Elevate the height of the pie!
Claim:  "Make the Pie Higher!" poem is composed of actual quotes from George W. Bush.  Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] MAKE THE PIE HIGHERby George W. Bush  I think we all agree, the past is over.This is still a dangerous world.It's a world of madmen and uncertaintyand potential mental losses.  Rarely is the question askedIs our children learning?Will the highways of the Internet become more few?How many hands have I shaked?  They misunderestimate me.I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.  Put food on your family!Knock down the tollbooth!Vulcanize society!Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher! Origins:  We certainly didn't need to write a piece to inform the world that, like his father, President George W. Bush is not a strong public speaker.  Particularly when speaking   extemporaneously, he often uses words similar in sound but different in meaning to what he intends tosay (e.g., "vulcanize" for "Balkanize") or uses incorrect forms of words (e.g., "resignate" for "resonate"), garbles familiar phrases by transposing words (e.g., "where wings take dream"), and makes a variety of grammatical mistakes (e.g., "how many hands have I shaked").  The point here was not to rehash the numerous lists of "Bushisms" to be found in a variety of media, but to perform a sort of investigative experiment into the accuracy of information transmission in the Internet age. A common phenomenon in the world of the printed word is that once a public figure  whether he be an athlete such a Yogi Berra, an entertainment figure such as Samuel Goldwyn, or a politician such as Dan Quayle  acquires a reputation for spouting malapropisms, people quickly begin to put words into his mouth. All sorts of humorous misuses of words and phrases that sound like something that person might have said are soon attributed to him as something he "really said"; newspapers run the erroneous quotes without verification and are later cited as documented proof of their veracity, thereby enshrining apocrypha as  fact. Only when someone undertakes the chore of trying to track the quotes back to their sources are the misattributions discovered, usually far too late to dislodge them from the public consciousness. So, we thought we'd tackle a project to see whether the increased availability of information in the Internet age has had any effect on this phenomenon; whether quotes are less likely to be misattributed when nearly every utterance of a public figure as prominent as a presidential candidate is recorded and stored in one form or another.  As a test example, we chose the "Make the Pie Higher!" piece reproduced above (generally credited to "Washington Post writer Richard Thompson," a satirist and illustrator who produces the "Richard's Poor Almanac" feature appearing in the Post's Sunday edition) and attempted to trace every statement listed therein to its source to determine how many of them were actually uttered by George W. Bush.  Our standard was that in order to consider a statement to be a genuine "Bushism" we had to find at least one major newspaper article that quoted the actual words spoken (rather than paraphrasing them), included specific information about when and where the statement was made, and was printed within a few days of the event at which the statement was offered. In this statistically insignificant non-random sample of one, we found that yes, the accuracy of quote transmission was remarkably high: All but a couple of the items in this piece could be reliably traced back to the mouth of George W. Bush. Here are the results:  "I think we all agree, the past is over." In March 2000, Texas governor George W. Bush locked up the Republican presidential nomination, beating out his chief rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, in a rancorous primary campaign marked by personal attacks and charges of dirty tactics on the part of both sides.  Two months later Senator McCain somewhat reluctantly endorsed Governor Bush for president during a joint appearance at the Westin William Penn Hotel in Pittsburgh, where both men tried their best (somewhat unconvincingly) to assure the press that they had put their differences behind them: Both sides swapped charges of dirty campaign tactics. McCain aides accused Bush supporters of personal attacks, and Mr. Bush denounced McCain forces for suggesting that the governor was guilty of anti-Catholic bigotry. On Tuesday, the pair told some 200 journalists that they had discussed policy, not personal history. "There's no point," Mr. McCain said. "I hold no rancor. Others will be the judge of this campaign, not me."  Mr. Bush said the McCain challenge toughened him for the fall campaign against Mr. Gore.  "We had a tough primary," Mr. Bush said. "I told him point blank: 'You made me a better candidate.'"  Later, on his campaign plane, the governor described the discussion as "very cordial, very frank, very open." He added: "I think we agree, the past is over."1 "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." On the campaign trail in South Carolina while pursuing the Republican nomination in January 2000, Governor Bush spoke before 2,000 loyal Republicans at a well-attended oyster roast held on a plantation outside Charleston and mystified his audience when, during his discourse on the need for a strengthened U.S. military, he made reference not to "mental" losses (which itself would have sounded odd in the given context), but to "mential" (pronounced "men-shul") losses: During his visit to South Carolina this week, the first Bushism exploded as the governor painted a passionate picture of the military dangers facing the US, and the pressing need for protection against rogue missile launches. "This is still a dangerous world," he told more than 2,000 supporters at an oyster roast. "It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mential losses." Bush's spokespeople could not immediately explain what a mential loss was, but it seemed only distantly related to missile launches.2 "Rarely is the question asked, 'Is our children learning?'" During that same South Carolina campaign swing in January 2000, Governor Bush committed another grammatical mix-up while wrangling a sentence containing both singular and plural subjects, this example occurring (with a modicum of irony) during the portion of his stump speech dealing with education: That's not to say Bush hasn't had his share of flubs. Part of his stump speech focuses on education. On Tuesday, talking to a crowd of several hundred at a cavernous civic center in Florence, S.C., Bush decried those who ignore educational programs that produce no results  inadvertently revealing a temporary shortcoming in his own grammar skills.  "What's not fine is rarely is the question asked, are, is our children learning?" Bush said.3 "Will the highways of the Internet become more few?" During his January 2000 push to win the first primary election of the campaign, held in New Hampshire, Governor Bush was asked to comment on the recently announced merger of media giants Time Warner and AOL, and he addressed concerns over its potential monopolistic effects with some unusual phrasing: When asked about the Time Warner/America Online merger, the candidate took an unexpected detour on the information superhighway. The key question in considering the merger, Bush said, is "will the highways to the Internet become more few?"4 "How many hands have I shaked?" By October 1999 Republicans were noting Governor Bush's relatively rare appearances in New Hampshire and were beginning to question whether he had assumed he had the nomination sewn up and could afford to take the February 2000 New Hampshire primary for granted.   When reporters persistently questioned him about that possibility on 22 October 1999, during his first campaign swing through New Hampshire since early September, Governor Bush expressed the notion that the important factor was not the number of appearances he made, but the number of people he reached during those appearances: Asked repeatedly today about why he had not been around more, Mr. Bush at one point interrupted a reporter's question to say, "The important question is, How many hands have I shaked."5 "They misunderestimate me." The misuse of 'misunderestimate' for 'underestimate' seems to be one of  George W. Bush's more common elocutionary mistakes.  We can't pin down exactly when he used 'misunderestimate' for the first time in a public statement as a presidential candidate; the earliest print reference we could find appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times on 13 November 2000, but it didn't detail where and when he said it.  Nonetheless,  Bush was still using the word (and catching himself at it) after his inauguration as President, as demonstrated by this excerpt from a 29 March 2001 news conference: Look, it is in our nation's best interests to have long-term tax relief, and that has been my focus all along. I'm confident we can have it, get it done. I believe not only can we get long-term tax relief in place. Since our country is running some surpluses in spite of the dire predictions about cash flow, I believe we have an opportunity to fashion an immediate stimulus package, as well. The two ought to go hand in hand. Those who think that they can say, "We're only going to have a stimulus package, but let's forget tax relief," misunderestimate ...  or, excuse me,  underestimate  just making sure you were paying attention  underestimate our administration's resolve to get this done ...6 "I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity." This line is a retrospective statement Bush uttered during an interview about his involvement in a partnershipthat bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in 1989: George W. Bush has frequently claimed to have cobbled together the deal to buy the Rangers in 1989. "I was like a pit bull on the pant leg of opportunity," Mr. Bush said in a long interview about his past. "And I just grabbed on to it. I was going to put the deal together. And I did." The initiative, Mr. Bush acknowledges, came from Bill DeWitt, a businessman and friend of the family. Mr. DeWitt had heard that the Rangers were on the market and wanted to recruit Mr. Bush as a partner to buy the team.15 "I know that the human being and the fish can coexist." On Friday, 29 September 2000, Governor Bush was on the stump in Saginaw, Michigan, and deviated from his prepared speech to reassure the business community that he would not support the tearing down of energy-producing dams merely to protect threatened fish species, an issue he had recently covered while campaigning in the Pacific Northwest:    Friday, feeling the need to explain his statement during a speech on energy policy that he intended to maintain dams in the Pacific Northwest, he departed from his text and added, "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." He did not elaborate.7 Mark Crispin Miller noted in The Bush Dyslexicon that: This remark is striking not because it's silly but because it casts a threatened creature as a national enemy.  