Do U.S. Gun Deaths Since 1968 Outnumber Deaths in All American Wars?
In the aftermath of the 1 October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, the American public attempted to come to grips with the scale of gun violence in the United States. One oft-cited statistic posted in social media by "The Other 98%" maintained that 1.3 million Americans had been killed in all the wars in U.S. history, while 1.5 million Americans had been killed by firearms (in non-military use) since 1968 alone: The Other 98%   NBC News reported similar figures: NBC News More Americans have died from gunshots in the last 50 years than in all of the wars in American history. Since 1968, more than 1.5 million Americans have died in gun-related incidents, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By comparison, approximately 1.2 million service members have been killed in every war in U.S. history, according to estimates from the Department of Veterans Affairs and iCasualties.org, a website that maintains an ongoing database of casualties from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. iCasualties.org Different versions of this claim have been prominently offered in recent years by sources such as New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof in 2015, and PBS Newshour contributor and commentator Mark Shields in 2012. All these claims contain casual uses of the qualifier "Americans" in reference to gun deaths, which is somewhat confusing because not everyone who has been killed by firearms in the United States was an American citizen, and official sources for gun death statistics do not offer breakdowns by nationality. Therefore, we assume that "Americans" is used here for rhetorical effect, rather than as a functional statistical category, and deal with the total number of gun deaths occurring in the United States since 1968.  Similarly, according to the historian Don H. Doyle, the U.S. Civil War saw around 543,000 foreign-born (i.e., immigrant) soldiers fighting on the Union side alone, so a significant number of Civil War deaths might have involved non-American citizen combatants, but we'll count them all as "Americans."  (Indeed, non-U.S. citizens have likely served and died fighting for the U.S. side in every American military conflict since the Revolutionary War, but probably in much greater numbers during the Civil War than any other.) Don H. Doyle Support for this claim often uses sources that relate only to combatant deaths in wars and do not include civilian or other non-combatant deaths (the latter being figures which might also include non-U.S. citizens). One could argue that civilian deaths in wars should be included (although estimates of these deaths are much less reliable than for fatalities among military personnel), but we are limiting our analysis to include only combatant deaths in military conflicts. We'll break this analysis into two parts: the total number of deaths in the United States involving firearms since 1968, and the number of deaths in  the U.S. and among American combatants across all wars in American history. Gun deaths The estimated total number of firearms-related deaths from 1968-2016 is 1.58 million. The official number for 1968-2015 is 1.55 million, and we have assumed the number of deaths in 2016 as being the mid-point between the two previous years (2014 and 2015). In most cases, the source of these figures is the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). For figures from 1968 to 1991, we consulted the CDC directly WISQARS Deaths in wars For combatant fatalities, our main source is an April 2017 summary published by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which lists the following figures: summary The Civil War Trust, a non-profit organisation primarily dedicated to preserving American battlefields, estimates that around 6,800 people died in battle during the Revolutionary War, with an additional 17,000 deaths caused by disease, and between 8,000 and 12,000 more deaths occurring among those held as prisoners of war. The upper end of this estimate range, then, would put the total number of deaths associated with the American Revolutionary War at 26,800. estimates Similarly, the Civil War Trust estimates that around 15,000 Americans died during the War of 1812, a significantly higher number than the 2,260 battle deaths estimated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. estimates The Civil War is an interesting case. Based on from the work of two late 19th and early 20th century historians, the widely accepted figure for deaths in this conflict was reckoned as 618,222 for about a century. In 2011, however, J. David Hacker ( then of Binghamton University) published a significant upwards revision of that total, estimating that the likely death toll was between 650,000 and 851,000. Taking the mid-point in this estimate range assumes about 750,000 combatant deaths for the Civil War.  Because of the enhanced statistical sophistication involved in Hacker's research, and what appears to be acceptance and support of his estimate among historians, we are going to use 750,000 as the estimated death toll among combatants in the Civil War. late 19th early 20th century combatant deaths acceptance and support Figures for the Global War on Terror are taken from the Department of Defense's Defense Casualty Analysis System and are valid as of October 2017. Defense Casualty Analysis System Afghanistan war: Iraq war:  If we rely on the Department of Veterans Affairs summary, while accepting J. David Hacker's 750,000 estimate for the Civil War, the total number of deaths among American combatants in all U.S. military conflicts, using high estimates for each, is thus 1,481,862  about 100,000 less than the total number of firearms-related fatalities in the U.S. between 1968 and 2016.   So even using the higher end of available estimates for war deaths throughout American history, the grand total of those deaths is still lower than the total of firearms-related fatalities since 1968, a period of just 49 years. Although this disparity between war deaths and gun deaths is smaller than the gap claimed by the Other 98% (200,000) or NBC News (300,000), the imprecision of casualty estimates (especially for the Civil War era) allows for a considerable margin of error. Bailey, Chelsea.  "More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars  Combined."
  NBC News.  4 October 2017.
 Doyle, Don H.  "The Civil War Was Won by Immigrant Soldiers."
  Time.  29 June 2015. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.  "America's Wars."
  April 2017. Fox, William F.  "Regimental Losses in the American Civil War, 1861-1865."
  Hathi Trust, 1898. Livermore, Thomas L.  "Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America, 1861-1865."
  Retrieved from Archive.org, dated 1900. Hacker, J. David.  "Recounting the Dead."
  The New York Times.  20 September 2011. 
 Gugliotta, Guy.  "New Estimate Raises Civil War Death Toll."
