Winston Churchill on Islam
Claim:  Winston Churchill wrote about the "dreadful curses of Mohammedanism" in his 1899 book The River Wars. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2015] Origins:  An obscure quote attributed to British statesman Winston Churchill has been circulating on the Internet since at least May 2013, when Missouri State Representative Rick Stream sent an e-mail to his colleagues warning about the dangers of Islam. That e-mail cited a passage said to have been taken from a speech by Churchill, as reproduced in his 1899 book The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan:   He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time; He died on 24 January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.   How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.   A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.   Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. The above-quoted passage did appear in The River War when it was first published as a two-volume set in 1899, but the selection was removed when the book was condensed into one volume and republished in 1902. While the one-volume abridged edition of The River War is still readily available, as of January 2015 the original two-volume 1899 version is much harder to find, a condition which may have led to confusion about the origins of the quote in question. However, the Churchill Centre has confirmed these words were indeed written by Winston Churchill. confirmed The passage as reproduced on the Internet typically incorporates one small omission, though: it elides Churchill's praise of "Moslems" as "brave and loyal soldiers" and covers the gap by combining the remaining part of the sentence with the previous one: Last updated:  8 January 2015
In September 2019, we received inquiries from readers about the accuracy of a widely-shared tweet claming that the United States had been ranked the "118th safest country in the world" in 2019, a decline of 53 places in just one year. The claims originated with a September 3 tweet by @ResisterSiano, a left-leaning, anti-Trump Twitter account, which said: "The United States is the 118th safest country in the world. 118. Down from 65th last year. We fell 53 places in 1 year. The overwhelming majority of countries are now safer than the US. [I don't know] how else to say this. The United States is a dangerous shithole." The United States is the 118th safest country in the world. 118. Down from 65th last year. We fell 53 places in 1 year. The overwhelming majority of countries are now safer than the US. Idk how else to say this. The United States is a dangerous shithole.  Sergio (@ResisterSiano) September 3, 2019 September 3, 2019  Those claims were further promulgated when a Facebook user posted a screenshot of the tweet, garnering thousands of shares within a week:  The claims constituted a somewhat confusing and misleading representation of the findings of the 2019 Global Peace Index (GPI), an annual report produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, an Australia-based non-profit organization, in collaboration with the Economist Intelligence Unit, a research and analysis firm associated with the Economist magazine. The originator of the tweet confirmed they had based their claims on the 2019 GPI in another tweet in which they wrote that "the United States ranked 118th in safety in 2019" and included a link to a summary of the report on the website World Population Review. tweet summary The GPI tracks the overall "absence of violence or fear of violence" in more than 160 independent countries and territories around the world. The overall GPI score is based on 23 separate indicators which, taken together, describe the presence and impact of internal and external conflicts, the impacts of violent crime and instability (including homicide rates, terrorism, the proportion of refugees and internally displaced people within a given population, and so on), as well as the levels of militarization and the availability and prevalence of weapons within a country or territory, among several other factors. The full list of 23 indicators can be viewed below, and a more detailed description of the methodology can be found in the 2019 GPI (starting on page 84): page 84   The GPI is not simply a measure of "safety" within a country, and it cannot be claimed, in a straightforward or reliable way, that a country which ranks 100th, for example, in the GPI is therefore "the 100th safest country in the world." It is probably more apt (though still imprecise) to describe the index as a rough approximation of each country or territory's overall peacefulness, a term which takes into account public safety and violent crime, but also factors such as militarization and the presence, impact, and intensity of national and international conflicts. Notwithstanding these important distinctions, safety and security do form an important component of the GPI, and "Societal Safety and Security" is one of the index's three main strands, along with "Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict" and "Militarization." "Societal Safety and Security" does include some indicators which a reader might typically associate with "safety," such as the level of violent crime, the impact of terrorism, and the homicide rate, but it also takes into account several factors which a reader would not typically associate with "safety," such as political instability and the ratio of police to population. Conversely, "ease of access to small arms and light weapons" -- a factor which many observers in the U.S., in particular, might associate with public safety -- is included in the "Militarization" strand, and not "Societal Safety and Security." More broadly, the overall GPI score takes into account several other factors which a reader would not typically consider when making a straightforward assessment of the "safety" of a given country, such as: a country's financial contribution to UN peacekeeping missions; the prevalence of refugees and internally displaced persons within the population; military spending as a percentage of GDP, and others. Bearing in mind the aforementioned nuances and complexities inherent in the GPI and its methodology, the following is a breakdown of the United States' rankings (both overall and for each of the three strands), from 2015 to 2019: U.S. Rankings in Global Peace Index, 2015-2019(Out of 163 countries/territories, unless otherwise stated.) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019  Even if we set aside for a moment the inherent nuances in the GPI and the indicators of which it consists, those rankings lay bare several factual inaccuracies contained within the tweet. First, the U.S. did not rank 118th in the 2019 GPI, by any measure, and it's not clear what the basis was for citing that number. The United States' overall ranking was 128th, and when it came to "Societal Safety and Security" -- the strand which arguably represents "safety" most closely -- the U.S. ranked considerably better, at 59th out of 163 countries. On "Societal Safety and Security," therefore, only around 36 percent of countries performed better than the United States, which somewhat undermines the claim that "the overwhelming majority of countries are now safer than the U.S." Furthermore, no justification exists for the claim that the U.S. "fell 53 places in one year," although the U.S. did rank lower by every measure in 2019 than the year before, and 2018 represented a decline in rankings by every measure from the year before that. The actual decline in U.S. rankings between 2018 and 2019 was: seven places in the overall rankings; two places under "Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict"; 12 places under "Societal Safety and Security," and one place under "Militarization." Notwithstanding these factual inaccuracies, and the over-simplistic invocation of the concept of "safety," there is a justification for saying that based on the many and varied factors that go into the GPI, the United States was ranked the 128th most peaceful country in the world in 2019, an even lower ranking than 118th. That is to say, the United States could reasonably be described as being in the bottom 23 percent of the world's nations when it comes to overall peacefulness (which takes into account public safety and violent crime, but also international conflict and militarization). That ranking placed the U.S. below Central American nations such as Honduras (123rd), Nicaragua (120th), Guatemala (114th) and El Salvador (112th), as well as the African nations of Niger (126th), the Republic of the Congo (121st), and Kenya (120th), and historical rivals such as China (110th) and Cuba (91st). The U.S. ranked significantly below many of its European and NATO allies, such as the U.K. (joint 45th), Germany (22nd), and Canada (6th), but notably did outrank Russia, which was placed at 154th out of 163 countries and territories. Despite a somewhat confusing and misleading representation of the GPI, the index's actual findings would no doubt be just as worrying to many Americans. WorldPopulationReview.com.  "Safest Countries in the World 2019."