A relic of the Cold War, the phrase "peaceful coexistence" was a predtente Soviet coinage, meant to pitch conciliation between the world's two rival superpowers. "Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream." Swinging through Wisconsin in mid-October 2000 en route to a debate with Democratic presidential challenger Al Gore, Governor Bush was discussing the importance of tax cuts to American families when he transposed a couple of words in a well-worn phrase: The Texas governor and GOP presidential nominee tangles up words often enough that he sometimes jokes about it, and the phenomenon has acquired a name  Bushism. On the campaign trail Wednesday, he let one fly: "Families is where our nation finds hope," he said, "where wings take dream."8 "Put food on your family!" On 27 January 2000, speaking in Nashua just a few days before the New Hampshire primary, Governor Bush was trying to illustrate the economic plight of single working mothers and again transposed (and omitted) a few words in the familiar reference to putting food on the table for one's family: At a breakfast meeting with the Nashua Chamber of Commerce, Bush illustrated his brand of compassionate conservatism by urging his listeners to put themselves in the role of a single mother "working hard to put food on your family."4 Since these words are difficult to quote in the context in which they were offered, they were soon being rendered as the pithier "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." "Knock down the tollbooth!" Governor Bush's misuse of 'tollbooth' for 'roadblock,' in reference to eliminating tax obstacles that prevent the working poor from joining the middle class, comes from his New Hampshire campaign appearances in January 2000, but contemporary reports don't seem to agree on the exact words he used  perhaps there was more than one such incident: Things must be good here, because the mere mention of tax cuts is not enough to get the crowd cheering. What they like is when Bush worries about the working poor; they applaud vigorously when he complains that a single mother making $22,000 is being penalized by the tax system. "It's not fair!" Bush exclaims. "It's a tollbooth on the road to the middle class, and I intend not only to reduce the fees but to knock the tollbooth down."9  "The hardest job in America is to be a single mom, making $20,000 a year," Bush declared at a recent Rotary Club lunch where he promised that as president, he would reduce the struggling woman's marginal income-tax rate and "knock down her tollbooth to the middle class."10   Last weekend, fire marshals were actually turning people away from political rallies. At a high school near Nashua, you could see folks forlornly peeking in the windows, yearning to be let inside to hear George W. Bush call for "a law that provides liability to teachers who enforce discipline in the schools." All the candidates are tired, but Mr. Bush's speeches are getting particularly unintelligible  at the same high school, he announced, "I think we need not only to eliminate the tollbooth to the middle class, I think we should knock down the tollbooth." 11 "Vulcanize society! " At the very beginning of the 2000 presidential campaign, Ken Herman reported in a front-page story appearing in the 23 March 1999 edition of the Austin American-Statesman that Governor Bush had expressed his disdain for racial quotas as programs that "vulcanize" society: Sometimes this smooth operator is anything but. This was evident in a March 23 piece by Ken Herman, the Austin American-Statesman's chief Bush watcher, who wrote about the governor's "2-step around hot topics." Mr. Bush says he's against "hard quotas, quotas that basically delineate based on whatever. However, they delineate, quotas, I think, vulcanize society."12 In this instance Governor Bush of course meant to say 'Balkanize' (to divide a group into small, often hostile units) rather than 'vulcanize' (to improve the strength of rubber by combining it with sulfur in the presence of heat and pressure).  However, the issue was muddied a few days later when the American-Statesman reversed itself and issued a correction:  A front-page story Tuesday inaccurately quoted Gov. George W. Bush's position on quotas in college admissions and the awarding of state contracts. The story said Bush believes quotas "vulcanize society." Bush actually said he believes quotas "Balkanize society."13 Whether the reporter misquoted Governor Bush or whether Governor Bush really did say 'vulcanize' and the American-Statesman later printed an amended quote at the behest of his office is something we can't determine. "Make the pie higher!" This final item (a misstatement of the concept of putting more money into the hands of Americans by reducing taxes to grow the economy and enlarge the economic "pie" that everyone shares  i.e., making the pie "bigger" rather than "higher") is the phrase perhaps most often cited as an example of "Bushisms," so much so that it was used for the title of the poem quoted at the head of this page.  And it is a real quote, something Bush said during the course of a 15 February 2000 Republican debate (moderated by CNN host Larry King) in Columbia, South Carolina, between Texas Governor George W. Bush, Senator John McCain of Arizona, and former Reagan administration official Ambassador Alan Keyes: The difference between our plans is, I know whose money it is we're dealing with. We're dealing with the government  we're dealing with the people's money, not the government's money. And I want to give people their money back.  And if you're going to have a tax cut, everybody ought to have a tax cut. This kind of Washington, D.C., view about targeted tax cuts is tax cuts driven by polls and focus groups. If you pay taxes in America, you ought to get a tax cut.  Under my plan, if you're a family of four in South Carolina, making $50,000, you get 50-percent tax cut. I've reduced the lower rate from 15 percent to 10 percent, which does this  and this is important. There are people on the outskirts of poverty, like single moms who are working the toughest job in America. If she has two kids, and making $22,000, for every additional dollar she earns, she pays a higher marginal rate on her taxes than someone making $200,000.  You bet I cut the taxes at the top. That encourages entrepreneurship. What we Republicans should stand for is growth in the economy. We ought to make the pie higher. This one initially posed something of a mystery to us, because transcripts of the debate prepared by the Federal Document Clearing House and CNN attribute the block of text quoted above to Senator John McCain, not Governor Bush.  However, the immediately preceding question had clearly been posed to Governor Bush, and newspaper accounts the following morning noted the "make the pie higher" comment as something uttered by Governor Bush: Bush, shedding his sometimes goofy demeanor, was as animated and forceful as he has been in any debate, punching the air with his fist to underscore his words. He scored points among the party faithful in calling for an end to the Clinton era in Washington  one of the money lines of the night. On taxes and bringing prosperity to struggling working mothers, however, Bush mangled one metaphor: "We ought to make the pie higher."14 Moreover, at a Radio/TV correspondents' dinner in Washington, D.C., a few weeks later, Governor Bush made humorous use of the item with no indication that the words weren't his own: Now most people would say in speaking of the economy, "We ought to make the pie bigger." I, however, am on record saying, "We ought to make the pie higher." As frivolous as this experiment may have been, let's hope it's a harbinger of more accurate information to come. Last updated:  21 July 2008    Sources:    7.  Allen, Mike.  "Bush's Gaffes Are Back As Debates Near."   The Washington Post.  1 October 2000  (p. A8).    11.  Collins, Gail.  "Savor the Moment."   The New York Times.  1 February 2000  (p. A21).     5.  Henneberger, Melinda.  "New Hampshire Warns Bush, 'Don't Be a Stranger Hee-ahh'"   The New York Times.  23 October 1999  (p. A12).    12.  Hunt, Albert R.  "George W. Can Run But He Can't Hide."   The Wall Street Journal.  1 April 1999  (p. A23).     4.  Hutcheson, Ron.  "Candidate George W. Bush Sometimes Mangles Words."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  29 January 2000  (p. A8).        Ivins, Molly.  Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush.   New York: Random House, 2000.  ISBN 0-375-50399-4  (p. 19). Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush     1.  Jackson, David and Wayne Slater.  "Subdued McCain Endorses Bush."   The Dallas Morning News.  10 May 2000.    16.  Kristof, Nicholas D.  "The 2000 Campaign: Breaking Into Baseball."   The New York Times.  24 September 2000.    10.  Leonard, Mary.  "Fight Intensifies for Votes of Women."   The Boston Globe.  22 January 2000  (p. A1).     8.  Mason, Julie.  "Campaign Notebook."   The Houston Chronicle.  19 October 2000  (p. A38).    14.  Miga, Andrew.  "Tight S. Carolina Race Fuels Contentious Debate."   The Boston Globe.  16 February 2000  (p. 27).        Miller, Mark Crispin.  The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder.   New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.  ISBN 0-393-04183-2. The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder     3.  Miller, T. Christian.  "With a Grin, Bush Answers Early Charges of Aloofness."   Los Angeles Times.  14 January 2000  (p. 20).        Smith, Zay N.  "A Small Comfort Amid Election Snafus, Quarrels."   Chicago Sun-Times.  13 November 2000  (p. 26).     9.  Von Drehle, David.  "12 Hours, 4 Contenders, Many Parallels."   The Washington Post.  15 January 2000  (p. A1).    13.  Austin American-Statesman.  "Corrections."   25 March 1999  (p. A2).     2.  The Financial Times.  "Bushed Again."   14 January 2000.     6.  The New York Times.  "In Bush's Words: 'Both Sides Must Take Important Steps' in the Mideast."   30 March 2001  (p. A12).