  The New York Times.  2 April 2012. McPherson, James.  Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era.
  Oxford University Press, 1988.  ISBN 0-195-03863-0.
In late July 2018, Facebook users circulated a meme bearing the image of U.S. Rep. Jason Lewis (R-Minnesota) with text stating that he had "called for a dress code for American women":   The meme referenced comments Lewis made in 2012, five years before he assumed office, when his primary occupation was hosting the syndicated talk radio program "The Jason Lewis Show." Those comments resurfaced on 18 July 2018, when CNN published excerpts from Lewis' former radio program (which ended in 2014) in the lead-up to Lewis's bid for reelection in the 2018 November midterms. excerpts In recordings from March 2012 released by CNN, Lewis "repeatedly expressed disbelief that people could no longer refer to women as 'sluts'," even if those women were sexually active or dressed provocatively: "Well, the thing is, can we call anybody a slut? This is what begs the question. Take "Sandra Fluke out of it, take Rush [Limbaugh] out of it for a moment ... Does a woman now have the right to behave  and I know there's a double standard between the way men chase women and running and running around  you know, I'm not going to get there, but you know what I'm talking about. But it used to be that women were held to a little bit of a higher standard. We required modesty from women. Now, are we beyond those days where a woman can behave as a slut, but you can't call her a slut?" Sandra Fluke "Now Limbaugh's reasoning was, look, if you're demanding that the taxpayers pay for your contraception, you must use a lot of them and therefore, ergo, you're very sexually active and in the old days, what we used to call people who were in college or even graduate school who were sexually active, we called them sluts." "But have we really got to the point where you can't refer to Madonna as a slut without being sued? I mean, Madonna has had a series of lovers, as have many in Hollywood. Now in the old days, what did we call this? Madonna dresses up in these sorts of prostitute-like outfits on stage, and she goes there and she sings and she shows half of her body. What did we call those people? 30 years ago? 40 years ago? 50 years ago? You can't do that today, it's too politically incorrect?" Lewis was referring to a then-current controversy over comments made by fellow conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who had termed Sandra Fluke, then a law student at Georgetown University, a "slut" and a "prostitute" for speaking before a House committee in support of mandatory insurance coverage for contraceptives. speaking Although Lewis may have been, in a very broad sense, suggesting a "dress code" for women by criticizing figures such as Madonna for "running around [in] slutty outfits" and making statements such as "Only we can tell our young women, 'don't look like some slut and you won't get hit on,'" we found no instance of his advocating the imposition of a mandatory (i.e., legislatively established) mode of dress for women.  We reached out to Lewis's spokespeople and received no response, but Lewis campaign spokeswoman Becky Alery told CNN that Lewis's comments as a radio host were old news: "This has all been litigated before, and as Congressman Lewis has said time and time again, it was his job to be provocative while on the radio." Kaczynski, Andrew.  "A GOP Congressman Once Lamented Not Being Able to Call Women 'Sluts' Anymore."
  CNN.  18 July 2018. Brodey, Sam.  "There Are New Recordings from Jason Lewis Lightning-Rod Past as a Talk Radio Host. Will It Matter This Time?"
  MinnPost.  26 July 2018. Cottle, Michelle.  "Meet Minnesota's Mini-Trump."
 The Atlantic.  12 August 2016. DeBonis, Mike.  "Paul Ryan Backs Rep. Jason Lewis, Who Faces Drumbeat of Revelations from His Talk-Radio Career."
  The Washington Post.  27 July 2018. In July 2017, a number of right-leaning news and opinion web sites simultaneously reposted a six-month-old online editorial piece implying that former United States President Barack Obama believes the country owes him a debt of gratitude for his eight years of service in the White House. piece The reposted article is striking on various counts, not least for the fact that nowhere in it is President Obama quoted as saying such a thing. The false attribution has nevertheless been used as the headline in virtually every instance of the article's aggregation, as exemplified in these blurbs found on Facebook:   published Conservative Daily Post Discerning readers will note that in lieu of a substantive critique, the author chose to further stoke the already existing anti-Obama sentiment of his audience by piling on epithets such as "delusional," "stinks of entitlement," and "blatantly disrespectful": Obama: The Country Deserves [sic] Me A Debt Of Gratitude For My Leadership During Barack Obamas final press conference Friday afternoon, he spent a majority of the time patting himself on the back. Obama told a room full of reporters that after eight years of his presidency, the United States is stronger, in better shape, and more respected across the world than ever before. Almost every country on Earth sees America as stronger and more respected today than they did eight years ago. Compiling a list of reasons why Barack Obama is a terrible president seems like a project for a book rather than a column, but I am sure many of you agree that Obama will undoubtedly go down as one of the worst presidents in American history. We dont even need to choose one failure of his  the list of catastrophic failures will forever place the United States in a bad position. Our allies no long trust or respect us while our enemies no long fear us. Obama is right, he did accomplish all of that on his own. Its clear that hes been a disaster for America on a scale that few other presidents can match. Just look at his record. Whats worse, his blatantly disrespectful attitude stinks of entitlement a [sic] delusional thinking; Obama literally thinks we owe him something for his leadership. How does it make you feel to read that he thinks he will go down as one of the greatest presidents in our history? Most tellingly, the author's claim that Obama "literally thinks we owe him something" was conjured out of thin air. If the President had said or even implied any such thing, there is no evidence of it in the