Says Texas is dead last in support for mental health.
A Democratic state senator unleashed Twitter posts on the first day of the 2013 legislative session saying what she thinks lawmakers should accomplish.The Jan. 8, 2013, posts by Wendy Davis of Fort Worth included afamiliar claimabout the states low standing in mental health spending. It's time for the Texas Legislature to take responsibility and move up from dead last in support for mental health, Davis said.Last in the land?We explored similar territory in January 2010,rating as Mostly Truecandidate Marc Katzsclaimthat Texas then ranked last in spending for mental health care. For that fact check, we relied on the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundations roundup of per-person mental health care spending for the 50 states in fiscal 2006. According to its analysis, Texas ranked 49th among the states that year in per capita spending, not quite last. At expenditures of $34.57 per resident, Texas bested New Mexico, which spent $25.58. The national average was $103.53. In total dollars spent, Texas ranked 10th in 2006, spending about $805 million.Davis spokesman Rick Svatora said the senator drew on a Dec. 18, 2012,news reportby WFAA-TV, Channel 8 in Dallas, which quoted the liberal Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities as saying that Texas ranks last in the country in per-person mental health spending.Anne Dunkelberg, the centers associate director, told us by email that the center had passed information to WFAA about spending in fiscal 2009 as written up in an August 2012reportby the Texas-basedHogg Foundation for Mental Health.We found the Kaiser foundationslatest state-by-state breakdownwith help from Gyl Switzer, public policy director of Mental Health America of Texas, which advocates for programs that prevent and treat mental illness. A footnote to the research says the figures come from the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors Research Institute, Inc., whichsaysits the only national association to represent state mental health commissioners/directors and their agencies.Texas was last among the states in such per-capita spending in 2009, 2008 and 2007, according to the charts for those years, though the2007 chartshows no available data for Hawaii. The latest comparison: In fiscal 2010, which in Texas ran through August 2010, Texas spent nearly $980 million total on mental health services, placing ninth nationally, according to a foundationchart. Itsper-person spendingof $38.99 placed the state 49th--not last--among the states. Idaho, with per-capita spending of $36.64, was 50th, with Maine No. 1 at per-capita spending of $346.92. The national average was $120.56.Dunkelberg noted that the 2010 breakdown, posted by the foundation on Nov. 20, 2012, suggests Idaho saw its per-capita spending drop by nearly $8, from $44 in 2009. In 2010, Texas spending was up 61 cents per person from its $38.38 in 2009, according to the state-by-state charts. Texas surpassed a state, Dunkelberg wrote, not because of a significant improvement in our per-capita investment in mental health, but because poor Idaho cut per-capita spending. Finally, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department ofState Health Services, which folds in the state agency over mental health, replied to our inquiry about the Kaiser breakdown by pointing out the analyzed figures do not take into account all funding for mental health services and saying it doesnt really give a clear picture of all of the money that goes into mental health spending in Texas. Christine Mann said by email the unnoted funding includes aid funneled through government-supported insurance programs plus services via agencies such as the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the Texas Education Agency, the Texas Youth Commission, the Department of Family & Protective Services and the Department of Aging and Disability Services.Mann said by phone that her agency does not have a figure for total Texas spending on mental health services nor has it compared spending on mental health services among the states.A footnote to the 2010 Kaiser chart says its Texas figure includes money spent on mental health services for prisoners.Dunkelberg, asked to comment on Manns critique, said the Kaiser breakdowns do not reflect all mental health funding--for any state. Regardless, Dunkelberg wrote, the state ranking is a good measure of direct public and community (mental health) spending by a state for the population that is NOT in prison, or served by the agency that bird-dogs child abuse or on Medicaid. In each state, too, she said, its likely that Medicaid is a very large payer for (mental health) services, and also likely that no one is tracking that expenditure.Our rulingDavis said Texas is dead last in mental health spending.The Kaiser-posted figures do not take into account all mental health spending--foranystate. But unless more comprehensive research surfaces, the figures appear to be the best way to compare relative spending. And in 2010, the latest year analyzed, Texas spent more in raw dollars on mental health services than 41 states. But in per-resident spending--a better metric for comparing states--Texas ranked second-to-last to Idaho after ranking last to all other states for several years.We rate the statement Mostly True.
