Pascua-Lama
Claim:  Petition addresses environmental issues associated with the Pascua-Lama mining operation in Chile. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Dear friends who care about our earth, Judge for yourself if you want to take action. In the Valle de San Felix, the purest water in Chile runsfrom 2 rivers, fed by 2 glaciers. Water is a most precious resource, and wars will be fought for it. Indigenous farmers use the water, there is no unemployment, and they provide the second largest source of income for the area. Under the glaciers has been found a huge deposit of gold, silver and other minerals. To get at these, it would be necessary to break, to destroy the glaciers - something never conceived of in the history of the world - and to make 2 huge holes, each as big as a whole mountain, one for extraction and one for the mine's rubbish tip. The project is called PASCUA LAMA. The company is called Barrick Gold. The operation is planned by amulti-national company, one of whose members is George Bush Senior (what a surprise eh?). The ChileanGovernment has approved the project to start this year, 2006. The only reason it hasn't started yet is because the farmers have got a temporary stay of execution. If they destroy the glaciers, they will not just destroy the source of specially pure water, but they will permanently contaminate the 2 rivers so they will never again be fit for human or animal consumption because of the use of cyanide and sulfuric acid in the extraction process. Every last gram of gold will go abroad to the multinational company and not one will be left with the people whose land it is. They will only be left with the poisoned water and the resulting illnesses. The farmers have been fighting a long time for their land, but have been forbidden to make a TV appeal by a ban from the Ministry of the Interior. Their only hope now of putting brakes on this project is to get helpfrom international justice. The world must know what is happening in Chile. The only place to start changing the world is from here. We ask you to circulate this message amongst your friends in the following way. Please copy this text,paste it into a new email adding your signature and send it to everyone in your address book. Please willthe 100th person to receive and sign the petition send it to noapascualama@yahoo.ca to be forwarded to the Chilean government. No to Pascua Lama Open-cast mine in the Andean Cordillera on the Chilean-Argentine frontier. We ask the Chilean Government not to authorize the Pascua Lama project to protect the whole of 3glaciers, the purity of the water of the San Felix Valley and El Transito, the quality of theagricultural land of the region of Atacama, the quality of life of the Diaguita people and of the whole population of the region. Origins:   The Pascua-Lama project is an effort being undertaken by the Barrick Gold Corporation to mine rich gold and silver fields in the mountainous region along the border between Chile and Argentina.  Environmental concerns associated with the project, particularly the potential destruction or relocation of glaciers that sit atop a portion of the gold fields, have led to a number of protests and petitions entreating the Chilean government to intervene and stop or modify the Pascua-Lama mining plan.   So, the above-quoted petition is "True" in the broad sense that it addresses a real issue, but, not surprisingly, the two sides (environmentalists and Barrick) make substantially different claims about what the environmental and social effects of the Pascua-Lama project will be. Pascua-Lama Barrick Gold Corporation The controversial plan was described thusly by The Santiago Times in March 2005:  Canadian international mining company Barrick Gold has plans to relocate three glaciers in the mountain range between Argentina and Chile to gain access to 17.6 million oz. of rich gold and silver deposits. Chilean farmers and residents of the surrounding Huasco Valley are strongly opposed to the proposal of transferring the ice masses. The glaciers' tributaries are used for irrigation by the farmers, and their removal would threaten the ecological balance and agricultural production of the fertile river valley. Barrick hopes to transfer 300,000 cubic meters of ice with a 20-hectare surface area from the glaciers that surround the deposits. To mitigate ecological impact and prevent ice from melting, Barrick hopes to transfer the three glaciers, Toro I, Toro II and Esperanza, to an area with similar surface characteristics and elevation by merging the three into a larger glacier, Guanaco, located several kilometers south with a surface area of over 200 hectares. The proposal is part of the "Pascua Lama" mining treaty, signed by Chile and Argentina in August 2004 after four years of discussion. Citizens of the Huasco Valley and Region III are taking a stand against the multibillion-dollar foreign company. Last week an environmental group, Valley Defense, organized a demonstration against the project, where close to 200 farmers, community leaders and neighbors marched in protest. "We don't want to live in an area contaminated by the fault of foreign economic interests," they said. Ral Montenegro, Argentine biologist and Alternative Nobel Prize (formally Right Livelihood Award) winner agrees with the farmers. "The issue is serious in that the project would put pressure on two important river basins which serve as the principle water supply for communities within a semi-arid environment," Montenegro said. In a letter earlier this year to President Ricardo Lagos, agricultural and community associations of the Huasco Valley voiced their concerns about the mining initiative, insisting that it threatens the ecosystem, agriculture and water quality of the valley, which not only sacrifices agricultural exports and trade agreements, but human health as well. "If almost 24 hectares of glacier have been exploited solely for the project 's experiments, imagine how much could be destroyed in the end," said Fransisco Bou, leader for the Huasco Valley agriculturists. Other environmental concerns involve potential contamination from the chemicals to be used in the mining operation: "Pascua Lama will use sodium cyanide, arsenic, and produce toxic byproducts. The rivers El Estrecho, San Flix and El Trnsito together with Santa Juana dam are liable to be polluted by Pascua Lama. These dangerous poisons will be handled at the sources of the rivers and could damage water supplies to farms," said Csar Padilla of the Latin American Observatory for Environmental Conflicts. A December 2005 statement from Barrick downplayed the expressed concerns: statement Vincent Borg, vice president of corporate communications at Barrick in Canada, said 'glacier experts' had defined the icefields in question as 'ice reservoirs or icefields'.  "Regardless of what the experts call them, Barrick is committed to their preservation and conservation. We will move only 5 acres of ice and it is a straightforward procedure that has been proven in the past to conserve the ice. The ice in question only affects about 3-4% of the ice in the Valley so it is not an amount that some sensationalists would like to make it appear," he said.  On the issue of use of toxic chemicals such as cyanide he said, "Cyanide is used worldwide and can be safely used in many industrial applications. Mining comprises only 13% of cyanide use." Opponents contend that Barrick's planned procedures to move ice from the glaciers is not nearly as straightforward and safe as the company asserts they are: The lack of relevant technical expertise in removing glaciers implies an irreversible environmental impact. What is certain is that the three affected glaciers would suffer an environmental impact. Nevertheless, there is no certainty whatsoever of what the impact would be on glaciers or permafrost (frozen rock or soil) from the road network and the associated stabilization measures that generally involves the use of salts.  With respect to the measures and actions that will be implemented for handling glaciers there are the following concerns:  The "clearing" of ice or "pieces of glacier" will be done by bulldozer and front-end loader until the entire rock bed is uncovered. In this case, any mechanical action on the glacier will cause heat transfer, which will raise the temperature of the ice, and which in turn would be exacerbated by the high local insolation. Despite the fact that diurnal temperatures are low, the radiative balance includes more than caloric energy. There are no measurements of radiative energy but the albedo differences between ice and rock mean that the absorption of energy is greater in rock, which would expose the glacier even more.  This also the case for controlled blasting and pushing the glaciers by the afore-mentioned means until their final disposition. In the case of blasting, this could elevate the temperature to thresholds of melting and evaporation which would further encourage destruction of the glacier. Barrick has published a Pascua-Lama Fact Sheet that counters many of the statements made in the circulated e-mail message: Pascua-Lama Fact Sheet Misleading Assertions and Facts The chain letter makes some very misleading characterizations and inaccurate statements. Here are a few examples: Statement: "water in Chile runs from 2 rivers, fed by 2 glaciers."Fact:   The Huasco Valley has more than 50 different glaciers and ice fields. The three smaller glaciers or ice fields that are adjacent to the orebody comprise only 0.3% of the potential water resources in the Valley if they were to be destroyed, which was never to be the case.  