Did a Human-Created Sinkhole Open in Guatemala?
In early October 2019, readers searched the Snopes.com website for a story that, were it not for the internet, might otherwise have been long forgotten. "Guatemala Sinkhole Created by Humans, Not Nature," the supposed headline of interest read: read  The article underlying that headline, as published by National Geographic, was true -- but the event took place in 2010, shortly before that article was written. Accompanied by a dramatic photograph of a massive chasm in an urban center, the Geographic article reported: Human activity, not nature, was the likely cause of the gaping sinkhole that opened up in the streets of Guatemala City on Sunday, a geologist says. A burst sewer pipe or storm drain probably hollowed out the underground cavity that allowed the chasm to form, according to Sam Bonis, a geologist at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, who is currently living in Guatemala City (map). The Guatemala City sinkhole, estimated to be 60 feet (18 meters) wide and 300 feet (100 meters) deep, appears to have been triggered by the deluge from tropical storm Agatha. But the cavity formed in the first place because the cityand its underground infrastructurewere built in a region where the first few hundred meters of ground are mostly made up of a material called pumice fill, deposited during past volcanic eruptions. The crater formed in the center of an intersection, and perhaps because aerial photographs are so visually striking, they have been shared throughout the years since the event occurred: This 30-story sinkhole appeared smack in the middle of Guatemala City. https://t.co/QlIPV4EVZi pic.twitter.com/hglMjoKJYT https://t.co/QlIPV4EVZi pic.twitter.com/hglMjoKJYT  David Plotz (@davidplotz) May 26, 2017 May 26, 2017  That wasn't the first time a massive sinkhole opened up in Guatemala City. A similar, deadly event took place in 2007, resulting from a combination of geography, nature, and poor regulation according to National Geographic. took place Guatemala City is situated on volcanic material that is relatively loosely-composed. That placement, combined with swift-running water from unfixed underground leaks, contributed to formation of the craters "In Guatemala City [the pumice is] unconsolidated, it's loose," Dartmouth geologist Sam Bonis told the Geographic in 2010. "It hasn't been hardened into a rock yet, so it's easily eroded, especially by swift running water." Tropical storm Agatha, coupled with leaking sewage pipes, likely triggered the collapse in 2010. Bonis added that because the event wasn't driven by natural forces, it technically shouldn't be called a "sinkhole." There was no scientific term, he said, to describe this type of collapse. Than, Ker.  "Guatemala Sinkhole Created by Humans, Not Nature."
  National Geographic.  5 June 2010. Associated Press.  "Third Body Pulled from Giant Sinkhole."
  NBC News.  24 February 2007.
July 2016 saw a week of high-profile shootings involving police the United States: On 5 July 2016, Alton Sterling was shot and killed by police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; the following day, Philando Castile was shot and killed by police during a traffic stop in Minnesota; and the day after that a sniper shot and killed five police officers during a Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas.  Alton Sterling Philando Castile police officers On 8 July 2016, the streaming music service Pandora posted a message on social media expressing a feeling of pain and a gesture of support related to those events: posted  Although Pandora's post stated that their "hearts ache for all of those who unfairly lost their lives" and included the hashtag #LoveAboveAll, their use of the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag to represent the victims of police shootings but not an equivalent hashtag to represent the policemen killed in Dallas (such as  #BlueLivesMatter) generated controversy along with calls for boycotts of the music service.  That reaction then prompted social media calls for people to subscribe to Pandora as a gesture of support: @pandora_radio and I'm deleting now @pandora_radio  Big_Blue_Nate123 (@BlueNate123) July 9, 2016 July 9, 2016 @pandora_radio took a stand, and ppl are pissed....let's support and subscribe! #LoveAboveAll #BlackLivesMatter https://t.co/McvsxAgoAd @pandora_radio #LoveAboveAll #BlackLivesMatter https://t.co/McvsxAgoAd  Olivia X (@EsSeNCeofaDiVa) July 11, 2016 July 11, 2016 Social media messages expressing anger over Pandora's message often asserted that the Black Lives Matter movement is anti-police, or that the movement was responsible for the shooting of police in Dallas. Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza attempted to dispel these rumors during an appearance on All in with Chris Hayes: attempted Black Lives Matter has never, ever called for the murder of police officers, Garza told Hayes. What we have said over and over again is that it is time in this country for policing to be accountable, transparent and responsible. Thats not rhetoric. That is what communities in the United States want to see from the people who protect and serve them. And so quite frankly, we can, at the same time as we grieve the loss of life of several officers who were killed last night, we can also push to demand that there be accountable, responsive, transparent policing that has oversight form communities and that is accountable to the communities they are supposed to protect and serve. Garza added that Black Lives Matter isnt concerned with inciting more violence  in fact, the movement condemns it  but with tearing down the assumption that black people are criminals. We are not anti-police, she declared. We are anti our people being murdered in the streets. What happened to Alton Sterling, what happened to Philando, what happens to so many black people in our communities is absolutely unacceptable, and I think thats something that we can all agree on. Ironically, those upset over Pandora's message announced that they would be boycotting the streaming music service on Facebook, even though Facebook openly expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement by erecting a Black Lives Matter sign outside their headquarters in Menlo Park, California: support As public outrage builds over bonuses issued by bailout recipient AIG, two senators are claiming they tried to outlaw such bonuses but were thwarted by the White House and fellow lawmakers. Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and Sen. Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, say they proposed an amendment to the stimulus bill in February that would have imposed heavy penalties on bailout recipients that refused to pay back bonuses over $100,000. Wyden made the claim during an appearance onThe Rachel Maddow Showon MSNBC, and in other interviews. Back in early February, you and Senator Snowe added an amendment to the stimulus bill that, I think, would have prevented AIG from giving out these millions of dollars worth of bonuses, Maddow said to Wyden. That amendment was taken out of the bill. Am I right that your amendment would have stopped what we are experiencing right now? You are right, Wyden said. And that's what's so sad about this situation. It simply didn't need to happen. Wyden went on to predict that a similar measure would pass now that the issue has gained so much public attention. I think finally, we'll get it done, he said. The tragedy is it should have been done a month ago when we had bipartisan legislation that got through the Senate and then somehow mysteriously disappeared. In a separate interview with the Huffington Post, Wyden blamed both the White House and fellow legislators, suggesting they caved to lobbyists for Wall Street who opposed the measure. Wyden and Snowe announced the amendment Feb. 4, proposing it be tacked onto another amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, otherwise known as the stimulus bill. Last year's financial rescue package, commonly known as the bailout, had left open the escape hatch of golden parachutes for top executives on Wall Street, Snowe, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said at the time. This amendment insists on strong taxpayer protections and guarantees that no tax dollars be used to prop up Wall Street executives. The amendment required companies that received government rescue funds in 2008 to repay within four months any bonuses above $100,000 or face an excise tax of 35 percent on the portion of the bonus over $100,000. It reportedlywould have raisedas much as $3.2 billion, a substantial chunk of the $18.4 billion in employee bonuses paid out in 2008 by companies that received more than $274 billion of bailout funds. Wyden pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the amendment at a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Feb. 11. Given the fact that the president, to his credit, called these bonuses shameful, and time is short, where do you stand on getting a solution to the problem of these just-paid excessive bonuses in the economic stimulus legislation? Wyden asked. We've talked about that privately, Geithner said, in part, in a lengthy response. Our staffs are working together. We'd like to work with you on how to achieve that objective. American Banker, a trade publication, reported on Feb. 12 that the banking industry strongly opposes the provision, which the banking industry hopes to scale back when the House and Senate hash out differences between the stimulus bills. They appear to have succeeded. On Feb. 12, the Associated Press reported: The provision was removed as House and Senate negotiators hammered out final details of the $789 billion economic stimulus legislation this week. There is no documentation in the public record of exactly who removed the provision. Wyden overstated the case a bit when he responded in the affirmative to Maddow's suggestion that the amendment would have stopped what we are experiencing right now. It would not have eliminated the bonuses entirely  only that portion over $100,000 