Gov. Bob McDonnell has proposed spending an additional $2.2 billion on state employee and teacher pensions during a two-year budget period that will begin July 1.The governor, in presenting his biennial budget plan to the General Assemblys money committees on Dec. 19,saidhis pension proposal, if approved, would be the largest employer contribution to the Virginia Retirement System in history.We wondered whether the total $2.21 billion infusion over two budget years would truly be historic.Since taking office in 2010, McDonnell has made a number of proposals to reform the Virginia Retirement System, which is an estimated $19.9 billion short of the assets needed to pay its projected pension liabilities over the next 85 years. But the governor also added to VRSs woes early in his term by convincing the legislature to divert $620 million in scheduled pension contributions to balance the states general fund, which pays for education, public safety and health programs.Under McDonnells new proposal, Virginia would pay roughly $600 million for state employee pensions during the 2013-14 budget years. Another $1.6 billion would be contributed to teacher retirement funds, with local governments picking up $1 billion of the sum and the state government paying $600 million.Tucker Martin, McDonnells director of communications, told us the governors claim that the $2.21 billion total contributions would be historic was based on VRS data.The VRS figures show the largest employer contribution to date came in the 2007-08 biennial budget when total state and local contributions were $1.72 billion. Thats lower than McDonnells proposal.The retirement system started in 1942, but VRS doesnt have records of employer contributions before 1973.Jeanne Chenault, a VRS spokeswoman, said the number of teachers and state employees before 1973 would have been lower, so its unlikely that contribution amounts would have exceeded 1973 levels.The VRS data shows annual contribution amounts without adjusting for inflation. So we did that work ourselves to see McDonnells claim could survive another test.It did. Even when adjusting for inflation, the 2007-08 contributions were still the high-water mark for employer contributions to the pension system, coming in at just more than $1.8 billion in current dollars. McDonnells proposal eclipses that.Our Ruling:The governor said his proposed $2.21 billion employer contribution for state worker and teacher pensions would be the largest in VRS history.For as far back as the data goes, the governors statement is correct even when adjusting for inflation.We rate the claim True. Well-rounded vegan diets may be less hazardous and better for the health of dogs compared to conventional meat or raw meat diets, according to research published in April 2022.  Pets are multibillion-dollar industries. According to estimates published in 2018, there are 471 million pet dogs and 373 million pet cats worldwide, which sets the international worth of pet food sales at nearly 132 billion euros. Such high demand has a large impact on the environment, particularly in the sourcing of the animal and agricultural products that make up pet food. Feeding pets is also a lucrative market. In 2020, the vegan pet food market alone was worth $8.7 billion in the U.S., and was expected to grow to over $15 billion in the next six years expected Because pets and their nutrition represent large shares of both the economy and its production line, researchers at the University of Winchester in the U.K. set out to determine what diets are best for the health of pets. To determine the links between diet and health, the team advertised an online survey through social media between May and December 2020 to determine the links between diet and health, and analyzed the data of more than 2,500 dogs that were included in survey responses from the pets' guardians.  Each dog had been living with its guardian for at least one year. About half were fed conventional meat-based diets, around one-third raw meat, and 13% were fed a vegan diet. The survey included questions about the dogs health, such as veterinary visits, medications, and overall health disorders, and consulted both the guardian and a veterinarian on its health status.  We believe our study of 2,536 dogs is by far the largest study published to date, exploring health outcomes of dogs fed vegan and meat-based diets, wrote the researchers in a news release.  news release It analyzed a range of objective data, as well as owner opinions and reported veterinary assessments of health. It revealed that the healthiest and least hazardous dietary choices for dogs, are nutritionally sound vegan diets.   Figures show the three main diets fed to the 2,536 dogs included in the survey. PLOS One  PLOS One Publishing their work in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS One, the team found that overall, dogs on conventional meat diets were less healthy than those on raw meat or vegan diets. Previously it was thought that raw meat diets were linked to an increased risk of pathogen exposure, while vegan diets may result in nutritional deficiencies. But when necessary hygienic and nutritional supplements were taken into consideration, both diets were, by and large, shown to be healthier and less hazardous to the canine consumer.  peer-reviewed PLOS One In summary, when jointly considering health outcomes and dietary hazards, our results and those of other studies indicate that the healthiest and least hazardous dietary choices for dogs, are nutritionally sound vegan diets, concluded the researchers. However, there are several limitations to the study that should be taken into consideration. For one, it could be the case that dogs given a raw meat diet were not necessarily healthier than those given a conventional diet, but rather that their guardians might have been less likely to take their pets to a veterinarian. Because the frequency of veterinarian visits was considered a health indication, this internal bias may have skewed the results. Furthermore, dogs given a raw meat diet tended to be younger in age than those eating other diets, which could further explain why they were deemed healthier.  The study authors also didnt factor in the sex or breed of each dog, a limitation that may have influence the results given that certain breeds are more prone to illness than others.  Lets also look at the structure of the study itself. Participating guardians were asked to consider the main ingredients within your pets normal diet, which means that a pet may not have been fed the identified diet exclusively, nor were treats or other dietary supplements excluded. It was also an opinion-based study in which respondents gave their thoughts on a dogs health in a non-standardized way. Additionally, because the survey was conducted online, this required that respondents have internet access and the time necessary to complete the survey, which may have excluded pet guardians of lower income statuses.  Lastly, there is an inherent unconscious bias within the study structure, which means that a given guardian might have been expecting a better health outcome based on the preferred diet, and this expectation could have influenced how they responded to the survey question.  While there is now scientific evidence to suggest that both raw meat and vegan diets are better than conventional diets alone, the study authors said more research is needed to determine which of the two is associated with better dog health outcomes. Dog guardians should ensure that all aspects of their dogs nutrition are being met, regardless of primary diet preference. Check pet food labels and check with manufacturers to make sure that healthy practices are in place to provide nutritional soundness.  https://www.theinsightpartners.com, The Insight Partners. Vegan Pet Food Market to Grow at a CAGR of 7.7% to Reach US$ 15,651.22 Million from 2020 to 2028. The Insight Partners, https://www.theinsightpartners.com/reports/vegan-pet-food-market. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. Vegan Pet Food Market to Grow at a CAGR of 7.7% to Reach US$ 15,651.22 Million from 2020 to 2028. The Insight Partners, https://www.theinsightpartners.com/reports/vegan-pet-food-market. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. Knight, Andrew, et al. Vegan versus Meat-Based Dog Food: Guardian-Reported Indicators of Health. PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 4, Apr. 2022, p. e0265662. PLoS Journals, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265662. Vegan Diets for Dogs May Be Linked with Better Health, and Could Be Less Hazardous, than Meat-Based Diets. EurekAlert!, https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/948887. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. In September 2018, a number of social media accounts started sharing a photograph purported to show 26 'corrupt' Chinese politicians moments before their execution: social media   This photograph was not recent in 2018, it did not feature corrupt politicians, and it was not taken during the course of a public execution. This photograph was snapped in Wenzhou, China, in April 2004 and shows Chinese police officers escorting a group of "hardcore convicts" at a "sentencing rally." This picture is available via Getty Images where it is accompanied by the following caption: Getty Images WENZHOU, CHINA: Chinese police show of a group of hardcore convicts at a sentencing rally in the east Chinese city of Wenzhou, 07 April 2004, where 11 prisoners were later excuted for various crimes. Amnesty International has called for a moratorium on the death penalty in China, saying the country's dysfunctional criminal justice system meant many innocent people were being executed, after a senior Chinese legislator suggested China executes at least 10,000 people a year, about five times more than the rest of the world combined. AFP PHOTO (Photo credit should read STR/AFP/Getty Images) We attempted to find more information about the crimes committed by the pictured individuals but were unable to uncover news about this specific incident. We suspect that the majority of people seen in this photograph were convicted of drug trafficking offenses, as the China Daily reported in June 2004, two months after this photograph was taken, that dozens of drug dealers had recently been executed in the country, with some of them having been sentenced in Wenzhou: China Daily Dozens of drug dealers were sentenced to death in a series of drug-related criminal cases across China as the International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking draws near. In southwestern Yunnan province, Tan Minglin and three other people convicted of smuggling or selling five tons of drugs, including heroin and ephedrine, were executed after having all their belongings confiscated. Another Chen Xue'an and three other suspects accused of illegally purchasing 60 kg of drugs by raising over four million yuan (US$481,000) were sentenced to death in Wenzhou city of east China's Zhejiang province. A contemporaneous report from Amnesty International stated that China "easily operates the most stringent capital punishment regime" and that the the country had executed an estimated 3,400 people in 2004: Amnesty International The report says China easily operates the most stringent capital punishment regime, with an estimated 3,400 executions last year. In second place, Iran executed at least 159, Vietnam at least 64, and 59 prisoners were put to death in the US. The number of executions worldwide last year was the highest since 1996, when 4,272 were carried out. No official figures are available for China's execution rate, and Amnesty has changed the method it uses to calculate the number of executions there. According to Amnesty's report for 2003 China carried out at least 726 executions. The much higher figure of 3,400 executed last year is an estimate based on internet reports of trials, although it is still described as the "tip of the iceberg". China was still at the top of Amnesty International's annual report on capital punishment in 2018. report China Daily.  "Dozens of Drug Dealers Executed in China."
  25 June 2004. Penketh, Anne.  "China Leads Death List as Number of Executions Around the World Soars."
  The Independent.  5 April 2005. Drury, Colin.  "China Executes More People Than Rest of World Combined, Amnesty Report Reveals."
  The Independent.  12 April 2018. In March 2021, fake email renewals for Norton Internet Security landed in inboxes and spam folders, and warned of devices infected with viruses. An example email had the subject line: "your norton subscription has expired your device has been infected with viruses n020953." A variation said the same thing with a different ending number: "your norton subscription has expired your device has been infected with viruses n915093." The email that appeared to be from "Norton-Support2021" notified users that their supposed subscription to Norton Internet Security had expired.  The Norton renewal offer was a scam.  The headline claimed that recipients' devices had become infected with viruses. However, that seemingly important item didn't appear in the body of the email: EXPIRATION NOTIFICATION Our records indicate that your subscription to Norton Internet Security Expired on: 20 Feb 2021 11:11:22 -0500 Therefore, you are no longer receiving automatic updates that protect you against the latest threats, including viruses, spyware, hackers, and identity thieves. If you are browsing, banking, shopping, checking email or doing anything online, we highly recommend you renew your subscription now and get the new Norton Internet Security. Renew Now You will receive a full year of protection for up to 3 household PCs and peace of mind when you're online. Sincerely,The Norton Team This was not a legitimate email from Norton AntiVirus or Norton Internet Security. In an example email we reviewed, all links in the message pointed to a website hosted on a Brazilian domain. The "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of the message led to the scam as well. If readers receive a suspicious email that claims to be from Norton, desktop users can safely hover over links (but not click on them) in order to see where they lead. If they don't go to an official Norton website, such as "norton.com," do not click the link. Also, the email address the message came from appeared to begin with "Norton-Support2021@" and end with a long string of random letters. The email address did not end in "@norton.com" or anything similar. The company published a page to help keep Norton users safe from these kinds of renewal email virus scams. For example, it listed several email addresses they used to send official correspondence: norton@nortonlifelock.com, norton@secure.norton.com, ems@norton.com, lifelock@secure.norton.com, and information@mail.nortonstore.hk. published a page It's true that Norton may send renewal offers. However, such offers will never arrive with completely lowercase subject lines. Further, there was no indication that Norton notifies customers "your device has been infected with viruses" in renewal email offers. "The URLs in our emails point to the server at: https://secure.norton.com. Make sure that the URLs begin with https:// and has a norton.com or lifelock.com domain." Norton users who run the company's apps will potentially receive official emails from noreply@norton.com, no-reply@nortonlifelock.com, NortonAccount@norton.com, norton@nortonlifelock.com, and management@norton.com. Other email addresses are covered on the Norton Support page. Norton Support page We've covered concerns regarding computer viruses since the 1990s. For example, the purported virus in a Budweiser frogs screensaver first made the rounds in 1997. Thankfully, it was a hoax. made the rounds Twenty-four years later, the Norton emails being received by readers were not a hoax. We recommend proceeding with caution when reviewing potentially harmful messages. Hovering over links to see where they lead is safe, but clicking on them may not be. In sum, fake renewal email offers appeared to be from Norton Internet Security and claimed that devices were infected with viruses. This was not official correspondence from the company. The scams should be avoided. Since at least 2008, a troubling image of a turtle with a drastically deformed shell has been circulating online, with multiple web sites employing it to illustrate posts about the dangers of plastic pollution in the oceans. The image shows a brown-colored turtle with a shell constricted in the middle, giving her a figure-eight shape: circulating  This image captures a snapping turtle named Mae West who currently resides at the STAR Eco Station in Los Angeles, California, where she is in good health. A representative from the station, which operates a wildlife rescue and environmental science museum, told us Mae West was rescuednearly two decades ago after she was discovered with a plastic milk jug ring around her midsection, although though it was unclear exactly how long the ring had been in place: In 2000, she was discovered in Louisiana with a plastic milk jug ring around the width of her shell. In addition to having an extremely narrow midsection, she was also found to be carrying several eggs at the time. The handler in Louisiana decided that she was no longer able to care for her and arranged to haveMaeplaced at the Eco Station. Some of the blogsposting this image in early 2017 incorrectly claimed the turtle had been caught in a rubber band from an early age, causing her to grow abnormally. Mae West was brought to her current home after being cared for by an anti-pollution non-profit called The 5 Gyers Institute, also based in Los Angeles. The image shown above was used in a 2009 Earth Day report by Oprah Winfrey discussing the effects of plastic pollution on marine life: used Sadly, the type of deformity afflicting Mae West isn't unique. Another famous turtle is living with a similar human-caused deformity: Peanut, a red-eared slider turtle who was rescued and nursed to health after being discovered entrapped in a plastic six-pack ring, has often been misidentified as Mae West (and vice-versa) in photographs. Peanut Peanut was found in Missouri in 1993 and taken to a zoo, where the plastic ring was removed from his midsection. The turtle (who was for years mistakenly believed to be female) is currently under the care of the Missouri Department of Conservation. Photographs provided by the department show he does indeed resemble a peanut:   Despite his deformation, Peanut has also managed to live a long and healthy life and is now believed to be a senior terrapin at 32 or 33 years old, said Dan Zarlenga, spokesman for the Missouri Department of Conservation. Had he not been found and cared for by humans, Peanut probably would not have survived for long in the wild. Eriksen, Marcus."Meet the Famous Turtle With a Serious Plastic Problem."