Statement: "there is no unemployment ..."Fact: Contrary to this statement, unemployment levels in Region III are among the highest in Chile  the most recent statistics according to the Chilean Statistics Agency reveal rates in the valley in question to be approximately 18%. The mayors representing the four municipalities and most of the community leaders in the Huasco Valley have vocally expressed their support of Pascua-Lama indicating that they believe Barrick will conduct an environmentally responsible project and the generation of economic benefits are needed for the long term sustainable development of the region. As an illustration of the lack of employment opportunities, Barrick has received over 50,000 applications for jobs. Chileans in the Region III and Argentineans from San Juan are looking for meaningful employment opportunities and the ability to support their families. Human beings deserve the opportunity to make a decent livelihood.   Statement:  "Under the glaciers has been found a huge deposit of gold ... it would be necessary to break, to destroy the glaciers"Fact:  Contrary to the fundamental premise of the email chain letter, the orebody is NOT under glaciers. This is simply not the case: 95% of the orebody is NOT under glaciers/ice fields. Protection of the remaining 5% is a key condition of the Chilean authorities approval of the project.  Statement:  "The operation is planned by a multi-national company, one of whose members is George Bush, Sr."Fact: Mr. Bush served in an honorary capacity as an advisor to Barrick's International Advisory Board for two years in the mid 1990's. Mr. Bush was neither a director nor officer of the Company.  Statement: "If they destroy the glaciers, they will not just destroy the source of especially pure water, but they will permanently contaminate the 2 rivers"Fact:  To underline its confidence in its operations and commitment to responsible mining practices, Barrick has committed that should the water quality change, it would immediately stop the project. In addition to the multiple barriers of protection built into the design, the Company has a comprehensive water quality monitoring and management program, which will include 30 automated points from which data will be readily available in real time for authorities and the public. This program will be subject to regular independent verification. The expanded number of monitoring points is a direct result of community consultation and dialogue with stakeholders.  Statement:   "Every last gram of gold will go abroad ... and not one will be left with the people"Fact:  There will be substantial economic benefits that include 5,500 direct jobs during construction, 1,660 jobs during the two decades of operation, and the indirect job creation and tax revenues generated that will flow back to the communities. In addition, there will be substantial investment in infrastructure, the development of hundreds of local suppliers of goods and services and the implementation of sustainable development programs.   Statement:  "The farmers ... have been forbidden to make a TV appeal by a ban from the Ministry of the Interior"Fact:  The Water Users Cooperative, representing 2,000 farmers of the Huasco Valley, is fully supportive of the project. Chile is a democratic country and the media play an important role in the public discussion of the community concerns and interests. There has already been an extensive and open discussion of issues including the participation of farmers. <!--Although the text of the petition states that former U.S. president George Bush is a (board) member of the Barrick Gold Corporation, this does not appear to be the case.  George H. W. Bush (who served as President of the United States of America from 1989-1993 and is the father of the current U.S. president, George W. Bush) was Honorary Chairman of Barrick's International Advisory Board from 1995 to 1999.  He is not now listed as a member of the corporation's Board of Directors. Board of Directors -->From a practical standpoint, the petition reproduced at the head of this page is not now valid in that the e-mail address supplied is no longer collecting or forwarding copies.  The Pascua Lama project remains an issue of ongoing concern, however, and interested parties can find updated information on the subject (and a list of government and business officials to contact) at the Mining Watch Canada web site. Mining Watch Canada Additional information:     Pascua-Lama Fact Sheet  (Barrick Gold Corporation)        Campaign Against Barrick Gold's Pascua Lama Project  (MiningWatch Canada)    Last updated:  3 June 2006    Sources:   Frank, Jade.   "Farmers Protest Mining Project in Chile's Region III."   The Santiago Times.  31 March 2005.    Jimena, Jaquelina.   "Vast Chilean Gold Mine Meets Opposition."   Decanter.com.  2 December 2005.
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court "severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions," as described by Amy Howe at SCOTUS Blog: described By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which bars racial discrimination by government entities. [...] Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student "must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual  not on the basis of race," Roberts wrote. [...] Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Roberts opinion. Clarence Thomas' concurrence with the majority opinion led several media outlets to rehash an assertion that, at least for a period of time in the 1980s when he was chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Thomas's views on affirmative action programs were ambivalent  if not opportunist. This claim has been in recirculation since the Supreme Court announced that they had added cases challenging affirmative action to their docket: media outlets This claim recirculation  (@tonywolfness/Twitter) That claim appears to have first been raised following Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court  in a July 14, 1991 New York Times article titled "On Thomas's Climb, Ambivalence About Issue of Affirmative Action." That article cited a line from a January 1983 speech given by Thomas to employees of the EEOC: article In a 1983 speech to staff members at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which he then headed, he said that affirmative action laws were of "paramount importance" to him. "But for them, God only knows where I would be today," he said. "These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years." Though repeated in this way by several media outlets both during Thomas' Supreme Court nomination process in the 1990s and again in 2023, this is an incorrect paraphrase of Thomas's statements. Thomas's full remarks were published as a law article in the Journal of Labor Law in April 1983. repeated published When read with the full context of this speech, it is clear that the "them" used in the phrase "but for them" referred not to affirmative action laws in particular, but to equal employment opportunity laws  as articulated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964  more generally. The speech, broadly, was a defense of the EEOC's work during the Reagan administration, which faced criticism over a massive reduction in discrimination claims pursued under its leadership. faced criticism Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act  a landmark bill signed during the Lyndon Johnson Administration  prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The EEOC, which first began operations in 1965, was created as part of the 1964 Act as the agency tasked with investigating and enforcing Title VII violations. Title VII in 1965 Over the years, the EEOC has expanded to investigate and enforce violations of other Federal anti-discrimination laws including those against discrimination against pregnant women, age discrimination, and disability discrimination. By the end of the Carter administration, the EEOC had expanded considerably under chairwoman Eleanor Norton's tenure, as described in a March 1981 report: report Thanks in part to Ms Norton's streamlined methods, which enabled EEOC to process 50,000 cases per year during her tenure, she views the equal-employment field as "very stable now. We have had 10 years of extraordinary and deep court cases to build the law." "Even if they disbanded EEOC tomorrow," she said, "and there is no way they could, there would still be thousands of court cases presented each year based on precedent." Norton, here, was referencing an unpublished report commissioned by the Reagan transition team that was extremely critical of the EEOC, as reported by The Washington Post in January 1981: reported A Reagan administration advisory panel has urged that equal employment opportunity law and procedures to be changed so that much more evidence would be required to find a business guilty of discrimination and no business could be forced to adopt an "affirmative action" plan against its will. The advisory unit attacked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for having created a new racism in America in which every individual is judged by race." The group was led by J.A. Parker, a black and head of the Lincoln Institute, a conservative think tank that deals with black issues. Its unpublished report was sent to the then-president-elect last month. Following Reagan's inauguration, the chairmanship of the