article, much less in the transcript of the December 2016 press conference. transcript So, what's to be gained by fabricating such a statement and attributing it to the former president? We can think of at least two motivations: politics and money (though not necessarily in that order). Some people, clearly, are ideologically motivated to share this kind of propaganda. For example, witness this true believer who converted the text into a YouTube video: video  But others, such as the Serbia-based owner(s) of The Breaking News Today, and the Macedonia-based owners of USA Breaking News, Morning News, and Infowars Today (to cite just a few examples of foreign-owned web sites promulgating the Obama story), were likely in it for the advertising revenues. Serbia The Breaking News Today Macedonia based owners USA Breaking News Morning News Infowars Today The town of Veles, Macedonia, in particular, was known to be a hotbed of young pro-Trump fake news producers, according to a 15 February 2017 feature in Wired, many of whom have become extraordinarily wealthy grinding out propaganda for U.S. consumption: feature In the final weeks of the U.S. presidential election, Veles attained a weird infamy in the most powerful nation on earth; stories in The Guardian and on BuzzFeed revealed that the Macedonian town of 55,000 was the registered home of at least 100 pro-Trump websites, many of them filled with sensationalist, utterly fake news. (The imminent criminal indictment of Hillary Clinton was a popular theme; another was the popes approval of Trump.) The sites ample traffic was rewarded handsomely by automated advertising engines, like Googles AdSense. An article in The New Yorker described how President Barack Obama himself spent a day in the final week of the campaign talking almost obsessively about Veles and its digital gold rush. Within Veles itself, the young entrepreneurs behind these websites became subjects of tantalizing intrigue. Between August and November, Boris [the pseudonym of one of such entrepreneur] earned nearly $16,000 off his two pro-Trump websites. The average monthly salary in Macedonia is $371. One might suppose that Trump's electoral victory would have been bad for business, but the U.S. market for pro-Trump fake news -- even months-old pro-Trump fake news -- is still booming, probably due to the constant storm of controversy surrounding his administration. A sharp uptick in interest in the Obama "debt of gratitude" article leading to its aggregation by more pro-Trump sites occurred during a week in which it was announced that Donald Trump, Jr. had held a previously undisclosed meeting with a highly placed Russian lawyer during the 2016 presidential campaign, GOP legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare appeared to be tanking, and the president's approval rating fell to 36 percent. Coincidence? Possibly, but we suspect not. Clement, Scott and Balz, Dan.  "Poll Finds Trump's Standing Weakened Since Springtime."
 The Washington Post.  16 July 2017. Subramanian, Samanth.  "Inside the Macedonian Fake News Complex."
 Wired.  15 February 2017. Walsh, Martin.  "Obama: The Country Deserves Me a Debt of Gratitude for My Leadership."
 Conservative Daily Post.  16 December 2016. The Breaking News Today.  "Obama: The Country Owes Me a Debt of Gratitude."
 18 July 2017. Infowars Today.  "Obama: The Country Owes Me a Debt of Gratitude."
 15 July 2017. Morning News.  "Obama: The Country Owes Me a Debt of Gratitude."
 15 July 2017. Politico.  "Full Transcript: President Obamas Final End-of-Year Press Conference."
  16 December 2017. USA Breaking News.  "Obama: The Country Owes Me a Debt of Gratitude."
 15 July 2017. Claim:  Some dollar stores sell expired and foreign, non-ADA-standard formulations of toothpaste. Status:  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2004]       I don't know if any of you watched Channel 5 News last night, but they did an investigation on dollar stores (including Dollar Tree, Greenbacks & 99 Cents). They discovered the Crest, Colgate and other brand name toothpastes weren't the same as from Wal-mart, grocery stores etc. The toothpastes were manufactured in many other countries and are not approved by the American Dental Association (ADA). There was even some from South Africa and the fluoride is ten times stronger than what we're allowed in the U.S. (prescription strength). They're allowed stronger because they don't have fluoridated water (like we do). So if we (or our kids) use it often and occasionally swallow it, we could be poisoning ourselves. The dollar stores declined to comment and a full investigation has begun. So stick to paying full-price at the grocery store and send this e-mail to anyone who shops at dollar stores.   Origins:  The last several years have seen the strong growth of dollar stores, outlets in which shoppers can find a wide variety of household items  everything from canned goods to motor oil  in one convenient location, with everything priced at $1.00 or $0.99 per unit. (No more sales clerks holding up check-out lines waiting for price checks!) Sometimes the merchandise found in dollar stores is just the same as what one might purchase elsewhere for a considerably higher price, but dollar stores sell it more cheaply because they've obtained supplies from manufacturers and wholesalers who are disposing of overstock or older merchandise for a fraction of the usual price. Often the items sold in dollar stores are inexpensive because they're produced and marketed by smaller brands, made from lesser-quality materials, of foreign manufacture, or were just cheaper merchandise to begin with. One of the items more commonly purchased through dollar stores by budget-conscious shoppers is toothpaste. Everyone uses toothpaste  why pay $2 or $3 per tube in a grocery or drug store when you can stock up on it for $1 per tube somewhere else? In our household we've often purchased name-brand toothpaste in dollar stores, although we've noticed that our local dollar stores also stock name-brand toothpaste manufactured for foreign markets (usually Canada or Mexico) and off-brand toothpaste sold in "knock-off" packaging that mimics the packaging of more well-known brands. As television station in KXAS, a Dallas-based NBC affiliate, discovered in a report broadcast in May 2004 (and summarized in the message quoted above), consumers might want to be cautious when buying dollar-store toothpaste. One