Hidden Sex Drawing in 'Monsters, Inc.' Scene
InMay 2016, a viral YouTube video purportedly featuring one of the final scenes in the Pixar movieMonsters Inc.renewed interest in a rumor that a drawing of characters "Uncle Roger" and "Mommy" engaged in a sex act could be spotted on Boo's bedroom wall:  The drawing did not actually appear in the movie at all. Theimage was created by Corey Vaspasianofor a digital editingcontest forthe web siteCracked,in which users were asked to insert R-rated "Easter eggs"into children's movies: Cracked    The above-displayed image was laterinserted into a clip fromMonsters Inc.which had many people convinced that it was real.While Disney and Pixar both love to insert "Easter eggs" intentional hidden messages or inside jokes  into their films, this is not an example of one. The real scene fromMonsters Inc.featured an innocent picture of a cat: scene    While many of the X-rated Disney rumors have been proven false, the movieThe Rescuers did actually feature two frames showing a topless woman. Disney rumors woman
Claim: Household paper shredders can pose a danger to children and pets. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] This one comes from a well respected Borzoi person, and veterinarian, Elizabeth A Coney, DVM of Kentucky. She wrote: Now - for every one of you that has a home paper shredder with an "auto on" feature, I want you to go turn it off and unplug the paper shredder right now. Because night before last I was presented with a paper shredder containing most of the tongue, ripped out by the base, and a very pretty sweet 1 1/2 year old lab cross whose owners euthanized her. She always watched the paper go into the shredder, she thought it fascinating. The "auto on" feature means the shredder sits there waiting for something to get placed into it. Like an inquisitive tongue. I told them, "Dogs can do fine without a tongue, they have to learn to drink and eat differently", but the owners didn't want to go there. The look in her eyes said, "I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't supposed to do that, it's all my fault". We all cried.  I cried when I read this, myself. In subsequent posts Beth says she has learned that dogs who have lost more than half their tongues *don't* do as well as she had been taught. According to the veterinary literature it is also possible for animals to be injured other places than tongues  a Basset lost an ear, a long-haired cat most of the skin on its side, a kitten a foot, etc. She didn't mention any human injuries, but I can't imagine that a toddler would be immune from either curiosity or injury. Please be vigilant!! This is not the 1st time I have heard of this happening. Origins:  While Barbara and I were away from home for a few days recently, we received a playful e-mail message from our petsitter informing us that our house was "haunted."  She'd  dropped by to tend to our cats, she said, when suddenly she heard the sound of a paper shredder running in Barbara's office.  Nobody else was in the house, and she quickly ruled out the possibility that one of our kittens had accidentally started the shredder because they were all dancing around her feet in the kitchen at the time, impatiently waiting to be fed. The incident was even more puzzling because we're pretty careful about always leaving our shredder in the "Off" setting when we're not using it, and even when the device is powered on, it doesn't activate until a piece of paper is fed into it.  We never did solve the mystery, although we're pretty sure it's not related to a haunting. In any case, the experience reminded us that we (like many other people) now have in our home a variety of machines that once were typically found only in business offices. Although some people manage to find ways to injure themselves with just about anything (even something as seemingly innocuous as a fax machine), paper shredders can pose an especial hazard  they're made to destroy documents rather than generate them, and (due in large part to concerns about identity theft) more and more of them are being purchased for home use, where their shredding blades represent a risk not just to careless adults, but to curious children and inquisitive pets as well.  In 2005, for example, the Spokesman Review reported: [T]he U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission says shredders  $350 million worth were sold [in 2004] and many wound up in homes  pose a growing threat of injury to children, particularly toddlers. The agency received 31 reports involving finger amputations and other finger injuries from paper shredders from January 2000 to December 2003. It isn't difficult to find harrowing reports of children being seriously injured through sticking their fingers into shredders, such as the following account from Consumer Reports: Lisa Broadfoot's son, Talan, was helping her shred documents, when suddenly his little fingers got sucked in. "He screamed and then was begging me to get his hands out of this machine, 'Please Mommy, Please Mommy, get my hand out.' [He was] just screaming and crying and begging," Broadfoot said. Lisa rushed Talan to the hospital with the shredder still attached. "They started cutting the blades because there was no other way to get his fingers undone," she said. "It was like he could feel it. He just started screaming again and I'm holding him and trying to explain to him that it's going to be OK. It's going to be OK." Talan ended up losing three of his fingers. In March 2006, TV's Inside Edition reported a similar case of injury to a child: When you meet Hallie Mouritsen, you cant tell that there's anything wrong with this beautiful five year-old girl.  But if you look closer at Hallie's left hand, her fingers are cut off at the knuckle.  The doctor described them as being "crushed, mutilated and non-viable." How did it happen?  Hallie was feeding paper into a shredder in her home when her fingers got caught in its powerful blades. According to her father, Matt, "it grabbed her fingers and just began pulling." And Hallie's not the only one.  The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a safety alert after receiving 50 reports of injuries from paper shredders since 2000, most involving children younger than five.  