EEOC office was vacant until early 1982, when Thomas was tapped to lead the EEOC. Democrats, at the time, were skeptical of Thomas' commitment to alleviating discrimination. These concerns were not helped by a massive decline in cases pursued under Thomas, or by the massive reduction in the EEOC budget under Reagan, as reported in a 1983 article: was tapped skeptical 1983 article In Fiscal Year 1982, there was upwards of 70 percent fewer cases filed in court than in 1981 on behalf of grieved workers. EEOC employees report that, because of a lack of staff and resources, cases often receive perfunctory investigation and in many instances, charges have been dismissed or "no caused" because they would prove too difficult or time-consuming to process. The speech in question, delivered to employees of the EEOC, was a response to these criticisms and an attempt to clarify to his staff what Thomas felt the role of the EEOC should  and should not  be. In his remarks, Thomas cited "the changing nature of discrimination," and heralded inroads his EEOC had made in fighting age and gender discrimination: speech It should not be surprising that many of our most prominent cases involve allegations of age and sex discrimination, many resulting from reductions in force and forced retirement. This does not mean that charges of race, national origin, or religious discrimination are not filed with the EEOC and that the EEOC does not bring suit in such cases. It only means that there is now a special public and judicial sensitivity to cases involving age and women. Importantly, the speech is explicitly critical of the discourse surrounding affirmative action, and the policies Thomas advocated represented, at best, a muted skepticism toward the concepts' then-present use: represented No one in his right mind seriously questions the legal and moral bankruptcy of discrimination. The same unanimity of opinion does not exist for affirmative action. Affirmative action has been and will continue to be a subject of hot debate because mere mention of the term divides interest groups into two warring camps: one hotly in favor and one hotly opposed. [...] In their haste to condemn each other, the camps lose sight of the nature and purpose of equal employment opportunity laws. [...] This divisive debate results in general confusion and misunderstanding about affirmative action which, in turn, tends to undermine the effectiveness and legitimacy of the enforcement of civil rights laws. As the lead agency in the enforcement of federal equal employment opportunity laws, the EEOC cannot stand by and allow confusion about affirmative action to undermine our enforcement efforts. We must attempt to bring out and clarify the issues obscured by this debate. [...] Much of the heated debate and public confusion over affirmative action, in fact, stems from the confusion between flexible goals and inflexible quotas, and the use of these two distinct terms interchangeably. Thomas, in his speech, expressed the view that "too much posturing" had taken place over the debate about affirmative action, but he also affirmed that affirmative action programs had been "critical to minorities and women in this society." The section of the speech paraphrased to claim that Thomas was once amenable to affirmative action followed the above remarks: followed It is my view that too much posturing has taken place on issues such as affirmative action, which are critical to minorities and women in this society. The problems which we face in the area of equal employment opportunity must be solved. For the most part, they must be solved by applying legal principles of paramount importance to me. But for them, God only knows where I would be today. [...] These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second. The reference to the "first 17 years" of his life is an allusion to statements Thomas made in the opening of this speech, when Thomas referenced "the fact that the Chairman of the EEOC spent 17 years of his life (one-half) under strict segregation." This connection, along with the broader context of the speech, makes it clear that "these laws" are those contained in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. opening The 1964 Civil Rights Act ended segregation when Thomas was a few months shy of 17. It also created the "equal employment opportunity laws" at issue under Title VII that provide the EEOC the audience of his speech  with its legal authority. At the end of his speech, during this second allusion to the end of segregation, Thomas warned against the improper use of those laws, even when used with good intention: shy of 17 I abhor any effort to twist, bend, or distort them [legal principles] for any reasons, whether such distortions are said to help or hurt minorities or women. No one should be permitted to turn these laws on their heads just because they have good intentions. These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second. In sum, Thomas did not present anything more than a muted acknowledgement of the EEOC's role in some forms of affirmative action, and the laws or principles he was referring to in remarks that have since gone viral did not concern affirmative action specifically, but the principles contained within the 1964 Civil Rights Act more broadly. 1964 Civil Rights Act That Thomas, who recently ruled against the use of racial quotas in college admissions, would have described affirmative action as "critical to minorities and women in this society" has been painted as an example of Thomas' hypocrisy on affirmative action. The portion of the speech often cited to make this point is mischaracterized, even if that point has validity. Specifically, the 1991 reporting in The New York Times reported, as its primary scoop, that Yale Law School had a 10 percent minority goal the year in which Thomas applied to and was accepted into the program: 1991 reporting Judge Clarence Thomas, who came to prominence as a fierce black critic of racial preference programs, was admitted to Yale Law School under an explicit affirmative action plan with the goal of having blacks and other minority members make up about 10 percent of the entering class, university officials said. Under the program, which was adopted in 1971, the year Judge Thomas applied, blacks and some Hispanic applicants were evaluated differently from whites, the officials said. Nonetheless, they were not admitted unless they met standards devised to predict they could succeed at the highly competitive school. [...] "We did adopt an affirmative action program and it was pretty clearly stated," said Prof. Abraham S. Goldstein, who was dean of the Law School from 1970 to 1975. Thomas has also acknowledged this part of his history, as reported in 1980 by The Washington Post. "The worst experience of his life," he reportedly explained at the time, "was attending college and law school with whites who believed he was there only because of racial quotas for the admission of blacks." as reported Frank Washington, a Yale friend interviewed by Newsweek in 1991, said that Thomas had, in private, "recognized that affirmative action helped to get him into law school, but on the basis of economic deprivation rather than race." interviewed While there are separate arguments to be made of the notion that Thomas' views on affirmative action are hypocritical due to his personal benefit from such programs, removing context from a speech to make it sound like that alleged hypocrisy was more overtly stated is misleading. Because the laws and principles Thomas was referring to were those contained in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and not any specific affirmative action legislation, the claim is False. Bella, Timothy. "The Time Clarence Thomas Said Affirmative Action Was 'Critical' for Society." Washington Post, 1 July 2023. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/06/30/clarence-thomas-affirmative-action/. "Black Conservatives, Center Stage." Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/12/16/black-conservatives-center-stage/c5b44552-ad84-4a40-9b3c-3e88fdfa3589/. Accessed 5 July 2023. Clarence Thomas in 1983: "God Only Knows Where" I Would Be If Not for Affirmative Action - Alternet.Org. https://www.alternet.org/clarence-thomas-1983-affirmative-action/. Accessed 5 July 2023. Current Litigation Trends and Goals at the EEOC - ProQuest. https://www.proquest.com/openview/1a991116c071ffe6a6547f7505c13f63/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1816463. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Eagleton Backs EEOC Nominee With Reluctance." Newspapers.Com, 1 Apr. 1982, https://www.newspapers.com/article/st-louis-post-dispatch-eagleton-backs-e/127670235/. "Federal Agency Reformer Leaves with No Misgivings." Newspapers.Com, 10 Mar. 1981, https://www.newspapers.com/article/arizona-republic-federal-agency-reformer/127564899/. "New EEOC Nomination." Newspapers.Com, 1 Mar. 1982, https://www.newspapers.com/article/athol-daily-news-new-eeoc-nomination/127670013/. "Regan Undermines EEOC Enforcement." Newspapers.Com, 5 Feb. 1983, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-atlanta-voice-regan-undermines-eeoc/127667015/. Rich, Spencer. "Reagan Panel, Citing 'New Racism,' Urges Easing of EEOC Rules." Washington Post, 30 Jan. 1981. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/01/30/reagan-panel-citing-new-racism-urges-easing-of-eeoc-rules/dfd79721-7bbc-4ef0-91a3-ee5425904abe/. "Supreme Court Strikes down Affirmative Action Programs in College Admissions." SCOTUSblog, 29 June 2023, https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-programs-in-college-admissions/. "Timeline of Important EEOC Events." US EEOC, https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/timeline-important-eeoc-events. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." US EEOC, https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964. Accessed 5 July 2023. One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth  military spending was reduced during Obama's second term  but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in a complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements in order to perpetuate this notion.  In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." said This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). not true In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years and years. Trump said: "Weve been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office.  President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: speech "Weve invested the $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and its all made here, right in the USA.  This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget.  not true While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail.  While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense.  Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. military budget covers sequestration The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration.  green book The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense.  Center for Strategic and International Studies   Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes: writes The military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact, according to Gen. David Petraeus ,who commanded our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and also headed the CIA, and Michael OHanlon, there was no readiness crisis and in 2016, the year Trump was elected, the state of our military was awesome. Nor was the defense budget seriously underfunded in the Obama years. If one controls for inflation, in FY2021 dollars Obama spent $3.3 trillion in his first term compared with the $2.9 trillion under Trump. Moreover, while defense spending did decline slightly in Obamas second term, it still amounted to $2.7 trillion, about $200 million, or 7 percent less, than Trumps first-term budget. However, this decline was a result of the Budget Control Act or sequestration (BCA,) which was instituted by his current chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman from South Carolina. While the military certainly had ammunition during the Obama administration, and while the Obama administration certainly spent a few trillion dollars more than nothing on national defenses, several aspects of the military were truly reduced during Obama's administration. Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure  the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength  [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force."  examined Obama's budget Though it is certainly not accurate to say that the military did not receive any funding during the Obama administration, there was truly a reduction in spending. Two major factors resulted in reduced spending. First, congress placed restrictions on military spending in 2011 in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. And second, the Obama administration started to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending: explained In 2011, in response to a debt ceiling crisis, lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In addition to limits on domestic spending, limits were placed on the Pentagons base budget, but not its wartime spending. Congress increased spending caps by $32 billion in 2013 and $40 billion in 2015, referred to by budget watchers as partial sequester relief. In February, the cap was blown off entirely, when Mr. Trump signed a budget deal that raised it by $165 billion over two years. Effectively, that ended the sequester without repealing the original law. From 2012 to 2017, the Pentagons annual budget had decreased as a percent of the economy. But it still hovered around $600 billion  a far cry from no money at all. Qiu, Linda.  "Trump Goes for Broke on Claim Military Received No Money Before His Watch. (Hes Still Wrong.)."
  The New York Times.  13 August 2018. Plinkington, Ed.  "Barack Obama Sets Out Plans for Leaner Military in Historic Strategy Shift." 
 The Guardian.  5 January 2012. Ewing, Philip.  "Fact Check: Has President Obama 'Depleted' The Military?"
  NPR.  29 August 2016. Korb, Lawrence.  "Trumps Misleading Claims on Military Readiness and Veteran Care."
  Marine Corps Times.  14 September 2020. Harrison, Todd.  "Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget."
  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  April 2016. Robertson, Lori.  "Trumps False Military Equipment Claim.'"
  FactCheck.org.  2 July 2020. The New Testament's book of Colossians (one of the thirteen epistles traditionally attributed to Paul, this one addressed to Christians in the city Colossae) reads as follows (in verses 1:12-20 of the King James Version): Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. It is not uncommon for sermons and other Christian devotional/inspirational writings to cite this passage in comparison with some scientific concept: Just as gravity or atoms or molecules are the "glue" that holds the physical world together, so God or Jesus is the force that binds the spiritual world. An example involving laminin glycoprotein cited is one example of this form, with the addition of a graphic meant to illustrate how God's design is evident (in the shape of a cross) in the molecular structure of laminin  what literally holds us together (in a biological sense) was clearly created by He who spiritually holds us together: laminin A couple of days ago I was running (I use that term very loosely) on my treadmill, watching a DVD sermon by Louie Giglio ... and I was BLOWN AWAY! I want to share what I learned ... but I fear not being able to convey it as well as I want. I will share anyway. He (Louie) was talking about how inconceivably BIG our God is ... how He spoke the universe into being ... how He breathes stars out of His mouth that are huge raging balls of fire ... etc. etc. Then He went on to speak of how this star-breathing, universe creating God ALSO knitted our human bodies together with amazing detail and wonder. At this point I am LOVING it (fascinating from a medical standpoint, you know.) ... and I was remembering how I was constantly amazed during medical school as I learned more and more about God's handiwork. I remember so many times thinking ... "How can ANYONE deny that a Creator did all of this???" Louie went on to talk about how we can trust that the God who created all this, also has the power to hold it all together when things seem to be falling apart ... how our loving Creator is also our sustainer. And then I lost my breath. And it wasn't because I was running my treadmill, either!!! It was because he started talking about laminin. I knew about laminin. Here is how wikipedia describes them: "Laminins are a family of proteins that are an integral part of the structural scaffolding of basement membranes in almost every animal tissue." You see ... laminins are what hold us together ... LITERALLY. They are cell adhesion molecules. They are what holds one cell of our bodies to the next cell. Without them, we would literally fall apart. And I knew all this already. But what I didn't know is what laminin LOOKED LIKE. But now I do. And I have thought about it a thousand times since (already) ... Here is what the structure of laminin looks like ... AND THIS IS NOT a "Christian portrayal" of it ... if you look up laminin in any scientific/medical piece of literature, this is what you will see ... Now tell me that our God is not the coolest!!! Amazing! The 'glue' that holds us together ... ALL of us ... is in the shape of the cross. Immediately Colossians 1:15-17 comes to mind. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created; things in heaven and on earth , visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things HOLD TOGETHER." Colossians 1:15-17 Call me crazy. I just think that is very, very, very cool. Thousands of years before the world knew anything about laminin, Paul penned those words. And now we see that from a very LITERAL standpoint, we are held together...one cell to another....by the cross. You would never in a quadrillion years convince me that is anything other than the mark of a Creator who knew EXACTLY what laminin "glue" would look like long before Adam even breathed his first breath!!We praise YOU, Lord!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This particular example is based on the work of Christian pastor/evangelist Louie Giglio, as seen in the following video clip:  Discussions about whether or not nature evinces signs of a purposeful (Christian) creator are theological/scientific debates that can (and do) fill volumes, so we'll just note a few items to consider: accidentally crucifixion And when the illustration is returned to its original orientation, many liken it to the appearance of a sword:  appearances  Davis, Kenneth C.  Don't Know Much About the Bible.
  New York: Eagle Brook, 1998.  ISBN 0-688-14884-0  (pp. 435, 440-441). K. Beck, I. Hunter and J. Engel.  "Structure and Function of Laminin: Anatomy of a Multidomain Glycoprotein."