major concern is that one can often find toothpaste intended for foreign markets for sale in dollar stores, product that may not meet the same governmental regulations required of American manufacturers or that may have been made by foreign companies with lower quality-control standards than American firms. report Of course, where the toothpaste comes from can make a big difference. We have no issue with purchasing Canadian toothpaste for our household from our nearby dollar store, because it's manufactured by a major American corporation (Procter & Gamble), and it's approved by the Canadian Dental Association (CDA), whose standards are similar to the American Dental Association's (ADA): CDA ADA    But, as KXAS reporters found, consumers may have good reason to be concerned about discount stores that carry toothpaste from other parts of the world:     Dr. Charles Wakefield, a professor at the Baylor College of Dentistry, said fluoride levels in the foreign versions of toothpaste represent the biggest hazard. The fluoride in the South African version was 10 times that commonly sold in the United States. "You just don't want kids to swallow it," Wakefield said. "I really don't know how these are legally in stores."     (We note that even brands of fluoride toothpaste manufactured in the U.S. to American Dental Association standards generally carry warning notices on their labels advising consumers not to swallow it, so parents should be cautious about their children swallowing any fluoride toothpaste, regardless of its country of origin.) Another potential issue of concern with cheap toothpaste can be the age of the product:     The store owner declined to be interviewed. He did say, however, he buys the products from wholesalers, who failed to inform him of the expiration dates.     In general, expired toothpaste doesn't pose a significant health risk (most brands don't even carry expiration dates on their packaging), but older toothpaste may be undesirable because it may be less effective or less pleasant to use due to changes in taste and consistency. In May 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning about toothpaste products from China that were found to be contaminated with diethylene glycol: warning         As always, the operative concept is caveat emptor: something that looks like a bargain may really be less than it appears, so shop wisely. Last updated:  29 February 2016 Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg has been the subject of a number of baseless rumors ever since the then-15-year-old stepped into the spotlight in 2018. We've previously examined false accusations that Thunberg was the "highest paid activist," that she was actually an actress, and that she was once filmed firing a machine gun.  highest paid activist actually an actress firing a machine gun In May 2020, after Thunberg was invited to participate in a CNN Town Hall, an old rumor concerning a quote ostensibly uttered by the activist about how China should stop using chopsticks was recirculated on social media: participate  Thunberg did not ask China to "give up" chopsticks.  This rumor has been circulating since at least January 2020. Although it has taken several forms, we've yet to encounter any social media posts pointing to when or where Thunberg allegedly made this request.  One of the earliest postings of this rumor, which was shared by the unverified Twitter account @Geoloong on Jan. 14, included a GIF of Thunberg speaking at the Climate Action Summit in 2019, but Thunberg made no mention of "chopsticks" during this speech. We searched other articles, interviews, and speeches delivered by Thunberg around this time and found no record of her asking China to ban chopsticks.  Geoloong no mention Other red flags in this post indicate the rumor is little more than an invented anecdote to mock the teenager. For starters, we found that this story was being shared almost exclusively by people expressing a negative view of Thunberg. If this was a genuine quote, you'd expect this story would have been shared (at least initially) by Thunberg's supporters.  Furthermore, the anecdote described in this post is simply ludicrous. Although it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for Thunberg, a teenager who became Time magazine's youngest Person of the Year for her work addressing climate change, to note the adverse environmental impact of disposable chopsticks, it would be quite extraordinary for the government of the most populous country in the world to issue a juvenile response telling someone not to "wipe their butt" because toilet paper is made from trees. Time magazine's youngest Person of the Year adverse environmental impact If China did issue such a statement, it would have surely been international news. Yet, just as we were unable to find a source for Thunberg's alleged comment, we were unable to find a credible source for China's alleged insult. In fact, the text on the above-displayed meme is a near-verbatim copy of the text published to the humor website Joe.ks.com. Joe.ks.com. Although Thunberg did not urge China to ban the use of chopsticks, China truly uses millions of trees every year to produce billions of pairs of disposable chopsticks. When concerns about the adverse impact disposable chopsticks had on the environment were raised in 2006, the Chinese government implemented a 5% tax on the utensil in an attempt to slow deforestation.  implemented a 5% tax BBC News reported: reported The Chinese government is introducing a 5% tax on disposable wooden chopsticks in a bid to preserve its forests. It produces about 45 billion pairs of chopsticks a year, consuming millions of trees and bamboo plants. The move came as China said it would raise some consumption taxes next month in a bid to help the environment and narrow the gap between rich and poor. Although this tax may have slowed deforestation, it certainly hasn't stopped it. In 2013, Bo Guangxin, the head of the China Jilin Forest Industry Group, estimated that China was using 20 million trees a year to produce nearly 80 billion pairs of disposable chopsticks. estimated NPR.  "Transcript: Greta Thunberg's Speech At The U.N. Climate Action Summit."
  23 September 2019. BBC.  "China Introduces Chopsticks Tax."
  22 March 2006. Lee, Don.  "Chinas Chopstick Tax Seems Dim to Some."
  Los Angeles Times.  24 March 2006. Nuwer, Rachel.  "Disposable Chopsticks Strip Asian Forests."