Mr. Mouritsen is an accounting professor in Salt Lake City, Utah who often works at home. He says he had just opened the shredder for the first time and after using it, left the room briefly. Hallie, who was just two, went into the room with her older sister. "The next thing I know, while I'm making dinner, my five year-old is yelling, she's stuck, she's stuck!" he told Inside Edition's Investigative Reporter Matt Meagher. Hallie's wounds took months to heal.  Her dad still chokes up remembering Hallie's reaction the day the bandages came off.  "She went like this with her hand" (hiding his left hand). "She couldn't even look at it. She asks us to this day, when are my fingers going to grow back?" Among household pets, dogs are particularly at risk from shredders, as they have a tendency to lick things, and many breeds have long, floppy ears that can get caught in shredder openers.   The Spokesman Review published an account of an incident in which a puppy suffered injuries from a paper shredder so severe that she was euthanized afterwards (and her owner lost a portion of one finger trying to rescue her): Adam Forney doesn't even own a paper shredder. And he probably never will. The 22-year-old was sitting on his couch in his south Spokane home watching television when his 7-month-old puppy licked the top of his roommate's shredder and the dog's tongue was sucked into the shredding mechanism. "I ran into the room ... she was pulling so hard and the thing was dragging ... then she just ripped away," Forney said. "I will never forget the sound it made when she pulled away." In the chaos of trying to help his injured dog, Forney's pinky finger was bitten off at the first joint, and another finger was fractured by the bite. "I grabbed her head to try and get her to calm down, and she bit me," Forney said. "She ran out of the room and I just lost it. It looked like a murder scene in my house ... there was so much blood." Forney went to the emergency room, and his mixed-breed dog, Alice Lane, went to a local pet emergency clinic, where she was euthanized. Inside Edition offered a similar tale of a young dog's catching his tongue in a shredder: A number of pets have also been injured by shredders. For one dog owner, it was a horrifying experience.  Sandra Clarke of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina told us when she was at home working on March 1st, her curious puppy, Cross, caught his tongue in a shredder.  According to Sandra, it was not a pretty sight.  "It looked like hamburger meat.  It was shredded up about an inch.  There was blood everywhere." A large part of the problem is that since shredders were originally designed as business equipment for offices (where they would presumably be   used only by adults), many models did not have the kinds of safeguards built into them to provide adequate protection in household environments, where children and animals abound.  Although consumer safety groups are working to get manufacturers and lawmakers to adopt more stringent safety standards for shredders (such as making paper slots thinner and placing blades farther away from openings), the adoption of new standards takes time, and plenty of the machines already have been purchased for home use.   Some veterinarians maintain that serious shredder accidents involving animals are rare, but the frequency of occurrence is difficult to estimate since there has not been any systematic effort to keep track of such injuries.  Regardless, the subject merits attention since the potential for accidents (involving both people and pets) will likely continue to grow as more and more shredders make their way into households, and the likelihood of injury can be mostly eliminated by following a few simple precautions:  Try to place your shredder where it is not accessible to children or pets.   Turn off (or unplug) your shredder when you are not using it.   Never allow children to operate your shredder, even with adult supervision.  Keep your hands and fingers as far from the shredder opening as possible when feeding material into it.   Be careful to secure or remove ties, necklaces, bracelets, loose-fitting clothing, and long hair before using your shredder.  Avoid putting thicker material (such as food wrappers, product packaging, and padded envelopes) through your shredder.        Paper Shredder Dangers to Kids, Pets   (KGO-TV)        Paper Shredders Can Be a Danger to Children and Pets   (Inside Edition)      Leaming, Sara.  "Paper Shredder Leads to Nightmare."   The [Spokane] Spokesman Review.  2 March 2005.    Inside Edition.  "Paper Shredders Can Be a Danger to Children and Pets."   30 March 2006.    Internet Broadcasting Systems.  "Paper Shredders Can Be Dangerous Risk Around Home."   WRAL.com.  10 April 2006. On 9 December 2015, a message claiming that the legal drinking age would be raised to 23 in February 2016 started circulating on Facebook:   While the above-displayed Facebook message may appear atfirst glance as if it came from the news network CNN, that is not the case. This Facebook message was created by a prank website that creates links which resemble real news stories. However, when a user clicks on the link they are redirected to apage that informs them that the story was fake:   Users are then prompted to share the joke with their friendson Facebook. Similar pranks have previously circulated on the internet, briefly convincing Facebook users that Taco Bell was closingandthat PepsiCo was discontinuing Mountain Dew. closing discontinuing  [article-meta] Claim:  The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is changing its name to the Obama Center.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2014] Rumor:  The Kennedy Center For The Arts' name is being changed to the Obama Center For The Arts.   Origins:  The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is a performance hall and education complex located on the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C. Although the Kennedy Center is the official home of the National Symphony Orchestra and the Washington National Opera, it is most widely known for hosting the annual Kennedy Center Honors, a program which recognizes living individuals for lifetime artistic achievement and which is broadcast live on network television each year. John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Kennedy Center Honors Although the legislation to establish a National  Cultural Center was signed by President Eisenhower in 1958, it was President and Mrs. Kennedy who used their influence as well known patrons of the arts to raise the private funds necessary to establish and maintain the center. After President Kennedy's death in 1963, Congress "designated the National Cultural Center ... as a 'living memorial' to Kennedy."  