I see you in the audience, and you’re so proud. But I want to thank you for your commitment and to providing a fair and timely hearing. I know it will be that.

Judge Barrett was confirmed to the Circuit Court three years ago by a bipartisan vote. Her qualifications are unsurpassed — unsurpassed — and her record is beyond reproach. This should be a straightforward and prompt confirmation. It should be very easy. Good luck. (Laughter.) It’s going to be very quick. I’m sure it’ll be extremely non-controversial. We said that the last time, didn’t we? Well, thank you all very much, and thank you for being here. That’s really great. Thank you. (Applause.)

I further urge all members of the other side of the aisle to provide Judge Barrett with the respectful and dignified hearing that she deserves and, frankly, that our country deserves. I urge lawmakers and members of the media to refrain from personal or partisan attacks.

And the stakes for our country are incredibly high. Rulings that the Supreme Court will issue in the coming years will decide the survival of our Second Amendment, our religious liberty, our public safety, and so much more.

To maintain security, liberty, and prosperity, we must preserve our priceless heritage of a nation of laws, and there is no one better to do that than Amy Coney Barrett.

Law and order is the foundation of the American system of justice. No matter the issue, no matter the case before her, I am supremely confident that Judge Barrett will issue rulings based solely upon a fair reading of the law. She will defend the sacred principle of equal justice for citizens of every race, color, religion, and creed.

Congratulations again to Judge Barrett. I know that you will make our country very, very proud.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.

2020年10月16日
发表者 minici
暂无评论

艾米·科尼·巴雷特说 “被称为 N 字并不构成敌意的工作环境” 吗?

Barrett 在 2019 年为一个三名法官的一致审判小组写信,支持一名黑人员工驳回一项工作场所歧视诉讼,他声称自己被一名上司称为种族主义者。

【宣称】

法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特,谁在 2020 年被提名为美国最高法院,曾经宣布,“被称为 N 字并不构成一个敌对的工作环境。”

【结论】

混合物

【原文】

In October 2020, as the U.S. Senate began confirmation hearings for U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court opening created after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, social media users began circulating a bit of text purportedly reproducing a quotation from Barrett in which she declared that “Being called the N-word does not constitute a hostile work environment”:

Although this statement is directly related to an opinion Barrett wrote while sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2019, it is not a direct quotation from what she wrote. In addition, it simplifies more complex reasoning from a legal case in a way that is potentially misleading.

In Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation, plaintiff Terry Smith, a Black Illinois transportation employee, brought a workplace discrimination lawsuit charging that the department had subjected him to a hostile work environment and fired him in retaliation for his complaints about racial discrimination. Smith lost his case in district court and appealed to the circuit court on which Barrett sat, where a three-judge panel (including Barrett) unanimously upheld the district court’s ruling:

During his probationary employment period, Smith challenged and failed to follow directions, was confrontational, engaged in unsafe conduct, and received unsatisfactory evaluations. He filed internal and union complaints, alleging abusive language, docking his hours, and racial discrimination. The Illinois Department of Transportation discharged Smith. Smith sued the Department under Title VII, arguing that it had subjected him to a hostile work environment and fired him in retaliation for his complaints about racial discrimination … Given the extensive evidence that Smith was not meeting his employer’s legitimate expectations, a reasonable jury could not find that the Department fired him because of his protected activity rather than for his poor performance nor could a reasonable jury have resolved the hostile work environment claim in Smith’s favor.

One of incidents Smith included in his case as evidence of his allegedly being subjected to race-based harassment that created a hostile work environment was his claim that a former supervisor named Lloyd Colbert called him the N-word.

Barrett dismissed that claim in her opinion, but not by flatly stating that “Being called the n-word does not constitute a hostile work environment.” Barrett’s point was much more nuanced. According to Barrett, at the time Smith said he was called “stupid ass n******” by a former supervisor, his relationship with his supervisors had long since become a contentious one for a multitude of reasons, and that single incident was not sufficient to support a claim of a racially-hostile work environment:

Because Smith introduced no evidence that his supervisors swore at him because he was black, the profanity that he describes does not establish a hostile work environment under Title VII.

Smith describes one incident, however, that plainly constitutes race-based harassment: Colbert, one of his former supervisors, called Smith a “stupid ass ni[]” after finding out that Smith had filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity office. The n-word is an egregious racial epithet. Nichols v. Mich. City Plant Planning Dep’t, 755 F.3d 594, 601 (7th Cir. 2014) (“[W]hile there is no ‘magic number of slurs’ that indicates a hostile work environment, an ‘unambiguously racial epithet falls on the more severe end of the spectrum.’” (citation omitted)). That said, Smith can’t win simply by proving that the word was uttered. He must also demonstrate that Colbert’s use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment. Huri, 804 F.3d at 834. And he must make this showing “from both a subjective and an objective point of view.” EEOC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 903 F.3d 618, 625 (7th Cir. 2018). In other words, he must show not only that a reasonable person would find the workplace hostile or abusive as a result of Colbert’s slur, but also that he himself perceived it that way. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787 (1998).

We need not address the objective prong of the analysis, because Smith falters on the subjective prong. He introduced no evidence that Colbert’s use of the n-word changed his subjective experience of the workplace. To be sure, Smith testified that his time at the Department caused him psychological distress. But that was for reasons that predated his run-in with Colbert and had nothing to do with his race. His tenure at the Department was rocky from the outset because of his poor track record. He clashed with his supervisors over pay, and they confronted him with foul language. As early as August — the first month of his employment — he sent memoranda to the Department complaining of a “hostile work environment.” On Smith’s own account, his supervisors made him miserable throughout his employment at the Department. But as we have already discussed, he has no evidence that his supervisors were lashing out at him because he was black.

Thus, Barrett’s reasoning might be more accurately paraphrased as, “Being called the N-word does not necessarily in itself constitute a hostile work environment.”

The Associated Press noted that one of Barrett’s likely soon-to-be colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, had reasoned quite differently several years earlier:

A possible colleague of Barrett’s took a different view on racial slurs in 2013. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, then serving as a federal appeals court judge in Washington, D.C, said one utterance was enough. “But, in my view, being called the n-word by a supervisor … suffices by itself to establish a racially hostile work environment. That epithet has been labeled, variously, a term that ‘sums up … all the bitter years of insult and struggle in America,’ ‘pure anathema to African-Americans,’ and ’probably the most offensive word in English,” Kavanaugh wrote. “No other word in the English language so powerfully or instantly calls to mind our country’s long and brutal struggle to overcome racism and discrimination against African-Americans. In short, the case law demonstrates that a single, sufficiently severe incident may create a hostile work environment actionable” under federal anti-discrimination laws.

Snopes.com
Since 1994
Help Supercharge Snopes For 2020

We have big plans. We need your help.