One of the hot-button issues of the 2013 General Assembly session was whether the state should repay the bonds sold to help finance 38 Studios, the now-bankrupt video-game company founded by former Boston Red Sox player Curt Schilling. One state representative who has argued against repayment is Charlene Lima, a Democrat from Cranston. She told the House on June 26 that, before the bonds were sold in November 2010, she had been promised by the executive director of the Rhode Island Economic Development Commission (RIEDC) that taxpayers would not have to foot the bill if the deal with 38 Studios didn't live up to its promise. When I was complaining to the former director, Keith Stokes, he sent me a letter and he said the taxpayers will never be on the hook for these bonds, for this money, Lima said. How was this properly vetted by these people if they were saying the taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook? And guess what. Today they ARE on the hook. We're not going to get into the merits of the states controversial decision to start paying the cost of the moral obligation bonds, but we wondered whether Stokes, who resigned after 38 Studios collapsed, really had made a specific pledge in writing. We called Lima and she quickly forwarded a copy of anOct. 4, 2010 letterfrom Stokes in which he complained that Lima had offered an inaccurate characterization of this investment and the RIEDC's degree of concern for Rhode Island taxpayers ina news releaseshe had authored. At the time, the bond sale had been approved and the bonds themselves were about to be sold. Stokes wrote, In the unlikely event that the company is not able to meet its debt obligations, the state would have first crack at 38 Studio's assets. These collateral assets, in addition to the debt repayment reserves, would be used to pay back the loan before the application of any public funds would be considered. This ensures that under no circumstances would taxpayers be asked to repay $75 million. As Lima now notes, taxpayers are being asked to pay the money. (The $8.2-billion state budget, which the General Assembly passed and Governor Chafee signed, included $2.5 million for the first required taxpayer payment on the bonds. The total owed, with interest, is about $112.6 million.) To sum up, Lima said she received a letter in 2010 from then-RIEDC official Keith Stokes in which he insisted that Rhode Islanders would not be on the hook for the 38 Studios bonds. Lima earned a Pants on Fire last month for a comment she made about Rhode Island's failure to pass the Constitutional amendment authorizing the federal income tax. If my pants were on fire, she said, what is he? A towering inferno? We don't have varying levels of conflagration. And in this case, we're simply judging the claim Lima made on the House floor. She has the evidence and we rate her statementTrue. (If you have a claim youd like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, e-mail us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) Claim:  Paul Allen of Microsoft wrote a letter to a Santa Clarita newspaper in defense of Mormons. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Comment: I recieved the email below and want to know if it is truely from Paul Allen or not: Paul Allen's Editorial on the "Mormons". Paul Allen is the owner of the Seattle Seahawks.  He is also theowner of the Portland Trail Blazers NBA basketball team and is aco-partner with Bill Gates in Microsoft.  His letter to the editor waspublished  in the Santa Clarita, California newspaper. Editor:  I have heard and seen enough! I have lived in the West all my life. I have worked around them. They have worked for me and I for them. When I was young, I dated their daughters. When I got married they came to my wedding. Now that I have daughters of my own, some of their boys have dated my daughters. I would be privileged if one of them were to be my son-in-law. I'm talking about the Mormons. They are some of the most honest, hard-working people I have ever known. They are spiritual, probably more than most other so-called religious people I have encountered. They study the Bible and teach from it as much as any Christian church ever has. They serve their religion without pay in every conceivable capacity. None of their leaders, teachers, counselors, Bishops or music directors receive one dime for the hours of labor they put in. The Mormons have a non-paid ministry  a fact not generally known. I have heard many times from the pulpits of others how evil and non-Christian they are and that they will not go to heaven. I decided recently to attend one of their services near my home to see for myself. What a surprise! What I heard and saw was just the opposite from what the religious ministers of the day were telling me. I found a very simple service with no fanfare. I found a people with a great sense of humor and a well-balanced spiritual side. There was no loud music. Just a simple service, with the members themselves giving the several short sermons. They urge their youth to be morally clean and live a good life. They teach the gospel of Christ, as they understand it. The name of their church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Does that sound like a non-Christian church to you? I asked them many questions about what they teach and why. I got answers that in most cases were from the New Testament. Their ideas and doctrines did not seem too far fetched for my understanding. When I read their "Book of Mormon" I was also very surprised to find just the opposite from what I had been told I would find. Then I went to another church's pastor to ask him some of the same questions about doctrine. To my surprise, when he found out that I was in some way investigating the Mormons, he became hostile. He referred to them as a non-Christian cult. I received what sounded to me like evil propaganda against those people. He stated bluntly that they were not Christian and that they did not fit into the Christian mold. He also told me that they don't really believe the Bible. He gave me a pile of anti-Mormon literature. He began to rant that the Mormons were not telling me the truth about what they stand for. He didn't want to hear anything good about them. At first I was surprised and then again, I wasn't. I began to wonder. I have never known of a cult that supports the Boy Scouts of America. According to the Boy Scouts, over a third of all the Boy Scout troops in the United States are Mormon. What cult do you know of that has a welfare system second to none in this country? They have farms, canneries and cattle ranches to help take care of the unfortunate ones who might be down and out and in need of a little help. The Mormon Church has donated millions to welfare causes around the world without a word of credit. They have donated thousands to help re-build Baptist churches that were burned a few years ago. They have donated tons of medical supplies to countries ravaged by earthquakes. You never see them on TV begging for money. What cult do you know of that instills in its members to obey the law, pay their taxes, serve in the military if asked and be a good Christian by living high moral standards? Did you know that hundreds of thousands of Mormon youth get up before high school starts in the morning to attend a religious training class? They have basketball and softball leagues and supervised youth dances every month. They are recruited by the FBI, the State Department and every police department in the country because they are trustworthy. They are taught not to drink nor take drugs. They are in the Secret Service  those who protect the President. They serve in high leadership positions from both parties in Congress and in the U.S. Senate, and have been governors of several states other than Utah. They serve with distinction and honor. If you have Mormons living near, you will probably find them to be your best friends and neighbors. They are Christians who try to live what they preach. They are not perfect and they are the first to admit this. I have known some of them who could not live their religion, just like many of us. The rhetoric which is spread around against them is nothing more than evil propaganda founded in untruths. (Others) had successfully demonized them to the point that the general public has no idea what they actually believe and teach. If you really want to know the truth, go see for yourself. You, also, will be surprised. When I first moved here some 25 years ago there were five Mormon wards in Santa Clarita. Now there are 15. They must be doing something right.  