Planet Experts.6 July 2015. Missouri Department of Conservation."The Story of Peanut the Turtle." Monks, Kieron. "The Plastic Plague: Can Our Oceans Be Saved From Environmental Ruin?
CNN.2 September 2016. Moore, Charles."Choking the Oceans With Plastic."
The New York Times.25 August 2015. When U.S. House SpeakerPaul Ryanmet with Milwaukee Journal Sentinel staff on Sept. 1, 2017, an editor mentionedmajor tax cutsadopted under Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1981. At first, Ryan joked around. The music was bad in those days, and the tax laws were as well, he replied, chuckling. So, I think -- Im not a big 80s music guy; Im more of a 70s guy. But the 47-year-old Janesville Republican quickly got serious. Arguing that U.S. taxes are stopping U.S.-based multinational corporations from bringing giant sums of money to America,he stated: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. Ryan has made essentially the same claim a number of times, including onMilwaukee television,on CNBC,on Twitterand to theNew York Times. So, do U.S. tax laws essentially prevent $3 trillion being held overseas from being brought to this country? Keep the wordrepatriatein mind. Taxing foreign earnings The object of Ryans criticism is the U.S. corporate tax rate. At 35 percent, as we reported in aDonald Trumpfact check during the 2016 presidential campaign, it isamong the highestin the world -- though its worth noting that, after deductions, companies typically pay an effective rate that can be much lower. (Trump, by the way, pledged during the presidential campaign to reduce the rate to 15 percent. That promise has been rated asIn the Workson PolitiFact NationalsTrump-O-Meter.) As for the focus of Ryans claim, hes talking about U.S.-based multinational corporations. More specifically, the foreign-earned profits of those companies.Heres an exampleof how the taxation works: If the company earns income in a country with a 20 percent corporate tax rate, it would pay that 20 percent tax immediately to that country. If that money is then repatriated -- that is, brought back to the companys U.S. headquarters -- the company would pay an additional 15 percent to the U.S. government. (In other words, the U.S. tax rate of 35 percent minus the 20 percent already paid to the foreign country.) So, as long as the profits stay parked overseas, there is no U.S. tax on it. Now to the specifics of Ryans claim. The $3 trillion figure To back up Ryans statement, his office cited an April 2017CNBC news articlethat said American companies are holding about $2.6 trillion in overseas earnings, and the figure has been growing. Thats thelatest estimateby Congress nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, for 2015, although an estimate done in July 2017 for PolitiFact National put the figureat $2.8 trillion. So, Ryans claim of about $3 trillion is reasonable. Its worth noting that the figure has been rising. In fact, considering only the Russell 1000 index of large companies, the amount of parked cash overseas has more than doubled since 2008, as shown in a July 2017 report by the Massachusetts research firm Audit Analytics: Year Amount of foreign-earned profits by U.S.-based companies kept overseas 2008 $1.09 trillion 2009 $1.19 trillion 2010 $1.36 trillion 2011 $1.63 trillion 2012 $1.89 trillion 2013 $2.12 trillion 2014 $2.3 trillion 2015 $2.43 trillion 2016 $2.62 trillion Trapped and basically cant come back Ryan asserts that the money is trapped overseas and basically cant come back because of U.S. tax laws To be sure, a substantial amount of foreign profitsare repatriated each year. But Ryan didnt invent the term trapped cash. In fact, academicsfor yearshavereferred to itas a commonly used term to describe the growing amount of cash held by U.S. multinationals overseas to avoid, or at least defer, paying the 35 percent U.S. tax rate. Ryans claim is also backed bySeptember 2017 paperpublished by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan organization in Massachusetts. The paper found a dramatic increase in U.S. corporations holding onto cash; that the cash is concentrated in foreign subsidiaries of multinational corporations; and that it is explained by low foreign tax rates. News articlesalso havereported on the phenomenon. In August 2016,Apple CEO Tim Cook saidof his companys profits parked offshore: Were not going to bring it back until theres a fair rate. Theres no debate about it. Apple is second to Microsoft in the amount of cash parked overseas, according to Audit Analytics. And as the San Jose Mercury Newsreported in May 2017, the tax is such a deterrent that even though Apple was sitting on $240 billion in overseas cash, it has continued to borrow money. The reason: The borrowing cost Apple 4 percent or less, far below the 35 percent tax that would be paid for repatriating the overseas cash. One more point before we close: The companies would like to repatriate the money because bringing it back to the parent company enables them to do things such as paying dividends, doing stock buybacks and investing in U.S. operations. Several academic experts told us that some of the overseas money, while not repatriated directly back to the companies U.S. headquarters, is invested in U.S. securities. That doesnt trigger the 35 percent tax. Our rating Ryan says: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. To avoid a 35 percent U.S. tax, U.S.-based multinational companies have opted not to repatriate roughly $3 trillion of their foreign profits, a figure that is growing. That is, they dont bring the money back to their U.S. headquarters, where it can be used for things such as dividend payments or investments in their domestic operations. But the overseas profits arent literally trapped and indeed some foreign-earned profits are repatriated, though they are subject to the 35 percent tax. Ryans statement is accurate but needs additional information, our definition of Mostly True. Claim:  Monies given to the September 11 Fund are being used to defend suspected terrorists. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] It may be time for the 9-11 charity relief-fund police to begin phase two of their oversight campaign. If you haven't already heard about it, you're not going to believe this. You've probably read that some of the Sept. 11 relief money was granted to an organization defending people suspected of involvement in the very crimes that made these charitable efforts necessary. The offending organization, the "September 11th Fund," was established by the United Way and the New York Community Trust to receive and distribute donations to help victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. We're not talking about pocket change here. The Fund gave $171,000 to the Legal Aid Society, which is assisting in the legal defense of eight terror suspects now detained in Brooklyn, N.Y. That's like the Heart Association donating to the Society of Sedentary Butter Eaters. Actually, it's worse, because sedentarybutter-eaters harm themselves . . . they don't murder innocent people. Are you outraged yet? If not, there's more. The Fund, far from chastened by criticism from those outraged at the above, is up to further mischief. CNSNews.com now tells us that the Fund has made more than a million dollars worth of grants to various left-wing political groups  CNSNews' characterization, not mine, but it is undeniably correct. Origins:  The above are the opening paragraphs to a 20 November 2001 World Net Daily article written by David Limbaugh, titled "For the Victims?" It circulates in its shortened form (as quoted above) on the Internet rather than as the lengthier original article that continues onto other topics. original article In turn, information touted in the World Net Daily article was drawn from an 8 November article appearing on the National Legal and Policy Center web site. This NLPC press release states a 1 November Wall Street Journal article revealed that the LAS was providing civil legal assistance to eight detainees in the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. The WJS article did indeed say "[New York's] Legal Aid [Society] represents eight [suspected terrorist] detainees  some of whom are still housed in the unit known as 'SHU'  all of them Arabs." The misunderstanding behind this whole matter thus originated with the Wall Street Journal, although it was the NLPC who gave it legs. article Officials of the September 11th Fund deny the allegation that they are funding the legal defense of terrorists. The New York Legal Aid Society echoes that denial, and its statement about the charge (as found on its web site) says:  On November 8, 2001, the National Legal and Policy Center charged that a six-week, $171,000 grant from the September 11 Fund to The Legal Aid Society was used to represent persons in detention accused of terrorism. This charge is not true. Grant funds have been used solely for advocacy on behalf of New Yorkers affected by the attack on the World Trade Center. The New York Legal Aid Society did receive $171,000 from the September 11th Fund, but the money was used for civil legal assistance for families affected by the tragedy who needed help getting access to wills, bank accounts, and insurance. The society also helped staff a family assistance center and provided consultation on a telephone hot line. In addition, attorneys from the Legal Aid Society's immigration unit interviewed several people detained by immigration officials because they had invalid passports or visas.  