Did the Grateful Dead Fund Lithuania's Olympic Basketball Team?
In July 2021, as the pandemic-delayed 2020 Olympic games approached, an interesting tidbit about basketball, Lithuania, and the 1960s psychedelic rock band the Grateful Dead started to circulate on social media. A viral Reddit post claimed that "after the breakup of the USSR, the Lithuanian basketball team couldn't afford to participate in the 1992 Olympics, so the Grateful Dead funded the team's expenses and sent a box of tie-dyed outfits in Lithuania's national colours. They went on to win bronze."  claimed This post is generally accurate. The Grateful Dead really did sponsor Lithuania's men's basketball team, and they did provide the team with tie-dyed shirts bearing the country's national colors (yellow, green, and red), and a "Skullman" logo designed by Greg Speirs, which can be seen above. Our one quibble with this claim is that the band was not the team's sole source of funding. While the Grateful Dead did provide the team some financial support (one report states that the band wrote a $5,000 check), the band's main contribution was that it allowed the team to sell special Grateful Dead merchandise, which proved massively popular with fans at the 1992 Olympic Games.  "Skullman" logo Greg Speirs Here's a newspaper clipping from 1992 about the popularity of these shirts. According to Grateful Dead spokesman Dennis McNally, some 20,000 shirts sold in the first week. A third of the money raised went to the Lithuanian Olympic Committee, and the band got "nothing more than a good time."  28 Aug 1992, Fri The Times Recorder (Zanesville, Ohio) Newspapers.com  28 Aug 1992, Fri The Times Recorder (Zanesville, Ohio) Newspapers.com The Grateful Dead's connection with the Lithuanian basketball team started in 1992 when Sarunas Marciulionis, the team's star guard, and scout Donnie Nelson showed up at a garage in San Francisco to hear the band play. The team, which would be competing in its first Olympic games since the country declared independence from the Soviet Union a few years earlier, was seeking sponsors to fund their trip to Barcelona.  Here's an excerpt from an article published on NBCOlympics.com in 2012 (archived here): NBCOlympics.com On a cold and windy Bay Area winter day 20 years ago, Sarunas Marciulionis and Donnie Nelson, a starting guard and a scout, respectively, for the Golden State Warriors, knocked uncertainly on the door of a nondescript garage in San Francisco. The Grateful Dead is in here? Nelson thought to himself. Somebody said to enter, and so they did, metaphorical hats in hand, taking in the sights and, more vividly, the smells. "Well, there was a little pot going on," Nelson recalls today. "The Dead were trying out Beatles covers, doing stuff like 'Here Comes the Sun' and 'Hey Jude,' but they were just kind of working through things and sounding kind of nasally. Sarunas pulls me aside and says, 'Donnie, no way these guys are famous. They're terrible.'" Nelson shakes his head and smiles. "I always think back and wonder what it would be like if someone caught that scene today -- Sarunas in the Dead pot garage." The Dead had heard about the Marciulionis-Nelson crusade to raise money to enable Lithuania, Marciulionis's native land, to try to qualify for the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona. "You're all about liberty and freedom and, man, we're all about that, too, so we dig what you guys are doing," said Jerry Garcia, the Dead's leader. That's a paraphrase but, if you've ever heard Jerry (who died in 1995), it's pretty close. NBC reported that the band ended up writing the team a check for $5,000. More importantly, the band gave the team a license to use and sell special Olympics-Grateful Dead merchandise. These items were a major hit and helped the team raise funds that were then used to fund their participation in the 1996 Olympics.  Strong anti-Soviet reaction from the West helped force a treaty, but by the time Marciulionis decided that he wanted to field a team, the nation was nearly bankrupt. He donated some of the money from his $1.28 million Golden State contract, and, with the help of Nelson, whom he had tapped to be Lithuania's assistant coach, set out to raise the rest. Getting the Dead was a major coup. The band wrote a check for $5,000 but more importantly granted Lithuania the rights to sell a Dead t-shirt, a stoned-out psychedelic masterpiece splashed with Lithuania's national colors of green, red, and yellow and anchored by the Dead's skeleton symbol. Purely from a fund-raising perspective, sales of the t-shirt had more to do with the 1996 Olympics; it financed most of Lithuania's participation in the Atlanta Games. But the t-shirt became the hit of the '92 Games, more treasured than any of the merchandise bearing the likeness of Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, the stalwarts of the United States Dream Team. The shirt kept Lithuania in the news, told the story of its heroic struggle for freedom, its battle to get to Barcelona (it earned a spot through the European Olympic qualifier) and its quest for a medal. For many American basketball fans, the 1992 Olympics are probably remembered for the dominant play of the "Dream Team," the American Olympic team that featured superstars such as Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird. But the Lithuanian team made its mark as well. In 2012, a documentary was released entitled "The Other Dream Team," which followed Arvydas Sabonis and arnas Mariulionis on their somewhat psychedelic journey to a bronze medal.   Updated [1 September 2021]: Updated to credit designer of Skullman logo.
One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth  military spending was reduced during Obama's second term  but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in a complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements in order to perpetuate this notion.  In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." said This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). not true In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years and years. Trump said: "Weve been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office.  President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: speech "Weve invested the $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and its all made here, right in the USA.  This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget.  not true While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail.  While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense.  Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. military budget covers sequestration The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration.  green book The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense.  Center for Strategic and International Studies   Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes: writes The military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact, according to Gen. David Petraeus ,who commanded our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and also headed the CIA, and Michael OHanlon, there was no readiness crisis and in 2016, the year Trump was elected, the state of our military was awesome. Nor was the defense budget seriously underfunded in the Obama years. If one controls for inflation, in FY2021 dollars Obama spent $3.3 trillion in his first term compared with the $2.9 trillion under Trump. Moreover, while defense spending did decline slightly in Obamas second term, it still amounted to $2.7 trillion, about $200 million, or 7 percent less, than Trumps first-term budget. However, this decline was a result of the Budget Control Act or sequestration (BCA,) which was instituted by his current chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman from South Carolina. While the military certainly had ammunition during the Obama administration, and while the Obama administration certainly spent a few trillion dollars more than nothing on national defenses, several aspects of the military were truly reduced during Obama's administration. Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure  the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength  [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force."  examined Obama's budget Though it is certainly not accurate to say that the military did not receive any funding during the Obama administration, there was truly a reduction in spending. Two major factors resulted in reduced spending. First, congress placed restrictions on military spending in 2011 in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. And second, the Obama administration started to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending: explained In 2011, in response to a debt ceiling crisis, lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In addition to limits on domestic spending, limits were placed on the Pentagons base budget, but not its wartime spending. Congress increased spending caps by $32 billion in 2013 and $40 billion in 2015, referred to by budget watchers as partial sequester relief. In February, the cap was blown off entirely, when Mr. Trump signed a budget deal that raised it by $165 billion over two years. Effectively, that ended the sequester without repealing the original law. From 2012 to 2017, the Pentagons annual budget had decreased as a percent of the economy. But it still hovered around $600 billion  a far cry from no money at all. Qiu, Linda.  "Trump Goes for Broke on Claim Military Received No Money Before His Watch. (Hes Still Wrong.)."