  28 August 2019. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit.  "Global Peace Index 2019."
  12 June 2019. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2018."
  June 2018. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2017."
  1 June 2017. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2016."
  June 2016. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2015."
  June 2015. Democratic Congressman Jim Moran didnt want tax cuts then, and he doesnt want them now.Explaining his vote against any extension of the Bush-era cuts, Moran paints the acts in 2001 and 2003 as abject failures.When the Bush plan was first proposed in 2001, the great cost of those tax cuts was sold to the public as a means of generating economic growth. That has proven to be false. The decade that followed the 2001 tax cuts featured the slowest average annual growth since World War II, he said in a Dec. 2 press release.Moran continues: Nor did lower taxes increase employment. Work-force participation fell in 2001 and has never returned to the record level set in 2000  before the tax cuts took effect.We were intrigued by the Congressmans correlation between employment and the tax cuts. So we looked into the numbers.Asked for a source, Morans chief of staff, Austin Durrer, sent us aNew York Times business blog postby David Leonhardt, which does reinforce the congressmans statement. Getting to the bottom of Moran's claim required us to examine two contentions in the congressman's statement: 1) That overall U.S. employment was not increased by the Bush tax cuts; 2) That work-force participation actually fell. These two contentions may sound similar, but in the specialized world of economists they are defined differently and involve separate sets of statistics.EmploymentNor did lower taxes increase employment, Moran said.There were 132 million Americans employed when the first round of Bush tax cuts passed in June, 2001, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. There were 130.5 employed at the end of last month. Thats a decrease of 1.5 million workers. So technically, Moran is correct. But he omits an important consideration: After the more-sweeping second round of tax cuts took effect in June 2003, there was a significant increase of jobs that lasted until recessions onset at the end of 2007.There were 129.8 million Americans employed in June, 2003 and almost 138 million with jobs in December, 2007. Thats an increase of 8.2 million workers.The recession at the end of the decade is the great equalizer that makes Morans statement factually accurate. But you cant dismiss that the number of workers steadily increased for better than four years after the second Bush tax cut.So wed rate Morans statement that lower taxes did not increase employment Half True.Work-force participationWork-force participation fell in 2001 and has never returned to the record level set in 2000 -- before the tax cuts took effect, Moran said.Work-force participation is the percentage of the population 16 and older that is employed. Most economists regard it as a more meaningful measure of employment than the total number of Americans working. Heres why:The total employment figure does not take into account that the United States population is growing and additional workers enter the job market every day. The U.S. has to create about 125,000 new jobs a month just to keep its employment and unemployment rates steady.The measure of work-force participation includes population growth.Moran is correct in saying work-force participation peaked in 2000. The high-water mark came in April that year when 64.7 percent of the U.S. population -- 16 and older -- had jobs.In June, 2001, when the first Bush  tax cuts were approved, participation was at 63.7 percent. Last month, it was 58.2 percent -- the lowest measure since mid-1983.The participation percentages varied slightly from passage of the second Bush tax cuts to the start of the recession. In June, 2003, participation was 62.3 percent; it was 62.7 percent in December, 2007.Economists caution against measuring the success or failure of tax cuts by employment figures.The point of the tax rate cuts was to increase incentives for working, saving, and investing -- and therefore productivity and growth, said Brian Riedl, lead budget analyst for the conservative Heritage Foundation. Labor Force Participation is just one variable. There is also job totals, work hours, investment, productivity, etc. Those variables all responded well.Gary Burtless, a senior fellow specializing in labor market policy with the left-leaning Brookings Institution, says Morans point is valid. But he, too, says labor force growth is a small component in measuring the effectiveness of tax cuts.Tax changes can affect participation rates, though their impact has often been greatly exaggerated, especially by folks self-identifying as supply siders, he said.So its fair to argue that the merits of tax cuts should not be reduced to employment figures. But Moran is accurate when he says work-force participation fell after 2000 and the tax cuts did not restore them to previous highs. We rate this part of his statement True.SummaryMoran says the Bush tax cuts failed to boost jobs. He cites two measurements.As he notes, total employment didnt go up over the decade. But he neglects to mention numbers were on the rise before the advent of the worst economic downturn in 80 years. Hes half right here.Hes correct in saying work-force participation fell since a record in 2000.When you put both parts of his statement together, we rate it Mostly True. On March 10, 2021, an image started circulated on social media that supposedly showed a statement from former U.S. President Donald Trump in which he implored American citizens to remember that the United States wouldn't have had these "beautiful" COVID-19 vaccine shots for another 5 years (a dubious claim) if it wasn't for him: This was a genuine statement from Trump.  