None of the financial assistance has gone to help terror suspects with their legal problems, although that last item  the interviewing of several foreign nationals who have been held by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) because of invalid paperwork  lays the groundwork for this misunderstanding. The LAS has in the past routinely involved itself in immigration matters, so its agreeing to talk to several INS detainees  some of whom were Arabs  after September 11 was business as usual for them, not a case of their "defending terrorists."  Likewise, that the LAS advised a few key detainees "You'll have to get your own attorney; we won't be representing you" can hardly be interpreted as the LAS' mounting a legal defense of terrorism suspects. According to the New York Legal Aid Society's statement about those meetings (also as found on its web site): After September 11, the Immigration Court asked the Society's Immigration Unit to interview a number of detainees of Arab or Middle Eastern descent because they had no legal counsel. The Society complied with the Immigration Court's request, conducted some interviews, and referred most cases to the private bar. Society Immigration Unit staff accepted three cases for representation and facilitated a settlement for one of these cases. We have recently learned that the other two cases involve issues beyond immigration violations, and our Immigration staff therefore cannot provide further immigration assistance. Accordingly, these two remaining cases have been reassigned to private counsel. The Legal Aid Society's civil staff has not represented and would not represent anyone on matters related to perpetrating the World Trade Center attacks. In other words, two of the three cases accepted by the LAS turned out to involve more than immigration matters, so the LAS immediately backed away from them once it knew there was more involved. (Reading between the lines, one can arrive at the conclusion these two detainees are being held in relation to the September 11 attacks, but the LAS statement does not come right out and say this.) The one case the LAS did retain was strictly an immigration case, as its policy is that "neither the Immigration Unit, nor the Society's Civil Division of which the Unit is a part, ever represents persons whose detention is predicated on issues other than alleged immigration violations." The Society firmly asserts it "is grateful to the September 11 Fund and to all others who have supported our disaster recovery work. These funds have been used properly, and have not been used to represent individuals accused of wrongdoing in the tragedy." The National Legal and Policy Center appears to view the New York Legal Aid Society's behavior as reprehensible, however. Dan Rene, spokesperson for the NLPC, said in a interview with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: "If the Legal Aid Society, which has an annual budget of $135 million, received any money from the September 11th fund, it should have no involvement with the detainees and should devote 100 percent of its time to helping victims."  Rarely has a more foolheaded statement appeared in a newspaper.  Those who can't afford lawyers yet require legal representation don't fade from existence because a legal aid society has accepted a grant and agreed to provide additional services to a specific group of clients. By far the greatest demand on any legal aid society will be the provision of legal representation to the underfunded, making the devotion of "100 percent of its time to helping [Sept. 11] victims" a notion only a lunatic would entertain. Should a mother fighting for custody of her child be put on indefinite hold because a September 11 victim's will needs to be probated? Should an elderly man victimized by his landlord be told he'll have to make do with an unheated apartment for the winter because staffing a legal hotline for September 11 victims is the only business this particular legal aid society can concern itself  with?  A legal aid society is first and foremost a legal aid society. Its acceptance of an additional mission doesn't alter or erase its primary purpose for being, nor does it wipe from existence those who need its help. This particular Society has a history of involvement with INS detention cases. This is part of what it does, and that didn't change in the post-September 11 world, nor did INS proceedings for all manner of needy folks suddenly go away. The NY LAS should not be expected to turn away INS detainees it would at any other time have routinely seen and assisted just because some terrorism suspects might have immigration problems and thus might be included with harmless detainees. It's a "baby and the bathwater" issue  the better response is to sift through all the cases and reject the unsuitable ones rather than to reject them all out of hand, in effect punishing the innocuous for having been incarcerated at the wrong time. More information about what this particular  legal aid society does and who it helps can be found in its FAQ. FAQ The larger question of how monies donated to The September 11th Fund should be administered continues to trouble many. A number of the organizations that were the recipients of the beneficience of a nationwide outpouring of donations provide aid to victims, victims' families, and the wounded community of New York City in numerous ways other than direct payment to the families of victims. Some find fault with that, and some don't. (A constantly updated list of projects funded can be found on The September 11th Fund site.)  list of projects Debate over what services should be underwritten by the Fund helps speed along tales of fundular wrongdoings, imagined or actual. Though the cause for concern in this particular instance was unfounded, real anxieties find voice through the expression of such stories. In other words, we pass along such gossip because at some level we're disturbed by the handling of the September 11th Fund, even if that sense of unease amounts to nothing more than merely wondering if things are being handled properly.  As long as that sense of unease continues, so will the stories. Barbara "uneasy riders" Mikkelson Additional Information:   September 11th Fund FAQ     Statement About 'Detainee' Allegation  (NY Legal Aid Society)Last updated:  16 March 2008     Sources:   Crist, Gabrielle.  "Fund Officials Deny Sept. 11 Web Rumor."   Fort Worth Star-Telegram.  21 November 2001.     Cohen, Laurie.  "Detainees on INS Breaches Held in Solitary Status."   The Wall Street Journal.  1 November 2001.     Miller, Steve.  "Sept. 11 Fund Aids Defense of Detained Arabs."   The Washington Times.  9 November 2001  (p. A3).     Ruiz Patton, Susan.  "United Way Defend Sept. 11 Fund."   