living memorial But there is another Kennedy Center, this one a community recreation center and senior citizens hall in Willingboro, New Jersey. In early August 2014 the Willingboro Township Council voted to rename that Kennedy Center in honor of President Barack Obama: A recreation and senior citizens center in Willingboro known as the "Kennedy Center" will soon be named after the sitting president and not a former one. The change became official Tuesday when the township council voted to change the name of the building to honor President Barack Obama. The name of the street the building is on  Kennedy Way  will not be changed. A shopping center across the street is also named for Kennedy. That name change was planned as part of a multi-million dollar renovation of the Willingboro community facility, which converted the former high school cafeteria into a banquet hall. But after alumnae/i of the former Kennedy High School protested, the Willingboro council reversed the decision at its September 2014 meeting: Dawn Donnelly, of Burlington Township, a 1977 graduate of Kennedy, came to the meeting with 1,200 signatures of those opposing the name change. Im an Obama supporter, Donnelly said. I voted for him two times, and I would vote for him again. Its not about that.... Kennedy meant a lot to this town in the 1960s. They are changing history. Last updated:   3 September 2014    Goldman, Jeff.  "Building In N.J. Town Named After John F. Kennedy Will Now Be Named   After Obama."   The Star-Ledger.  7 August 2014.     Levinsky, David and Rose Krebs.  "Willingboro Council Reverses Kennedy Center Name Change."   Burlington County Times.  2 September 2014. Amid tense talks between Congressional Republicans and Democrats over the 2018 federal budget, the attention of many observers turned to each side's record on government spending, benefits and entitlements, and fiscal priorities.  In that vein, a widely-shared Facebook meme took aim at Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, accusing him of supporting a modified version of a long-standing liberal bte noire  drug-testing for welfare recipients.  On 21 January 2018, Facebook user Ken Stanley wrote: wrote Tom Cotton calls for every person who receives Social Security to be drug tested those who test positive will lose benefits.     This claim is false. We searched Cotton's speeches, op-eds, and press releases, as well as the Congressional Record and news archives, and found no evidence of the Senator ever having advocated such a policy. In an e-mail, a spokesperson for Cotton told us the meme was "completely false": Senator Cotton does not support (nor has he ever supported) drug testing for Social Security recipients.  Indeed, even those who call for drug-testing for welfare recipients do not typically propose the same policy for Social Security. This is because Social Security is more widely regarded as an earned benefit (workers contribute to it through payroll taxes), while programs such as housing assistance or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) are regarded as welfare. Senator Cotton does, however, have a record of making statements and advocating policies around welfare assistance which have raised eyebrows.  In 2015, Salon and Raw Story headlines accused Cotton of "blaming" drug addiction on Social Security benefits, and claiming that receiving Social Security disability benefits causes individuals to "spiral" into drug addiction. The articles, as well as Cotton's actually comments were more nuanced.  blaming spiral In a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think thank, Cotton advocated for reform of the Social Security disability system, and drew a link between population decline and social ills (including drug addiction) in certain counties and regions, and rates of Social Security disability insurance uptake:  It's hard to say what came first or caused the other: population decline or increased disability usage. Or maybe economic stagnation caused both. Regardless, there seems to be  at least at the county and regional level  something like a disability tipping point. When a county hits a certain level of disability usage, disability becomes a norm. It becomes an acceptable way of life and an alternative source of income to a good-paying, full-time job...After a certain point, when disability keeps climbing and becomes endemic, employers will struggle to find employees, or begin  or continue  to move out of the area.  Population continues to fall, and a downward spiral kicks in, driving once-thriving communities into further decline. Not only that, but once this kind of spiral begins, communities could begin to suffer other social plagues as well, such as heroin or meth addiction and associated crime. In 2014, while running for the Senate, a Huffington Post writer accused Cotton of "calling food stamp recipients addicts." Again, his comments were much more nuanced than that description.  accused According to a Huffington Post transcript of a virtual town hall hosted by Cotton in July 2014, the then-Congressman defended voting down a Democratic bill relating to agricultural payments and federal food aid, on the basis that it did not sufficiently reform the food stamps program, including by requiring drug testing for applicants: voting I dont think that we should be using farmers as a way to pack more welfare spending into Barack Obamas government, Cotton said. Nor should we have a food stamp program that isnt reformed, that doesnt have job training and work requirements, that doesnt have drug testing requirements, so we can get people who are addicted the help they need. Or make sure that long-term addicts or recidivists are not abusing taxpayer dollars. In March 2017, Cotton joined with Republican Senate colleagues in voting to nullify an Obama-era Department of Labor rule which limited the circumstances under which states could conduct drug-testing for individuals applying for unemployment insurance.  voting rule President Donald Trump later formally reversed the guideline, effectively giving states greater powers in conducting drug screening for jobless benefits. So Senator Cotton has certainly supported drug testing for welfare programs  but never for Social Security.  reversed Gauthier, Brendan. "Tom Cotton Blames Social Security for 'Heroin and Meth Addiction' Because Reasons."