Paul AllenSanta Clarita, Calif. Origins:  The above-quoted letter to the editor by one Paul Allen was indeed published on the opinion page of the Santa Clarita Valley (California) Signal on 24 November 2000.  Within five months, someone had re-typed the letter (because the Signal didn't then publish letters to the editor on its web site) and started it circulating on the Internet via e-mail forwards (most of which erroneously stated that it had first been published on 25 April 2002). However, the Paul Allen who wrote this piece was not (as claimed in the example above) the Paul Allen who co-founded Microsoft with Bill Gates (and regularly ranks high on lists of the world's wealthiest people)  he was simply a local resident with the same name. Paul Allen wealthiest Nonetheless, after the e-mail version of Paul Allen's editorial had been making the rounds for only a month, the Signal had received such a deluge of messages inquiring whether they had ever really published such a letter that the newspaper's general manager, Tim Whyte, saw fit to reprint it along with an editorial explaining its origins and the phenomenon it had become: At first, I didnt think much of the e-mails. I answered each as carefully and completely as I could. Little did I know, within a week I would go from being managing editor of The Signal to being "The Guy Who Answers E-mails From Curious Members of the LDS Church Throughout the World Who Want to Know if we REALLY Published a Letter from Paul Allen Praising the Mormons." I have tried to remain professional and helpful to those making the queries, but to be quite frank, it has become a bit overwhelming. I haven't counted, but suffice to say the number of inquiries is easily in the several hundreds. The e-mails and phone calls have come to me from all over  Utah, of course, but also a wide array of states ranging from Hawaii to the Beast Coast, and several out of Canada, from Toronto to the remote reaches of Manitoba. (Brrr.) Other nations have been represented, too, including Australia and New Zealand. Apparently, members of the Mormon faith get beat up a lot in the court of public opinion around the nation and world. You wouldn't know it here in Santa Clarita. And again, when I think "Mormon," I still tend to think, "Cute Girls." But there is an almost-sad level of disbelief in these e-mails I receive from people, literally from across the globe, who apparently feel as if their religion is marginalized and ostracized. The people who have sent me notes are invariably incredulous, as if its unlikely that a letter complimentary to the Mormon faith would be penned by someone outside the faith, and then, in turn, published by a community newspaper: Can you please confirm that this letter was really published? Well, yes. It really was. And here, on this page, accompanying this column, is a copy of the original letter. No, I don't have tearsheets available for those who want original copies, but well post this version on our web site  making an exception to our typical policy under which one must actually buy the newspaper to read letters to the editor  so LDS church members worldwide can copy the text of the letter and get the confirmation they seek, right here in this column. Yes, the letter is complimentary to Mormons. Yes, we really published it-nearly two years ago, but thanks to Internet wizardry and LDS members' skepticism, it's all the rage on Planet Earth and in cyberspace right now. And now, back to your regularly scheduled community newspaper. Well over five years after its initial publication, Paul Allen's letter is still the subject of inquiry (here at snopes.com and at The Signal as well), hence its inclusion here. Last updated:  31 March 2006    Sources:   Whyte, Tim.  "Have Faith: Letter Was Really Published."   The [Santa Clarita Valley] Signal.  26 May 2002. In early November 2015, potholes prompted some crossing of party lines when theLegislatures Joint Finance Committeeapproved Republican Gov. Scott Walkers plan to borrow $350 million over the next two years for road projects. Democrats offered key support. Even before that, Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling (D-La Crosse) was arguing more spending was needed. On Oct. 1, 2015 shetweeted this: 71% of WIs roads are in poor or mediocre condition and 14% of WIs bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. #JustFixIt In Wisconsins budget battles over infrastructure, few deny the need for road maintenance. But is Shilling right about how bad the situation is? Digging into the numbers Shillings team directed us toa reportfrom the U.S. Department of Transportation that cited the same statistics as the tweet -- that 71 percent of roads in Wisconsin are in poor or mediocre condition and 14 percent of bridges are classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. So, the report is quoted accurately. But what about the numbers themselves? The two statistics were drawn from different sources of data. The data on road conditions came from the2013 Report Card for Americas Infrastructure. The report, the most recent available, is put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers, a trade and advocacy organization. By the groups tally, Wisconsin is one of just six states with at least 70 percent of roads rated in poor or mediocre condition, meaning our roads are in worse shape than the national average. But experts caution that the report card can overstate the amount of need for road repairs. First, the report uses a small source of data for each state and then extrapolates that data to the entire state roadway system. Ashwat Anandanarayanan, director of transportation policy for the environmental group 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, said the civil engineers reports also conflate new roadway construction and maintenance, resulting in what appears to be greater need. Lots of roads need to be fixed, he said. Not a lot need to be expanded. So then, what is a better measuring stick? The Wisconsin Department of Transportation collects its own data on road conditions that is used in the Highway Performance Monitoring System by the Federal Highway Administration, which is considered the gold standard of transportation information. According to these figures, the percentage of Wisconsin roads in poor or mediocre condition is much lower -- 38 percent of the state highway system falls into those categories. That doesnt mean the state will fare better in a national comparison by that measure. In fact, the state lags behind the U.S. average in most indicators of roadway quality. As for bridges, Shilling said 14 percent of Wisconsins bridges were in disrepair or functionally obsolete. This statistic, which is accurate, came from WisDOT data submitted to the Federal Highway Administration. But while Shilling cites the number as evidence of the state being behind, Wisconsin does pretty well here in a national comparison. Only three states  Arizona, Minnesota and Nevada  reported a smaller percentage of bridges in disrepair. Our rating Shilling said 71 % of WIs roads are in poor or mediocre condition and 14% of WIs bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The report she cited from the federal Department of Transportation backed up her figures, but the numbers used for her road statistic arent the most accurate available. By another measure, the percentage of roads in poor or mediocre condition is far smaller. There was no dispute on the bridge number, though on that front the state actually fares better than most others. We rate the claim Mostly True. Claim:   An EPA study proposed paying families to allow their children to be exposed to pesticides. Status:  Multiple:  The EPA planned to deliberately expose youngsters to pesticides in order to study what effects those chemical compounds may have on children:  False.  