The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer.  10 November 2001  (p. A4). For most of us who watched the televised Joint Hearings Before the Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition and the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran (better known as the "Iran-Contra hearings," held by Congress to determine whether the Reagan administration had secretly and illegally sold arms to Iran in order to secure the release of American hostages, then used the profits from those sales to fund the contra rebels in Nicaragua) in 1987, the enduring image we came away with was a memory of an unapologetic and resolute Lt. Col. Oliver North delivering testimony in a Marine uniform. North, who was a central figure in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo, and who as a National Security Council aide directed efforts to raise private and foreign funds for the contras despite a Congressional prohibition on U.S. government agencies' providing military aid to the Nicaraguan rebels, testified before Congress under a grant of limited immunity in July 1987. Although North had been granted limited immunity for his testimony, he was later convicted of criminal charges related to Iran-Contra activities (a conviction that was eventually overturned on the grounds that witnesses had been influenced by his immunized testimony). One of the charges against North was that he had received a $16,000 home security system paid for out of the proceeds of the Iran-Contra affair and had forged documents to cover his receipt of an illegal gratuity. North admitted that he knew the security system was a "gift" but maintained he never inquired about who had paid for it or how it was financed, and he was insistent that he needed the security system because the government had failed to provide adequate protection against international terrorists for him and his family. The terrorist North mentioned in his testimony was not Osama bin Laden, however. To the extent that bin Laden was known to the western world in 1987, it was not as a "terrorist" but as one of the U.S.-backed "freedom fighters" participating in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden's hatred of the U.S. and conversion to "terrorist" status is not believed to have come about until the Gulf War of 1990-91, when he was outspokenly critical of Saudi Arabian dependence upon the U.S. military and denounced U.S. support of a "corrupt, materialist, and irreligious" Saudi monarchy. (The Saudi Arabian government stripped bin Laden of his citizenship in 1994 for his funding of militant fundamentalist Islamic groups.) occupation Oliver North did not testify about or mention the name Osama bin Laden during the Iran-Contra hearings. He claimed that threats against his life had been made by terrorist Abu Nidal, telling a congressional committee: testify Abu Nidal Abu Nidal is, as I am sure you on the Intelligence Committee know, the principal, foremost assassin in the world today. He is a brutal murderer. And I would like to just, if I may, just read to you a little bit about Mr. Abu Nidal ... "Abu Nidal, the radical Palestinian guerrilla leader, linked to last Friday's attacks in Rome and Vienna"  that was the so-called Christmas massacre in which 19 people died and 200 were wounded  "is the world's most wanted terrorist." That is the Christian Science Monitor. When you look at his whole career, Abu Nidal makes the infamous terrorist Carlos [the Jackal] look like a Boy Scout. Abu Nidal himself, quoted in Der Spiegel, "Between America and us, there exists a war to the death. In the coming months and years, Americans will be thinking about us." "For sheer viciousness, Abu Nidal has few rivals in the underworld of terrorism." Newseek. Our own State Department, and we have copies of these that we can make available for insertion in the record, but the State Department summary on Abu Nidal, not exactly an overstatement, notes that his followers, who number an estimated 500, have killed as many as 181 persons, and wounded more than 200, in two years. Abu Nidal does not deny these things. We also have an exhibit that we can provide for you that shows what Abu Nidal did in the Christmas Massacres. One of the people killed in the Christmas Massacre  and I do not wish to overdramatize this  but the Abu Nidal terrorists in Rome who blasted the 11-year-old American Natasha Simpson to her knees, deliberately zeroed in and fired an extra burst at her head just in case. I want you to know that I'd be more than willing ... to meet Abu Nidal on equal terms anywhere in the world. There's an even deal for him. OK? But I am not willing to have my wife and my four children meet Abu Nidal or his organization on his terms. To emphasize his point, North showed the committee a blow-up of a newspaper article detailing the atrocities of Abu Nidal and recalled that an 11-year-old girl named Natasha Simpson, the daughter of an Associated Press news editor, had been gunned down (along with four other Americans) during an attack by an Abu Nidal group on the El Al terminal at the Rome airport in December 1985. North also later claimed that an attempt on his life had been made five months before his congressional testimony at the instigation of Libyan leader Mohmmar Qadaffi: Mohmmar Qadaffi In February 1987, Muammar Ghadaffi ordered his thugs to carry out a threat made against me in 1986. Thankfully, the FBI intercepted the well-armed perpetrators on the way to our home, and my family and I were sequestered for a time on a military base. The orders from Tripoli were delivered to a terrorist cell in Virginia  at the offices of The People's Committee for Libyan Students. So no, Oliver North didn't warn us back in 1987 about Osama bin Laden's "potential threat to the security of the world" or suggest that bin Laden be hunted down by "an assassin team," nor was he given the brush-off by a clueless senator "who disagreed with this approach." Eventually, Col. North drafted his own response to this piece of misinformation: FROM THE DESK OF LTCOL OLIVER L. NORTH (USMC) RET.NOVEMBER 28, 2001OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL THOUSAND E-MAILS FROM EVERY STATE IN THE U.S. AND 13 FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE ORIGINATOR PURPORTS TO HAVE RECENTLY VIEWED A VIDEOTAPE OF MY SWORN TESTIMONY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IN 1987. A COPY OF ONE OF THOSE E-MAILS IS ATTACHED BELOW. AS YOU WILL NOTE, THE ORIGINATOR ATTRIBUTES TO ME CERTAIN STATEMENTS REGARDING USAMA BIN LADEN AND OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE SIMPLY INACCURATE. THOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM THE GIFT OF PROPHESY, I DON'T HAVE IT. I DON'T KNOW WHO SAW WHAT VIDEO "AT UNC." (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) BUT, FOR THE RECORD, HERE'S WHAT I DO KNOW: 1. IT WAS THE COMMITTEE COUNSEL, JOHN NIELDS, NOT A SENATOR WHO WAS DOING THE QUESTIONING. 2. THE SECURITY SYSTEM, INSTALLED AT MY HOME, JUST BEFORE I MADE A VERY SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, COST, ACCORDING TO THE COMMITTEE, $16K, NOT $60K. 3. THE TERRORIST WHO THREATENED TO KILL ME IN 1986, JUST BEFORE THAT SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, WAS NOT USAMA BIN LADEN, IT WAS ABU NIDAL (WHO WORKS FOR THE LIBYANS  NOT THE TALIBAN AND NOT IN AFGHANISTAN). 4. I NEVER SAID I WAS AFRAID OF ANYBODY. I DID SAY THAT I WOULD BE GLAD TO MEET ABU NIDAL ON EQUAL TERMS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD BUT THAT I WAS UNWILLING TO HAVE HIM OR HIS OPERATIVES MEET MY WIFE AND CHILDREN ON HIS TERMS. 5. I DID SAY THAT THE TERRORISTS INTERCEPTED BY THE FBI ON THE WAY TO MY HOUSE IN FEB. 87 TO KILL MY WIFE, CHILDREN AND ME WERE LIBYANS, DISPATCHED FROM THE PEOPLE'S COMMITTEE FOR LIBYAN STUDENTS IN MCLEAN, VIRGINIA. 6. AND I DID SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD MOVED MY FAMILY OUT OF OUR HOME TO A MILITARY BASE (CAMP LEJEUNE, NC) UNTIL THEY COULD DISPATCH MORE THAN 30 AGENTS TO PROTECT MY FAMILY FROM THOSE TERRORISTS (BECAUSE A LIBERAL FEDERAL JUDGE HAD ALLOWED THE LYBIAN ASSASSINS TO POST BOND AND THEY FLED). 7. AND, FYI: THOSE FEDERAL AGENTS REMAINED AT OUR HOME UNTIL I RETIRED FROM THE MARINES AND WAS NO LONGER A "GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL." BY THEN, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAD SPENT MORE THAN $2M PROTECTING THE NORTH FAMILY. THE TERRORISTS SENT TO KILL US WERE NEVER RE-APPREHENDED. SEMPER FIDELIS,OLIVER L. NORTH Variations:  One variant of this item concluded with the statement "The senator disagreed with this approach and that was all that was shown of the clip. If anyone is interested, the Senator turned out to be none other than ... Al Gore." Senator Al Gore of Tennessee was not a member of the United States Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition and therefore did not take part in the questioning of any witnesses before the Committee. Additional information:    Fisk, Robert.  "Anti-Soviet Warrior Puts His Army on the Road to Peace."
  The [London] Independent.  6 December 1993  (p. 10). Fritz, Sara and Karen Tumulty.  "North's Attempt at Cover-Up Is Told."
  Los Angeles Times.  24 June 1987  (p. A1). Ibrahim, Youssef.  "Saudi Stripped of Citizenship for Funding Fundamentalists."
  The [London] Guardian.  11 April 1994  (p. 8). North, Oliver.  "Tackling Terrorism."