  The FASEB Journal, Vol 4, 148-160. In February 2021, a meme circulated on Facebook claiming that "Communist China" owned DreamWorks:   Since the meme urged people to "FACT CHECK THIS!", we did, and it appears that these claims are made up out of whole cloth.  DreamWorks Animation LLC is an American animation studio best known for making movies such as "Shrek" and "How to Train Your Dragon." It started as a division of the movie production company DreamWorks Pictures founded in 1994 by Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen. In 2016, the company was acquired by NBCUniversal, a division of Comcast Corporation, in a deal worth about $3.8 billion. founded in 1994 Variety reported at the time: reported NBCUniversal has set a deal to buy DreamWorks Animation for $3.8 billion in cash, giving the Comcast-owned media conglomerate added heft in its effort to compete with rivals like Disney, Time Warner and Viacom, all of which cater more directly to kid-and family audiences. [...] "DreamWorks will help us grow our film, television, theme parks and consumer products businesses for years to come, said NBCUniversal CEO Steve Burke.  We are fortunate to have Illumination founder Chris Meledandri to help guide the growth of the DreamWorks Animation business in the future. NBCUniversal and Comcast are both American companies.  We're not entirely sure where the claim that "China owns DreamWorks" originated, but it might be based on some confusion over the animation company Pearl Studios, which was formerly known as Oriental DreamWorks. While these companies do have a connection, they are two separate entities. Oriental DreamWorks was started as a joint Chinese-American venture in 2012 between Chinese investment companies and DreamWorks Animation. When Comcast acquired DreamWorks in 2016, they noted that DreamWorks Animation owned a 45% stake in Oriental Dreamworks: acquired DWA is also the majority owner of AwesomenessTV, a leading video destination for Generation Z and Millennial audiences, and also owns 45% of Oriental DreamWorks, a world-class animation studio in China that produces family entertainment for both Chinese and global audiences. Two years after this deal in 2018, the Chinese investment firm CMC Capital Partners took full ownership of Oriental DreamWorks and relaunched it as Pearl Studio. Deadline reported: reported A consortium led by Li Ruigangs CMC Capital Partners has taken full ownership of Shanghai-based animation studio Oriental DreamWorks, relaunching it as Pearl Studio. Universal, which inherited 45% of the joint venture when parent Comcast acquired DreamWorks Animation in 2016, had been looking to offload its interests. Financial terms were not disclosed. The newly-christened studio will be led by CEO Frank Zhu and Chief Creative Officer Peilin Chou. The senior executive team also includes Head of Studio Dagan Potter, Head of Ancillary Business PC Xu and Head of Operation Cindy Zhou. Oriental DreamWorks, which launched in 2012, is the studio behind Kung Fu Panda 3 which was the first official U.S.-China animated co-production and one of the highest-grossing animated films ever when it released in the Middle Kingdom in 2016. In September last year, the studio unveiled a slate of key development projects. A Chinese investment firm (not the Chinese government) owns an animation studio called Pearl Studio that originated as a Chinese-American joint venture called Oriental DreamWorks. In no way can this be construed as the Chinese Communist Party's owning the American company DreamWorks. In August 2020, a photograph showing the figures "1f1b" written on the back window of a vehicle started to circulate on social media along with a warning about an alleged tactic being used by sex traffickers to flag potential targets. Those sharing this meme claimed that this term stood for either "1 female 1 boy," or "1 female 1 baby," and that cars were being tagged with these codes by sex traffickers. The meme received a viral boost when it was posted to actor James Woods' Twitter account: posted   The text read:  A very close friend of mine was out today doing shopping with her child at the Bricktown Walmart. When she left the store a lady stopped her and made her aware of what was written on her back window (1f1b) im just going to assume that it stands for 1 female 1 baby. She was then informed that this is now how sex traffickers are tagging cars.. please please mothers, fathers, grandparents.. aunts & uncles. Be AWARE! Feel free to share! Wont be tagging my friend for personal reasons. The claims made in this viral social media post are unfounded. Police in Bricktown, New Jersey, have said that they are unaware of any such activity. But before we get to the police statement about this matter, let's take a look at the game of telephone that helped this rumor go viral.  The text of this post states that this happened to a "friend of mine." When we read a little further, we see that this "friend" was warned about this new criminal tactic by a random stranger. Not a police officer, a news reporter, or even a Walmart employee  just an anonymous "lady." The original post received a few thousand shares, but this post received far wider circulation. And the farther we moved away from the rumor's origins, the muddier the details got. One poster, for instance, informed people that this incident took place in Bricktown, Oklahoma City, despite the fact that there is no Walmart in this location. post poster When we try to boil down this rumor to its origins, we see that the claim is based on something someone saw on Facebook, written by a person claiming that their friend had heard from a stranger that the code "1f1b" was being used by sex traffickers to flag future targets. In other words, this rumor doesn't exactly have credible origins.  The local Patch website reported: reported Brick Township Sgt. Jim Kelly said the department had not been notified. "We have no reports for anything like this," Kelly said. He also said the department has not been alerted by state or federal authorities of any information that indicates criminals are marking vehicles "as a method for anything." It's simply another Facebook rumor without any facts, Kelly said. A new variant of this rumor popped up on social media in July 2021.    AND THIS, THIS IS WHY I CARRY! Not only do I carry but Im educated in how to defend myself if ever put in a circumstance like this!! Please be aware of your surroundings AT ALL TIMES!7/27/2021Today around 3:30pm between Prairie Grove and Hogeye, this truck had a black Tahoe stop in front of it. A man got out and began asking the female driver of this truck for directions. She rolled down her window but had her seat belt on and doors locked. As the man approached he punched her in her left eye and cut her arm. Thankfully she was carrying and grabbed her gun. He took off. She called the police and they advised her this mark 1FW on her back window is a human trafficking mark. She was marked somewhere and this man followed and when she was on a road alone, he made a move to take her. Thankfully, she is home with her family tonight. Please be aware of your surroundings. We are told they often mark mailboxes and trash cans too. This particular marking stands for one female white. Nor was this the first time that this type of baseless warning has gone viral on social media. In July 2019, for example, we wrote about the false claim that sex traffickers were flagging targets by placing zip ties on houses, mailboxes, or vehicles. In December of that year, a false rumor circulated that sex traffickers were laying down in front of vehicles in order to trick them into stopping. That same month saw the spread of another false rumor holding that roses were being placed on cars to mark potential targets.  false claim false rumor false rumor Human trafficking is a real problem in the world, but the schemes described above are not based on any real-world threats. In fact, The Polaris Project, a non-profit that runs the U.S. National Human Trafficking Hotline, writes that the forced kidnapping aspect of the aforementioned rumors is one of the most prevalent myths when it comes to trafficking: The Polaris Project Myth: Its always or usually a violent crime. Fact: The most pervasive myth about human trafficking is that it often involves kidnapping or physically forcing someone into a situation. In reality, most traffickers use psychological means such as, tricking, defrauding, manipulating or threatening victims into providing commercial sex or exploitative labor.     Polaris Project.  "Myths, Facts, and Statistics."
  Retrieved 24 August 2020. Wall, Karen.  "Rumor Of Sex Traffickers at Brick Walmart Unfounded, Police Say."