  The New York Times.  13 August 2018. Plinkington, Ed.  "Barack Obama Sets Out Plans for Leaner Military in Historic Strategy Shift." 
 The Guardian.  5 January 2012. Ewing, Philip.  "Fact Check: Has President Obama 'Depleted' The Military?"
  NPR.  29 August 2016. Korb, Lawrence.  "Trumps Misleading Claims on Military Readiness and Veteran Care."
  Marine Corps Times.  14 September 2020. Harrison, Todd.  "Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget."
  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  April 2016. Robertson, Lori.  "Trumps False Military Equipment Claim.'"
  FactCheck.org.  2 July 2020. We can't all be famous, but many people who aren't have tried the next best thing: associating themselves with someone famous.  Others, denied the opportunity even to hobnob with anyone of renown, have taken the process a step further and manufactured such associations themselves.  A particularly prevalent genre of "brush with fame" legends involves those who claim to have had chance encounters with notable personages during their formative years, contributing something  an idea, a suggestion, or maybe just a helping hand  that had a lasting impact and aided those later-famous people in becoming successful in some artistic, scientific, or political endeavor.  After all, the early lives of people who later become famous are often not well documented, making it difficult to dispute a claimant's tale of a chance encounter way back when. Not surprisingly, Walt Disney is the subject of several such legends, in this case one having to do with the site of his birth and the origin of his given name. In 1982, the Robinson Argus newspaper, based in Robinson, Illinois, published a local resident's recollection of the putative circumstances surrounding Walt's birth: So many great people were born in Robinson! And, now we must add Walt Disney to the list. The Argus is indebted to Doris Davis and Ada York for the surprising information that the famous Walt Disney actually was born in Robinson. On Friday, February 12, Ada gave the following information to Doris Davis, who in turn brought it to the Argus on Monday of this week. This is February 12, 1982, at Cotillion Ridge, and this is Ada talking to Doris Davis: "In 1925-26 I worked for Mr. George Walter on West Plum Street. This was a time when Walt Disney was coming into great popularity. He told me that several people knew that Walt Disney was born in Robinson and I asked him how he developed the knowledge and he said that he owned the brick yard at the time and they were migrating through Robinson back to Chicago and ran out of money while in this town. Mr. Walter gave him a job and he got a room over what is now the Rembrandt Studio and their baby was due at any time. When the baby was born, it was a boy and they named him Walter for Mr. Walter who had been so kind to them and gave Mr. Disney work to enable him to support his wife and baby son." Doris: "Later, you heard an interview?" Ada: "Yes! Edward R. Murrow interviewed Walt Disney and he asked him where he was born. Walt Disney said, 'Well the record shows that I was born in Chicago, but actually I was born in a little town 200 miles south  Robinson!' So that sort of tied the ends together!" It's a charming story, but the logical holes in its premise and timeline are legion:  Every significant piece of Disney biography states that Walt was born in an upstairs bedroom of his parents' house in Chicago.  If Walt had publicly stated, to a news reporter as prominent as Edward R. Murrow, that he was actually born somewhere else, how is it that  fact has somehow eluded every Disney biographer to the point that none of them so much as mention it?  And if Walt both knew and publicly proclaimed that he was really born in Robinson, why did he nonetheless maintain in his autobiography (published under his daughter's name) that he was indeed born in Chicago?  Walt Disney's parents could not have been "migrating back to Chicago" just before his birth in 1901, as they had been living in Chicago continuously ever since 1889.  Even if Elias Disney, Walt's father, had some reason to travel away from Chicago in late 1901, it is extremely unlikely (given the rigors of travel in those days) that he would have taken a heavily-pregnant wife along with him except under the most exigent of circumstances (and there is no record of any such circumstances affecting the Disney family in 1901).  The account quoted above states that a brickyard owner in Robinson gave Elias Disney work immediately after Walt's birth "to enable him to support his wife and baby son."  By the time Walt came along, the Disneys already had three children  who was taking care of them?  Surely Mr. and Mrs. Disney had not left their three young sons behind somewhere to fend for themselves, so why does this recollection fail to mention anyone but Walt?  Why in the world would the Disneys, who already had a permanent home in Chicago (in a house built by Elias himself), have been traipsing around the countryside with three children in tow and Mrs. Disney about to give birth to a fourth?  (Again, there is no record of the Disneys having left their three eldest children in someone else's care for an extended period of time just before Walt's birth.)  The statement that Walt Disney was "coming into great popularity" in 1925-26 (a claim made to explain why the narrator clearly remembered a story she'd been told over fifty years earlier  obviously she wouldn't have found the tale so memorable if Walt Disney wasn't already famous when she heard it) is a bit off the mark: the debut of the character who made the name 'Disney' a household word, Mickey Mouse, was still several years in the future, and even Disney's first successful animated character, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, would not first appear until late 1927.  Disney had moderate success in the mid-1920s with his Alice in Cartoonland series (short silent films which mixed live action and animation), but he was hardly a nationally-known figure in 1926.  (As a point of comparison, we note that although Disney began working in Los Angeles in early 1923, his name appeared in the pages of the Los Angeles Times but once prior to 1929.) Oswald the Lucky Rabbit Alice in Cartoonland  Wherever Walt may have been born (and no matter what the circumstances of his birth), his given name was demonstrably not the result of a spur-of-the-moment decision by his parents to honor someone who had aided them at the time of Walt's birth in 1901.  As the following birth record demonstrates, the Disneys had already selected "Walter" as a name for one of their sons as far back as 1890:  Walt Disney, of course, was not born until 1901  this certificate, which documents a birth on 30 December 1890, records the arrival of one of Walt's older brothers, Raymond Arnold Disney.  Evidently Mr. and Mrs. Disney considered naming one of their earlier children "Walter" to the extent that that name was listed on the birth certificate, but they later changed their minds and named him "Raymond" instead.  The important point, however, is that this certificate documents the Disneys had the name "Walter" in mind for one of their sons a full eleven years before Walt was born. So, we leave off where we began, by noting that people sometimes manufacture their own brushes with greatness, as was evidently the case here. To mangle a familiar phrase: "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some fabricate greatness out of whole cloth." Cooper, Jacob.  "Comics Mean Hard Labor."