Trump released several statements after he left office on Jan. 20, 2021. Since the former president was banned from Twitter (as well as other social media networks) for posting content that could have incited more violence after the attack on the U.S. Capitol, these statements are being released via email and are then subsequently shared on social media by reporters. Margo Martin, the lead press secretary for the office of the 45th president, confirmed to Snopes via email that this was a genuine statement released by Trump.  banned shared social media lead press secretary While this is a real statement, the claims made within it (that the United States would not have had a vaccine for 5 years if it wasn't for Trump) are dubious at best. The Trump administration attempted to speed up the development of a vaccine via Operation Warp Speed. Although the Trump administration certainly deserves some credit for aiding the development of a vaccine, some companies, such as Pfizer, developed vaccines without funding from the Trump administration. It should also be noted that companies outside of the United States managed to develop vaccines without much aid from the former president.  vaccines without funding managed to develop vaccines In January 2016, a quote attributed to first U.S. president George Washington, about the importance of an armed citizenry, started recirculating on the internet:  This statement had been making the online rounds for several years, but it regained popularity in January 2016 after President Obama announced new measures on gun control. announced George Washington never uttered the phrase in question. The first ten words ("a free people ought not only be armed and disciplined") are taken from the former president's annual address to theSenate and House of Representatives on 8 January 1790, in which he argued in favor of an armed citizenry and self-sufficiency in production military supplies as a deterrent to war: annual address Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies. The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy. A page dedicated to fake quotes attributed to George Washington on theMount Vernon web site addressed this passage as follows: addressed This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate. Although this meme does include a portion of Washington's first annual addressto members of theSenate and House of Representatives in1790, the majority of the quotewas never utteredby the Founding Father, and does not accurately represent his views on gun control. Nonetheless, its apocryphal nature doesn't hinder its continued reproduction as a genuine expression from George Washington: Driven by a thriving retail industry, a cultural penchant for obligatory gift-giving, and a fascination with the West, the Japanese adopted (and adapted) several traditional Western holiday celebrations after World War II.  Stripped of their meaning and bent to the whims of retailers, however, these holidays have taken some rather unusual forms in Japan over the years. The Mary Chocolate Co. is credited with bringing Valentine's Day to Japan in 1958, with the twist that it should be a day for girls to give gifts to guys.  Naturally, this led to the retail industry's creation of "White Day" on March 14, an occasion for the boys to reciprocate all those chocolates they'd been given a month earlier by buying white presents (such as white candy, handkerchiefs, or panties) for their gals.  Likewise, the Seibu department store recast St. Patrick's Day as "Green Day," a retail promotion featuring things green and Irish.  (It didn't work.)  The Japan Biscuit Association touted Halloween as an occasion that Americans celebrate by eating biscuits.  (When that failed to go over well, the custom melded into one of friends giving each other orange candy and cakes.) White Day Green Day However, the Western holiday that carries the most influence in Japan is, not surprisingly, the holiday that carries the most influence in the West as well: Christmas.  Although St. Francis Xavier, a Spanish Jesuit missionary, brought Christianity to Japan in 1549, the celebration of Christmas was mostly limited to churches and missionary schools until the 20th century.  (Indeed, Christianity was outlawed in Japan after a religious uprising in 1639 and henceforth practiced only clandestinely until 1854.) The exchanging of gifts at Christmastime by Japanese families began in a small way early this century, and Japanese stores began offering Christmas sales in the 1930s. Starting with the American occupation of Japan in 1945, Christianity enjoyed a brief surge in popularity, and Christmas took off in a big (and commercialized) way. As you'd expect in a country where less than 2% of the population is Christian, Christmas is a primarily a secular occasion in Japan, with shops and businesses remaining open for the day. The Japanese have adopted many of the traditional trappings of 'Kurisumasu,' such as stores with elaborate displays of Christmas decorations and piped-in Christmas music, and homes made festive with Christmas lights, Christmas trees, and poinsettias.  The elimination of the religious aspects of Christmas and its hyper-commercialization have led to some unique (and, to us, bizarre) ways of celebrating it, however.  The exchanging of kurisumasu cakes is not exactly a Western tradition, but it doesn't sound too unusual to us. What we do find unusual is reports of Japanese Christmas customs such as young couples exchanging presents of expensive jewelry, heading out to high-priced hotels, and being directed by scantily-clad female elves to rooms complete with Christmas trees, where the lovebirds spend their Christmas Eve in romantic bliss.  