  Patch.  13 August 2020. Updated [Aug. 2, 2021]: July 2021 variant added. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Inauguration Day, Kamala Harris made history several times over. In being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2021, the outgoing California senator became the first Black person, first woman, and first person of South Asian heritage to be elevated to the vice presidency.  Inauguration Day The historic nature of her achievement was placed in stark context in a viral meme that showed Harris, whose parents immigrated to the United States from India and Jamaica, respectively, juxtaposed with a long list of official portraits of white men. (Charles Curtis, who served with Herbert Hoover from 1929 to 1933, had some Native American heritage and was therefore the first person of color to hold the office of vice president). Charles Curtis The meme also highlighted several purported landmarks in the slow progress of women's rights and racial desegregation in the United States, as follows: Dont understand why its a big deal that Kamala Harris is VP? Until Red box? She would have been enslaved. Until Blue box? She couldnt vote. Until Yellow box? She had to attend a segregated school. Until Green one? She couldnt have her own bank account.   The following screenshot shows a selection of instances of the meme on Facebook and demonstrates its popularity on social media in January 2021: popularity   The vice presidents highlighted in various colors were as follows (along with the dates of their tenure as vice president): Red: Andrew Johnson, March 4 to April 15,1865 Andrew Johnson Blue: Calvin Coolidge, March 4, 1921, to Aug. 3, 1923 Calvin Coolidge Yellow: Richard Nixon, Jan. 20, 1953, to Jan. 20, 1961 Richard Nixon Green: Spiro Agnew, Jan. 20, 1969, to Oct. 10, 1973 Spiro Agnew The claims made in the meme were therefore that: until Johnson's tenure as vice president (in 1865), Harris would have been enslaved due to her racial heritage; until Coolidge's tenure as vice president (1921 to 1923), she would have been denied the right to vote due to her gender; until Nixon's tenure as vice president (1953 to 1961), she would have been forced to attend a segregated school due to her racial heritage; and until Agnew's tenure as vice president (1969 to 1973), she would have been denied the right to her own bank account, due to her status as a married woman.  On the whole, the claims contained a high degree of historical accuracy, though in some cases they over-simplified certain discriminatory practices and made some relatively minor errors in identifying the vice president in office during certain major reforms. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "true." The following is our assessment of each of those claims.   The creator of the meme appears to have chosen the year 1865, and therefore the tenure of Johnson, because that is the year in which the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, was passed. The text of the amendment reads as follows:  text Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress passed the amendment in January 1865, while Johnson was vice president-elect to President-elect Abraham Lincoln, but it was not ratified by the states until December 1865, by which time Johnson had ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, leaving the vice presidency vacant for the duration of his presidency. So the sequence of events is a bit muddled, but it is certainly reasonable to place the 13th Amendment, and the abolition of slavery, during the Johnson era.  Until the passing of the 13th Amendment, Black people in the United States lacked legal protection against enslavement. That doesn't mean that all Black people before 1865 were slaves, but the vast majority were. Based on figures included in the 1860 U.S. Census (page 14), some 89% of Black people in the country at that time were slaves. page 14 Slavery was far more prevalent in the southern states, but on average, a Black woman in the U.S. shortly before the 13th Amendment had close to a 90% likelihood of being enslaved. From a human rights perspective, Black people had no legal or constitutional protection from slavery, which is likely the thrust of the point made in the meme.   The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, was passed by Congress in June 1919 and ratified by the states in August 1920. The text of the amendment read: text The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. On both those dates, Thomas Riley Marshall was vice president, under President Woodrow Wilson. So the meme was incorrect in stating that women could not vote until the vice presidency of Calvin Coolidge. In fact, women voted for the first time in the November 1920 election, which saw Warren Harding and his running mate Coolidge elected president and vice president, respectively.  Thomas Riley Marshall That inaccuracy does not impinge upon the truth of the broader point being made in the meme, namely that Harris, as a woman, would not have been able to vote in the United States until the early 1920s. However, the meme does miss an important additional barrier to voting rights that Harris, as a Black woman, could have faced even after the passage of the 19th Amendment.  While the 15th Amendment in principle gave Black men the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment gave all women the right to vote, states continued to discriminate against Black voters by imposing obstacles such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and "grandfather clauses"  all of which were designed to suppress Black voters. 15th Amendment obstacles It wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that such practices were prohibited by federal law, although many activists argue that present-day voter-ID rules continue the legacy of electoral restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on voters of color. Voting Rights Act argue   The creator of the meme appears to have selected the vice presidency of Nixon (1953 to 1961) because that was the period during which the U.S. Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools constituted a violation of the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown vs. the Board of Education. In a follow-up ruling in 1955, the court ordered school districts to arrange for the desegregation of public schools "with all deliberate speed."  declared follow-up ruling Most, though not all, schools were racially segregated in the 19th and early-20th centuries in the United States. So a Black student, such as Harris, would very likely have been forced to "attend a segregated school," as the meme claims. Brown vs. the Board of Education marked the beginning of the end of school segregation, but it did not bring about integration overnight. Over the course of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, state lawmakers and local authorities fought protracted and often bitter battles to resist the Supreme Court's clear mandate. battles So while the meme was right to point out that Black students would be very likely forced to attend segregated schools before the decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education, it's also the case that many Black students were forced to attend segregated schools for many years after the ruling, as well. What changed in 1954 was that the nation's highest court clearly declared that system of racial segregation to be unconstitutional.   The meme appears to refer to the enactment of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) in the early 1970s, which made it illegal for financial services companies to discriminate against customers on the basis of anything other than their creditworthiness. The legislation stated that: stated It shall be unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction(1) on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract)... However, the law wasn't enacted until October 1974, when the office of vice president was vacant. Spiro Agnew resigned in late 1973, after he was charged with bribery and tax fraud, and his replacement, Gerald Ford, ascended to the presidency in August 1974, after Nixon resigned. So the meme is again mistaken on the precise sequence of events. While Agnew was vice president, banks could (and did) legally deny credit to a woman on the basis of extraneous considerations such as her marital status, her husband's income and credit history, and so on. and did The meme also somewhat overstated the restrictions in place before 1974. Women, including married women, could open their own bank accounts before the ECOA was passed, but often faced difficulty and discrimination in doing so. It was particularly difficult for women to obtain a line of credit or a credit card, in her own name. In 1972, the National Commission on Consumer Finance published a report that found the following common discriminatory practices in lending: report What the ECOA changed in 1974, and what the meme appears to allude to, is that banks and lenders could no longer legally engage in such discriminatory practices. Claim:  Notorious mob lawyer "Easy Eddie" O'Hare teaches his son Butch the value of honesty and integrity; the son goes on to become a decorated war hero and dies in the service of his country. Status:  Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] During the course of World War II, many people gained fame in one way or another. One man was Butch O'Hare. He was a fighter pilot assigned to an aircraft carrier in the Pacific. One time his entire squadron was assigned to fly a particular mission. After he was airborne, he looked at his fuel gauge and realized that someone had forgotten to top off his fuel tank. Because