The EPA planned to study children who live in an area where pesticides are used year-round:  True.  The proposed study was canceled in April 2005:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2004] EPA Will Use Poor Kids as Guinea Pigs to Test Toxic Chemicals Dear friend, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced plans to launch an outrageous new study in which participating low income families will have their children exposed to toxic pesticides over the course of two years. For taking part in these studies, each family will receive $970, a free video camera, a T-shirt, and a framed certificate of appreciation. The study entitled CHEERS (Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study) will look at how chemicals can be ingested, inhaled or absorbed by children ranging from babies to 3 years old. Please take a moment to follow this link and join tens of thousands of citizens in petitioning the EPA to terminate this study prior to its proposed launch in early 2005. More information, related newspaper headlines and petition here:  https://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm https://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm Please also forward this message. Origins:  Yet again an interesting mix of truth and scare has been loosed upon us all. While the November 2004 e-mail quoted above was relatively factual, its wording left those who received it with an impression far removed from the truth. While the proposed investigation was real, the nature of the test subjects was misunderstood, leading to those who heard of to arrive at some erroneous  conclusions. Through a research project known as the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS), the United States' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) planned to gather data about pesticide and household chemical exposure in very young children. The study was set to begin in the summer of 2005 in Jacksonville, Florida, and would have entailed monitoring 60 infants (newborn to just shy of 13 months old) for a period of two years. However, while the e-mail left readers with the impression that poverty-stricken families were for the price of a camcorder and $970 heartlessly offering up their tots as lab rats, the little ones to be deliberately sickened by cruel scientists intent upon advancing human knowledge even at the price of 60 babies potentially dealt life-long serious physical ailments by exposure to dreadful chemicals, the truth was quite different. One of the reasons the EPA chose Duval County, Florida, as the site of this research had to do with year-round pesticide use in that area. The children who would have been the subjects of the study live there. In other words, if all the clipboard-wielding EPA people stayed home and the project were canceled before it began, these same children would be exposed to these same pesticides and in the same amounts, due to nothing more sinister than where their parents chose to settle and raise their families. The EPA would not have been administering pesticides to children. Children who were already exposed to pesticides due to where they lived would have been studied by the EPA. Given that these youngsters were coming into contact with noxious chemicals because of where they lived, the EPA saw a good opportunity to examine the effects of such compounds on small children by studying subjects drawn from this particular group. CHEERS would have tracked 60 of these little ones over the course of two years, measuring not only their exposure to pesticides but also to ordinary household chemicals (cleaning products and the like). The parents of kids taking part in the study would have had to keep very careful logs on which products were used and in which amounts in their homes. They would also have been required to videotape their tykes being studied and maintain logs of the little ones' activities. For this, and for allowing researchers into the family domicile every few months to assess the children being observed and to examine the homes, these parents would have received a $970 stipend and would have been allowed at the end of the two years to keep the video cameras. Update: On 8 April 2005, the proposed study was canceled. As to why, Stephen L. Johnson, Acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said: Last fall, in light of questions about the study design, I directed that all work on the study stop immediately and requested an independent review. Since that time, many misrepresentations about the study have been made. EPA senior scientists have briefed me on the impact these misrepresentations have had on the ability to proceed with the study. I have concluded that the study cannot go forward, regardless of the outcome of the independent review. EPA must conduct quality, credible research in an atmosphere absent of gross misrepresentation and controversy. Additional information:       Overview of Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study  (EPA)        CHEERS Fact Sheet  (EPA)  Last updated:  31 August 2005    Sources:   Allison, Wes.  "Nelson Vows EPA Delay Over Pesticide Study."   St. Petersburg Times.  8 April 2005  (p. A6).    Eilperin, Juliet.  "Chemical Industry Funds Aid EPA Study."   The Washington Post.  26 October 2004  (p. A3).    Kirkpatrick, David D.  "E.P.A. Halts Florida Test on Pesticides."   The New York Times.  9 April 2005  (p. A15).   Associated Press.  "Pesticide Study with Children Delayed."  CNN.  12 November 2004. In late July 2020, Snopes readers asked for verification of numerous social media posts that stated Target had canceled its annual "Shop with a Cop" program, which is officially known as "Heroes & Helpers," in an effort to "distance themselves from Police Officers." Here is an example of one such post circulating on Facebook:   Similar posts also made the rounds on Twitter, and to add to the confusion, a website called The Courier Daily only reported that people were talking about the rumor on Twitter but didn't offer any evidence for the claim. posts website We reached out to the source itself, asking Target Corporate whether it had ended the long-standing program that pairs children from low-income backgrounds with local law enforcement officers for holiday shopping trips funded by charitable donations. A spokesperson for Target told us that the program will continue, although details about how it will move forward amid the COVID-19 pandemic are still pending. In response to our question asking whether the program had been canceled, the company sent the following statement: We plan to continue to support children with Heroes & Helpers events across the country this holiday season. Like many of our holiday programs, were carefully considering how to manage these events during the COVID-19 environment in a way that ensures the health and safety of our team and guests. We will have additional details to share as we approach the holiday season. The program was launched in 2009 and takes place in stores nationwide. To date, $5 million in grants has been used to support the shopping trips, and more than 100,000 children and 60,000 police officers have participated, per Target. program The false social media rumors may have been inspired by the fact that since the May 25, 2020, death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody, there have been ongoing protests against and conversation about police violence and racism in America, spurring calls to reform policing practices and even some activists calling for police departments to be defunded. George Floyd However, Target, as of this writing, doesn't plan to cancel the program as a result of the racial justice protests. With the information currently available, we rate this claim  A Bullseye View.  "Target Teams Up with Donnie Wahlberg to Celebrate 10 Years of Heroes & Helpers."