The co-optation of familiar Christmas figures, (both secular and religious) in the service of mass merchandising has also produced some rather curious blendings (real and imagined): Colonel Sanders dressed in a Santa suit (as KFC tried strenuously to promote fried chicken as the "traditional" Christmas meal), nuns singing advertising jingles to the tune of Christmas carols, Christmas cards featuring a ghoulish Santa in a graveyard accompanied by the Virgin Mary on broomstick, elves plastered on sake, and a Christmas revue featuring "stripping nuns and three lecherous Wise Men." And sometimes they just don't get it at all, such as when a Japanese TV station reportedly ran the movie Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence,  a disturbing film about English soldiers in a Japanese POW camp, as its festive holiday offering. By far the most well known of these Japanese/Western holiday blendings is the notorious story of a department store somewhere in Japan that one year supposedly erected a prominent Christmas display featuring as its centerpiece the smiling figure Santa Claus nailed to a cross.  It's a perfect expression of the clash between the holy and the profane, the secular and the religious, the East and the West.  It speaks to xenophobic fears (these foreigners can't be trusted with our religion and our traditions!), and it's a darn funny story. Examples:  A few Decembers ago a Japanese department store, desperate to appear westernised and with-it, mounted an extravagant Christmas display, featuring a life-sized Santa Claus, crucified upon a cross.1  The granddaddy of cultural faux pas [in Japan] occurred just after World War II, when a Ginza department store rolled out its elaborate Christmas promotion: a smiling Santa nailed to a crucifix.2  A Japanese department store reputedly once put up a big Christmas cartoon which had a Santa Claus prominently displayed on a crucifix. Whether or not this story, which has been doing the rounds in Tokyo for some years, is true or just another urban legend, is unclear.3  [An American Motorola executive] recounted a famous story of 1945, the first year of the U.S. occupation of Japan after World War II, when shopkeepers in Tokyo's Ginza district knew there was a big Western holiday coming and they wanted to capitalize on it.  "They knew there was this guy in a white beard and a red suit, and they knew there was a religious angle," [he] said. "And the result was little Santa Clauses on crucifixes."4  A few years ago, in Kyoto, one department store filled its center window with an enormous effigy of a crucified Santa Claus.5 However, despite all the people who assert that the tale of the crucified Santa is true and that they know someone who actually saw it, the literal truthfulness of this legend is suspect.  No one to our knowledge has produced evidence documenting that such a Christmas display was ever used commercially in Japan (other than as a knowing joke), such as a photograph of the scene or a contemporaneous news account that recorded its date and location.    As well, in true urban legend fashion the details of where, when, and how the crucified Santa Claus was displayed are vague and vary from telling to telling:  Santa appeared on a cross in Kyoto, Tokyo, the Ginza district, or a specific department store (such as Mitsukoshi); he was represented with a gigantic figure, a life-sized display, several small characters, a billboard, or a cartoon drawing; and Santa was nailed to a cross in Japan in 1945 or 1962 or 1990 or anywhere between "just after World War II" to  "a few years ago." As well, the mixing of Christian crucifixion iconography and Santa Claus is an unlikely pairing, even to non-Christians.  Nativity scenes, not crucifixes, are the religious displays featured at Christmastime, and anyone with the least bit of thoughtfulness would have to wonder why a smiling, happy, jolly figure would be depicted hanging from boards with nails driven through his hands and feet.  Santa Claus in a creche might be a plausible mistake (there are claims that figures such as the Seven Dwarfs have been spotted standing in for the Three Wise Men in various parts of the world), but a crucified Santa challenges credulity.  As parody it's believable; as an honest mistake we find it implausible. Perhaps the key to this legend is the timing.  Despite claims of crucified Santas in Japan that span the entire post-war era, the earliest reports of this legend we've found so far all stem from the early 1990s. Not coincidentally, up until that time Japan had been riding the economic high of their "bubble economy," and Americans watched in dismay as the Japanese business model was widely touted as superior to the American, dire predictions were made about the dominance of the American (and world economy) by Japan, and asset-rich Japanese began snapping up foreign (especially American) real estate such as New York's Rockefeller Center.  Should we be surprised that a xenophobic legend involving a clash between Japan and one of the most hallowed aspects of Western culture might arise from such circumstances? Alternatively, we can ignore all the foreign trappings and simply interpret this legend as a commentary on the commercialization of Christmas, a holiday in which Jesus Christ has now been replaced (symbolically and literally) by Santa Claus.  This was the point artist Robert Cenedella was trying to make when he drew the ire of religious groups over his painting of a crucified Santa Claus, which was displayed in the window of New York's Art Students League in December 1997:  Anderson, Walter Truett.  The Truth About the Truth.
  New York: J P Tarcher, 1995.  ISBN 0-874-77801-8. The Truth About the Truth Conry, Kieron.  "A Time Not to Forget the Suffering Figure on the Cross."
  The [London] Independent.  27 December 1994  (p. 15). Gaskell, John and Adam Hock.  "Our Memories of Christmas Past Lost to Japanese."
  The Sunday Telegraph.  6 January 1991  (p. 7). Healey, Phil and Rick Glanvill.  "Urban Myths #67: Santa Sleighed."
  The Guardian.  23 December 1993  (p. 43). McCarthy, Terry.  "Christmastime for Everyone."
  The [London] Independent.  19 December 1993  (p. 77). McKibben, Bill.  "Christmas Unplugged."
  Christianity Today.  9 December 1996  (p. 18). McQueen, Anjetta.  "Artist's Crucified Santa Draws Fire."
  Associated Press.  22 December 1997. Shweder, Richard.  "Why Do Men Barbeque?"
  Daedalus.  Winter 1993. Sullivan, Kevin.  "Dashing Through the Dough."
  The Washington Post.  22 December 1995  (p. A21). Watanabe, Teresa.  "Japanese Parade for St. Patrick, Whoever He Was."