  The New York Times.  24 October 2011. In the aftermath of U.S. President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election, many online spoke up to support current President Donald Trump, including groups of truckers. Members of the private Facebook group, Stop the Tires 2020, called for a nationwide truckers' shutdown to protest  among other things  Bidens environmental policies that will include a transition to renewable energy sources. aftermath truckers transition The group  which as of the time of writing had grown to more than 68,000 members since its founding on Nov. 6, 2020  planned a strike for Nov. 11, 2020, Veterans Day, and if that was ineffective, would continue the strike from Nov. 26 to 29, 2020, during the Thanksgiving holidays. According to a post from one of the group's administrators:  group  planned  Tiktok videos of individuals stating they were truckers and describing their plans to strike on the aforementioned dates also went viral: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=fTaPCcyqaG0&app=desktop Snopes readers asked us if such strikes were indeed taking place, and if they would impact the delivery of basic food and necessities. We learned that a number of truckers claimed to have participated in the Veterans Day strike. But the actual effectiveness of the past strikes as well as the upcoming ones are yet to be determined. Before looking at the nature and effectiveness of these strikes we had to determine whether nationwide and industry-wide strikes were even likely for U.S.-based truckers. The answer is complicated. A report from Business Insider looked at laws from the administration of President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s that resulted in a decline in wages, and the eventual decline in union membership in the trucking industry. Deregulation laws were justified because they reportedly saved consumers money, but at the cost of truckers wages and working conditions. Hourly wages for heavy and trailer-truck drivers have steadily gone down since then. Business Insider Deregulation laws saved consumers Unions also lost much of their power and membership. A few decades ago, large numbers of truckers were unionized and carried out successful strikes in the '70s. The Teamsters, a labor union that once boasted more than 2 million truckers as members, now has around 75,000 members. And with more independent truckers and companies it is considered extremely challenging to wrangle that many truckers together, because they have neither the time nor resources. Case in point, in April 2019: Tens of thousands of truck drivers planned a work stoppage in a much-hyped Black Smoke Matters protest, but ultimately only a smattering of people in different locations participated. Unions successful strikes challenging April 2019:  On Nov. 11, and even after that date had passed, dozens of members of Stop the Tires 2020 posted pictures on the private group claiming they were participating in a strike by refusing to drive. Some of their posts are below:          But there was little evidence that these stoppages had any impact. WWJ Newsradio 950, Detroits local station, reported on Nov. 11, So far, the call for a one-day strike seems to be all talk, as the trucking industry is humming along. Truckers the station interviewed were not participating, but stated that the strikers concerns made sense, and should be taken seriously: WWJ Newsradio 950 Larry Fuentes, the manager of a large logistics company in metro Detroit told WWJ his truckers have not joined it, but "I can have some understanding of what they're coming for. Their livelihoods are at stake." He added that a strike would devastate the industry. Samuel Ford, a truck driver from Brownstown, Mich., added that he hasn't joined it, but the drivers in the strike group have a point. "Truckers are very often overlooked ... But they do have a very significant say-so over how this country is run," he said. Not all truckers are part of these particular anti-Biden strikes. After the election results were announced on Nov. 7, 2020, the American Trucking Associations released a statement congratulating Biden and calling for more infrastructure investment. American Trucking Associations Other groups that claimed to strike said they were not defending any one political party, but wanted to improve their working conditions and wages. Over the summer truckers also organized to protest decreased freight rates and working conditions during the pandemic. groups the summer Indeed, before the elections, the truckers running the supply chain for United Natural Foods Inc. (UNFI) that supplies Whole Foods and other grocery stores in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut threatened to strike over what they said was UNFI's failure to comply with COVID-19 safety guidelines. The truckers, represented by Teamsters, along with workers at distribution centers in California, said the company was not providing workers with adequate protective equipment, including face masks, and disinfecting and cleaning workspaces. But they reached an agreement with the company by early November. threatened agreement Since, as of this writing, the strikes planned for late-November are yet to happen, their effectiveness is still to be determined. We will keep an eye on the events and post an update once we have more information.  UPDATE Nov. 18, 2020: Stop the Tires 2020 creator Jeremy Rewoldt called off the Thanksgiving holiday work stoppage, saying "Now is not the time." In an appearance on a video blog, he admitted that he had previously made an "emotion-based decision based on a presumed result of the election that hasnt been certified yet." He added that the administrative team had fractured over disagreements around the purpose of their Facebook group, and he posted on the page: "When this group was made the intentions were to talk and BS amongst a few, if not a couple hundred, people, my friends and others included. What I though was going to be a few hundred turned into 75K people who I now had to voice for. The group's profile image, on Nov. 18, said "Delayed."  called off profile image The conservative group Turning Point USA created a meme that pushes a sophomoric and factually lacking political argument. The meme in question, watermarked with the logo of Turning Point USA's political action committee (Turning Point Action), makes two claims. First, it states that the year 2019 was the first year the United States achieved energy independence since 1957. Second, it argues that "in only ten days" Joe Biden "sent us back 50 years," implying policies enacted in the first 10 days of his administration reversed American energy independence: political action committee   Turning Point Action's graphic, it bears highlighting, makes no reference to the year 2020, despite the fact that President Donald Trump was in office that year. The claim about 2019 being the first year in which the U.S. achieved energy independence since 1957 is true  so long as we understand what the term "energy independence" really means. It means that the U.S. produced more energy than it consumed. Most importantly, from an energy security perspective, energy independence does not mean that the U.S. doesn't import foreign oil or isn't fundamentally reliant on foreign sources of energy. is true In 2019, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. imported 9.1 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of oil from about 90 countries, though at the same time it also exported 8.5 MMb/d of oil to about 190 countries. By email, Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and energy systems analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, explained that "our local production does not meaningfully insulate us from potential future global oil price shocks."  