  TownHall.com.  9 June 2000. Tackling Terrorism North, Oliver L.
 Under Fire: An American Story.  New York: HarperCollins, 1992  (pp. 341-344). Pincus, Walter.  "North Says He and His Superiors Lied About Contra Aid."
  The Washington Post.  9 July 1987  (p. A1). Claim:  You can recharge your cell phone using body electricity.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2015] Is there any truth to this video?  i.e. you can charge your phoneusing body electricity?  Seems just too simple:  Origins:  According to the video displayed above (titled "Charge Your Phone with Body Electricity!"), the perpetual modern dilemma of how to ensure your cell phone is always charged or charging can be solved with just two silver coins, a piece of paper, a paper clip, and your hot, sweaty body. In terms of appealing propositions, this one features the advantages of frugality,  ease of use, and the enticing tempt of never suffering a temporarily bricked device again. Mobile users can be spared the shame of ever having to ask  virtual strangers for loans of their charger cords, if they can put aside the notion that body-charging a cell phone phone is a fairly awkward public proposition. Whether the human body can charge electronic devices (such as phones, or pacemakers, or hearing aids) is not a subject that lies entirely within the realm of science fiction. A September 2014 Newsweek article tackled the potential offered by body-based device charging, but with the caveat that the technology was nowhere near accessible just yet: Newsweek Of course, with all due respect to Voix's cool invention, talk is cheap. Piezoelectrics energy harvesters haven't yet made a dent in the real world, for the most part. On the other hand, all of the researchers and industry reps interviewed for this story agree that piezoelectrics is very much poised to become a real commercial forceperhaps within the next three to five years. The gait-powered backpacks and knee braces look likely to break through even sooner. It is perhaps telling that these two last products don't use piezoelectrics and produce somewhere around 1,000 times more electricity. But as electronic devices continue to shrink and need less juice to work, and piezoelectronic ones are tweaked to produce more power, the technologies will likely meet in the middle. While you one day might be able to harness body-generated power to charge a phone, no useful manner of doing so existed when the video in question was posted online. Moreover, its extraordinary claims about harnessing body-generated power to recharge cell phones were not proved within the video; viewers were simply informed that the trick worked without being presented with any corroborating evidence that the phone shown in the video hadn't been charged in some other fashion. Some viewers attempted to replicate the feat shown in the impressive clip with multiple devices, only to come up short:    A Quora user also opined that the body electricity claim didn't wash in terms of the mechanical process of recharging cell phones: This particular video is pure rubbish.  There are 4 contacts in a USB connector, only one of them is power.  You do not make a capacitor with a piece of paper and two "silver" coins, and anyway a capacitor is not what you need.  And you can get a few tenths of a volt if your skin is damp and if you used two different metallic coins, but that is less than a tenth of the voltage you need and less than a thousandth of the current required.  So it's wrong on so many levels it's funny. Whether or not phones could eventually be charged using body electricity, there's no evidence the video shown here managed that feat. No corroborating videos of people charging phones in such a manner have turned up, and multiple viwers have reported that the steps outlined in the video did not work to successfully recharge any cell phone.  Last updated:  27 March 2015 In the final days before the election, the Obama campaign has put upan adthat is a sort of Cliff Notes for voters before they walk into the voting booth. It lists many of the points Obama has used against Mitt Romney throughout this contest.It warns about the future of Medicare,support for education, tax breaks for the wealthiest, and banking regulation. On that last point, it says, Mitt Romneys plan rolls back regulations on the banks that crashed our economy.This fact-check examines that claim and tries to discern what Romney would do about keeping banks clear of the excesses that contributed to the financial crisis.Romney has not spoken in detail about his financial regulation plans. Sifting through his website, interviews and his public comments, we see these core elements:  He wouldrepeal Dodd-Frank, the wide-ranging law that aims to fix many of the lapses associated with the meltdown. Romney has said he would replace the law but has not gone much beyond that concept. Romney supports the idea of regulations. Extensive regulation is appropriate in an industry that has such an impact on the overall economy, he said in an interviewwithTime. Romney supports rules to ensure that banks have their own money at risk, as this promotes greater caution. You have to have rules for what kind of capital has to stand behind each kind of asset on Wall Street and banks, he said on60 Minutes. This is part of current law. He supports greater transparency for derivatives trading. He told agroup of Americansin London, mainly bankers, that we do need to have greater transparency in the trading of derivatives, so we know whats going on - what kind of exposures various institutions have. Derivatives as investment devices are not inherently bad but they helped hide the weaknesses of the home mortgage market and increased the exposure of many investors when the sector collapsed. Dodd-Frank has a detailed approach to shedding light on derivatives trading. Romney opposes the current plan for orderly liquidations when banks fail. We need to get rid of that provision because it's killing regional and small banks, Romney said in thefirst presidential debate.However, he has not said how he would change the current law. Romney believes regulators should move faster to define the minimum standards for a home mortgage loan. The Obama campaign backs up its claim with aBoston Globearticle from last spring. The article emphasizes that Romney says he would do away with Dodd-Frank without saying what would replace it. Since that time, Romney has said a bit more, captured in that list above, but not much more.In May, one of Romneys top economic advisers,Glenn Hubbard,said the public could expect more detailed proposals on several key fronts, including what to do if one of the biggest banks fails, consumer financial protections, and housing finance. However, those proposals never appeared.The only detail from Hubbard himself targeted the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That agency, created under Dodd-Frank, aims to stand between individuals and the marketing of unfair and deceptive financial services. Hubbard said the bureau might be moved or dismantled, with its functions passed along to existing agencies.The lack of specifics from Romney has left many people reading the tea leaves. Kenneth Scott is professor of law and business at Stanford Law School. I very much doubt that if Romney won there would be a blanket repeal of Dodd-Frank, but there would be an effort at significant amendments, Scott said.Some have looked to Congress for clues. ABloomberg articledescribed the changes Republicans have passed or introduced. High on the list are looser rules governing the trade in derivatives, and especially the financial practice called swaps. Swaps are basically insurance against the risk that a borrower wont repay a loan. It gets more exotic, but thats the central idea, and its very big business. Swaps delivered $7 billion in revenues to banks in the first quarter of 2012. Swaps played a significant role in the 2008 financial crisis.Bloomberg andother news organizationshave listed other areas where Republicans have worked to ease financial regulations, such as reversing the Volker Rule, which limits banks on using customer deposits to invest in trades offered by an arm of the same bank.Bloomberg offered this summary: Dodd-Frank would remain but it would be a revamped Dodd-Frank that would accommodate some of the most profitable and riskiest activities while preserving a patina of protection for investors and consumers.Still, the precise changes Romney would support are unknown. In addition, some would argue that whatever changes emerge would not increase the odds of another financial crisis. For example, Lawrence White, a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, believes the current law on big banks makes risky behavior more likely.Repealing THAT part of Dodd-Frank would not roll back regulation on the banks that crashed our economy, quite the contrary, White said.We asked the Romney campaign for more specifics in several areas but received no further information.Our rulingThe Obama ad says Mitt Romneys plan rolls back regulations on banks.Romney has provided scant details on his plans, but he has said that he would push for changes. Romney has never suggested that tougher regulations are needed, and he has said many times that government regulates too much. It is reasonable to conclude his plans would be more in line with current Republican initiatives than the present law passed by Democrats. That direction points toward fewer restrictions than are in place under Dodd-Frank. Certainly, Romney has said that the provisions for the largest banks should be replaced.Conservative analysts would say that these changes would not put the financial system at greater risk.However, the ad simply says Romney would roll back regulations on the institutions that contributed to the financial crisis. How much of a rollback is unclear, but Romney does support a lighter regulatory touch on banks, so we rate the statement Mostly True.