  Los Angeles Times.  16 March 1993  (p. 6). Yates, Ronald E.  "Japanese Merrily Leave the Christ out of 'Kurisumasu.'"
  Chicago Tribune.  22 December 1985  (p. 16). The Buffalo News.  "Buffalo's Favorite Santa Stories."
  24 December 1995  (p. M8). The Economist.  "Santa Christ."
  25 December 1993  (p. 77). Financial Times.  "A Cultural Clash of Symbols."
  27 December 1984  (p. 8). Fortean Times.  "Strange Days."
  December 1994  (p. 5). The Hartford Courant.  "Santa on a Cross."
   23 December 1997  (p. F2). Claim:  The actor who portrayed Superman on television in the 1950s believed he had acquired the character's super powers and accidentally killed himself by trying to fly.  Status:  False. Origins:  Tinseltown is full of tragic tales (of varying degrees of truthfulness) about beloved actors who, having succumbed to the illusion of their profession,   ultimately became unable to separate their own personalities from those of the characters they portrayed.  None of these stories has a more bizarre ending than the one told about George Reeves, TV's Superman, who allegedly met with an accidental death while attempting to duplicate a feat possible only by someone possessed of his character's super powers. George Reeves (born George Keefer Brewer in 1914) began his Hollywood career in a variety of bit parts in the late 1930s, including a small role in the epic film Gone with the Wind, and worked steadily (if unspectacularly) throughout the 1940s before landing the role that would finally make his name and face a familiar one in American households: Superman.  The popular superhero had been featured in numerous comics, radio shows, and films during the 1940s before he was brought to the small screen in a syndicated television series that began production in 1951 with George Reeves in the title role. The series proved itself popular when it finally reached local stations in 1952, additional episodes were filmed from 1953 to 1957.  Although the show's budget was quite limited, the series was tremendously popular for a program that did not appear on a network's prime time schedule, and George Reeves became the living embodiment of Superman to millions of American children. As plenty of actors have discovered over the years, fame sometimes exacts a high price from those who achieve it.   Despite his being more popular and recognizable than ever, George Reeves became typecast as Superman and was unable to find work when production of The Adventures of Superman series ended in 1957.  Despondent and depressed over his inability to secure other acting roles, the 45-year-old Reeves committed suicide on 16 June 1959, shooting himself in the head in the upstairs bedroom of his Beverly Hills home while a party was in progress in the living room below. (Many claims have been made that depict Reeves' death as a murder rather than a suicide.  He was allegedly quite upbeat at the time of his death about hearing that the Superman series was going to resume production soon and thus had no reason to kill himself.  Rumors also posited that the husband of a woman with whom Reeves had recently broken  off a 10-year affair had hired a hitman to kill the actor.  None of this speculation has any substantive evidence to back it up, however.) Shortly after Reeves' tragic death, the bizarre story that would stigmatize his untimely end even further began to circulate: Reeves, believing he possessed Superman's super powers, died when he jumped out the window of a multi-story building, expecting that he would fly as his superhero character did rather than plummet to the ground.  (Alternate versions of the rumor had Reeves dying after attempting some other demonstration of super strength, such as having bullets or a cannon fired directly at his chest.) Reeves may have been depressed, and he may have been despondent that he was no longer needed for the only role Hollywood seemingly found him suitable for, but he was under no illusion that he was the character he played.  The legend about his unusual manner of death likely began as a combination of  attempts to rationalize his taking of his own life ("He was crazy" providing a more comprehensible explanation for suicide to many than the complex realities do, especially to people familiar only with a victim's public persona and not the details of his private life) and the apocryphal stories of children killing themselves in similar fashion that already been circulating for several years.  (An even more unusual take on this legend had Reeves killing himself because he was despondent over the harm caused to all the kids who had donned Superman capes and jumped from heights, expecting to fly as they had seen Reeves do countless times on the TV show.) We all too often expect our heroes to be larger-than-life in everything, including their deaths.  When the facts don't meet our expectations, we manufacture them.  George Reeves may not have died a hero, but many of us have been led to believe that he died trying to be one, however misguided that attempt may have been. Last updated:  8 August 2007    Sources:   Kashner, Sam.  Hollywood Kryptonite.   New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996.  ISBN 0-312-14616-7. Hollywood Kryptonite    Mitchell, Sean.  "TV Confidential."   TV Guide.  25 July 1998  (p. 12).     Brooks, Tim and Earle Marsh.  Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows.   New York: Ballantine Books, 1999.  ISBN 0-345-42923-0  (pp. 18-19). Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows 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. Two of Donald Trump's most prominent 2016 campaign pledges were to build a border wall along the Mexican border (or rather, to reinforce and extend it; a wall already exists along hundreds of miles of the international border), and to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a 1994 arrangement between the United States, Canada and Mexico which he called "the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country." exists arrangement called In October 2017, left-wing Facebook page "The Other 98%" posted a widely-shared meme which claimed that Mexico had  in retaliation for Trump's border wall plans  signed a major agricultural trade agreement with Argentina, which would have very harmful effects on American farmers: meme They're trying to distract us from the fact that Mexico retaliated against the border wall by establishing an agricultural agreement with Argentina. Starting next year Mexico will be buying 100% of their corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina duty free. In exchange Mexico will ship cars to Argentina duty free. This will take away at least $13 billion annually from American farmers.    As of 1 November 2017, Mexico and Argentina have not signed an agreement like the one described by "The Other 98%", but the two countries have held talks about a more limited (though still significant) trade deal involving grains and cars. Furthermore, the main catalyst for the negotiations has been the uncertainty caused by Donald Trump's vow to renegotiate NAFTA rather than his plans to build a border wall.  