according Zeke Hausfather The energy independence experienced by the U.S. in 2019 was driven by record levels of total fossil fuel exports from the U.S. That record was set as part of a long-term trend dating back to 2006 and 2008, according to the EIA: according Domestic crude oil production has increased since 2008 and natural gas production has increased since 2006. The increases in crude oil production and the easing of restrictions on crude oil exports in December 2015 have contributed to increases in crude oil exports. Increases in natural gas production along with increases in liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity have contributed to increases in natural gas exports in recent years. In 2011, the United States became a net exporter of petroleum products for the first time since at least 1949. In 2017, the United States became a net exporter of natural gas for the first time since the late 1950s. In 2019, U.S. total annual energy exports exceeded total annual energy imports for the first time in 67 years, and the United States became a net total energy exporter.   The Turning Point meme disregards entirely the existence of the year 2020. The omission of 2020 masks not only a decline in U.S. fossil fuel production that occurred, it also conceals a larger truth about U.S. presidents and the global energy market: Neither they nor their policies have a significant effect on the market compared to other global factors. a decline A significant factor in allowing the U.S. to increase its energy exports has been the rising cost of crude oil globally. Technological innovations like fracking and horizontal drilling have, in recent years, allowed the U.S. to exploit fossil fuel reserves that were previously inaccessible, but these technologies add cost. A high-cost, high-demand energy economy  like the one present during the record-setting year of 2019  benefits the U.S. energy sector because it makes American fossil fuel exports financially viable. The flip side is that the viability of U.S. exports depends in large measure on the going rate for a barrel of oil. If the cost is too low, U.S. drilling operations become financially uncompetitive and exports drop off. The year 2020 saw a historic drop in the price of oil. add cost historic drop "In 2020, U.S. oil production fell by around 8% relative to 2019," Hausfather told Snopes. "This was primarily due to falling global oil prices making relatively high-cost US shale oil production uncompetitive." The drop in demand, and then price, was not the result of any policy decision; it was the result of a massive global pandemic. In a Feb. 3, 2021, news release, Acting EIA Director Stephen Nalley explained that 'the pandemic triggered an historic energy demand shock that led to ... decreases in energy production, and sometimes volatile commodity prices in 2020.'" news release Indeed, this volatility resulted in times during 2020  a year in which Joe Biden was not president  when the U.S. dipped into consuming more energy that it produced. In July and August 2020, the U.S. was not energy independent, at least on monthly terms. By Turning Point USA's logic, this would mean that two months of Trump "sent us back 50 years" in terms of energy policy. In reality, the actions of any U.S. president cannot affect rapid change in the global energy market, and the effect of any domestic policy changes are dwarfed by global factors outside any one president's control. July and August As previously discussed, the U.S. had already experienced at least a brief period of energy "dependence" before Biden took office. While the most recent month for which we have data  October 2020  indicates the U.S. was producing slightly more energy than it consumed toward the end of Trump's presidency, U.S. oil production has been dropping off and global demand remains depressed. These trends, which predate the Biden administration, are unlikely to change anytime soon. October 2020 It will take a while for the energy sector to get to its new normal, said the EIA's Nalley in February 2021. In its 2021 "Global Outlooks" annual report, the EIA argued that "total U.S. energy consumption will return to 2019 levels by 2029, though that is highly dependent on the pace of U.S. economic recovery." In terms of energy production, "EIA projects that the United States will continue to export more petroleum and other liquids than it imports, but the balance of imports to exports will be highly sensitive to supply, demand, and price factors." said argued The bottom line, according to the Breakthrough Institutes' Hausfather, is that "oil production changes in 2020 and 2021 are driven by larger changes in global demand and oil prices, rather than anything that either the Trump or Biden administration has done." Because the meme correctly states that 2019 was the first year the U.S. achieved energy independence in decades, but because it falsely implies a connection between the Biden administration and post-2019 trends in the global energy market that predate his time in office and are independent of the actions of either Trump or Biden, we rank its claims "false." On Dec. 15, 2023, we received reader mail that asked about a purported giveaway on Facebook that promised one winner a 2023 Toyota Tundra pickup truck. The many Facebook pages that promoted the supposed giveaway were named 2023 Tundra, TRD. One of the posts read as follows and directed users to a sites.google.com website: Christmas surprise! This Toyota Tundra wasn't sold so we're giving it to someone by December 19th who $hared and Register here. Another post asked users to enter the giveaway in the comments by typing "@" and then clicking on "highlight." In the pinned comment under the post, users were directed to visit a website to "validate" their entry. post  However, none of these posts hosted a genuine giveaway for a 2023 Toyota Tundra. All of this was a scam apparently designed to entice users to fill out surveys, sign up for "free trials" on websites and perform other tasks, at least partially in order for the scammers to obtain an affiliate-marketing commission. In other words, it was a waste of time  and a potentially dangerous one at that  for users who hoped to win a free pickup truck. Unfortunately, as of Dec. 15, over 450,000 users had commented on just one of the posts. It's unclear how many of these users continued with the scam by clicking on one of the links. The reason why the scammers asked