of this, he would not have enough fuel to complete his mission and get back to his ship. His flight leader told him to leave formation and return. As he was returning to the mother ship, he could see a squadron of Japanese Zeroes heading toward the fleet to attack. And with all the fighter planes gone, the fleet was almost defenseless. His was the only opportunity to distract and divert them. Single-handedly, he dove into the formation of Japanese planes and attacked them. The American fighter planes were rigged with cameras, so that as they flew and fought, pictures were taken so pilots could learn more about the terrain, enemy maneuvers, etc. Butch dove at them and shot until all his ammunition was gone, then he would dive and try to clip off a wing or tail or anything that would make the enemy planes unfit to fly. He did anything he could to keep them from reaching the American ships. Finally, the Japanese squadron took off in another direction, and Butch O'Hare and his fighter, both badly shot up, limped back to the carrier. He told his story, but not until the film from the camera on his plane was developed, did they realize the extent he really went to, to protect his fleet. He was recognized as a hero and given one of the nation's highest military honors. And as you know, the O'Hare Airport was also named after him. Prior to this time in Chicago, there was a man named Easy Eddie. He was working for a man you've all heard about, Al Capone. Al Capone wasn't famous for anything heroic, but he was notorious for the murders he'd committed and the illegal things he'd done. Easy Eddie was Al Capone's lawyer, and he was very good. In fact, because of his skill, he was able to keep Al Capone out of jail.  To show his appreciation, Al Capone paid him very well. He not only earned big money, he would get extra things, like a residence that filled an entire Chicago city block. The house was fenced, and he had live-in help and all of the conveniences of the day. Easy Eddie had a son. He loved his son and gave him all the best things while he was growing up: clothes, cars, and a good education. And because he loved his son he tried to teach him right from wrong. But one thing he couldn't give his son was a good name, and a good example. Easy Eddie decided that this was much more important than all the riches he had given him. So, he went to the authorities in order to rectify the wrong he had done. In order to tell the truth, it meant he must testify against Al Capone, and he knew that Al Capone would do his best to have him killed. But he wanted most of all to try to be an example and to do the best he could to give back to his son, a good name. So he testified. Within the year, he was shot and killed on a lonely street in Chicago. This sounds like two unrelated stories. But Butch O'Hare was Easy Eddie's son.  Do you think Easy Eddie was able to pass the value of integrity on to his son? Origins:  Some parts of this glurge about Edgar Joseph "Easy Eddie" O'Hare (also known as EJ) and his son, Edward Henry "Butch" O'Hare, are true, if exaggerated in the presentation above. The senior O'Hare provided legal services to Al Capone and later helped the government bring that notorious gangster to justice on tax fraud charges in 1931, then was murdered on 8 November 1939.  (Exactly who killed Eddie O'Hare has always been a subject for debate, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he was killed on orders from Capone for having given information to the government that led to Capone's imprisonment.)  Eddie's son Butch was a pilot who died in the Pacific during World War II when he failed to return to his carrier after a night mission on 26 November 1943, and Chicago's O'Hare airport was indeed named in his honor. (Dispute remains over exactly what happened to Butch, a Medal of Honor winner, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates his plane was downed by friendly fire rather than Japanese Zeroes.)   This glurge completely  jumps the tracks, however, in trying to turn the story of Eddie and Butch O'Hare into a tale of redemption, a little morality play to demonstrates the importance of recognizing the errors of one's ways, of atoning for one's misdeeds, of trying to do right and prevent one's sins from being visited on future generations.  Those are all valuable lessons, but they have precious little to do with this story. Eddie O'Hare was not just a gangster's lawyer, he was also a partner in some of Al Capone's illegal activities. Despite having entered a profession in which he was expected, of all things, to uphold the law, the senior O'Hare broke the law to enrich himself through unethical and illegal schemes in partnership with the most notorious gangster in American history.  What's more, he served Capone as an attorney and business manager, aiding the mobster in setting up illegal enterprises and helping to keep Capone and his cronies out of prison. When "Easy Eddie" did eventually provide information that aided federal authorities in sending Capone to prison for income tax evasion, it was far less likely that he did it because he had an attack of conscience, wanted to right the wrongs he'd done, or sought to teach his son the value of integrity.  More probably he turned state's evidence because he could see the handwriting on the wall: Capone was going to be nailed with or without his assistance, but by doing the government a favor Eddie could keep himself out of prison.  (Some sources even suggest the connections Eddie made by turning government informant were what got his son Butch a berth at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis.) Perhaps Eddie O'Hare believed or knew he would be killed for what he had done; perhaps not.  Either way, it was his son Butch who redeemed the family name through his wartime bravery and heroism, and the price he paid for that redemption was his life.  None of that redemption was achieved through the actions of Easy Eddie. Was the elder O'Hare "able to pass the value of integrity on to his son"?  If his actions illustrated anything, it was just the opposite of integrity: if you're clever enough and sufficiently lacking in moral values you can live a life of wealth and privilege by victimizing others, and if  your gravy train should ever derail you can adopt an "every man for himself" attitude and save your own skin by ratting on your associates. Butch O'Hare was suitably honored when the Chicago airport known as Orchard Depot was renamed O'Hare International in 1949.  It's unfortunate that he and the airport have to share the O'Hare name with his unscrupulous father. Additional information:     Capone and the O'Hares  (Combined Counties Police Association)  Last updated:  1 February 2005    Sources:    Ewing, Steve and John B. Lundstrom.  Fateful Rendezvous: The Life of Butch O'Hare.   Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1997.  ISBN 1-55750-247-1. Fateful Rendezvous: The Life of Butch O'Hare As the premiere of the horror flick Jeepers Creepers 3 approached in September 2017, many posted messages on social media to remind potential moviegoers about director Victor Salva's criminal history: messages   Salva was convicted in 1988 on charges related to the sexual molestation of 12-year-old actor Nathan Forrest Winters during the filming of his movie Clownhouse. Salva served 15 months in prison and finished his parole in 1992. The Associated Press reported at the time: served Salva confessed to having oral sex with Winters in 1987 while directing him in "Clownhouse," a low-budget horror film about three boys terrorized by circus clowns. Salva, sentenced to three years in state prison, served 15 months and completed parole in 1992. Salva is a registered sex offender: registered offender   said Victor Salva, a former child-care worker who impressed Hollywood filmmakers with his early cinematic work, was sentenced to three years in state prison in 1988 for molesting a 12-year-old boy who had acted in two of his films. Salva videotaped one of the encounters. [...] The revelations came as the now 20-year-old victim, Nathan Winters of Concord, Calif., picketed a screening of "Powder" on Monday night in Westwood. Winters passed out leaflets urging the public to boycott the movie and said his family and friends would continue protesting after the film debuts Friday on more than 1,500 screens nationwide. Winters said he was "in awe" that Disney would even make a movie with Salva. "I can't believe [Salva] is allowed to work with children again," Winters said. "He should not be allowed around children ever again." At the time, Salva released a statement saying "How deeply I regret my actions." It continued:  statement I paid for my mistakes dearly. Now, nearly 10 years later, I am excited about my work as a film maker and look forward to continuing to make a positive contribution to our society. Caravan Pictures, the company that made Powder for Disney, also released a statement: "He paid for his crime, he paid his debt to society," said Roger Birnbaum, whose Caravan Pictures made "Powder" for Disney and reportedly didn't know of Salva's record until the film was midway through production. "What happened eight years ago has nothing to do with this movie." More recently, Salva's past hindered the casting of Jeepers Creepers 3 when the web site Breakdown Services removed the casting call for a 13-year-old character (to be played by an 18-year-old) upon learning of Salva's crime.  casting Winters never starred in another movie.  movie Welkos, Robert.  "Disney Movie's Director a Convicted Child Molester."
 LA Times.   25 October 1995. Guthmann, Edward.  "Concord Molest Victim Confronts `Powder' Director / Actor protests at Disney Screening."