 Salon. 10 November 2015. Edwards, David. "Sen. Tom Cotton: Social Security Benefits Cause People to 'Spiral Downward' Into Heroin Addiction."
 Raw Story. 9 November 2015. Lachman, Samantha. "GOP Senate Candidate Tom Cotton Calls Food Stamp Recipients 'Addicts.'"
 Huffington Post. 17 July 2014. Brady, Rep. Kevin. "House Joint Resolution 42 -- Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Department of Labor Relating to Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Congressional Record. 31 March 2017. U.S. Department of Labor. "Final Rule --Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Provision on Establishing Appropriate Occupations for Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Federal Register. 1 August 2016. U.S. Department of Labor. "President Trump Nullifies Drug Testing Rule."
 U.S. Department of Labor. 31 March 2017. On 22 June 2017, the Occupy Democrats Facebook page posted a meme claiming that the United States government paid for Mitch McConnell's care and rehabilitation when the Republican senior senator contracted polio as an infant in the 1940s. meme This claim is contrasted, in the meme, with McConnell's support for the Senate Republican health care plan published that day: plan As a kid, Mitch McConnell had polio, and the government paid for ALL of his care and rehabilitation. Now, as the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, McConnell is taking government-funded care away from tens of millions of Americans. Let that sink in.   An article accompanying this meme reports that government-sponsored, publicly funded healthcare saved the young McConnell's life: article Mitch McConnell has been relentlessly working to roll back Medicaid and deprive millions of Americans of government-sponsored healthcare coverage for eight years now. But if it werent for the government, McConnell wouldnt be able to walk at all.  Young Mitch came down with a terrible case of polio as a child in Alabama. My mother was, of course, like many mothers of young polio victims, perplexed about what to do, anxious about whether I would be disabled for the rest of my life he admitted in a 2005 interview. But luckily for him, his mother took him 50 miles to the Warm Springs, where President Roosevelt won his own battle with polio and established a polio treatment center that was paid for by the public. President Roosevelt asked the people of America to send in dimes to the White House as part of his March of the Dimes foundation. Over two and a half million dimes were mailed in, and they paid for Mitchs physical therapy and treatment. A Death and Taxes article posted on the same date reports a similar story:  article How did Warm springs fund McConnells therapy, you ask? This was two decades before Lyndon Johnson launched federal health coverage by signing into law the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. In the mid-30s, Roosevelt and his law partner Basil OConnor founded the Georgia Warm Springs Foundation and started organizing fundraising balls around the country. By 1938, however, the balls grew less effective and the president needed a new strategy. Using a phrase coined by vaudeville entertainer Eddie Cantor, March of Dimes  a spin on the popular newsreel series March of Time  Roosevelt founded the March of Dimes foundation and launched a campaign asking the public to mail ten-cent donations to the White House. Within a month, Roosevelt received around 2,680,000 dimes. The campaign continued through WWII. McConnell started visiting Warm Springs in 1944. In other words, he overcame polio with the help of public money allocated by the White House. Mitch McConnell has often told the story of his childhood affliction with polio, and the role of FDR's Warm Springs rehabilitation center in his recovery. In his 2016 memoir The Long Game, McConnell recounted how he was struck with polio at the age of two while staying with his mother in his aunt's home in Five Points, Alabama.  memoir It's one of my life's great fortunes that Sister's home was only about sixty miles from Warm Springs, Georgia, where President Franklin D. Roosevelt had established a polio treatment center and where he'd often travel to find relief from the polio that paralyzed him at the age of thirty-nine. My mother took me there every chance she had. The nurses would teach her how to perform exercises meant to rehabilitate my leg while also emphasizing her need to make me believe I could walk, even though I wasn't allowed to. So it's clear that Mitch McConnell did indeed receive significant help  primarily in the form of physical therapy and physical therapy training for his mother  from the polio rehabilitation center established by Roosevelt at Warm Springs, Georgia.  However, neither this particular center nor the care given to McConnell were government-funded. Roosevelt purchased the property at Warm Springs, Georgia and established a center there in 1927, having visited frequently for therapy for his own polio, which he contracted in 1921. He (and others) set up the Warm Springs Foundation, a nonprofit organization that depended on wealthy philanthropists and donations from members of the public.  1927 In 1934, Basil O'Connor (once a partner at Roosevelt's law firm and a close associate of the recently-elected President) began organizing fundraising for the Warm Springs Foundation, set around the President's birthday celebrations each year. Within four years, these birthday balls had raised $1,350,030 for the Warm Springs rehabilitation center (the equivalent of $23.3 million in 2017). equivalent In September 1937, Roosevelt reconstituted the Warm Springs Foundation as the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (as polio was then widely known); in January 1938, the directors of the foundation launched the first "March of Dimes", a phrase coined by vaudeville star Eddie Cantor who helped promote a nationwide fundraising drive which attracted the support of Hollywood stars as well as charitable middle-class families giving 10 cents each.  