users to type "@" in the comments and then click "highlight" was to boost the page's following. This would potentially help the scammer to sell the follower-filled page in the future, if that was the goal. (We previously reported about the "highlight" feature on Facebook.) reported about Based upon the actions of scammers over the last several years, it's likely that they will attempt the same fake giveaway strategy in the future using the makes and models of other cars. For any users who fell for these scams and gave away their financial information (e.g. a credit card number), we recommend retracing your steps and ensuring that any "free trials" that were signed up for are canceled, so that no future charges appear on your statement. Call your credit card company for further advice. For further reading, the U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB) published an article about how to spot fake giveaways on social media. One of those tips mentioned to find out if the Facebook page that's offering the giveaway has a verified badge or not. If it has a verified badge, it's likely a legitimate giveaway. However, scammers have been known to seize on accounts with verified badges in order to advertise their scams, so bear in mind that this is not a foolproof tip. article verified badge BBB Scam Alert: How to Spot a Fake Social Media Giveaway. U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB), 21 Dec. 2020, https://www.bbb.org/article/news-releases/23522-scam-alert-how-to-spot-a-fake-social-media-giveaway. Liles, Jordan. Does Typing @ in a Facebook Comment and Clicking Highlight Reveal Page Watchers? Snopes, 27 Nov. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-highlight-page-watchers/. Fox News host Bill O'Reilly andDaily Showhost Jon Stewart traded wisecracks -- and a few insults -- in O'Reilly'sNo Spin Zoneon Feb. 3, 2010.O'Reilly told Stewart that it was frightening that theDaily Showhost had been called an important cultural arbiter. O'Reilly said that his audience is primarily stoner slackers who love Obama, but that a lot of people don't think you're smart.Stewart shot back that O'Reilly was now the voice of sanity at Fox, which he likened to being the thinnest kid at fat camp.At times, they got serious. One topic was Stewart's belief that Republicans seem intent on opposing everything President Barack Obama puts on the table -- even if he presents an opportunity to compromise.But the president won't give the GOP anything, O'Reilly said.Stewart pointed to Obama's stimulus plan as an example. The bill was opposed by Republicans even though it included tax cuts, which typically appeal to their small government sensibilities. [Obama] has given [Republicans] many different angles, Stewart said. For instance, even in the stimulus plan, a full third of that was tax cuts. ... Just like at the State of the Union when he said we cut taxes for 95 percent of middle-class Americans, and everybody clapped, and the Republicans just sat there like this. Tax cuts, that sounds vaguely familiar. Is Stewart right that tax cuts account for a third of the stimulus plan? The stimulus bill, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is meant to create jobs and boost the economy. It cost $787 billion, including $499 billion to fund new roads, hire teachers and generally keep people employed, and about $288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses. Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.Simple math shows that Stewart is in the ballpark with his claim: $288 billion is a little more than 36 percent of the bill's overall cost. So, tax cuts -- at least the way they've been defined by the Obama administration -- make up for slightly more than one-third of the bill.But calculating the cost of the true tax cuts in the stimulus is a bit more complicated. In July 2009, we checked Obama's claim that, at the time,the stimulus had delivered $43 billion in tax breaks. According to the Treasury Department, about $8 billion of that figure came from extending a fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Originally, the AMT was targeted at very wealthy people, but over the years it spread to include some middle-income taxpayers as well. Congress passes yearly fixes to prevent those middle income taxpayers from having to pay the AMT.All told, the AMT fix in the stimulus will cost about $70 billion over 10 years, according to a bill summary published by the Senate Finance Committee. But many tax experts say the AMT fix should not be considered a tax cut. They say that, by extending the AMT fix every year, the government is basically maintaining the status quo.Back in July, we spoke with a number of tax experts about the issue who all agreed that including the fix as part of the stimulus tax cuts is a stretch.Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the free-market Cato Institute, explained it this way:AMT is something those people never expect to pay, he said. It's kind of like saying that, if I didn't rob you on the way home from work today, I gave you money.The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, gave the AMT extension a D-minus in its Tax Stimulus Report Card because the provision would provide virtually no economic stimulus. Because the patch is perennially extended, it would have no effect on behavior in 2009. Almost 80 percent of the benefits would go to the richest 20 percent of households, who would be least likely to spend the additional funds and stimulate demand.So, our tax experts are skeptical that the $70 billion AMT fix should be included in the stimulus bill's tax relief. That would bring down the cost of the tax cuts to about $218 billion. That means about 28 percent of the bill could be described as tax cuts, a little less than the one-third cited by Stewart.So we find Stewart's claim to be Mostly True. Fear-mongering articles reporting that radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (triggered by the tsunami that followed the Thoku earthquake of 11 March 2011) had caused a 100% infant mortality among orca whales born since then have been circulated online for several years. The web site Humans Are Free renewed interest in that rumor in September 2016 when they published an article with the clickbait title "Radiation from Fukushima Now Causes 100% Infant Mortality Rate in West Coast Orcas": published  The Humans Are Free piece was sourced from an article by the disreputable Natural News web site that employed a similarly misleading title ("West Coast Orcas Experiencing 100% Infant Mortality Rate as Radiation from Fukushima Drifts Across Ocean") even though the text of that article plainly admitted that there was no proven connection between the Fukushima disaster and the mortality of infant orcas: No one has yet proven that there is a direct link between the 100 percent mortality rate seen among orca infants and the effects of the radiation contamination of the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima reactor leak in Japan, but it certainly can't be ruled out as a possibility. Natural News listed several sources about whale deaths at the bottom of their