 Los Angeles Times.  13 April 1930  (p. B11). Eliot, Marc.  Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince.
  New York: Birch Lane Press, 1993.  ISBN 1-55972-174-X. Miller, Diane Disney.  The Story of Walt Disney.
  New York: Dell, 1957. Mosley, Leonard.  Disney's World.
  New York: Stein and Day, 1985  (pp. 16-21). Thomas, Bob.  Walt Disney: An American Original.
  New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976.  ISBN 0-7868-6027-8  (p. 24). Thomas, Bob.  Building a Company: Roy O. Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire.
  New York: Hyperion, 1998.  ISBN 0-7868-6200-9  (pp. 1-16). Los Angeles Times.  "Actors Mix with Cartoons."
  6 July 1924  (p. B31). Los Angeles Times.  "Maclean Provides Screen Fun."
  28 September 1929  (p. A9). The Robinson Argus.  "Many Great People Born in Robinson  Even Walt Disney."
  25 February 1982. Shortly after Democrat Raphael Warnock was announced the winner of one of Georgia's two Senate runoff races on Jan. 6, 2021, putting the Senate majority within the party's reach, U.S. President Donald Trump attempted to cast doubt on the integrity of the election by claiming poll workers mysteriously uncovered 50,000 ballots overnight. He said in a tweet: was announced Donald Trump tweet They just happened to find 50,000 ballots late last night. The USA is embarrassed by fools. Our Election Process is worse than that of third world countries.   The post was part of the president's long-spanning misinformation campaign (including the above-displayed tweet) to convince Americans of an illicit, coordinated scheme by Trump's political enemies to undermine him, even though nothing of the sort was taking place. long-spanning misinformation campaign Snopes debunked similar assertions by Trump that secretive late-night vote "dumps" helped his opponent in the 2020 presidential election, Democrat Joe Biden, win key battleground states. similar assertions key battleground states As was the case then, Georgia voters' heavy reliance on mail-in voting instead of in-person polls  to reduce the risk of catching COVID-19  increased the chances of voting results shifting significantly late at night, as poll workers counted more ballots. That phenomenon was not a result of a conspiracy against Trump, but rather a product of a Georgia law that prohibits poll workers from counting any ballots until after polls close. Georgia law The Associated Press reported on Jan. 4, the day before the special election: Associated Press Absentee ballots must be received by the close of polls to be counted. Military and overseas ballots postmarked by Tuesday and received by Friday will be counted, and absentee voters also have until Friday to fix any problems so their votes can be counted. No ballots, including absentee ballots received in advance of Election Day, can be counted until the polls close. [...] In a close contest, look for the Republican candidate to jump out to an early lead. That due to two factors: First, Republican areas of the state usually report their results first. Second, Republican voters have been more likely to vote in person, either on Election Day or during the early voting period. Many counties release those in-person results first. Meanwhile, heavily Democratic counties, including Fulton, DeKalb and Chatham counties, historically take longer to count votes.  In regards to the president's assertion regarding a "dump" of 50,000 ballots to supposedly undermine Republican candidates Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, specifically, Snopes found no evidence to support the allegation of voter fraud, and Georgia election officials refuted such claims.  "Election Day for the Georgia Senate runoffs has progressed with few issues and almost nonexistent wait times," the Georgia Secretary of State said in a news release. news release Below is our evidence for that conclusion. Just hours after polls closed, some elections officials statewide finished processing and tabulating ballots, and the public learned which candidate received the majority of votes in those counties. Meanwhile, ballot counting in other precincts remained ongoing. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported at 9:30 p.m.: reported Its still early, but Republicans are increasingly antsy about their chances. Early returns are showing U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue underperforming in important GOP strongholds in rural areas and the exurbs. And turnout in Democratic bastions is nearing November general election levels in some left-leaning rural counties that have already reported most of their results. By 11 p.m., the newspaper said, election workers had tallied more than 300,000 votes, and only a small number of precincts were outstanding. Shortly afterwards, as Atlanta's DeKalb County uploaded its voter tallies, some news outlets, including Vox, declared Warnock the winner. He led Loeffler by about 37,000 votes, with 97% precincts reporting, according to the AJC. "Of the outstanding votes left to count, many were expected to come in from Democratic strongholds in DeKalb and Fulton counties," the newspaper reported.  At 12:49 a.m., NBC was the first major news network to announce Loeffler had no statistical chance of overcoming Warnock's margin of victory. National news outlets including The Associated Press, CNN, and ABC News quickly followed suit.   At 2 a.m. the AJC reported Fulton County election officials were calling it a night and preparing to count the last rounds of ballots in the morning. In all, about 25,000 mail-in ballots remained uncounted across the state, with the bulk in the Atlanta metro area, according to preliminary estimates from the Secretary of States office. In other words, voting spikes occurred over the course of hours, late at night, for predictable reasons. Counting in multiple Democratic strongholds, as well as several smaller and more conservative-leaning counties, resumed by 6:45 a.m. on Jan. 6, according to the newspaper. Shortly after the president's tweet about poll workers nefariously "finding" 50,000 ballots, Gabriel Sterling, a Republican who oversees voting systems for the secretary of states office, highlighted evidence showing typical voter returns based on the state's estimated number of absentee voters. He said in a tweet: No Mr. President, there werent found ballots. We have known the number of advanced votes since this weekend. We saw record Election Day turnout. As of Monday 970,000 absentees had been accepted. 31k more were added in yesterdays totals. That leaves 60k that came in yesterday.   