Did Eisenhower Warn About Political Parties Who Wanted to 'Abolish Social Security?'
One favorite tactic in political debate is to put words in the mouth of a respected elder statesman to make it appear he presciently anticipated some modern issue or political personality (and, naturally, took a stand that supported the viewpoint of whoever put those words in his mouth).  Therefore, given the debates that arose in over President George W. Bush's efforts to alter the Social Security system, one would expect the appearance at that time of a  fifty-year-old quote from a former President (and fellow Republican) labeling as "stupid" certain "Texas oil millionaires" who wanted "to abolish social security" to be a similar fabrication. See this claim we collected got in the Snopes inbox in 2005: President Dwight Eisenhower, Republican, uttered these words on November 8, 1954: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things.  Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas.  Their number is negligible and they are stupid."  In addition to being a war hero, a decent fellow, a moderate Republican before they began to go extinct, President Eisenhower apparently was also quite the prophet. Little George W. Bush was about 9 years old at the time ... Save for a few minor details, however, the quote from President Dwight D. Eisenhower cited in this message is in fact an accurate one.  It wasn't something he uttered but rather something he wrote, and the version reproduced above omits Ike's reference to a specific Texas oil tycoon (H.L. Hunt), but it otherwise is taken verbatim from a letter President Eisenhower penned to his brother, Edgar Newton Eisenhower, on 8 November 1954: letter Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this  in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything  even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.  A meme circulated in 2015 elided the reference to "Texas oil millionaires" and presented the quote as something aimed at the modern Tea Party:  Politically, Ike was a classic small-government Republican.  He was of the opinion that the federal government had grown too large at the expense of local and state authority since the advent of FDR's New Deal in the 1930's, a situation exacerbated by the national emergency produced due to America's entry into World War II.  Since the Depression and the war were over by the time Eisenhower took office in 1953, Ike felt it was time to return to a "middle way"  that included pruning federal subsidies to industries such as agriculture and power companies, which he believed no longer needed government assistance.  At the same time, he wanted to sustain and even increase funding for programs he thought had good track records, and Social Security was paramount among those programs.  Cummings, Jeanne.  "Gingrich Out to Save America."   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  16 January 1994  (p. G1).
Next to jobs and the economy, public employee pensions have been among the biggest issues in many 2014 political campaigns. Ernest Almonte, an independent running for general treasurer, was asked during an interview that aired Oct. 5, 2014 on the second half of WLNE's On the Record whether the 2011 overhaul of Rhode Islands state pension system went far enough. First of all, Almonte said, I was speaking out on pension reform almost 17 years ago, warning elected officials that if you didn't take care of this problem, it would take draconian measures to fix it. As a matter of fact, he said, it got to the point of saying that, 'If you're not going to fix this, you should start, (instead of) sending your children and grandchildren birthday cards and Christmas cards, you should just send them invoices and just tell them the truth: You're passing on your debt to them,' So something had to be done. We wondered whether Almonte, who served as Rhode Island's Auditor General from 1994 to 2010, was prescient enough to be warning about problems with Rhode Islands public pension systems 17 years ago, and what kinds of reforms he was saying were needed. Almontes campaign sent us several documents from the auditor general's office. Only a few go back to late 1990s and the relevant ones dealt with pension payment problems in individual communities, not state employees. One was a 1998 letter to Coventry's treasurer saying that some of the town's pension plans have insufficient assets to meet projected benefits. That was 16 years ago. Another was a 1998 copy of a report by the Johnston Financial Review Commission, which Almonte chaired, warning that the town owed $3.2 million in required pension contributions for its employees. For example, Johnston hadn't paid into the firemen's pension fund for more than three years, putting it more than $1.3 million behind in its payments. We note that Almonte's comments in both of these reports are in dry auditor language. Some readers might not take that as the type of scary warning that Almonte says he made. But we also found a May 8, 1988 front-page Providence Journal story reporting how Almonte explained to more than 200 Johnston residents that their town was in deep financial trouble. To drive home the severity of the situation, the story said, Almonte gave examples that sometimes made the audience wince: A bottom-of-the-barrel credit rating. A time between April 1996 and March 1997 when the town's bank account was overdrawn for 146 days. Falling behind $3.19 million in required pension contributions for workers. And that's not all, Almonte said. Still to be reckoned with is an unfunded pension liability that hasn't been quantified, and could add up to untold millions, the story reported. Almonte's campaign also referred us toa March 1999 report, available on the Auditor General's website, for the 1997 fiscal year. It notes that five school districts, five municipalities and three police and fire units were delinquent to the tune of about $1.7 million in their pension payments. The state withheld school aid and traffic fine payments to six municipalities until they paid up. That was 15 years ago. If Almonte wasn't warning about a looming crisis in the state pension system in those days, that's because there wasn't one. His2000 audit of the state Employees' Retirement System, covering the fiscal year that ended in 1999, reported that the funded ratios -- the amount of money each plan had compared to the amount of money it was expected to need to cover its pension costs -- had been growing steadily for years. The ratio for state employees, for example, went from 73 percent in 1993 to 81 percent in 1998. In addition, all