The source cited by "The Other 98%" is a September 2017 article by Daily Kos, which reported: Daily Kos Mexico already retaliated against Trump and his insults earlier this year by establishing an agricultural agreement with Argentina. Starting next year Mexico will be buying 100% of her corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina duty free. In exchange Mexico will ship cars to Argentina, duty free. This will taken [sic] away $13 billion annually from American farmers.  It's not clear what the source of these claims is, but a similar meme appeared online earlier in 2017, which read: meme Mexico has retaliated against Trump's racial profiling and insistence that Mexico will pay for his border wall. Beginning in 2018, Mexico will be buying its corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina. Not America. American farmers stand to lose $13 billion. The ripple effect will be even more devastating. The fact that this announcement was made during Trump's Made in America week, is just karmic icing.  "Made in America Week" took place from 17-24 July 2017; we found no evidence of any deal between Mexico and Argentina being announced during that time period. However, talks have been ongoing between the two countries.  place In the spring of 2017, Mexico's Deputy Economy Minister Juan Carlos Baker made several comments in interviews about his country's negotiations with Argentina and Brazil. On 26 March 2017, the Financial Times reported: Financial Times Mexico, the worlds biggest buyer of US corn, is considering offering duty-free access to Brazilian and Argentine maize as an alternative to American imports in a move that could have big consequences for US farmers worried about Donald Trumps trade and tax agenda. [...] "I am pretty optimistic about the possibility of having a deal with these countries soon," Juan Carlos Baker, Mexicos deputy economy minister, told the Financial Times in an interview. "Were pretty far advanced with Brazil...Argentina is a few steps behind," he said.... The following month, Baker told Reuters that a deal with Argentina could be finalized by the end of 2017: Reuters Mexico, seeking closer ties with the rest of Latin America, expects to finish negotiations on a trade deal with Argentina involving cars and agricultural products around the end of the year, Mexicos deputy minister for foreign trade said in an interview on Tuesday. [...] Under the deal, Argentina could gain part of the lucrative grains market in Mexico, Latin Americas No. 2 economy, Baker told Reuters. In 2015 Mexico imported $2.3 billion worth of U.S. corn and $1.4 billion of U.S. soy. But Baker said those numbers will likely decrease under a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement called for by Trump. "The potential is there," Baker said. "The Argentine exporters could find attractive conditions in Mexico." Mexico, in turn, could export cars to Argentina, he said. "We have a very strong manufacturing industry and Argentina is an important market for us," Baker said. A trade deal between Mexico and Argentina may be in the works, but it has not yet been announced as of 1 November 2017. However, assuming a deal goes ahead to shift Mexico's importation of certain products from the United States to Argentina, the numbers are significant  but not as dramatic as they are in the meme. According to United States Grain Council statistics, the United States exported $2.5 billion worth of corn to Mexico in 2015 and 2016. In 2015, the United States exported $2.9 billion worth of soy products to Mexico, according to the U.S. Soybean Export Council (page 19.) According to Global Agricultural Trade System statistics for 2016, exports of wheat and rice were worth $612 million and $274 million, respectively.  Grain Council page 19 Global Agricultural Trade System This yields a total of $6.3 billion in U.S. exports to Mexico of corn, rice, wheat and soy  the four products specified in the above meme. So even if Mexico did decide to stop importing all these products from the U.S., the likely annual financial cost to the American agriculture industry would be extremely significant, but still only around half the $13 billion claimed. It's not entirely clear where the figure of $13 billion came from, but it might have originated in an October 2017 letter sent to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and signed by dozens of food and agriculture companies and industry associations, warning Ross about the dangers, as they see them, of withdrawing from NAFTA.  letter According to a study by ImpactECON, if Canada, Mexico, and the United States return to most favored nation (MFN) tariff rates upon any withdrawal from NAFTA, the negative impact on the United States will far outweigh any benefits from higher U.S. tariffs, including a net loss of 256,000 U.S. jobs, a net loss of at least 50,000 jobs in the U.S. food and agriculture industry, and a drop in GDP of $13 billion from the farm sector alone. The study mentioned here was an August 2017 working paper produced by the economic consulting firm ImpactECON. It did not actually mention any figure of $13 billion. Rather, it projected that over the course of two to three years after a U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, real GDP in the United States would fall by as much as 0.09 percent. working paper Gross domestic product, or GDP, is the combined market value of all goods and services produced in a particular geographic area (in this case, the United States.) It is a calculation commonly used to measure the total size of an economy. Real GDP is gross domestic product adjusted for inflation - meaning, roughly speaking, the size of the economy in relation to the cost of living.  As of the third quarter of 2017 (when the ImpactECON report was published), the real GDP of the United States was $17.01 trillion, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A 0.09 percent decline in that would amount to a $15.3 billion loss  not far off the $13 billion posited by the food and agriculture industry, in their letter.  figures There are a couple of things to note here: firstly, the 0.09 percent decline estimated in the ImpactECON report relates to the entire U.S. economy, and not "the farm sector alone," as mentioned in the letter. In fact, the working paper projects a very small increase in production for the crops and forestry sector (0.04 percent, page 20), accompanied by a significant boost to production in the sugar sector (5.11 percent), but it also projects production declines of between one and two percent in the meat, food and livestock and fishing sectors.  page 20 Secondly, this real GDP declined is projected to happen "in the next 2-3 years", so if the meme is using the letter to Wilbur Ross as the source of its $13 billion figure, it is misrepresenting the decline as happening "annually." projected Politico. "Full Transcript: First 2016 Presidential Debate."