In six months, the March of Dimes raised $81,073 (which would be about $1.4 million in 2017). In July 1938, the New York Times published a detailed auditor's report, which offered a breakdown of donations and expenditure. report Some aspects of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis perhaps reflect a more innocent time. For example, the hundreds of thousands of dimes sent by members of the public were processed at the White House and a cheque was given to Roosevelt, who then turned it over to O'Connor for distribution via the Foundation. However, in many ways the operation was a precursor of the professional, almost corporate style of non-profit fundraising and campaigning that has followed since. For example, a large portion of funds raised in 1938 came from attendees at 8,000 Presidential birthday balls throughout the country, labor organizations contributed the equivalent of $760,000, and the Western Union and Postal Telegraph companies wrote off the cost of thousands of birthday greetings sent to the President at 25 cents per message. The following year, charity sporting events were held throughout the country, and badges were distributed to donors as part of an awareness-raising "Give a Dime and Wear a Button" campaign.  year Funds raised for the Warm Springs Foundation and National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis were also distributed in the form of research grants to scientists hoping for a breakthrough in the treatment of polio. grants This came to fruition in the 1950s when Dr. Jonas Salk  who had received a grant from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis  developed a successful polio vaccine.  Jonas Salk The Warm Springs center that helped in Mitch McConnell's recovery was indeed founded by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was President at the time McConnell was struck by the disease, in 1944. Roosevelt was the driving force behind both the Warm Springs Foundation and its successor, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, and used his political office to energetically promote fundraising for polio care and research. The funding came from the kindness and charity of the public, as well as wealthy celebrities and large corporations. However, it was operated as an innovative, nationwide nonprofit organization, not a federal or state agency, and it was not taxpayer or government-funded. The Warm Springs center visited by McConnell remained owned and operated by a nonprofit organization until 1974, when the state of Georgia took it over, making it truly government-run. Since 2014, it has been owned and operated by Augusta University.  Augusta University McConnell, Mitch. "The Long Game." (pg 9,10).
 Penguin Random House. 31 May 2016. New York Times. "$1,350,030 Raised for Warm Springs."
 New York Times Archive. 16 January 1938. New York Times. "Net of $1,021,034 to Paralysis Fund."
 New York Times Archive. 7 July 1938. New York Times. "Sport World Aids in Paralysis Drive."
 New York Times Archive. 27 December 1938. In 2021, the story behind a 120-year-old Icelandic version of the classic novel "Dracula" captured the imaginations of social media users, who enthusiastically shared the following summary, originally posted by the Twitter account @ihmerst: shared "Someone translated Dracula into Icelandic and it took over 100 years for anyone to point out he just made a fanfic-rewrite of what he wanted the story to be."   "Dracula," written by Irish novelist Bram Stoker and first published in 1897, has come to be regarded as a classic work in the genres of horror and Gothic fiction and helped popularize vampire folklore in the English-speaking world. It has also inspired a vibrant field of academic research into the social and cultural themes upon which the novel touches, as well as the life of Stoker and the origins of "Dracula." academic research One particularly fascinating point of interest involves the existence of alternative versions of the novel, published in Icelandic and Swedish around the turn of the 20th century. The description posted by @ihmerst contained a measure of truth, but oversimplified what is a complicated and unfinished area of research. The photograph contained in @ihmerst's tweet showed a snapshot of the introduction to Hans Corneel de Roos' 2017 English translation of "Makt Myrkranna" ("Powers of Darkness"), the Icelandic book in question. It was written by journalist Valdimar smundsson, first serialized in his newspaper Fjallkonan in 1900, and later published as a book which, remarkably, included a preface attributed to Stoker himself.  2017 English translation serialized A more clearly legible version of de Roos' introduction can be viewed below:   Up until the 2010s, "Makt Myrkranna" remained untranslated from Icelandic and was presumed to be simply a shortened translation of Stoker's original English text. However, de Roos discovered that the plot of the book differed drastically from that of "Dracula," including new characters, more explicit sexual themes and imagery, and a significant shift in style away from the epistolary (letter-writing) format of the original. In 2014, de Roos described "Makt Myrkranna" as the first translation of "Dracula" and speculated that, in light of elements contained in Stoker's preface, the Irish writer himself may have endorsed "Makt Myrkranna" or even collaborated with smundsson on it.  described De Roos' findings made waves in the world of "Dracula" scholarship, and when he published the English translation of "Makt Myrkranna" in 2017, it attracted mainstream news coverage around the world. mainstream news coverage However, the publicity surrounding de Roos' findings prompted yet another plot twist, as it were. In 2017, the Swedish fantasy writer Rickard Berghorn recognized in the title of the Icelandic text, "Makt Myrkranna," a clear similarity with the title of a Swedish translation of Stoker's novel  "Mrkrets makter," which also translates as "Powers of Darkness." Berghorn made two startling discoveries: first, that serialized versions of "Mrkrets makter" had been published in Swedish newspapers beginning in 1899 (that is, before the Icelandic text was published); and second, that the Swedish versions also constituted a radical departure from Stoker's 1897 novel, rather than a straightforward translation.  two startling discoveries Since 2017, something of a consensus has emerged that, rather than constituting a modified and embellished version of "Dracula," based on the original English text, smundsson's Icelandic text was in fact a modified translation of earlier Swedish texts. As a result, @ihmerst's claim that "someone translated 'Dracula' into Icelandic" should now be regarded as outdated and inaccurate.  