the plans had been getting the recommended amount of funding since at least 1996 and, in many cases, even longer. That would change. By 2006, the funded ratio for that plan had dropped to 55 percent. By 2009, it had only gone up to59 percentand the debate about pension costs was poised to explode. We found no documentation from that era suggesting Almonte was advocating thetype ofsweeping changes to the separate pension plans for state employees and teachers that were pushed by General Treasurer Gina Raimondo and approved by the General Assembly and Governor Lincoln Chafee. In an interview, Almonte argued that he was talking about the state's pension problem at the time  because late payments he was referring to were payments by cities and towns to the state-run Municipal Employees' Retirement System, also known as MERS, which is under the jurisdiction of the state treasurer. Reform is not just what you to do an employee or an employee's benefits, he said. I was advocating a reform of management to get the communities to make their payments on time, especially when the money being withheld by workers to help pay for pension benefits is being retained by the city or town. When payments are made late, you miss out on earnings, and that's the start of the problem because the problem compounds itself. Our ruling Ernest Almonte said, I was speaking out on pension reform almost 17 years ago. The comment was in the context of a question on the state's pension system. Its clear from documentation Almonte provided and information we found that Almonte was warning about problems years ago. But the documentation he could provide only dealt with problems in municipal plans, although some of those were in the MERS system run by the state. Because his statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rule itMostly True. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) As the debt-ceiling crisis deepened, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, lambasted Democrats for failing to put together a public plan to bring down federal spending.Johnson, in anappearance on CNBCs Squawk Box, argued constitutional limits on government spending were the only way to keep politicians hands off the pocketbooks of their constituents. To illustrate his point, the freshman Republican reached way back into the history books.Well increase the debt ceiling, give the president what he wants, and all were saying is, Lets pass a constitutional limitation to the size of government, which by the way is the root cause of the problem, Johnson said. The federal government is spending 25 percent of our entire economy versus 100 years ago, we spent only 2 percent. The problem is the size, the scope, all the regulations and the cost of government.PolitiFact National has tested the current end of this claim andfound it True. But the back end is new territory.Has the federal governments share of the nations economy really jumped twelvefold in a century?A frequently cited source on the history of federal spending is the White House Office of Management and Budget.Itswebsite showsthe federal share of gross domestic product -- the GDP, essentially our total economic output for a year -- was 25 percent in 2009, 23.8 percent  in 2010 and is estimated at 25.3 percent for 2011.In 1930, by contrast, the federal government made up just 3.4 percent of the economy.There are many reasons for the change -- ones that go beyond year-to-year growth in spending for existing programs.Before the 1930s, the federal government was basically the post office, veterans benefits, a small defense department and national-debt payments, according to anofficial government summaryand experts we consulted. Local government was dominant.World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam pushed up the federal role considerably, and when that spending waned, it was more than offset as the country aged into Social Security and the Great Society programs --  including Medicare and Medicaid --  took off.The federal share of the economy went up and down in the 1980s and 1990s, amid recessions, higher debt interest payments, higher health care spending and tax cuts. Homeland security and military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks pushed the number up, as did the recession that began in 2007.The largest part of the growth since the 1950s, the Office of Management and Budget reports, came from a category that includes Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, deposit insurance, and means-tested entitlements such as Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portions of the Earned Income and Child Tax Credits.A big part of the difference is that as the U.S. got richer, a lot more services were demanded, and a whole layer of protections unknown in 1910 got assumed by the government, said Gary Burtless, a Brookings Institution economist.As we noted, the current numbers cited by Johnson are accurate.But what about 100 years ago?The OMB calculations on the federal share of the economy go back only to 1930, because GDP was not calculated before then.But earlier spending numbers are readily available, and several researchers have produced calculations dating back to the early 1900s. They use U.S. Census Bureau data that measured the economy in a different way, but produce comparable numbers, according to the economists we consulted.Johnsons staff pointed us to 1902. We also looked at other years in that first decade of the century, to see if they were consistent with the year in question.Economists Robert Gordon at Northwestern University andRandall Holcombeat Florida State University independently calculated a federal share right around 2 percent in that time period.Our calculations produced a similar result.So Johnsons numerical claim is on target.At the advice of our experts, though, we took one more step: We looked at what the combined local-state-federal share was a century ago compared to today.If local government was predominant and the federal government minuscule in earlier times, is it possible that all government spending combined took up the same share of the economy as today?No, we found.Holcombe said the total government share has gone up markedly, though not on the order of the twelvefold increase in the federal-only share.Gordon confirms that.Lets tally this up.Johnson turned the clock way back in criticizing the size of the federal government. He claimed it took up just 2 percent of the economy a century ago, but 25 percent today. Johnsons reference hearkens back to an entirely different era in American governance -- and its not clear just how far back in time on a percentage basis Johnson thinks we should go.But based on widely available, and generally accepted, historical data, he accurately described the dramatic rise of Washington, D.C., in our economic lives over the last 100 years.We rate his statement True. On Oct. 4, 2023, the purported celebrity gossip YouTube channel Just In published a video that claimed actor Bruce Willis wife had shared a final update about his dementia diagnosis. video The clip's title read, "Bruce Willis Wife TEARFULLY Shares FINAL Update About His Dementia." The video had been viewed over 12,200 times on Just Ins YouTube channel at the time of this writing.   (@JustInCeleb/YouTube) The YouTube video also circulated on TikTok. One post we found on the platform that featured a clip of the YouTube video had received over 520,000 views at the time of this writing. Another TikTok post we found that featured a clip of the YouTube video had 91,000 views. We also found posts on other social media platforms that contained the video, like Facebook and Twitter. post post Facebook Twitter The claim was false. The video was posted after Emma Heming Willis, Willis wife, appeared on the "Today" show to discuss his health on Sept. 25, 2023. In March 2022, Willis family announced he would be retiring from acting after he was diagnosed with aphasia, a cognitive disorder that impacts a persons ability to communicate. Nearly a year later, in February 2023, the family said his condition had progressed, and that hed been diagnosed with frontotemporal dementia. appeared announced said While Willis does have health issues that have been credibly reported to the public, there is no evidence that Heming Willis had given any final update about his condition. The clip's narration, scripting, sequencing and thumbnail image all looked to have been a product of artificial intelligence (AI), video-creation tools. At the bottom of the description contained under the YouTube video, a disclaimer reads: reads Disclaimer: Content might be gossip, rumors, exaggerated or indirectly besides the truth. Viewer advised to do own research before forming their opinion. Content might be opinionated.  As we've seen with many of these AI-generated videos across multiple celebrity gossip YouTube channels, this clip contained a misleading video title with a mix of old and unrelated news, false claims and other emotionally charged moments that likely were meant to elicit angry responses in the comments. Such videos often end up with hundreds or thousands of comments from users who indicated that they had believed the misleading information presented in the clips. We've also previously fact-checked other false celebrity gossip rumors from Just In, like the false claim that actor Mel Gibson said fellow actor Ashton Kutcher was a "hidden handler" for Hollywood elites. We found there was no truth to the claim.  false claim Guy, Zoe. Bruce Willis Diagnosed With Frontotemporal Dementia. Vulture, 16 Feb. 2023, https://www.vulture.com/2023/02/bruce-willis-dementia-diagnosis.html. Jacoby, Sarah & Anna Kaplan. Bruce Willis Wife, Emma, Gives Update on His Life with Dementia in TODAY Exclusive. TODAY.Com, 26 Sept. 2023, https://www.today.com/health/news/bruce-willis-wife-gives-health-update-rcna116860. Liles, Jordan. Mel Gibson Reveals Ashton Kutcher Is a Hidden Handler for Hollywood Elites? Snopes, 19 Sept. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gibson-kutcher-handler-hollywood/. Sharf, Zack. Bruce Willis Stepping Away From Acting Following Aphasia Diagnosis. Variety, 30 Mar. 2022, https://variety.com/2022/film/news/bruce-willis-retiring-acting-apashia-1235219017/. Sen. Elizabeth Warren did not leave her signature issue behind when she became presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trumps most pugnacious critic. Donald Trump has already offered his big wet kiss to Wall Street. He has said, Hey guys, if I get in, I'm going to roll back all of those regulations, because it makes it too hard for banks to cheat people,  Warren said in a June 28 interview onThe View. Trump never said he wanted to make it easier for banks to cheat people, but he has said he wants to roll back regulations on Wall Street. In the context of the interview, Warren is likely referring to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protect Act, the premier piece of legislation regulating the banking industry after the crash. Warren has been a consistent crusader for stricter regulation of the financial industry. Early in the campaign, Trump distinguished himself from his rivals for the Republican nomination with some tough language directed toward Wall Street. The hedge fund guys didn't build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky, Trump said in aCBS interview in August. Atother points, he extended a similar critique to Wall Street Guys in general. Trump said that hedge fund managers get away with murder, but hes been unclear about what hed do to change that. One concrete Trump proposal on Wall Street was changes to the tax code that would change tax provisions benefitting hedge fund managers, but because of separate tax cuts for partnerships, his tax plan actually had the effect ofsubstantially improving their position. On Dodd-Frank, Trump has gone on the record again and again saying that the law is bad news for the economy and the banking industry. Hes called it a disaster, and a very negative force. Well before he launched his current presidential run, Trump attacked increased regulation after the financial crisis, which he said prevented loans to all but the very wealthy. And while it's not the same thing as a big wet kiss to Wall Street, Trump has said he expects bankers to appreciate his position. I think things have to be done with (Dodd-Frank), and I think Wall Street would like to hear that, Trump told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo. The only bit of wiggle room here is that Trump has been inconsistent about how much of Dodd-Frank would be left when he finished with it. He has said he would get rid of it, repeal it or, almost word-for-word from Warrens statement, roll that back. He has also said, however, that there are some aspects you could leave, and that could be changed greatly instead of being eliminated. In Trumps most recent statement about Dodd-Frank, in a mid May interview with Reuters, he said he would release a plan within two weeks that would be close to a dismantling of Dodd-Frank. A month after his Reuters interview, the plan, which would presumably settle this question, has not been released. The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this