  4 December 2019. Trujillo, Damian.  "Shop With a Cop Foundation Considers Name Change to Reconnect with Community."
  KNTV.  2 July 2020. Hill, Evan, et al.  "How George Floyd Was Killed in Police Custody."
  The New York Times.  31 May 2020. In June 2021, as former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin faced sentencing for the murder of George Floyd, one widely-shared social media post accused Chauvin of other crimes, namely tax evasion. On June 25, @davenewworld_2 wrote on Twitter: "Derek Chauvin underreported half a million dollars in income while owing $20,000+ in taxes, and then fucking murdered George Floyd over an alleged $20 counterfeit bill..." wrote   That tweet, and the claims it contained, were further promoted in a popular Reddit post, on the following day. popular Reddit post On June 25, Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill sentenced Chauvin to 22 and a half years in prison for the murder of Floyd, a Black man who died after Chauvin kneeled on his neck for more than nine minutes, in May 2020. sentenced The claim that Chauvin "underreported half a million dollars in income" stems from an ongoing criminal case against him, and his former wife Kellie May Chauvin. However, Chauvin has not yet entered a plea in that case, and has not been tried or convicted, as of June 28, 2021. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven," for now. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly. A brief note: Kellie May and Derek Chauvin divorced in February 2021, and during those proceedings she expressed an intention to change her last name. However, we have not been able to find any record of that name change, so this article refers to her using her last-known last name, Chauvin.  expressed an intention On July 22, 2020, the office of Washington County Attorney Pete Orput charged the Chauvins with nine counts each of felony tax evasion, claiming that they "failed to file income tax returns and pay state income taxes, underreported and underpaid taxes on income generated from various employments each year, and failed to pay proper sales tax on a vehicle purchased in Minnesota." charged The complaint against Derek Chauvin summarized the details of their alleged offenses, as follows: complaint The Chauvins did not file tax returns in 2016, 2017, and 2018. The filed tax returns for years 2014 and 2015 did not report income received from D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income. Tax returns for years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 filed on June 26, 2020, did not report D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income.  According to prosecutors, the Chauvins under-reported a total of $464,433 in income between 2014 and 2019, just short of the "half a million dollars" included in the widely-shared tweet from June 2021:  Source: Washington County Attorney's Office  However, the Chauvins have not yet entered pleas in this case, as of June 28, 2021. An omnibus hearing, at which the two defendants could potentially enter pleas, was scheduled for June 30, the Washington County Attorney's office told Snopes.  could potentially enter pleas Since Derek Chauvin has not yet pleaded guilty or been convicted of the charges against him, and neither might ever occur, the claim that he "under-reported half a million dollars in income" was unproven, as of June 28. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly. Every flu season sees an increase in viral web stories making largely unsubstantiated allegations about the health risks of the flu shot that include claims about their scary-sounding ingredients, connections to a variety of diseases (including Alzheimer's), and their supposed lack of efficacy in general: The pharmaceutical industry, medical experts and the mainstream media are candid in telling us that flu vaccines contain strains of the flu virus. What they are less likely to reveal though is the long list of other ingredients that come with the vaccine. It is now a known fact that flu vaccines contain mercury, a heavy metal known to be hazardous for human health. Mercury toxicity can cause depression, memory loss, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory problems, ADD, oral health problems, digestive imbalances and other serious health issues. The article quoted above, which is representative of the text and claims that appear nearly identically in hundreds of Facebook posts, makes a number of claims that need to be investigated on their own merits: identically  Claim: The flu shot makes you sick to begin with.  Flu shots work by introducing dead (inactivated) strains of influenza virus, which trigger your immune system to create antibodies to fight those strains. These antibodies make your body more prepared to fight if should it be exposed to an active strain in the future. Because the strains are inactive, any sickness you develop after the shot is not caused by influenza, according to the Harvard Medical School: according The vaccine is made from an inactivated virus that can't transmit infection. So people who get sick after receiving a flu vaccination were going to get sick anyway. It takes a week or two to get protection from the vaccine. But people assume that because they got sick after getting the vaccine, the shot caused their illness. It is, of course, possible that feelings of sickness come from some of the side effects of the injection, but the vaccine itself is not infecting you in any way. side effects Claim: Flu vaccines contain other dangerous ingredients such as mercury. false Flu shots administered from multi-use vials may contain a preservative called thimerosal, which breaks down into ethylmercury in the body. Mercury is an element and as such it can be found in many different chemical forms. But when people are concerned about mercury toxicity, they are concerned about methylmercury, which is indeed toxic at high levels and could cause some of the problems listed above. may contain methylmercury Ethylmercury, on the other hand, passes through your body quickly, and numerous studies have found it safe for use in vaccines (though there is some evidence that its use could be problematic for infants  a population that CDC does not  recommend for flu shots anyway). Saying ethylmercury is dangerous because is contains mercury is like saying that your table salt is at risk of spontaneous combustion because it contains sodium. passes for infants  recommend spontaneous combustion Thimerosal, additionally, has been used for decades by the anti-vaccine movement to stoke vaccination fear by suggesting it causes by suggesting it causes autism. This link has been discredited over, and over, and over, and over, and over again and is further compromised by the fact that autism rates are still climbing despite the fact that childhood vaccines no longer contain this ingredient. over over over over over climbing contain  Claim: The flu shot can give you Alzheimer's disease. false The leading immunogeneticist Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, whom the article cites as the authority on this claim, had his medical license revoked in 1995 for ethical misconduct and was an outspoken proponent of the widely discredited MMR-autism link. His claim of the link between Alzheimer's and vaccines, though hard to trace, may or may not come from a talk he gave at the 1997 NVIC International Vaccine Conference. The statement has not been backed up by any published peer-reviewed research since then. In fact, a 2001 study found that adults exposed to vaccines were at a lower risk of Alzheimers. revoked in 1995 may or may not study Claim: The very people pushing flu vaccinations are making billions of dollars each year.  