In sum, considering Sterling's direct refutation of Trump's claim, as well as the fact that no evidence exists to prove the president's conspiracy theory about 50,000 ballots, and all proof showed predictable vote-counting processes in the early morning hours of Jan. 6, we rate this claim "false." U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine had an old prediction tossed back at him during a debate this summer. It was thrown by moderator Judy Woodruff, the anchor and managing editor of PBS NewsHour. She reminded Kaine that in 2016, when he was the Democratic nominee for vice president, he said the election of then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump would be a disaster for the economy. Woodruff asked Kaine to square that with the strong economic results during the first 18 months of the Trump administration: about3 million new jobs, the unemployment rate dippingbelow 4 percent, and soaring corporate profits. Kaine replied, The national economy was strong, in its longest expansion in private sector jobs, before President Trump came into office. We fact-checked Kaines claim that Trump, when he became president on Jan. 20, 2017, inherited the nations longest expansion of private jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics keepsmonthly recordson private sector employment back to 1939. They show that the U.S. experienced 82 months straight months of private sector job growth before Trump became president - from March 2010 through December 2016, when Barack Obama was in the White House. That easily qualifies for the longest streak during the eight decades the BLS had been keeping the statistics prior to Trumps presidency. The streak is still alive under Trump and - through August 2018, the latest statistics are available - is up to 112 months. The second longest streak was 64 months. It ran from May 1995 through October 2000, when Bill Clinton was president. The longest continuous drop in private employment lasted 22 months - from January 2008 through October 2009 during the Great Recession. That was during the last year of George W. Bushs administration and the first year of Obamas. Presidents from both political parties traditionally have been quick to claim the credit for good economies and fast to dodge the blame when times turn bad. Economists have repeatedly told us its mostly a political dance; that the policies of presidents and  governors dont drive economic ups and downs. Our ruling Kaine said, The national economy was strong in its largest expansion of private sector jobs before President Trump came into office. Data shows hes right. We rate his statement True. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Nov. 23, 2020, U.S. General Services Administrator Emily Murphy  an appointee of President Donald Trump  wrote a letter to President-elect Joe Biden that allowed him to start a formal transition of power. The paperwork, obtained by Snopes and displayed below, was the first formal recognition by Trump's government of a Biden presidency. letter formal transition of power The document from the head of the General Services Administration (GSA), an executive branch agency that oversees presidential transitions, raised questions about whether it meant that Trump himself acknowledged defeat to Biden. Concession statements to Americans or phone calls to winning candidates represent an informal step in the country's election process that typically occurs when one candidate secures the majority of electoral votes. Biden reached that milestone  winning key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, by comfortable margins  weeks before Murphy's letter. However, Trump broke democratic norms by refusing to concede publicly. electoral votes.   Instead, the president's campaign filed a barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions across the country and accelerated a misinformation campaign online that denied or falsely presented the election results. While legal experts said the litigation did not contain enough evidence to reverse Biden's win, Trump's supporters viewed the effort as a commendable, tough, not-going-to-back-down approach to electoral politics. barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions misinformation campaign "It is not a stain on our national honor for a candidate to refuse to concede when there are open and compelling disputes about an electoral outcome," read a Nov. 23 statement by supporters of the Conservative Action Project, an initiative founded by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III. statement Despite not receiving Trump's concession, Biden filled his Cabinet for the White House, addressing the country under the "Office of the President Elect," and states certified results of the popular vote in order to begin the process of voting for president through the Electoral College. Office of the President Elect states certified results Cue Murphy's letter on Nov. 23. The document carried out the government's obligation under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act to allow presidents-elect and their appointees, aids, and other staff  otherwise known as a transition team  to access millions of federal dollars and set up White House operations before swearing-in ceremonies that would take place the January after general elections. 1963 Presidential Transition Act       Murphy submitted the paperwork after election officials in Michigan certified Biden's win there, and a conservative Republican judge in Pennsylvania shot down a Trump campaign lawsuit, The Associated Press reported. Pennsylvania Murphy's letter said: [Because] of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results, I have determined that you may access the post-election resources and services described in Section 3 of the Act upon request. The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detailed in the Constitution. So, in short, a member of the Trump administration, Murphy, filed paperwork to change Biden's official title in government systems to "apparent president-elect" and, as a result, granted him new privileges that only someone with that job title in federal government gets. But it was a wrong interpretation of that procedural step to claim Trump had therefore conceded the 2020 presidential race. Let us note here: No constitutional mandate or federal law requires losing presidential candidates to acknowledge defeat in order for the election's processes to continue. Rather, concession speeches have been an informal tradition that often symbolized a losing candidate's willingness to help with a peaceful transition between presidencies.  transition between presidencies The Associated Press reported: reported In recent days, senior Trump aides including chief of staff Mark Meadows and White House counsel Pat Cipollone had also encouraged him to allow the transition to begin, telling the president he didnt need to concede but could no longer justify withholding support to the Biden transition. [...] Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the GSA action is probably the closest thing to a concession that President Trump could issue. Even after Murphy's letter, the Trump campaign sent supporters emails promoting false claims about the election outcome to solicit donations, including messages to sell "COUNT ALL LEGAL VOTES" T-shirts.   Additionally, on Twitter the president said: "Remember the GSA has been terrific, and Emily Murphy has done a great job, but the GSA does not determine who the next President of the United States will be."   