story. Our ruling Warren said Trump wants to roll back all of those regulations on Wall Street banks. While we dont know what Trumps plan would look like exactly, he certainly wants to scrap a lot of the law. It might not be right to say all of those regulations, but Trump himself has been unclear on that point. We rate this Mostly True. In March 2020, as the outbreak of the novel coronavirus grew into a global pandemic, worried citizens of the world took to the internet in search of information about the disease caused by the virus, COVID-19. They turned to organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to get an accurate picture of how fast the disease was spreading, where cases were being reported, and what they should do to keep themselves (and their communities) safe. CDC WHO Johns Hopkins University also provided a valuable resource in the form of a real-time map that showed how the disease was spreading around the globe. At the time of this writing, the map from Hopkins' Coronavirus Research Center shows 137,445 total confirmed cases that have resulted in just over 5,000 deaths.    This is a genuine map from Johns Hopkins that is safe to access here. here Unfortunately, malicious actors saw the heightened concerns about COVID-19 as an opportunity to start spreading misinformation and malware. On March 9, 2020, Reason Security released a report stating that maps similar to the one above were being used to trick people into downloading malware:  report As global awareness of a Coronavirus pandemic gradually gives way to full out panic, and as governments begin ramping up their efforts to combat the virus and protect its citizens, global news agencies find themselves racing to answer the publics demand for accurate information about new Corona related infections, deaths, transmissions, etc. This demand creates a vulnerability that malicious actors have quickly taken advantage of by spreading malware disguised as a Coronavirus map. Reason Labs cybersecurity researcher, Shai Alfasi, found and analyzed this malware that had weaponized coronavirus map applications in order to steal credentials such as user names, passwords, credit card numbers and other sensitive information that is stored in the users browser. Attackers can use this information for many other operations as well, such as selling it on the deep web or for gaining access to bank accounts or social media. Hacker News explained that this malware attack targets people who are searching for any maps about COVID-19 and tricks them into downloading a map with a file that runs a malicious application on the user's computer. Once downloaded, the map appears similar to the legitimate map from Johns Hopkins shown above, but the software will actually compromise the computer and attempt to steal personal information, such as passwords and credit card information.  explained The malware attack specifically aims to target those who are looking for cartographic presentations of the spread of COVID-19 on the Internet, and tricks them to download and run a malicious application that, on its front-end, shows a map loaded from a legit online source but in the background compromises the computer. The real map from Johns Hopkins is viewable online and does not require you to download any software to use it. You can access the real-time tracking map by visiting this website. This is the official URL from Johns Hopkins, and no indication exists that this site is unsafe or infected with malware.  website ESRI, the company that provided the geographic information system (GIS) software to create Johns Hopkins' real-time coronavirus tracking map, attempted to clear up some of the confusion in a blog post. The company explained that the real online map found on Johns Hopkins' site "does NOT contain any malware (and NEVER contained malware)." The reports from Hacker News and the like are referring to a scam that uses an impostor version of the Hopkins map to trick users into downloading malware.  ESRI writes (emphasis ours): writes An increasing number of articles have been published on the Internet with unclear and sometimes misleading information concerning one of the primary dashboards for awareness concerning the spread of the Coronavirus. To be clear, the online map posted by Johns Hopkins University at https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html does NOT contain any malware (and NEVER contained malware). This popular dashboard web application is hosted by Esri as part of our ArcGIS Online offering. The confusion comes from an issue where a malicious person created a downloadable Windows-based application containing malware whose display is practically identical to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus browser-based dashboard (see comparison figure below). Whomever posted the malicious downloadable app is attempting to take advantage of the hype around the Coronavirus, but it requires the user to either download the app executable, or it could be distributed by email for the user to then install onto their local Windows system. The malicious app once downloaded and installed deploys malware called AZORult which is designed to steal credentials in the background (among other activities). To make the user think they are getting a Coronavirus map viewer, the app calls the URL of the Johns Hopkins dashboard and displays the results inside the application window. Bottom-line, you are fine browsing the Coronavirus dashboard on the web with your browser as no software needs to be downloaded. If you come across someone offering a Coronavirus dashboard where you need to download software to view it, dont use it! In summary, a real-time map that tracks the spread of COVID-19 around the globe is available to view on the Johns Hopkins University website. This map is safe to use and does not require you to download any software. If you encounter an email or social media post that asks you to download a similar map, be cautious. It's likely someone is attempting to trick you into downloading a piece of malware.  website Sullivan, Mark.  "Cybercrooks See the Coronavirus as an Opportunity to Steal From You."
  Fast Company.  12 March 2020. Reason Blog.  "COVID-19, Info Stealer & the Map of Threats  Threat Analysis Report."
  9 March 2020. Wei, Wang.  "Beware of 'Coronavirus Maps'  It's a Malware Infecting PCs to Steal Passwords."
  Hacker News.  11 March 2020. Young, Michael.  "Coronavirus Downloadable Malware Map App Clarification."
  ESRI.  12 March 2020. Frost, Natasha.  "This Interactive Map From Johns Hopkins University Shows the Effects of Coronavirus in Real Time."