article, but none of those sources mentioned radiation from Fukushima as likely or definitive cause. listed several sources bottom article Quotes from Ken Balcomb, executive director of the Center for Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Washington, were also misleadingly reproduced out of context by Natural News to bolster a claim that Balcomb's statement didn't support: The recent discovery of a carcass off the coast of British Columbia  that of a 19-year-old orca female, which was believed to be in the late stages of pregnancy, is just one example of the recent orca deaths that have scientists and conservationists worried. Ken Balcomb, executive director of the Center For Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Washington, said: Her death doesn't bode well for the southern resident population and certainly not for that matriline. Her mother died young. Her aunt had two sons and she's probably post-reproductive. She hasn't had any babies in the last 12 years. So there's no future. Balcomb also remarked: We haven't had any survivals in babies for a couple of years. We have had stillborns and newborns die and a number of whales that appear to be pregnant but didn't ultimately produce any calves. It's like zero survival in birth rate here. While Balcom did say that "we haven't had any survivals in babies for a couple of years," he was talking about the local Puget Sound orca whale population only, and he didn't in any way connect a 100% infant orca mortality rate to radiation from Fukushima. His quotes originated with a story published by the Seattle Times in December 2014 about a baby orca whale that had died in the Pugent Sound, and while the exact cause of that whale's death was unclear, Balcolm suggested that the whale likely died due to a diminished food supply (and not radiation): suggested But two of the whales three biggest problems  the buildup of pollutants such as DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls in their blubber, and disturbance by marine traffic  appear to be worsened by a third, a reduction in available prey. These whales can eat sockeye and halibut, but overwhelmingly prefer fatty chinook from Puget Sound and Canadas Fraser River, distinguishing them from other fish by using sonar to sense differences in the animals swim bladders. And Puget Sound chinook numbers have dropped to about 10 percent of their historic high. They, too, are listed for protection under the ESA. For Balcomb, the loss of J32 suggests its time to consider drastic measures, such as a ban or steep curtailment in chinook fishing, even though fishing is likely the least of the threats chinook face. Its a wake-up call  we know what the problem is, whether its dams or fishing or habitat destruction, he said. Its just what happens when millions of people move into the watershed. (But) stopping fishing, at least for a while, is something we can do immediately. [...] The reality is, the basic problem is food, Balcomb said. Although apparently no baby orcas survived long after birth in Puget Sound in 2013 or 2014, that wasn't the case in the immediately following years, as 2015 saw nine successful orca births in Puget Sound: births In just over a year, Puget Sound has welcomed nine baby Southern-resident orcas to the fold, as the pod continues to rebound from 30-year-low numbers reported at the end of 2014. While radiation from the Fukushima disaster did have a major impact on marine life, the leak of radiactive material from the plant leak did not cause a proven "100% infant mortality" rate among orca whales. Moreover, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration do not list nuclear radiation (from any source) among the threats currently facing the world's whale population.  impact Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  Welch, Craig.  "Puget Sound Orca Numbers Rise Fast After 30-Year Low in 2014."
  The Seattle Times.  20 January 2016. Welch, Craig.  "Ten Years After ESA Listing, Killer Whale Numbers Falling."
  The Seattle Times.  20 December 2014. Claim:  E-mail warns about a carjacking attempt in Whittier, California. PARTLY Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2009] 01/21/09 - I am sending this to all of you, per the advice of the Whittier Police. Last night on my way home from work, I was followed off the freeway without realizing it.  A lot of people take the Telegraph off ramp to go home. Then I turned left on Norwalk going north. This Van pulled up on my right side and told me that my right rear tire was going flat and that I should pull over and let him put my spare on. I was only 2 miles from home and in an industrial area where no gas stations, etc. so told him NO THANKS, and kept going slow the rest of 20 the way home.  When I got home I told Richard what had happened and he checked my tire.  The tire was perfectly OK. That's when I realized what had happened and it scared me to death. According to the Police there are allot of car jacking going on, then they rob you of everything (money, jewelry, etc) due to the economy. The best thing I could do was to let the gals at work know to be more than careful of their surroundings.  It's happening all over So Cal, not just LA or Orange Counties. Please my friends, be very careful out there. Origins:  This January 2009 e-mailed warning about a carjacking attempt in Whittier (a  California city about 12 miles southeast of Los Angeles) is distinct from most Internet-forwarded crime warnings in that it's a first-person account rather than a third- or -fourth-hand retelling produced by someone with no direct connection to the events described.  Its accuracy appears to be better than most such warnings, but like most such warnings it also evidently proclaims an exaggerated level of danger not warranted by the facts. Certainly criminals' attempting to fool motorists into believing their cars are evidencing symptoms of potentially serious malfunctions (e.g., flat tire, excessive smoke, fire) as a means of getting those motorists to pull over and stop so that crimes (e.g., robbery, car theft, assault, rape) can be effected on them is a ruse that has been successfully used many times before.  And the Whittier Police have acknowledged that "The originator of this email did in fact contact the Whittier Police Department to report the above facts and a report was taken." However, the Whittier Police also noted that no link to criminal intent has yet been established for the reported incident, and that they did not (as stated in the e-mail) tell the person who filed the report that carjackings have been taking place "all over Southern California" in the manner described: Whittier Police For clarification purposes, the Whittier Police Department did not advise the caller that "there are a lot of car jackings going on".  The Department has not received any other reports that involve these sets of circumstances, which led to a car jacking.  While there is no definite way at this time to determine the true intent of the van driver, motorists are encouraged to report any suspicious activity to the Whittier Police Department. Last updated:  6 February 2009