The tweet accurately suggested that presidential elections are technically unfinished until the Electoral College casts its votes and Congress certifies that count, no matter what the administrator does or says. However, it was a misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes to regard those post-Election Day procedures  steps that officially cement Americans' pick for president  as an opportunity to defy the will of the voters without providing compelling evidence of error or fraud. Hours after that tweet, Trump called reporters to a White House briefing room. He gave one-minute remarks about the economy and exited the room without taking questions from reporters. As he walked out, journalists shouted questions about his lack of a concession, and the president did not acknowledge them, White House footage of the event showed. White House footage In short, while a government agency under Trump's administration for the first time officially acknowledged Biden the "apparent president-elect" in a letter that grants him access to federal assets before his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20, 2021, it is false to claim that Trump had conceded defeat to the president-elect. The M-16, a rapid-fire, 5.56 mm assault rifle carried by thousands of American soldiers during the Vietnam War, grew out of efforts to develop a replacement for the standard M-1 Carbine used during World War II. The M-16 (originally designed by Eugene Stoner of Armalite as the AR-15) was constructed using plastics and alloys and was a much smaller and lighter weapon than its predecessors, one that fit in with the developing Vietnam-era strategy of less emphasis on long-range accuracy in favor of more easily-carried weapons with rapid rates of fire. M-16, Hundreds of thousands of M-16s were supplied to U.S. troops in the mid-1960s as US Army made the M-16 their standard rifle: Example:  [Morgan and Tucker, 1987] The handgrip of the M16 rifle was made by Mattel. When the gun was first introduced in Vietnam, soldiers noticed the toy company's logo embossed on the handgrip and complained. Later shipments arrived without the imprint, but the grips were still manufactured by Mattel. However, the M-16, manufactured by the Colt Firearms Corporation (who bought the rights from Armalite in 1959), soon developed a reputation for unreliability, frequently jamming and fouling (especially when not kept clean, a next-to-impossible task in the dust and mud of Vietnam battlefields). Problems with the M-16 eventually achieved such prominence that a congressional inquiry was ordered, resulting in design changes, additional troop training, and other modifications that ameliorated many of the reliability issues U.S. troops were experiencing with the weapon: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C. Westmorelands request an earlier version of the M-16 became the primary American rifle in Vietnam, the reputation of the M-16 family has been checkered. This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out. Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the weapons terrifying tendency to jam mid-fight. Whats more, the jamming was often one of the worst sorts: a phenomenon known as failure to extract, which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle. The only sure way to dislodge the case was to push a metal rod down the muzzle and pop it out. The modern American assault rifle, in other words, often resembled a single-shot musket. One Army record, classified at the time but available in archives now, showed that 80 percent of 1,585 troops queried in 1967 had experienced a stoppage while firing. The Army, meanwhile, publicly insisted that the weapon was the best rifle available for fighting in Vietnam. The problems were so extensive that in 1967 a Congressional subcommittee investigated, and issued a blistering rebuke to the Army for, among other things, failing to ensure the weapon and its ammunition worked well together, for failing to train troops on the new weapon, and for neglecting to issue enough cleaning equipment  including the cleaning rod essential for clearing jammed rifles. A series of technical changes sharply reduced (but never eliminated) the incidence of problems. Intensive weapons-cleaning training helped, too. To the troops in the field, the original M-16 was new, it was small, it was light, it was made of plastic rather than wood, and it often performed poorly to boot. It was no surprise that many of them started expressing their dissatisfaction by referring to it derisively as a cheaply-made "toy," and that they associated it with the most prominent toy company of the time: Mattel, the Hawthorne, California, toy manufacturer famous for introducing the Barbie doll to the world: Mattel One of the sayings soldiers had about the M16 was, "You can tell it's Mattel" which was a toy company's slogan at the time  the gun had a lot of plastic parts, which can't stand up to the vibrations like wood can but it is cheap. The Mattel legend was undoubtedly fed by the fact that Mattel really did sell an  M-16 Marauder toy gun in the mid-1960s, a quite good reproduction of the actual weapon, complete with "realistic" sound effects:  M-16 Marauder     The sardonic joke about problem-plagued M-16s being toys morphed into a legend about their really having been produced by a toy company, with "proof" offered in the additional detail of soldier's spotting M-16 handgrips embossed with the Mattel logo. The redesign that improved the M-16's reliability was then attributed to a switch in manufacturers (to a "real" gun company) prompted by soldier complaints. Chivers, C.J. "How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?"
The New York Times. 2 November 2009. Morgan, Hal and Tucker, Kerry. More Rumor!
New York: Penguin Books, 1987. ISBN 0-14-009720-1 (pp. 175-176). On Dec. 27, 2023, readers emailed Snopes to ask if it was true that former U.S. President Donald Trump had written a post on Christmas Day that included the words, "May they rot in hell." A check of Trump's posts on his social media platform, Truth Social, showed dozens of new posts ("Truths") and reposts ("Retruths") in the previous two days. Buried below all of the more recent shared posts was a "trending" post in which Trump had offered a "Merry Christmas" message on Dec. 25. That post truly did include the words, "May they rot in hell," which appeared in all capital letters. The imprecation was aimed at so-called "thugs" Trump claimed were "looking to destroy our once great USA."  The full post (archived) read as follows: post archived Merry Christmas to all, including Crooked Joe Bidens ONLY HOPE, Deranged Jack Smith, the out of control Lunatic who just hired outside attorneys, fresh from the SWAMP (unprecedented!), to help him with his poorly executed WITCH HUNT against TRUMP and MAGA. Included also are World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and sick as the THUGS we have inside our Country who, with their Open Borders, INFLATION, Afghanistan Surrender, Green New Scam, High Taxes, No Energy Independence, Woke Military, Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, All Electric Car Lunacy, and so much more, are looking to destroy our once great USA. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS! Snopes has previously published a wealth of reporting about claims mentioned in the above post: "open borders," worldwide inflation, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Green New Deal, U.S. President Joe Biden's plans for taxes, Biden's record on energy independence, the idea of the U.S. military being "woke," Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the war in Israel and Gaza and electric-powered vehicles. open borders worldwide inflation U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan Green New Deal taxes energy independence woke Russia's invasion of Ukraine war in Israel and Gaza electric-powered vehicles On the same day that Trump posted his Christmas message on Truth Social, a Biden-Harris campaign spokesperson named Seth Schuster responded by calling it an "erratic Christmas Day rant," according to reporting from Washington Examiner. Washington Examiner We reached out to the Trump campaign by email to ask about the statement and will update this story if we receive a response. In addition to the Truth Social post on Christmas Day, Trump also released a video message on Christmas Eve that did not include the words, "May they rot in hell." Rather, the video simply showed Trump offering positive, forward-looking sentiments about Christmas, U.S. military servicemembers and the upcoming 2024 U.S. presidential election.  