  Quartz.  7 March 2020. Denmark is a big shame The sea is stained in red and in the mean while it's not because of the climate effects of nature. It's because of the cruelty that the human beings (civilised human) kill hundreds of the famous and intelligent Calderon dolphins. This happens every year in Feroe iland in Denmark. In this slaughter the main participants are young teens. WHY? To show that they are adults and mature.... BULLLLsh In this big celebration, nothing is missing for the fun. Everyone is participating in one way or the other, killing or looking at the cruelty "supporting like a spectator" Is it necessary to mention that the dolphin calderon, like all the other species of dolphins, it's near instinction and they get near men to play and interact. In a way of PURE friendship They don't die instantly; they are cut 1, 2 or 3 times with thick hocks. And at that time the dolphins produce a grim extremely compatible with the cry of a new born child. But he suffers and there's no compassion till this sweet being slowly dies in its own blood Its enough! We will send this mail until this email arrives in any association defending the animals, we won't only read. That would make us accomplices, viewers. Take care of the world, it is your home!      The photographs displayed above were taken in 2005 and document a drive hunt (commonly known as a "grind") of long-finned pilot whales by residents of the Faroe Islands (which are an autonomous province of Denmark), an activity that has long been a subject of international controversy. document long-finned Faroe Islands The whale hunt has been a part of the Faroe Island culture for hundreds of years, but in recent decades the practice has increasingly become the subject of international protest and condemnation. Supporters of the hunt maintain that the killing of pilot whales is "an age-old communal, noncommercial hunt aimed at meeting the community's need for whale meat and blubber," that the animals are dealt with so quickly that their pain is brief, and that whale meat accounts for a quarter of the Faroe islanders' annual meat consumption. Conservationists charge that the hunts, which may take hundreds of whales at a time, are barbaric and pointless, that "the practice is outdated, cruel and unnecessary for a place with one of the highest standards of living in Europe," and that most of the whales go to waste (either being left on the beach to rot or thrown back to sea after they are killed. According to Russell Fielding, a geographer from the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee: The Faroese are opportunistic hunters who launch a grind only when specific conditions are met. The animals must be close to shore, near one of 23 beaches approved as a landing beach. The weather and currents have to be calm enough. And there have to be enough participants to crew the dozen or so powerboats required to drive the animals toward shore. In some years, such as in 2008, conditions weren't right and no whales were taken. But over the past three centuries, the Faroese have taken an average of 838 pilot whales and 75 dolphins each year, Fielding reported in a 2012 study. The Faroese usually target long-finned pilot whales, says Fielding, although they will also take bottlenose dolphins, white-sided dolphins, and Risso's dolphins. Risso's dolphins are sometimes landed even though they aren't on the Faroe government's list of species approved for hunting. None of the species are considered endangered, although the International Union for Conservation of Nature lists long-finned pilot whales as "data deficient," meaning there isn't enough scientific evidence to judge the status of the North Atlantic population. A Faroe Islands whaling site page describes such hunts unfolding as follows: whaling site Whale drives only take place when a school of pilot whales is sighted close to land, which is most often from a local fishing boat or ferry, and when sea and weather conditions make it possible. This can take place at any time of the year, but catches are most common in July and August when the days are long and the weather is more stable. Notice of the school is sent to the elected whaling officials and to the district administrator (sslumaur) responsible for the whale drive, and is spread as widely and quickly as possible in the local community so that enough people and boats can join in the drive. Employers usually make allowances for members of their staff to take time off during whale drives. The boats gather in a wide semicircle behind the whales and slowly and quietly begin to drive themtowards the chosen authorised bay. On the whaling foremans signal, loose stones and stones attached to lines are thrown into the water behind the whales, helping to herd the whales towards the beach where they become stranded. According to the regulations, any group of whales which cannot be beached in this manner must be driven out to sea again. A crucial factor in ensuring an effective whale drive is the organisation of participants, both in boats and on shore, in addition to prevailing weather and tidal conditions during driving and beaching. The spontaneous nature of a whale drive requires swift mobilisation of manpower to drive and kill a group of large wild animals quickly. Whale drives are only initiated when whales are sighted by chance close to land. Faroese animal welfare legislation, which also applies to whaling, requires that animals are killed as quickly and with as little suffering as possible. Whales are killed on the shore and in the shallows of bays especially authorised for the purpose. A regulation spinal lance must be used to sever the spinal cord, which also severs the major blood supply to the brain, ensuring both loss of consciousness and death within seconds. This, in addition to the supplementary use of the traditional whaling knife, if necessary, is the most efficient and humane means of killing beached pilot whales safely, with many participants involved at the same time. In recent years, two new items of equipment have been developed and formally approved and required as standard equipment. The blow-hole hook used to secure the whales causes no injury prior to slaughter and is now widely used. The spinal lance has now also been introduced as the preferred standard equipment for killing pilot whales. It has been shown to reduce killing time to 1-2 seconds while also improving accuracy and safety (see also under Whaling and animal welfare). The Faroes participate actively in the work of the NAMMCO Committee on Hunting Methods, where veterinary experts and experienced hunters from different countries share information and work to develop best practices for the humane killing of marine mammals. In 1986 the International Whaling Commission (IWC) introduced "zero catch limits for commercial whaling"; however, the IWC's rules still allow for subsistence hunting in some parts of the world, and the application of their regulations to long-finned pilot whales is somewhat ambiguous since (despite their name) those animals are not whales proper; they are (like dolphins) small cetaceans, and they belong to the same biological family (Delphinidae) as dolphins. IWC small cetaceans In late 2008, chief medical officers of the Faroe Islands advised that they no longer considered pilot whales to be fit for human consumption because the animals' meat and blubber had been found to contain too much mercury, PCBs and DDT derivatives. advised As noted above, the Faroe Islands are an autonomous province of Denmark and not a part of Denmark itself; essentially a self-governing country within the Kingdom of Denmark, with their own prime minister and legislature. MacKenzie, Debora.  "Faroe Islanders Told to Stop Eating 'Toxic' Whales."   New Scientist.  28 November 2008. Environmental News Network.  "Conservation Groups Call for an End to Faroe Island Whale Hunts."   CNN.com.  11 September 2000. Los Angeles Times.  "Faroe Islands Reject Whale-Kill Protests."   27 August 1985. Reuters.  "Faroe Islands Fishermen Cited for Brutality in Whale Hunt."   Toronto Star.  22 June 1987  (p. A24). Reuters.  "Islands' Whale Hunt, Part of National Identity, Angers Activisits."   Rocky Mountain News.  29 October 1994. A few days before the release of "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood," a movie starring Tom Hanks about children's television host Fred Rogers, a representative for Ancestry.com told CBS News that the two men were related: CBS News Tom Hanks bears a shocking resemblance to children's television star Fred Rogers, who he plays in the upcoming film "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood." But the similarities are more than just good casting  the performers are actually related, according to a discovery made by Ancestry.com. Hanks is sixth cousins with Rogers, and they share the same great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Johannes Mefford, a company representative told CBS News. The company utilized its database of over 20 billion online historical records to form Hanks' family tree, the representative said. We have no reason to doubt Ancestry.com's claim. However, some readers may not quite understand just how distant a distant cousin really is.  The genealogy website reported that Rogers and Hanks are sixth cousins who share a 5x great-grandfather (or a great-great-great-great-great-grandfather). Here's how Ancestry.com described Hanks relationship to Rogers:    Fred Rogers and Tom Hanks are sixth cousins sharing the same 5x great-grandfather, Johannes Mefford, who immigrated from Germany to America in the 18th century. Johannes raised a family of patriots; three of his sons (including Tom Hanks and Fred Rogerss ancestors) served in the Revolutionary War. Fred Rogerss 4x great-grandfather, William Mefford, served in the navy and was captured by the British in 1782. He endured life on a prison ship in Barbados and Antigua until he was released ten months later. Tom Hankss 4x great-grandfather, Jacob Mefford, joined the War as a private and participated in a skirmish at Chesapeake Bay. So, Rogers and Hanks not only share the same ancestor, they also descend from two brothers who fought for Americas independence. While it may be "true" to say that Hanks and Rogers are related, phrasing their relationship this way is a bit misleading.  We found varying estimates about just how closely related sixth cousins really are, but the general conclusion was that these "relatives" were very distant. For instance, a study by Ancestry DNA in 2014, based on British birth rates and census data, found that the average person in Britain had about 175,000 sixth cousins.  found While it's true that Hanks and Rogers are related, they are distant cousins who probably don't share much in terms of DNA. But don't let that take away from Hanks' performance as Rogers in "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood":  We reached out to the Association of Professional Genealogists and the International Society of Genetic Genealogy. We will update this article when more information becomes available. Garrand, Danielle.  "Tom Hanks Discovers He's Related to Mister Rogers Days Before 'A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood; Released."
  CBS News.  20 November 2019. Mirror.  "Average British Person Has 193,000 Living Cousins Says New Research."
  17 June 2015. Correction [21 November 2019] A table about the probability of sixth cousins sharing DNA was mischaracterized and removed from the article. With control of the U.S. House at stake, Republicans and Democrats are waging fierce election campaigns across the country. In Ohio, at least four seats are considered in play, including the 16th Congressional District seat held by freshman Democratic Rep. John Boccieri of Alliance, a former state legislator who faces a well-financed Republican challenge from businessman Jim Renacci, a former Wadsworth mayor.The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union has joined the fight, attacking Renacci in two television advertisements. We recently looked into astatementin the first ad, which accused Renacci of backing a massive tax increase, and found it to be Half True.The second ad levels an even harsher accusation that Renacci cheated on his income taxes and labels him a deadbeat citizen.Renacci hasfiled a defamationlawsuitin Stark County Common Pleas Court over the ad, which says he hid more than $13 million, and was forced to pay $1.4 million in back taxes and penalties. We wanted to see if AFSCME got closer to the truth the second time around.The basis of the attack is a dispute between Renacci and the Ohio Department of Taxation. Renacci has built a fortune from business interests that include nursing homes, real estate investments, auto and motorcycle dealerships, a bar and grill, an arena football team and a minor-league baseball team.The tax department assessed Renacci about $1.4 million in back taxes, interest and penalties for misreporting his income in 2000. Renacci and his wife, Tina, filed a state tax return for that year that claimed they had a loss of $247,336, but an audit found they actually made $13,730,440. The couple filed a tax appeal when the state dinged them for $954,650 in back taxes, $146,938 in interest and $293,876 in penalties.At issue was Renaccis trust income from an S corporation that had not been subject to state taxes for several years before Ohios tax commissioner issued an information release in January 2000 that changed the states policy and directed taxpayers to add such trust income to their federal adjusted gross income. S corporations permit income to be taxed at an individual rate for federal tax purposes and avoid double taxation on corporate income.The tax department followed up with another information release in 2002 warning that it was launching audits and would impose fraud penalties on taxpayers who did not file amended returns reflecting the