consensus has emerged However, some key questions remain. Who wrote the preface to "Powers of Darkness," which was included in both the Swedish and Icelandic texts and attributed, perhaps fraudulently, to Stoker? Was Stoker even aware in advance of the Swedish text (and subsequent Icelandic text), much less involved in its creation? What was the identity of the unnamed Swedish newspaper editor responsible for "Mrkrets makter"? Was the Swedish text simply "fan fiction"  an unauthorized alternative version of "Dracula" masquerading as a translation  or could it have been based on a much earlier draft of Stoker's own novel? perhaps fraudulently much earlier draft Jarlath Killeen, head of the School of English at Trinity College Dublin (which Stoker himself attended), and an expert in Gothic and Victorian Irish and British literature, has edited and written several books and articles on Stoker and "Dracula." He told Snopes that scholars were continuing to research and debate those questions and others, but the precise origins of the Nordic texts remained "very unclear and very murky," for now.  expert Since the Inflation Reduction Act passed with only Democratic support in Congress, Republicans have criticized the bill, saying it will saddle ordinary Americans with increased audits by the Internal Revenue Service. The legislation, signed into law by President Joe Biden on Aug. 16,includesprovisions that would lower drug costs, address climate change, reduce the deficit, and impose higher taxes on the largest corporations. But much of the Republican criticism has focused on the laws allocation of about $80 billion over 10 years to strengthen the Internal Revenue Service. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said that the Democrats' new army of 87,000 IRS agents will be coming for you  with 710,000 new audits for Americans who earn less than $75k. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., sought to counter these attacks in an Aug. 28tweet, saying, The Inflation Reduction Act will ensure the wealthiest & most fortunate among us pay their fair share in taxes just like #WV families & small businesses. WV families making less than $400K & small businesses will NOT be targeted by the IRS because they are already paying taxes. The Inflation Reduction Act will ensure the wealthiest & most fortunate among us pay their fair share in taxes just like#WVfamilies & small businesses.WV families making less than $400K & small businesses will NOT be targeted by the IRS because they are already paying taxes. Manchin has a point. His argument is roughly the inverse of McCarthys, which PolitiFact ratedMostly False. We concluded that McCarthys 710,000-audit estimate runs counter to the IRS stated policy and was based on a flawed use of a Congressional Budget Office estimate that assumed much higher spending on enforcement than is in the legislation that passed. (We also found that McCarthys 87,000 figure was exaggerated because not all of those employees would be enforcement agents.) Here, well zero in on Manchins statement that WV families making less than $400K & small businesses will NOT be targeted by the IRS. The 710,000 figure stems from an exaggerated calculation by U.S.Rep. Kevin Bradyof Texas, the House Ways and Means Committees top Republican. He arrived at the number by bringing together two pieces of data. In 2021, the Congressional Budget Office said that $80 billion more for the IRS would return audit rates to the levels of about 10 years ago. Brady took 2010s audit rates and applied them to the number of tax returns in 2018, broken down by income groups. Using his approach, there would be about 710,000 more audits for filers reporting less than $75,000 in income. However, this approach ignores several key details about what the CBO report says elsewhere and what the bill  and the Treasury  have made clear: This effort aims to increase audits of corporations and high-net-worth individuals. The full sentence in the CBO report that Brady was drawing from said the audit rate would rise for all taxpayers, but higher-income taxpayers would face the largest increase. Brady also failed to note a key difference between the budget offices assessment from a year ago and the bill that was passed in 2022. The CBO assumed in its report that $60 billion of the $80 billion would go toward enforcement. But the current bill would result in substantially less than that  $46 billion  for enforcement, according to aCongressional Research Serviceanalysis. With nearly one-third less money for enforcement, the resulting number of audits would likely be smaller. Perhaps the biggest problem with assuming there will be a big increase in audits for middle- to low-income Americans, however, is that it runs directly counter to the IRS stated policy, which Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen laid out in a letter to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig. I direct that any additional resources  including any new personnel or auditors that are hired  shall not be used to increase the share of small business or households below the $400,000 threshold that are audited relative to historical levels, Yellen wroteAug. 10. Rettig had said much the same in anAug. 4letter to Congress. Audit rates for filers reporting less than $75,000 in income have held steady over thepast several yearsat about 0.4%. Thats lower than the audit rate in 2011, when it was 1%. Yellen said enforcement will focus on corporations and people with high net worth. Auditing them requires staff with special skills. Today, she said, the agency is able to audit only about 7,500 out of 4 million such returns each year. Focusing on higher earners, as the IRS plans to do, would go a long way toward reversing the agencys historical focus on auditingsome of the lowest earners, largely households that file for the earned income tax credit. The only caveat to Manchins statement is that theres no guarantee the agency will adhere to the new policy it has announced. The pledge not to use the Inflation Reduction Act funds to increase audits of those making less than $400,000 is not built into law, John Buhl, senior communications manager at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, told PolitiFact West Virginia. Although its not written in law, its a policy that has been stated publicly on several occasions. Both the IRS and Treasury are committed to that policy decision, as outlined in recent letters, said Erin Heeter, Manchins press secretary. Both the IRS and Treasury also outlined in their recent letters that audit rates for families making under $400k will not change. Buhl agreed that its unlikely that the IRS will perform audits on lower-income families when they already have documentation through W-2 wage pay stubs and other statements. And audits of high earners arewhere the money is, anyway. The top 1% of earners account for about 30% of the $600 billion each year that is owed but goes uncollected, Natasha Sarin, counselor for Tax Policy and Implementation at the Treasury Department, told PolitiFact. Manchin said, WV families making less than $400K & small businesses will NOT be targeted by the IRS. This limitation wasnt written into the Inflation Reduction Act. However, top Treasury and IRS officials have consistently confirmed that the new resources allocated to the IRS by the law will be focused on audits of the highest-paying Americans, making it stated policy. We rate the statement Mostly True. Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal received a letter on Dec. 12 that likely gained the attention of his staff.The author was Grover Norquist, the president of the Washington-based Americans for Tax Reform, best known for the pledge he asks political candidates to sign vowing to oppose and vote against tax increases. Nearly one-half of the members of Congress, including nine from Georgia, have signed the pledge. During his successful 2010 campaign, Deal promised ATR that he would oppose and veto all tax increases as governor.Norquist, you see, has some pull.His letter to the governor urged Georgia lawmakers considering a tax overhaul next year to pass legislation that is revenue-neutral. Norquist also warned officials here to stay away from tax increases in other areas. A portion of one sentence caught our attention.Last years target was tobacco; this year may be a repeat, or we may hear proposals for excise tax increases on alcohol or sweetened beverages, Norquist wrote. Whatever the case may be, targeted excise tax increases drive commerce across state lines and hurt small businesses bottom lines.The question for us: Do excise tax increases, as Norquist wrote, drive commerce across state lines?Excise taxes are placed on items such as cigarettes and alcohol. Most excise taxes are on cigarettes. Georgia, like most Southern states, has among the lowest excise taxes on cigarettes (37 cents a pack) in the nation. One news report earlier this said state Senate leaders are considering raising the cigarette tax by $1 a pack.The Americans for Tax Reform staff argued its case that Norquist is right, pointing to the results of excise tax increases in three places, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and South Carolina. Heres a closer look:ChicagoATR told us that Chicagoans flocked to neighboring Indiana when Cook County, which encompasses the Windy City, raised its cigarette tax by $1 in 2006. After the 2006 changes in Cook County, Chicagoans paid among the highest prices for cigarettes in the country. A team of University of Illinois-Chicago researchers found in a sample survey of discarded cigarette packs that 75 percent of them came from outside Cook County, The Huffington Post reported. The taxes on a pack of cigarettes in Chicago in 2007 was $4.05. The taxes were $1.37 outside city limits.Washington, D.C.ATR says Washington saw an 11 percent net decline in cigarette tax revenue after it raised the cigarette tax by 50 cents, to $2.50 a pack in 2009. Cigarette taxes in the nations capital were already higher than most states before 2009. In Virginia, the taxes for a pack of smokes is 30 cents, nearly the lowest in the nation. Missouri has the lowest cigarette taxes, 17 cents a pack, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids. City officials still expected to bank $30 million from the increase, although it was less than their initial projection of about $45 million.South CarolinaGeorgia saw a net increase in cigarette sales of nearly 1.3 million packs in the six months after South Carolina raised its excise tax rate in July 2010, ATR says. Cigarette tax revenue did decline slightly in South Carolina in the first 12 months since its increase, records show. South Carolina previously had the lowest cigarette tax in the nation, at 7 cents a pack. Its now 57 cents a pack. Many smokers in the Palmetto State were not happy with the changes.Matthew Farrelly, whose research on cigarette excise taxes has been used by others, said some people will travel across state lines to buy cigarettes once excise taxes are raised. Other smokers will buy by the carton or choose a lesser brand to save money, he said. Farrelly contends its bogus for anyone to say large numbers of smokers will rush to another state to buy cigarettes once an increase takes effect because few Americans live near a border. He also noted the states that raise their excise taxes eventually make a profit.On net, increases in taxes on cigarettes lead to revenue all the time, said Farrelly, senior director, RTI International Public Healthy Policy Research Program, headquartered near Raleigh, N.C.Our conclusion:Norquist has a good argument for his basic point, based on the research weve seen and people weve interviewed. The difference in taxes between some places, however, is so large ($2.20 a pack between Washington, D.C., and Virginia) that it adds some important context to this argument. With that additional bit of information, we rate Norquists claim as Mostly True. Since November 2020, an identically worded bit of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim has its origins on the website Armstrong Economics  which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong  and would become a well-shared bit of copy-and-paste "copypasta," reproduced in part below: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention its origins well-shared Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation? [...] The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation. The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively a government-funded [sic]  very curious. Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still creep up on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters to that post were evidently confused: republished published   The allegations leveled against the CDC are not all that coherent in these posts. The copypasta suggests the CDC is both a non-profit and a "quasi-government" agency. Further, those issues are tangled up in the separate issue of corporate donations to the CDC. The title of the post, however, provides Snopes with a clearly stated contention: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation?" You most likely did not know this, because it is, in fact, not true. The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation  the CDC Foundation  that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives.  housed in in 1992 mandated the creation CDC Foundation "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC. its website The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC foundation are an indirect route as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions." by law a portion For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed so long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents: policy documents The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes  both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself  have caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples: an editorial In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemenseach of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. [...] In 2012, [a company named] Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDCs efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector  we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. CDCs gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014. has policies since 2014 While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress: 2020 fiscal year compared to   Even from a rhetorical standpoint it would be a stretch to argue the CDC proportionally is awash in corporate funding. Narrowly speaking, however, the assertion that the CDC is a non-profit, non-government organization is incorrect because that claim conflates the CDC (a federal agency) and the CDC Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charity). As such, the claim is Claim:A total of 351 mass shootings took place in the U.S. during the first 334 days of 2015. [dot-mixture][/dot-mixture] Example: [Collected via Twitter, November2015]  Origins: On 2 December 2015, several publications reporting on a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, included a stat from the web site ShootingTracker.com about the number of mass shootings that had taken place in the U.S. so far in the calendar year 2015: several publications ShootingTracker.com The Post found that there had been 351 shootings in the 334 days of 2015. Wednesday's incident in California marks the 352nd mass shooting in the nation. For comparison, 2014 saw 336 mass shootings in the United States, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which the Post used in its report. Wednesday's shooting at the Inland Regional Center also comes just one day after the facility held its annual holiday party. The claim that there were 351 mass shootings in the first 334 days of 2015 hinges on the definition of mass shooting. While it might seem like a simple task to define "mass shooting," there really is no agreed upon definition. A 2013 congressional research service report defined a mass shooting as an incident involving four or more gun related deaths: report There is no broadly agreed-to, specific conceptualization of this issue, so this report uses its own definition for public mass shootings. These are incidents occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths  not including the shooter(s)  and gunmen who select victims somewhat indiscriminately. The violence in these cases is not a means to an endthe gunmen do not pursue criminal profit or kill in the name of terrorist ideologies, for example. A 2014 study on mass shootings used the same criterion (four or more deaths), and the FBI employed the same standard in 2005 to define "mass murder." study standard ShootingTracker.com, however, is based upon a different definition of mass shooting, one that (in keeping with the literal meaning of "shooting") is based upon the total number of people shot (i.e., wounded or killed by gunfire) in a single incident rather than solely the number of victims killed: definition The old FBI definition of Mass Murder (not even the most recent one) is four or more people murdered in one event. It is only logical that a Mass Shooting is four or more people shot in one event. Here at the Mass Shooting Tracker, we count the number of people shot rather than the number people killed because, "shooting" means "people shot". Brock Weller, one of the people responsible for maintaining the crowdsourced web site ShootingTracker.com, elaborated on thereason to use four people shot instead of four people killed as the primary criterion for defining an event as a "mass shooting": ShootingTracker.com "The goal is to stop minimizing these acts of violence," Wellerexplains.The site's authors point to a 2012 shooting in which one person was killed and 18 people were wounded at a nightclub. Because only one person died, it was not considered a mass shooting. This June, 10 people were shot at a block party on a basketball court in Detroit; the next day, 11 were wounded when two people opened fire with a shotgun at a block party in West Philadelphia. Neither were widely referred to as mass shootings. "Arguing that 18 people shot during one event is not a mass shooting is absurd," the Tracker's founders write. Medical advancements have helped save lives that would have otherwise been lost, a fact Weller believes the gun lobby benefits from. "Those gunshot victims are still just as shot and will never be the same," hesays. ShootingTracker.com's definition of a mass shooting isn't "wrong" (as we noted previously, there is no universal criterion for what defines a mass shooting), but it may be misunderstood, as many people interpret the term "mass shooting" to mean an incident that results in multiple deaths. It should also be noted that GunViolenceArchive.org, another web site that tracks shootings across the United States, arrived at a slightly lower number of massshootings, 310, over the same time period. Mark Bryant, the executive director of GVA, explained that discrepancy comes from two factors: GVA relies ona dedicated staff of 14 researchers instead of crowd sourcing, and they employ a slightly different definition for mass shootings: GunViolenceArchive.org First, we do not rely on crowdsourcing which causes misreads and duplication. We have a staff of 14 researchers which go through 1500 media, police, coroner and aggregate sites every day. We put eyeballs on each incident to determine its qualifications, not just number. Second, we have a slightly different counting. We use the derived FBI definition of "Four or more shot and/or killed, not including the shooter at the same general time and location." From that we logically separate the victims from the perpetrator. Mass Shooting Tracker includes the perp as a victim when they are shot or killed. [Image Via GunViolenceArchive.org] GunViolenceArchive.org  Last updated: 4 December 2015 Originally published: 2December 2015