Dapcevich, Madison. Does Biden Support the Green New Deal? Snopes, 1 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Datoc, Christian. MSN.MSN.Com, Washington Examiner, 26 Dec. 2023, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-campaign-rebukes-trump-s-rot-in-hell-christmas-wish/ar-AA1m43Pg. Electric Vehicles Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/electric-vehicles/. Huberman, Bond. About That Biden Tax Plan Meme. Snopes, 29 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/collections/about-that-biden-tax-plan-meme/. Ibrahim, Nur. Do Democrats Want Open Borders? Snopes, 17 June 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/17/do-democrats-want-open-borders/. Inflation Is Spiking Around the World  Not Just in US. Snopes via The Conversation, 1 Aug. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/01/inflation-us-world/. Israel Hamas War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/israel-hamas_war/. Kasprak, Alex. Did Biden Set US Back 50 Years on Energy Independence Progress? Snopes, 15 Feb. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-energy-independence/. Liles, Jordan. Did the Trump Admin Agree to Free 5,000 Taliban Prisoners? Snopes, 12 Dec. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-5000-taliban-prisoners/. Palma, Bethania. Top General Blasts Rep. Matt Gaetz for Offensive Comment About Military Being Woke. Snopes, 24 June 2021, https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/06/24/matt-gaetz-mark-milley-woke/. Ukraine War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/russia-ukraine/. On Aug. 2, Cook County became the largest government in the United States to charge a tax on sweetened drinks. The debut of the penny-an-ounce charge for drinks sweetened with sugar or non-caloric sweetenerswasnt exactly smooth, nor was it particularly well received with the soft drink-consuming public. Customers who examined their receipts at some stores found they had been charged extra for flavored seltzer water -- which is not subject to the new tax -- while restaurant patrons discovered those free refills now cost one cent per ounce. Cook County sweetened beverage tax applies to free refills of lemonade.pic.twitter.com/PDztyTDIBl As soft drink consumers and sellers came to grips with the new charges, the libertarian Illinois Policy Institute  never a fan of any tax, and a particularly harsh critic of the tax habits of Cook County and Chicago  framed the drink tax in a consumer unfriendly light. The new tax will make soda sold in Chicago among the most expensive in the country, the institute said in a tweet and in theheadline of an articleon its website. That is a little like proclaiming the sun rises in the east, but given intense public interest in the soda tax we thought it was a worth a look anyway. Accompanying the institutes tweets were graphics illustrating the various taxes that now will be paid by those purchasing sweetened drinks in Chicago. The new soda tax makes soda sold in#Chicagoamong the most expensive in the countryhttps://t.co/2JYANKDrcspic.twitter.com/KiUS5vzIYT The new soda tax makes soda sold in#Chicagoamong the most expensive in the countryhttps://t.co/2JYANKDrcspic.twitter.com/KiUS5vzIYT Chicago already charged a 3 percent soft drink sales tax, and that was on top of a10.25 percent sales taxthat includes state and local portions and is thehighest of any major city in the United States. For a 12-pack of 12-ounce cans or bottles of any sweetened soft drink, regular or diet, the sweetened beverage tax adds another $1.44. Thus, a 12-pack priced at $4 costs $5.97 at the register. The new tax adds 67 cents to a two-liter bottle. If marked on the shelf at $2.49, the new tax means youll pay 40 percent more at checkout. Thats how it works in Chicago, where the total price figures to be slightly higher than in the rest of Cook County even though the soda tax applies in the suburbs as well. Does that make Chicago-bought soda among the most expensive in the country? The institute grants its statement a lot of leeway by using the word among. Wherever the thirsty buy it, a Big Gulp is a Big Gulp is a Big Gulp. So the add-on cost of taxes is likely the prime factor behind any significant price differences. To date, the list of places embracing a soda tax is an extremely short one, hence Chicagos (and Cook Countys) emergence as among the most expensive places to pop for a pop. As it stands today, Cook County is one of only eight U.S. locations to impose or plan to impose a per-ounce tax on sweetened drinks. The other seven are cities and, with a population of 5.2 million, Cook County is by far the largest jurisdiction to adopt such a tax. Issue-wise, this is right in the Illinois Policy Institutes wheelhouse. It not only piles expense onto an extremely popular category of consumer products, but it also comes swathed in nanny state good intentions for the health of Cook County residents. By strange coincidence, this health concern arrives just as Cook County finds itself in desperate financial straits. (Inanother article,the institute claims Cook County cant even get its nanny state act right, as federal rules prohibit applying the new tax to sweetened drinks purchased with food stamps. It notes that polling shows people with lower incomes are more likely to drink soda.) At one cent per ounce, Cook County is on the lower end of the soda tax scale. In Boulder, Colo., that two-liter soda will cost an extra $1.35 and a 12-pack will be $2.88 more. Cook County is also one of the three jurisdictions in which voters did not voluntarily adopt the tax by referendum. (Illinois has no provision for such referenda.) There have been many complaints that Cook Countys soda tax was sold to voters as an anti-obesity measure but also includes drinks containing non-caloric sweeteners. But theordinance itselfcontains extensive language citing studies that link even diet drink consumption to kidney disease, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and obesity. Cook County and the city of Philadelphia are the only places where drinks sweetened with non-caloric sweeteners also are subject to the tax. Thus, even among the eight places in the nation taxing or preparing to tax consumers by the ounce for sweetened soft drinks, Cook Countys measure reaches an especially broad swath of consumers. The Illinois Policy Institute cites Cook Countys new sweetened drink tax as making soda sold in the city of Chicago among the most expensive in the country. With Chicago already charging the nations highest sales tax of any major city plus a 3-percent soft drink tax, its almost certain that consumers in the city paid among the highest prices for soft drinks in the country even before the Aug. 2 arrival of the sweetened drink tax. But Chicago truly moved into a select group when its home county joined the seven other cities that have enacted or are poised to enact by-the-ounce taxes on sweetened soft drinks. With a nod toCaptain Obvious, we raise a glass of flattened, left-out-in-the-open Coke in the direction of the Illinois Policy Institute as we rate this statement True. It's a political fact of life: Incumbency has its perks. You're already in a position of power. Name recognition is not a problem. And, if you're president, your arrival at a venue  whether for campaign reasons or not  is bound to generate headlines. That's the underlying