 SF Gate.   25 October 1995. Goldstein, Patrick.  "Victor Salva's Horror Stories."
 LA Times.   11 June 2006. President Donald Trump took a victory lap on the job market during one of his periodic Cabinet meetings. Unemployment is at a 17-year low,he saidon Dec. 6, 2017. Very shortly it's going to be at a 19-year low. We think the numbers are going to continue to go down. And we're also getting into the pool of the 100 million people that are not working. That pool is now coming back. As you know, that's not considered in the low employment numbers, which means we have a lot of people that want to get to work, and that will be working. The unemployment rate is indeed at its lowest point since December 2000. But we were curious about Trumps other assertion -- that would-be workers from a pool of 100 million are coming back into the workforce. President Donald Trump at a cabinet meeting on Dec. 6, 2017. (Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images) First off, Trump is in the ballpark when he says that there are 100 million people not working. There are currently 95.4 million people above the age of 16 who are out of the labor force -- meaning neither working nor actively looking for work -- and another 6.5 million people who are unemployed. If you look at the raw number of Americans who are not in the labor force -- people who are not working or looking actively for work -- that figure has risen by 1.02 million since January 2017, an increase of about 1 percent. Meanwhile, the labor force participation rate -- or the percentage of people age 16 and up who are either working or actively looking for work -- has been bouncing around in a narrow band since Trump took office -- between 62.7 percent to 63.1 percent -- with no clear trend. While neither of these measures supports Trumps assertion, each presents an imperfect view of the labor pool by including everyone 16 and up. Those totals are shaped by demographic changes. Demographic trends such as the aging of the baby boomer cohort have been the primary drivers for the decline in labor force participation, said Chris Lafakis, a director at Moody's Analytics. We simply have more retirees now because our population is older. If you drill down using statistics that are more targeted to working-age Americans, Trumps assertion looks more credible. Consider the employment-to-population ratio for Americans age 25 to 54. During Obamas last 12 months, this measurement rose by half a percentage point. (Rising, for this statistic, is good -- it means a larger percentage of Americans are employed.) But in the first 10 months of Trumps tenure, the statistic rose by six-tenths of a percentage point. Thats not a radical improvement, but its better than his predecessor managed in his final year. Heres the full chart (with Obama months in blue and Trump months in red): If you look at the raw numbers, the number of non-workers in the 25 to 54 age range has declined by about 691,000 since January 2017. Another statistic also puts the improvement in 2017 in a favorable light. That would be the unemployment rate known as U-6. This statistic uses a more generous definition of unemployment than the most commonly used measure. The U-6 rate includes not just workers who are officially unemployed but also those who are employed part-time when they would prefer a full-time job, and those who want to work but who havent looked for work in the preceding four weeks. In Obamas final year, this measure dropped by half a percentage point. (A drop is a good sign.) But under Trump, it has dropped by 1.5 percentage points -- three times faster in a shorter period of time. Heres the full chart: This statistic is an important one for judging Trumps assertion, because the people who would be driving the declines would specifically be those who find jobs after being unemployed by conventional definitions, plus those who had been forced to work only part time and those who had not looked for work for several months. President Trump is correct that the pool of non-workers continues to shrink, said Brookings Institution economist Gary Burtless, though he added that it has done so fairly steadily since the last quarter of 2011. Jed Kolko, the chief economist for the job site Indeed.com, puts significant stock in the two statistics that support Trumps statement. Our view is that the labor market is entering 2018 with strength and momentum, with some room to grow, Kolko said. Finally, its worth noting that no president can take full credit for the economys achievements (or take full fault for its shortcomings). Many other factors, including the health of the rest of the world economy and changes in demographics and technology, play a role as well. Our ruling Trump said that were  getting into the pool of the 100 million people that are not working. That pool is now coming back. The statistics that shine the most direct light on working-age Americans support Trumps point. Both the working-age employment-to-population ratio and the U-6 expanded unemployment rate have improved on Trumps watch. Its worth noting that they also improved during Obamas final year, so Trump was fortunate to take office at a time when the economy was already going in the right direction. But the scale of the increase has been bigger under Trump. We rate this statement Mostly True. Claim:  Zero Population Growth terrorists are boobytrapping men's toilers with razors.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2000]  from: SeigerB@fbihq.wash.dc.fed.gov.usato: SAIC-All Field Officessubject: Important Operational Warning Notice 29 September 2000 From: Bertrand Seiger, Special Agent in Charge      Domestic Terrorism Division      Headquarters Field Office      Washington D.C. This message is classified at Security Level 3BFile Copy Only To Be Maintained. No Duplication Permitted Operational Immediate:   Pass this information along immediately to all field agents, office staff, and support personel, special attention to notification of male staff members.   It has now been verified that a new radical splinter group has broken from the main group of the Zero Population Movement. This new group, calling itself simply "No More!" has started to conduct a campaign of domestic terrorism, aimed at reducing the human population of this planet.   All staff are hereby advised to use extreme caution when using any public or semi-public restroom facilities, especially male staff members.   A confirmed 172 cases of maiming have occurred, with 13 resulting in the death of the victim. Many more cases are pending confirmation.    The "No More" group has designed an insidious device that they have been placing in the toilets in public restrooms across the nation. 6 have been found in limited access buildings.    The devices consist of a straight razor, a springload mechanism, and a pressure senser. The devices are cleverly hidden underneath the rim of the toilet bowl, and are not visible except by close inspection from inside the space of the bowl.    When a subject weighing over 120 pounds sits on the toilet, the pressure senser connected to the toilet seat activates within 5 to 12 seconds, causing the springloaded razor to sweep across the forward half of the toilet.    This results in extreme trauma to, or complete severing from the body of the victims testicles.   In 102 cases, this has also resulted in the loss or damage of between 6 and 54% of the victims penis.   3 female victims have also suffered minor lacerations. One to the buttocks, and two to the back of the thighs.   Plans are being formulated to share this information with state and local law enforcement agencies as soon as it is feasable, without chancing widespread panic amongst the civilian population.   Information gathered by the Detroit Field Office also indicates that plans are in the works to install these devices in private residences. Members of "No More" plan to install the devices while in the guise of service providers, such as plumblers. There is no evidence yet to indicate that this practice has yet started.   Inform all staff soonest. Staff on their days off should be contacted at home. Every effort should be made to also contact staff on vacation, medical or disability leave, or any other leave of absence.   I cannot stress strongly enough the danger that this poses.  message endsc/:22ab.9 Origins:  This bit of silliness began making the online rounds at the end of September 2000 and is another example of hoaxsters' preying upon deep-rooted fears of  castration. Once again, our toilets are supposedly turning against us: 1999's deadly lurking butt spiders have been replaced with a spring-loaded slice-o-matic with a jones for johnsons. butt spiders Despite the dire-sounding, badly-spelled e-mail quoted above, no such cases have been reported anywhere. This lack of reportage is tangentally alluded to as an effort to keep everything hush-hush so as not to cause a "widespread panic amongst the civilian population." Rest assured the media would have broken such a story if any such attacks had come to the attention of even one reporter. It's equally ludicrous to assume the families of the thirteen men who supposedly lost their lives in this fashion would stand silently by, neither raising a public outcry to warn others, nor attempting to hold anyone accountable for the loss of their loved ones. Barbara "all cisterns are go!" Mikkelson Last updated:  22 January 2015