trust income and pay the taxes due.Renacci was among a group of taxpayers who fought the state decision. He contended that the trust income should have been tax-free and that he had reasonable cause to exclude it on his tax return, according to tax department and court documents.Others dropped their appeals, but Renacci continued to fight, despite an Ohio Supreme Court ruling in 2006 in a similar case in which the court said the trust income was subject to taxation. In that case, the taxpayers reported their S corporation income on their 2000 tax return and then unsuccessfully asked for a refund.Court records show the Renaccis eventually settled the tax dispute and sent the state the full amount due.He was proud of his fight, and to have fought till the end, along with many other Ohioans for tax fairness, Renaccis campaign spokesman Jim Slepian said in an interview for a Plain Dealer story in April.The AFSCME ad cites as its source an Associated Press story from April that said Renacci fought vigorously but eventually paid the back taxes and other assessments.Websters New World Dictionary defines cheat as a person who defrauds, deceives, or tricks others; swindler. And it defines deadbeat as a person who tries to evade paying debts.It seems legitimate to raise questions about Renaccis failure to properly report his income. Some facts are not in dispute. But in the end, after taking his dispute to court and working within the system to resolve it, he did ultimately pay the state the full amount due and he wasnt ever charged with tax fraud.We rate AFSCMEs statement as Mostly True. Comment on this item. Claim:  A badly behaved dog wreaks havoc while two fellows stand by silently, each thinking it's the other guy's pooch. LEGEND Examples:  [Brunvand, 1989] A woman is invited to call at the home of a woman who is wealthier than she is. From the moment she is invited, the caller is unsure about how to behave  how to sit, how to take tea, etc. And matters are made worse when the time of the visit arrives. A large, lively, dirty, beast of a dog is sitting in the front yard, and when the hostess welcomes the caller into the house, the dog follows her inside. While the caller tries to respect the social amenities, that darn dog does not. It tracks mud about the room, sniffs the cookies, and paws the furniture. The caller makes small talk, but the conversation becomes strained. Still, both parties keep a stiff upper lip, observing proper etiquette. Finally, the visit comes to an end. As the caller rises to leave, the hostess, with one eye on the wreckage, remarks icily, "And don't forget to take your dog!" "My dog?" the caller says. "I thought it was yours!"  [Regis, 1987] In January 1946 Bigelow came down to Princeton for an interview with Von Neumann. He was a couple of hours late . . . Julian Bigelow got out of the car and walked up to the house.  "Von Neumann lived in this elegant lodge house on Westcott Road in Princeton," Bigelow says. "As I parked my car and walked in, there was this very large Great Dane dog bouncing around on the front lawn. I knocked on the door and Von Neumann, who was a small, quiet, modest kind of a man came to the door and bowed to me and said, 'Bigelow, won't you come in,' and so forth, and this dog brushed between our legs and went into the living room. He proceeded to lie down on the rug in front of everybody, and we had the entire interview  whether I would come, what I knew, what the job was going to be like  and this lasted maybe forty minutes, with the dog wandering all around the house. Towards the end of it, von Neumann asked me if I always traveled with the dog. But of course it wasn't my dog, and it wasn't his either, but von Neumann  being a diplomatic, middle European type person  he kindly avoided mentioning it until the end."  [Mahoney, 1983] In passing I must make mention of a funny situation in which I became involved while visiting Field Marshal Lord Alexander and his wife at their home near London.  I motored there to have luncheon with them, and as I emerged from my car, a huge dog appeared in the driveway.  Dogs always made a dead set for me, and I wasn't worried when it began jumping around and wagging its tail.  But I did feel some concern when it followed me to the doorway and walked in as if it owned the house. A family pet, I felt sure, as it settled down to a corner of the living room as Lord and Lady Alexander greeted me warmly.  At luncheon the dog settled down at my feet and the begging for food began.  Lady Alexander's attention became riveted upon me: "Mr. Mahoney," she said charmingly, "I wish you would send your dog outside." And not until then did it dawn upon me that they thought the stray dog was mine! Origins:  Though this story has often been told as an actual event in an important person's life, its first appearance came in a 1924 Lucy Maud Montgomery book, Emily Climbs. In Chapter   12, Emily's call on socially-superior Miss Janet Royal is interrupted by the antics of a very large muddy dog that follows her into the elegant parlor, where it proceeds to act up.  to the legend, only after the beast has made a shambles of things and Emily is about to leave does the subject of the dog's ownership arise, each girl thinking up until that time the horrid thing belonged to the other. From those early beginnings, the "Not my dog" anecdote has gone on to reach a succession of new audiences, as new storytellers emerge and claim it as their own. Burt Reynolds is rumored to have told this story (starring himself as the embarrassed visitor) to Johnny Carson on The Tonight Show in the 1980s. A common element in this story is unequal status between visitor and visited. The one who comes calling feels inferior for reasons relating to social standing, comparative wealth, or the celebrated householder's achievements. Whatever the cause, he comes hat in hand, filled with a determination to make a good impression  a certain recipe for social disaster! The story is one of horrific embarrassment; the faux pas being perceived as being that much more flamboyant because it plays out before someone looked up to. That matters are straightened out before the visit ends by the caller blurting out, "My dog? I thought he was yours!" doesn't change the  momentary flash of mortification experienced or the knowledge that the sought-after host had sat there for quite a while thinking decidedly evil thoughts about his guest. The story is also a poke at the strictures of etiquette. Neither host nor guest feels it would be proper to comment negatively on the dog's behavior, so both endure the worsening state of affairs in stoic silence. The legend underscores common misperceptions about etiquette, that the rules of polite behavior are often impractical and adherence to them results in ridiculous situations a more direct approach would head off at the pass. Those who resent the genteelly-voiced demands of Miss Manners and long for less structured, more direct forms of social