complaint of a tweet presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump sent out July 5 as his presumptive Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, was preparing to join President Barack Obama aboard Air Force One for a campaign trip to North Carolina. Taxpayers are paying a fortune for the use of Air Force One on the campaign trail by President Obama and Hillary Clinton, Trump said. We wondered if it was true that the trip was going to be made at taxpayer expense. To some degree, it is. And that's out of necessity. The president doesn't stop being president just because he's campaigning for himself or someone else. Even if he flew to a campaign stop on a commercial jet, he would need a host of support services and personnel to keep him connected and in charge. And that doesn't include the requirements for security. Thus, the president always uses Air Force One, which is one of two specially designed Boeing 747s built in 1986 to include a command center, a medical suite, bedroom, office, two food preparation galleys, and plenty of room for staff and reporters. It's not cheap to operate. According to CNN, the Air Force was reporting two years ago it cost $206,337 an hour to operate the jet. It's not clear what that covers. A General Accounting Officeanalysisof three overseas presidential trips in 1998 reported an hourly cost of $34,400, which would be $50,700 per hourin 2016 dollars. Technically, if the president makes a campaign trip, the campaign or the political party is supposed to reimburse the government for use of the plane to some degree. (The full cost is not reimbursed because some of the costs are directly connected to the responsibilities of being president.) These days,the amountis the price of chartering a 737, which is a bit over $11,000 an hour, according to theWashington Post.Prior to 2010, the required reimbursement was nothing more than the cost of a first-class ticket on a commercial airline. When you have someone traveling on behalf of a campaign, such as Clinton and any staffers who might be accompanying her, the accounting can get even more complicated. But how it's calculated by the White House Airlift Operations office isn't known. The government does not release details of how it figures such costs, and that's been a secret going back to the 1970s,according to CNN. The amount is even more complicated when the president mixes business with politics, such as flying somewhere to give a policy speech or performing another official act but also spending time attending a purely political event, such as a fundraiser. (The North Carolina appearance, in contrast, was purely political.) How much taxpayers end up paying when business is mixed with politics isn't clear because, once again, the formula for calculating the share paid by the campaign and the government is secret. The White House Counsel's office makes a determination on how political a trip is,according to Time magazine. Mark Knoller, the CBS News White House correspondent who has been tracking presidential trips for years, noted in a tweet that presidents have repeatedly told the press that such costs will not be revealed. > Prior administrations also refused, he noted in a followup tweet. But they didn't claim to be most transparent Admins ever. The closest you can get to getting an estimate is to see what the campaigns pay the government. For his re-election in 2004, George W. Bush's campaign paid just under $1 million, according to thePost. But that was when the cost was based on a first-class commercial airline ticket. By 2012, after the rules were changed to be based on chartering a 737, Obama spent just over $3 million. In this case, Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin said the campaign will cover its portion of the costs, although he indicated those costs had not been determined. The Trump campaign didn't respond to an email, but Trump is well aware that campaigns are required, by federal law, to reimburse for expenses. During his trip to Scotland last month, Trump went to great lengths to repeatedly state that federal law requires his campaign to pay for everything, even if it's the use of a conference room in Trump Towers, which he said he would gladly let his campaign use for free. I'm forced, you know, legally, I have to pay myself back,he said. If I use one of my resorts in the United States and we have a press conference or something, by law I have to pay myself back. Our ruling Trump said, Taxpayers are paying a fortune for the use of Air Force One on the campaign trail by Obama and Clinton. How people define a fortune is somewhat subjective, and details about how the costs of using the presidential plane are determined are secret. But based on the information available, it's clear that the campaign is only going to be picking up a small fraction of the $200,000-plus hourly costs of using the plane, with taxpayers footing the bill for the rest. Because Trump's statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate it Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/aa60cf08-a414-40d2-b91a-70999d4188a2 Claim: Household paper shredders can pose a danger to children and pets. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] This one comes from a well respected Borzoi person, and veterinarian, Elizabeth A Coney, DVM of Kentucky. She wrote: Now - for every one of you that has a home paper shredder with an "auto on" feature, I want you to go turn it off and unplug the paper shredder right now. Because night before last I was presented with a paper shredder containing most of the tongue, ripped out by the base, and a very pretty sweet 1 1/2 year old lab cross whose owners euthanized her. She always watched the paper go into the shredder, she thought it fascinating. The "auto on" feature means the shredder sits there waiting for something to get placed into it. Like an inquisitive tongue. I told them, "Dogs can do fine without a tongue, they have to learn to drink and eat differently", but the owners didn't want to go there. The look in her eyes said, "I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't supposed to do that, it's all my fault". We all cried.  I cried when I read this, myself. In subsequent posts Beth says she has learned that dogs who have lost more than half their tongues *don't* do as well as she had been taught. According to the veterinary literature it is also possible for animals to be injured other places than tongues  a Basset lost an ear, a long-haired cat most of the skin on its side, a kitten a foot, etc. She didn't mention any human injuries, but I can't imagine that a toddler would be immune from either curiosity or injury. Please be vigilant!! This is not the 1st time I have heard of this happening. Origins:  While Barbara and I were away from home for a few days recently, we received a playful e-mail message from our petsitter informing us that our house was "haunted."  She'd  dropped by to tend to our cats, she said, when suddenly she heard the sound of a paper shredder running in Barbara's office.  Nobody else was in the house, and she quickly ruled out the possibility that one of our kittens had accidentally started the shredder because they were all dancing around her feet in the kitchen at the time, impatiently waiting to be fed. The incident was even more puzzling because we're pretty careful about always leaving our shredder in the "Off" setting when we're not using it, and even when the device is powered on, it doesn't activate until a piece of paper is fed into it.  