Pharmaceutical companies (sometimes) profit from vaccines, but the fact that a company makes a profit is an appeal to emotion and is not evidence to support the claim of a faulty product or of nefarious intent. It also may not be accurate. A recent Atlantic article covered this question extensively, stating: article Not only do pediatricians and doctors often lose money on vaccine administration, it wasn't too long ago that the vaccine industry was struggling with slim profit margins and shortages. The Economist wrote that "for decades vaccines were a neglected corner of the drugs business, with old technology, little investment and abysmal profit margins. Many firms sold their vaccine divisions to concentrate on more profitable drugs." The suggestion of massive profits from flu shots ignores the fact that profits margins are generally much higher for other drugs than for flu vaccines, as well. The same Atlantic article cites one estimate that puts the vaccine market at around $24 billion. This sounds like a large number, but it would, in fact, account for only two to three percent of the pharmaceutical market worldwide. article Claim: There is a lack of real evidence that young children even benefit fromflu shots.  Many anti-vaccine articles parrot the claim that "51 studies involving 260,000 children showed no benefit compared to a placebo for children under the age of two". This stems from a 2008 meta-analysis that did indeed conclude that there is less efficacy for children under the age of two, something the CDC already recognizes on their website. However, of the 51 studies analyzed and the 260,000 observations those studies included, only one study (at the time) was performed on children below the age of two using inactive strains (the kind found in flu shots). A later study in 2011 that reviewed over 5,000 research articles concluded that flu shots consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years), categorically rejecting the claim that there is a lack of real evidence that young children benefit from the shot. 2008 meta-analysis recognizes study Claim: The flu shot makes you more susceptible to pneumonia and other contagious diseases. false People with compromised immune systems are at higher risk of complications from vaccines when those vaccines contain live strains (which, again, the flu shot does not), and some skin reactions are possible immediately following an injection. risk possible However, the notion that the flu shot weakens the immune system is false. According to a review paper in the journal Pediatrics: paper Vaccines may cause temporary suppression of delayed-type hypersensitivity skin reactions or alter certain lymphocyte function tests in vitro. However, the short-lived immunosuppression caused by certain vaccines does not result in an increased risk of infections with other pathogens soon after vaccination. Claim: The flu shot causes vascular disorders such as fever, jaw pain, muscle aches, pain and stiffness in the neck, upper arms, shoulder and hips and headache. MISLEADING While the term vascular disorder is fear-inducing, it merely describes anything having to do with veins and arteries. The flu shot does not, de facto, cause any of these problems, but all the complications listed above are listed by the CDC as possible side effects. It is worth noting, however, that the flu will almost certainly give you some or all of these symptomsand with a much greater intensity than the symptoms resulting from a flu shot. CDC almost certainly give you some or all Claim: Children under the age of 1 are at risk of a neurotoxic breach of the blood-brain barrier.  The blood-brain barrier is the medical term for the chemical and physical adaptations humans and other animals have that prevent pathogens and other chemicals in the body from entering the central nervous system. For this claim about neurotoxic breach be true, an infant would have to have a relatively weaker blood-brain barrier than an adult. The idea that the barrier is weaker in young infants, however, is a long-held but unsubstantiated myth. Numerous studies have refuted the claim, showing that the blood-brain barrier is fully developed in the womb, long before a child is born. blood-brain barrier myth fully developed  Claim: Flu shots carry an increased risk of narcolepsy. false There is a well-documented, though statistically minor, connection between a specific H1N1 flu vaccine (Pandemrix) and narcolepsy. But such reports concerned only that one vaccine, which was produced for a specific flu strain, and have limited relevance to the seasonal flu shot. Pandemrix is available in Europe but not the United States or Canada. well-documented connection not Claim: The flu shot weakens immunological responses.  This claim, from a scientific standpoint, is a repeat of the earlier false claim (above) that suggests your body is more susceptible to infection or disease after a flu shot. Harmful immunological responses is a broad and unhelpful term that, while it may have aided in turning up literally thousands of responses in an academic search, is not really all that surprising as the term would includes the already documented risk of a skin and allergic reactions that come with pretty much any injection. already documented Claim: The flu shot can cause serious neurological disorders. false The neurological disorder specifically associated with flu vaccines is the Guillain-Barr Syndromea terrifying disease that causes nerve damage and sometimes paralysis. A widely cited study on a population of individuals who received the H1N1 vaccine in 1976 showed an increased risk of contracting this disease  whose cause is unknown  compared to those who did not receive the vaccine: Guillain-Barr Syndrome The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a scientific review of this issue in 2003 and found that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. The increased risk was approximately one additional case of GBS for every 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. Scientists have several theories about the cause, but the exact reason for this link remains unknown. The link between GBS and flu vaccination in other years is unclear, and if there is any risk for GBS after seasonal flu vaccines it is very small, about one in a million. Studies suggest that it is more likely that a person will get GBS after getting the flu than after vaccination. It is important to keep in mind that severe illness and death are associated with flu, and getting vaccinated is the best way to prevent flu infection and its complications. This topic has been heavily researched for decades, and no specific consensus regarding the link or mechanism behind the flu virus and the disease has been established. What has been established, however, is how small the risk is relative to the risks of contracting complications from flu itself. A 2013 study in The Lancet stated that: study The relative and attributable risks of Guillain-Barr syndrome after seasonal influenza vaccination are lower than those after influenza illness. Patients considering immunisation should be fully informed of the risks of Guillain-Barr syndrome from both influenza vaccines and influenza illness. Current iterations of the seasonal flu shot do not have any live strains in them (though the nasal spray includes weakened strains), nor do they have any mercury (in the United States), detergent, antifreeze, or aluminum. They contain, at most, 50 times less formaldehyde than a pear. nasal spray nor aluminum pear  We, of course, are not healthcare providers and cannot make any medical decisions for you. The purpose of this post is to correct misinformation on the Internet, and there are few topics that lend themselves to as much misinformation as vaccines. All healthcare decisions, however, should be made between you and your doctor. Harvard Medical School.  "10 Flu Myths."