interaction get to savor a moment of self-congratulation through this story because it proves right what they've been saying all along. As old as this story is (1924, remember?) it continues to pop up, and even at times changes in dramatic ways. We picked up the following non-canine version of the tale during our Internet travels, again proving that no story can't stand a little improving: [Collected on the Internet, 2002] The story goes along the lines of a young Indo-asian couple who after a non-arranged marriage, decide to get a house together. A few weeks after they move in, the husband returns from work to find an older woman in the living room of the house. Knowing they have broken with tradition by having a non-arranged marriage, the husband greets his mother-in-law, only to receive a hard silent stare. She is evidently not happy at their recent union. That evening the old woman joins the couple at the dinner table, and continues to join them for every meal for the next month, never uttering a word. Eventually the once-close couple become hostile to one another, unhappy that 'Mother' has been allowed to move in with them. They stop talking and avoid one another. A few days later the situation escalates into an argument about the old woman. The creepy truth is revealed as the wife exclaims "My mother? I thought she was yours!" Barbara "vinegar mother" Mikkelson Last updated:  2 August 2011 Curses! Broiled Again!   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be .  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 55-57). Too Good To Be    Mahoney, Patrick.  Barbed Wit & Malicious Humor.  New York: Citadel Press, 1956.  (p. 100).    Regis, Edward.  Who Got Einstein's Office?   Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1987  (p. 110).   Healey, Phil and Rick Glanvill.  Now! That's What I Call Urban Myths.  London: Virgin Books, 1996.  ISBN 0-86369-969-3  (pp. 105-106). Now! That's What I Call Urban Myths   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 39). The Big Book of Urban Legends State Sen. Jason Carter -- grandson of former Georgia governor and former President Jimmy Carter -- was theguest speakerat a Marietta Rotary Club meeting last month. In Republican-dominated Cobb County, the Decatur Democrat delivered a speech that veered from the traditional GOP message. Carter told the attendees that continual shrinkage of the government -- which has been a conservative standard -- is hurting Georgia in the long run. We collect fewer state taxes per capita than any other state. We have won the small-government competition, he said. ... And although state taxes are low, Georgia is the eighth-most-dependent state on the federal government. Is Georgia collecting fewer state taxes while receiving lots of federal government funds on the back end? PolitiFact Georgia decided to look into it. Carter told us that The Marietta Daily Journal, where we first saw his Rotary Club comments, left out part of his statement. He told the crowd that his tax and dependency claims were based on information from the Tax Foundation, Carter told PolitiFact Georgia in a phone interview. He also cited an Atlanta Journal-Constitutionarticleas a second source for his dependency claim. The discussion was about the difference in the levels of government. And while weve shrunk the federal government, weve increased the burden on the state and local governments, Carter said. The key is the state government taxes. We found the Tax Foundation statistics that Carter cited in the organizations Facts and Figures report of state tax data, released in March. The report, by the nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, includes state tax and federal dependency data for fiscal year 2011. According to the charts, Georgia ranked last with $1,639 in state taxes collected per capita. (Georgias2010 populationwas about 9.7 million.) The chart is based on the census definition of state tax collections, Tax Foundation officials told us. The next closest state was South Carolina at $1,650. Alaska collected the most state taxes per capita at $7,708. A second Tax Foundation chart, also for fiscal 2011, showed that Georgia also ranked last in the amount of state revenue collected per capita, at $3,807. The revenue data include the taxes levied by the state as well as other general revenue used to operate, such as licenses, fees and transfers from the federal government. We next went to the Census Bureaus state government tax collectionssummary report, released in April, for fiscal 2012 data. Governing magazine, which covers politics, policy and management issues of state and local governments,aggregatedthe census data. We compiled Governings data into a spreadsheet and found that Georgia ranked second-to-last for the lowest total state taxes per capita, at $1,711.44. New Hampshire ranked last at $1,675.94 taxes collected per capita. So Carters tax claim was correct in fiscal 2011 but off a bit for the following fiscal year. On the second part of his claim, Carter again used Tax Foundation data, along with anAJC storypublished about a week before his Rotary Club speech. The Tax Foundation used figures from the Census Bureau to determine states dependence on the federal government. The organization divided each states intergovernmental revenue, or grants and other aid received from the federal government, into the states general revenue, which includes all tax revenue. Those calculations, also in the Facts and Figures 2013 report, showed that Georgia was the ninth-most-dependent state in the nation in fiscal 2011. Federal aid accounted for about 41 percent of general revenue. Mississippi was the most dependent, getting 49 percent of its revenue from the federal government; Alaska was the least dependent with 24 percent. The AJC story reported that about 31.6 percent, about $12 billion, of Georgias state agency spending was made up of federal funds in fiscal 2012, according to the papers review of budget records. The paper found that Georgia has been using federal money to fill budget gaps created by shrinking tax collections and higher demand for state services such as Medicaid. Georgia legislators have discussed forming a committee to study the states federal government dependence. To sum up, Carter said that the Peach State collects fewer state taxes per capita than any other state, yet is the eighth-most-dependent state on the federal government. Based on Tax Foundation and census data for fiscal 2011, Carter is correct on his tax collection claim. Advance the data forward a year and Georgia moves up a step in its collections for fiscal 2012. On federal government dependence, analysis of census data shows that Georgia was the ninth-most-dependent state in fiscal 2011. Carters overall point is that Georgia is fostering a smaller state government but at the same time relying heavily on federal funds. He seems correct on that point. But his calculations were slightly off. We rated his claim Mostly True.