We never did solve the mystery, although we're pretty sure it's not related to a haunting. In any case, the experience reminded us that we (like many other people) now have in our home a variety of machines that once were typically found only in business offices. Although some people manage to find ways to injure themselves with just about anything (even something as seemingly innocuous as a fax machine), paper shredders can pose an especial hazard  they're made to destroy documents rather than generate them, and (due in large part to concerns about identity theft) more and more of them are being purchased for home use, where their shredding blades represent a risk not just to careless adults, but to curious children and inquisitive pets as well.  In 2005, for example, the Spokesman Review reported: [T]he U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission says shredders  $350 million worth were sold [in 2004] and many wound up in homes  pose a growing threat of injury to children, particularly toddlers. The agency received 31 reports involving finger amputations and other finger injuries from paper shredders from January 2000 to December 2003. It isn't difficult to find harrowing reports of children being seriously injured through sticking their fingers into shredders, such as the following account from Consumer Reports: Lisa Broadfoot's son, Talan, was helping her shred documents, when suddenly his little fingers got sucked in. "He screamed and then was begging me to get his hands out of this machine, 'Please Mommy, Please Mommy, get my hand out.' [He was] just screaming and crying and begging," Broadfoot said. Lisa rushed Talan to the hospital with the shredder still attached. "They started cutting the blades because there was no other way to get his fingers undone," she said. "It was like he could feel it. He just started screaming again and I'm holding him and trying to explain to him that it's going to be OK. It's going to be OK." Talan ended up losing three of his fingers. In March 2006, TV's Inside Edition reported a similar case of injury to a child: When you meet Hallie Mouritsen, you cant tell that there's anything wrong with this beautiful five year-old girl.  But if you look closer at Hallie's left hand, her fingers are cut off at the knuckle.  The doctor described them as being "crushed, mutilated and non-viable." How did it happen?  Hallie was feeding paper into a shredder in her home when her fingers got caught in its powerful blades. According to her father, Matt, "it grabbed her fingers and just began pulling." And Hallie's not the only one.  The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a safety alert after receiving 50 reports of injuries from paper shredders since 2000, most involving children younger than five.  Mr. Mouritsen is an accounting professor in Salt Lake City, Utah who often works at home. He says he had just opened the shredder for the first time and after using it, left the room briefly. Hallie, who was just two, went into the room with her older sister. "The next thing I know, while I'm making dinner, my five year-old is yelling, she's stuck, she's stuck!" he told Inside Edition's Investigative Reporter Matt Meagher. Hallie's wounds took months to heal.  Her dad still chokes up remembering Hallie's reaction the day the bandages came off.  "She went like this with her hand" (hiding his left hand). "She couldn't even look at it. She asks us to this day, when are my fingers going to grow back?" Among household pets, dogs are particularly at risk from shredders, as they have a tendency to lick things, and many breeds have long, floppy ears that can get caught in shredder openers.   The Spokesman Review published an account of an incident in which a puppy suffered injuries from a paper shredder so severe that she was euthanized afterwards (and her owner lost a portion of one finger trying to rescue her): Adam Forney doesn't even own a paper shredder. And he probably never will. The 22-year-old was sitting on his couch in his south Spokane home watching television when his 7-month-old puppy licked the top of his roommate's shredder and the dog's tongue was sucked into the shredding mechanism. "I ran into the room ... she was pulling so hard and the thing was dragging ... then she just ripped away," Forney said. "I will never forget the sound it made when she pulled away." In the chaos of trying to help his injured dog, Forney's pinky finger was bitten off at the first joint, and another finger was fractured by the bite. "I grabbed her head to try and get her to calm down, and she bit me," Forney said. "She ran out of the room and I just lost it. It looked like a murder scene in my house ... there was so much blood." Forney went to the emergency room, and his mixed-breed dog, Alice Lane, went to a local pet emergency clinic, where she was euthanized. Inside Edition offered a similar tale of a young dog's catching his tongue in a shredder: A number of pets have also been injured by shredders. For one dog owner, it was a horrifying experience.  Sandra Clarke of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina told us when she was at home working on March 1st, her curious puppy, Cross, caught his tongue in a shredder.  According to Sandra, it was not a pretty sight.  "It looked like hamburger meat.  It was shredded up about an inch.  There was blood everywhere." A large part of the problem is that since shredders were originally designed as business equipment for offices (where they would presumably be   used only by adults), many models did not have the kinds of safeguards built into them to provide adequate protection in household environments, where children and animals abound.  Although consumer safety groups are working to get manufacturers and lawmakers to adopt more stringent safety standards for shredders (such as making paper slots thinner and placing blades farther away from openings), the adoption of new standards takes time, and plenty of the machines already have been purchased for home use.   Some veterinarians maintain that serious shredder accidents involving animals are rare, but the frequency of occurrence is difficult to estimate since there has not been any systematic effort to keep track of such injuries.  Regardless, the subject merits attention since the potential for accidents (involving both people and pets) will likely continue to grow as more and more shredders make their way into households, and the likelihood of injury can be mostly eliminated by following a few simple precautions:  Try to place your shredder where it is not accessible to children or pets.   Turn off (or unplug) your shredder when you are not using it.   Never allow children to operate your shredder, even with adult supervision.  Keep your hands and fingers as far from the shredder opening as possible when feeding material into it.   Be careful to secure or remove ties, necklaces, bracelets, loose-fitting clothing, and long hair before using your shredder.  Avoid putting thicker material (such as food wrappers, product packaging, and padded envelopes) through your shredder.        Paper Shredder Dangers to Kids, Pets   (KGO-TV)        Paper Shredders Can Be a Danger to Children and Pets   (Inside Edition)      Leaming, Sara.  "Paper Shredder Leads to Nightmare."   The [Spokane] Spokesman Review.  2 March 2005.    Inside Edition.  "Paper Shredders Can Be a Danger to Children and Pets."   30 March 2006.    Internet Broadcasting Systems.  "Paper Shredders Can Be Dangerous Risk Around Home."   WRAL.com.  10 April 2006.