  November 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Possible Side-Effects from Vaccines."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Thimerosal in Vaccines."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. World Health Organization.  "Statement on Thimerosal."
  July 2006. Dorea, J.G.  "Low-Dose Mercury Exposure in Early Life: Relevance of Thimerosal to Fetuses, Newborns and Infants."
  Current Medical Chemistry.  2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Verreault, Rene et al.  "Past Exposure to Vaccines and Subsequent Risk of Alzheimer's Disease."
  CMAJ.  27 November 2001. Gorski, David.  "Oh, Come On, Superman!: Bill Maher Versus 'Western Medicine.'"
  Science Based Medicine.  7 September 2009. Casewatch.  "Disciplinary Actions Against Herman Hugh Fudenberg, M.D."
  20 April 2005. Pediatrics.  "Joint Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS)."
  September 1999. Taylor. Luke E. et al.  Vaccines Are Not Associated with Autism: An Evidence-Based Meta-Analysis of Case-Control and Cohort Studies."
  Vaccine.  17 June 2014. Ball, L.K. et al.  An Assessment of Thimerosal Use in Childhood Vaccines."
  Pediatrics.  May 2001. Madsen, Kreesten, M. et al.  A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism."
  New England Journal of Medicine.  7 November 2002. Hviid, Anders et al.  Association Between Thimerosal-Containing
Vaccine and Autism."
  New England Journal of Medicine.  October 2003. The National Academies.  "Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism."
  2004. Vaccine Knowledge Project.  "Vaccine Ingredients."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Vaccines Adjuvants."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Flublok Seasonal Influenza (Flu) Vaccine."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Guillain-Barre Syndrome."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Narcolepsy Following Pandemrix Influenza Vaccination in Europe."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Miller, Elizabeth et al.  Risk of Narcolepsy in Children and Young People Receiving As03 Adjuvanted Pandemic A/h1n1 2009 Influenza Vaccine: Retrospective Analysis."
  BMJ.  26 February 2013. Moretti, Raffella et al.  Blood-Brain Barrier Dysfunction in Disorders of the Developing Brain."
  Frontiers in Neuroscience.  17 February 2015. Volodin, N.N. et al.  Status of the Blood-brain Barrier in Newborn Infants of Various Gestational Ages in the Normal State and in Pathology."
  Pediatriia.  1989. Saunders, Norman R. et al.  The Rights and Wrongs of Blood-brain Barrier Permeability Studies: S Walk Through 100 Years of History."
  Frontiers in Neuroscience.  16 December 2014. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Flu Symptoms & Complications."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Osterholm, Michael T. et al.  Efficacy and Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis."
  The Lancet.  January 2012. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Vaccine Effectiveness  How Well Does the Flu Vaccine Work?"
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Jefferson, T. et al.  Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Children."
  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.  16 April 2008. Lam, Bourree.  Vaccines Are Profitable, So What?"
  The Atlantic.  10 February 2015. In March 2017, an advertisement disguised as a news story appeared to report that Facebook CEO's Mark Zuckerberg was leaving the company in order to sell skin care products. The hoax report was published on the web site GetInkNews.co: story   Neither Katy Perry nor any of the other aforementioned celebrities have endorsed this product, and the web site took unrelated images of Zuckerberg and various celebrities (the image of Katy Perry was taken in 2011) to make it seem as if they had endorsed Zuckerberg's skin care line together.  2011 The advertisement also claimed that Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan were giving away free samples of the product (as long as customers paid for shipping and handling): ZUCKERBERG GIVES PRODUCTS AWAY FOR FREE! So, what if you arent rich or famous? Chan and Zuckerberg dont care. After all, they are already worth more than $556 billion. We arent in this to make a fortune, Chan told a friend recently. We already have amassed a fortune. I just want to help people. That is why she is now offering readers the opportunity to experience the joys of younger looking skin for FREE! The only cost to you is a $4.95 shipping and handling fee, so you can try the EcoMaxx Ageless Moisturizer and EcoMaxx Ageless Eye Revitalizer have it delivered right to your front door. Simply click on the link here for ordering details.   This a relatively new form of the ubiquitous fake news: an advertisement designed to mimic a genuine news item in order to convince people to buy a skin care product. At the very bottom of this web page, below the comments section, below several links to purchase this product, and below several fake celebrity endorsements, appears a disclaimer: THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER PROTECTION UPDATE This website is not intended to provide medical advice or to take the place of medical advice and treatment from your personal physician. Visitors are advised to consult their own doctors or other qualified health professional regarding the treatment of medical conditions. The author shall not be held liable or responsible for any misunderstanding or misuse of the information contained on this site or for any loss, damage, or injury caused, or alleged to be caused, directly or indirectly by any treatment, action, or application of any food or food source discussed in this website. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration have not evaluated the statements on this website. The information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. MARKETING DISCLOSURE: You should know that the owner of this website has a monetary connection to the product & services advertised and provided. The owner receives payment whenever a qualified lead is referred. All of the information regarding the goods and services mentioned on this website is provided by the owner. ADVERTISING DISCLOSURE: This website is an advertisement and not a news publication. Any photographs of persons used on this site are models. Any photographs of before/after images used on this site are not real and are only used to illustrate the results some may achieve. Many of the articles featured on this site are what is commonly referred to as an advertorial, a combination of advertisement and editorial written in an editorial format as an independent news story. However, unlike an independent news story, an advertorial may promote a particular product or interest. Advertorials take factual information and report it in an editorial format to allow the author, often a company marketing its products, to enhance or explain certain elements to maintain the readers interest. A familiar example is an airline's in-flight magazines that provide editorial reports about travel destinations to which the airline flies. In 2018, the same conceit of Facebook's head announcing that he was stepping down was used as fodder for an April Fool's Day joke: stepping down  Last year in June, when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave the company a new mission statement, it was too late for him to try to change how things worked at Facebooks offices. While it wasnt made public, Cambridge Analytica had already used data from millions of users for voter profiling and other purposes. In the wake of the recent data misuse revelation, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has resigned from the company. While demands were already being made for his resignation, this has come as a big surprise for many. Zuckerberg publicly informed the world via a post on Facebook. Altus, Celeste.  "But Did He Friend Her?"