 Politico. 27 September 2016. Webber, Jude. "Mexico Eyes Duty-Free Corn Deals to Counter Trump."
 Financial Times. 26 March 2017. Misculin, Nicolas. "Mexico, Looking South, Sees Trade Deal With Argentina Around Year's End."
 Reuters. 18 April 2017. U.S. Soybean Export Council. "2015 Annual Report."
U.S. Soybean Export Council. 27 October 2015. NAFTA Food and Ag Trade Working Group. "Letter to Wilbur Ross."
NAFTA Food and Ag Trade Working Group. 25 October 2017. Bureau of Economic Analysis. "Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2017 (Advance Estimate.)"
 U.S. Department of Commerce. 28 July 2017. Walmsley, Terry; Minor, Peter. "Reversing NAFTA: A Supply Chain Perspective."
 ImpactECON. August 2017. Update [2 November 2017]: Added possible source of the $13 billion figure in the meme. On 12 February 2017, the Facebook page "GreenYatra" published an imagethat bore the claim thatolive oil canbe used to prevent or reverse "sagging breasts": published image   The image-based claim didn't link to any articles or other corroborating information, saying only: Massaging your breasts with olive oil is an excellent technique to firm sagging breasts. Olive oil is a rich source of antioxidants and fatty acids that can reverse the damage caused by free radicals and prevent sagging breasts. Plus, it will help improve the skin tone and texture. According to the claim, topical application of olive oil either circumvents or reverses loss of elasticity in breasts. No specific reason was provided for the claim that olive oil, versus any other type of oil,could replicate the effect shown. The efficacy of topical treatments for sagging breasts or loss of skin elasticity is often discussed in cosmetic circles, thanksin part to the cost and invasiveness of surgical approaches. But research demonstrating any single topical ingredient can prevent (much less reverse) loss of skin elasticity is notably skimpy: notably Antioxidant ointments, creams, and lotions may help reduce the risk of wrinkles and protect against sun damage. Unlike sunscreens, they build up in the skin and are not washed away, so the protection may last longer. Selenium, coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), and alpha-lipoic acid are antioxidants that can be applied to the skin. Evidence of their benefit is limited and more studies in humans are needed. More commonly used antioxidants are described below. Your dermatologist (skin doctor) can tell you which product is right for you. Research from 2012 indicates that anxioxidants could potentially prevent damage to facial skin, but evidence was "limited" and reversal was not referenced. Only 1.5 percent of olive oil contains antioxidants (and that fraction is not composed entirely of antioxidants). Other foods are described as being higher in antioxidants, but no memes recommended rubbing a berry paste onto breasts for firmness. Research overwhelmingly examined efficacy of topical treatment for facial skin, which lacks the weight and density of breast tissue. And although topicals designed for facial skin need only penetrate a few dermal layers, any product designed or intended for useon breasts would have to enter the breast tissue to "lift" or prevent elasticity loss (a far taller order). contains described A blog post written by Miami-based cosmetic surgeon Dr. Ary Krau directly addressesthe question of whether any specific topical substance (including olive oil) had ever shown promise to improve loss of elasticity for breast tissue in clinical research: addresses Unfortunately, no cream or lotion has been clinically proven or FDA-approved to lift the breasts into a higher position. Dont waste your money on any product that claims to improve your breast position. While genetics play a big role in breast sagging, there are a few things you can do to prevent it in the first place. Try not to fluctuate greatly in body weight; gaining and losing a lot of weight in a short period of time can take its toll on the breasts. Be diligent about wearing sunscreen on your chest and dcolletage area to protect the skin from the suns rays. Wear a supportive bra as much as possible, especially when performing high-intensity aerobic exercise. We contacted Dr. Krau's office, and a representative for the clinic told usthat no effective topical treatment appears to exist. A thorough search of related studies turned up no strong evidence facial skin or breast tissue could be firmed by topical treatments at all. A 5percent concentration of Vitamin C (not olive oil) showedmoderate success in treatment of photo-aging in a small 2003 study, but those findings were not relevant to breast tissue or olive oil. 2003 There isresearch [PDF] (conducted by individuals who contracted with cosmetic medical firms) that indicates somesuccess in the ongoing development of a topical version of botulinum toxin type A (popularly known by the brand name Botox) and intended solely for the face. However, thatresearchonly concerns a clinically prescribed substance (botulinum toxin, not a pantry product) and includedno indications that it could beused on breast tissue. PDF Crawford, Holly.  "Sagging Skin  What You and Your Doctor Can Do."
  WebMD.  Accessed 16 February 2017. Glogau, Richard MD et. al.  "Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of a Botulinum Toxin Type A Topical Gel for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Lateral Canthal Lines."
  Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.  January 2012. Humbert, PG et al.  "Topical Ascorbic Acid on Photoaged Skin. Clinical, Topographical And Ultrastructural Evaluation: Double-Blind Study Vs. Placebo."