  AdWeek.  21 January 2011. Get Ink News.  "Mark Zuckerberg Disgusted with Social Media; Set to Leave Facebook Later This Year."
  Retrieved 13 March 2017. Claim:  Opinion piece expresses columnist Charles Krauthammer's thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2012] I would like to know if the following email attributed to Charles Krauthammer has been correctly  attributed.  Circulated under the subject line: Health Care Decision: From Charles Krauthammer.  To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides.  I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law.  I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Let me explain. First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice.  He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent.  The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became.  It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it. The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters.  If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today. Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942.  As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is.  They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday.  In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Roberts' Court's fairness.  That's why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it. Next let's look at the decision itself.  Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece.  (As I write this the libsdon't even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)  He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause which only applies to "enumerated powers" in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements.  They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total.  This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama's whole defense of the bill.  They also ruled 9-0 on the "necessary and proper" clause.  Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do.  Well done.  Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law.  Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes.  This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term "tax" and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor.  That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney.  More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total. Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare.  This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck.  If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant. So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romneys and Republicans' fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing.  Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just two weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order. That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S.Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt.  What a day.   Origins:  This opinion piece began circulating shortly after the June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of "Obamacare" health care legislation and has been attributed to  Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.  However, it was not written by Charles Krauthammer: the piece was not originally credited to him (his name was added later), it doesn't appear in his published writings, and he wouldn't refer to a late June event as constituting "a great birthday present" for himself (as he was born in mid-March).  His column on the court's Obamacare  decision, entitled Why Roberts Did It," is distinctly different from the opinion presented here.  Why Roberts Did It The earliest versions of this item that we received bore the signature block of Richard Bolen of the Bolen Law Firm in Lexington, South Carolina. Last updated:  8 July 2012 A call to boycott the South Korean multinational conglomerate Samsung (best known in the U.S. for their electronics products) has been widely shared over the company's alleged involvement in the manufacture and sale of a device purportedly used to skin dogs alive for food preparation:   These machines are manufactured by Samsung to ripped the hair off dogs while they are still alive in the machine as it spins! Samsung supplies these machines to vendors and dog meat traders. Not only is Samsung actively helping the barbaric practice of dog eating to continue but are also contributing to the suffering of thousands of dogs that are being tortured and killed, by being boiled, blow torched or skinned alive, the most horrific brutal methods possible by the dog meat butchers. Samsung does not care! Their interest is only in profit.  The device pictured in the graphic is real, but the accompanying description of it is inaccurate. This device is not manufactured or sold by Samsung, and it was not used to skin a live dog. The photograph of the dog carcass was taken by Swiss documentary photographer Didier Ruef in South Korea in 2002, who noted the device was being used to eliminate the fur from an already-dead dog: photograph South Korea. Kimje area. Dog's slaughter for meat. A machine spins the dead dog to get rid of its fur.  While the notion of eating dog meat may be appalling to most westerners, Ruef observed that "dog meat is a delicatessen [sic] of Korean traditional cooking" and the dish known as Bosintang is "made of dog meat cooked in a soup with various spices and vegetables." observed The machine depicted in the photograph probably wasn't designed for the sole purpose of skinning dogs. It closely resembles a contraption that is commonly used to de-feather slaughtered chickens and can readily be purchased commercially (although the version displayed here appears to be a homemade version).  homemade So what does Samsung have to do with any of this? A petition posted to Change.org calls on major companies, such as AT&T, Sprint, Verizon Wireless, Walmart, Costco, Best Buy, Amazon, Samsung, and LG to help stop the "heinous butchering and eating" of dogs in South Korea. Although these companies do not directly contribute to the culinary habits of South Koreans, the petition holds that by remaining neutral, these companies are condoning the act of eating dogs: petition Bishop Desmond Tutu said, If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. As a major retailer of Samsung and LG products, you have the power to influence the S. Korean government to end the horrific cruelty that is perpetrated against innocent dogs and cats of South Korea. It's possible that whoever created the graphic seen here misread the petition and mistakenly associated the manufacture of the pictured machine with Samsung.