  Experimental Dermatology.  June 2003. Krau, Ary MD.  "Is There a Topical Cream for Lifting the Breasts?"
  Ary Krau MD.  22 January 2016. Magee, Elaine.  "10 Nutrient-Rich Super Foods."
  WebMD.  Accessed 16 February 2017. University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC).   "Skin Wrinkles and Blemishes."
  Updated 18 December 2012. International Olive Council.  "The Antioxidant Properties Of The Olive Oil."
    Accessed 16 February 2017. In February 2019, a rumor circulated on social media that Jussi Smollett, the Empire actor accused of making false claims about being the victim of a hate crime, was the nephew of Democratic U.S. senator (and presidential candidate) Kamala Harris of California. false claims Conservative radio host Kevin McCullough was one Twitter user who promoted the notion that Harris was Smollett's aunt:McCullough deleted his tweet after it generated a considerable amount of ridicule.The claim that Kamala Harris is Jussie Smollett's aunt was offered by a number of social media users, but the documentation presented with it was flimsy at best. In fact, the most substantial piece of "evidence" presented to support this conspiracy theory was that Smollett's mother and the California senator share a surname:Sharing a last name does not constitute proof that these two women are siblings, however. In fact, the surname "Harris" is one of the most popular surnames in the United States, ranking in the top 30 of the 2010 U.S. Census.  We've examined the biographical information available for these two public figures and found that their family branches simply do not intersect.  Kamala Harris, who was born in Oakland, California, has a single sibling, a younger sister named Maya who was born in Illinois. In order for Kamala to be Jussie Smollett's aunt, Maya -- who is only 16 years older than Smollett -- would have to his mother.  However, Smollett's mother's first name is Janet, not Maya, and she is from New Orleans, not Illinois.  Neither did we find any familial relationship between Kamala Harris and the Smollett family through marriage that might provide a basis for referring to Kamala as Jussie's "aunt." Jussie Smollett was born in Santa Rosa, California, to Janet (Harris) Smollett and Joel Smollett Sr. (who migrated to the U.S. from Russia and Poland).  Jussie said the family moved to Queens when he was two years old, and afterwards, according to the New York Times, he grew up "bouncing with [his] parents and siblings between New York and Los Angeles, as the kids pursued careers in modeling, acting and music."Neither Kamala Harris' husband, Douglas Emhoff, nor Maya Harris' husband, Tony West, has any discernible connection to Jussie's parents.   Emhoff hails from New York, graduated USC law school, is a prominent entertainment and intellectual property lawyer in Los Angeles, and has two grown children from a previous relationship.  West hails from San Francisco, graduated Stanford  law school, serves as general counsel and Chief Legal Officer at Uber, and has one daughter with his wife Maya.  Conservative radio host Kevin McCullough was one Twitter user who promoted the notion that Harris was Smollett's aunt: Kevin McCullough promoted   McCullough deleted his tweet after it generated a considerable amount of ridicule. deleted The claim that Kamala Harris is Jussie Smollett's aunt was offered by a number of social media users, but the documentation presented with it was flimsy at best. In fact, the most substantial piece of "evidence" presented to support this conspiracy theory was that Smollett's mother and the California senator share a surname: evidence   Sharing a last name does not constitute proof that these two women are siblings, however. In fact, the surname "Harris" is one of the most popular surnames in the United States, ranking in the top 30 of the 2010 U.S. Census.  We've examined the biographical information available for these two public figures and found that their family branches simply do not intersect.   2010 U.S. Census biographical information Kamala Harris, who was born in Oakland, California, has a single sibling, a younger sister named Maya who was born in Illinois. In order for Kamala to be Jussie Smollett's aunt, Maya -- who is only 16 years older than Smollett -- would have to his mother.  However, Smollett's mother's first name is Janet, not Maya, and she is from New Orleans, not Illinois.   Neither did we find any familial relationship between Kamala Harris and the Smollett family through marriage that might provide a basis for referring to Kamala as Jussie's "aunt." Jussie Smollett was born in Santa Rosa, California, to Janet (Harris) Smollett and Joel Smollett Sr. (who migrated to the U.S. from Russia and Poland).  Jussie said the family moved to Queens when he was two years old, and afterwards, according to the New York Times, he grew up "bouncing with [his] parents and siblings between New York and Los Angeles, as the kids pursued careers in modeling, acting and music." Neither Kamala Harris' husband, Douglas Emhoff, nor Maya Harris' husband, Tony West, has any discernible connection to Jussie's parents.   Emhoff hails from New York, graduated USC law school, is a prominent entertainment and intellectual property lawyer in Los Angeles, and has two grown children from a previous relationship.  West hails from San Francisco, graduated Stanford  law school, serves as general counsel and Chief Legal Officer at Uber, and has one daughter with his wife Maya. Emhoff West Sullivan, Kevin.  "'I Am Who I Am': Kamala Harris, Daughter of Indian and Jamaican Immigrants, Defines Herself Simply as 'American.'"
  The Washington Post.  2 February 2019. Ryzik, Melena.  "The Smollett Family Business: Acting and Activism."
  The New York Times.  9 March May 2016. Driscoll, Sharon.  "Tony and Maya: Partners in Public Service."
  Stanford Lawyer.  17 May 2010. Fearnow, Benjamin.  "Conservative Radio Host Peddles Conspiracy Theory That Kamala Harris Is Jussie Smollet's Aunt, Later Deletes Tweet."
  Newsweek.  24 February 2019.