per person. And the tax that would have been imposed on companies that did not comply would have recovered just 35 percent of the excessive amount. But Wyden can legitimately claim to have taken on the issue with gusto  well before the current outrage over AIG's bonuses. We find his claim to be Mostly True. A supporter of an Austin mayoral candidate declared that another candidate accepts corporate donations--which would be illegal, he did not add. In a July 29, 2014, Facebook post, Eugene Sepulveda of Austin, treasurer for attorney Steve Adlers mayoral campaign, declared Adler isnt taking corp money, PAC money or bundled contributions, meaning money gathered from multiple sources by a single person. Commenting below Sepulvedas post, Austin political consultant Mark Littlefield, who supports City Council member Mike Martinez for mayor, asked: Are other candidates taking corporate money? Sepulveda replied: Mike Martinez takes corporate money. Steve wont. A Martinez backer, Jose Velasquez, asked us to check Sepulvedas claim. We wondered first if perhaps laws have changed dramatically so that Texas candidates may accept corporate donations. Not so, we were reminded, in that Texas adopted its ban on corporate donations to candidates more than a century ago. A September 2013 Texas Ethics Commissionguide for candidates for local officespecified that state law bars contributions to candidates for state and local office from labor unions and most corporations. More recently, Austin lawyer Tim Sorrells, the commissions former general counsel, advised candidates for city office in an April 2, 2014,blog post: In Texas, it is still a felony of the third degree for a corporation or labor organization to contribute directly to a candidate or a candidate committee. We asked Sepulveda, a social entreprenuer and philanthropist, to elaborate on his Facebook statement. By email, he told us: I should have said Mike was taking money from business entities. I was referring to his acceptance of contributions from LLCs as well as PACs and bundlers. LLCs are Limited Liability Companies. My bad for not being more specific, Sepulveda wrote. In another email, he said that when Velasquez asked him about the corporate claim, I used the term corporate generically, even referring him to the documents filed with the city clerk. If I'd been trying to mislead anyone, I certainly wouldn't have pointed them to the candidate-filed reports. Sepulveda, who said he made his Facebook comments as an Adler supporter and not as a spokesman for Adlers campaign, elaborated that according to a campaign-finance filing, Martinez fielded contributions from 13 businesses, which we confirmed from Martinezs July 15, 2014,campaign finance report, which showed the cited contributions ranging from $50 to $350. We noticed the business contributors included several limited liability companies, which prompted us to ask an election-law expert,Trey Trainorof Austin, if such companies can legally give to candidates for local office. By phone, Trainor said LLCs may legally make donations so long as none of their members are corporations. Also by phone, Austin lawyer Ed Shack, who said he has helped Adlers campaign, said the same. Martinez campaign spokesman Nick Hudson told us the campaign earlier confirmed from state records and by contacting each contributor that none of the LLCs giving to Martinezs effort had corporate members. Hudson agreed it would be illegal for Martinez to accept corporate donations. Meanwhile, Sepulveda replied to us that he had since posted a comment on Facebook, below his original claim, stating he should have said Martinez accepted donations from business entities including LLCs rather than corporations. It appeared the afternoon of Aug. 4, 2014. Our ruling Sepulveda said on Facebook that Martinez takes corporate donations. Thats not so. In fact, corporate donations remain forbidden and accepting such could lead to a felony charge. However, any candidate may field contributions from PACs and LLCs (so long as a donor LLC has no corporate members). This advocates claim, which he clarified on Facebook six days later, shakes out as incorrect and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Clean coal, a broad term for technology that can reduce the environmental impact of burning coal, has become a popular political buzzword in the past two U.S. presidential campaigns. To those who promote it, clean coal is a third way that will allow humans to continue to mine and burn that form of fossil fuel in a more responsible way, obviating the need for regulations on the coal industry or heavy investment in green energy. To detractors, it is an expensive marketing ploy selling an unrealized and unrealistic fantasy. marketing ploy Humans have used coal as fuel for at least 4000 years. A combustible rock formed from the chemical transformation of organic plant matter over hundreds of millions of years of burial, coal is a relatively cheap and easy source of energy. Its widespread use powered the industrial revolution, and coal-burning power plants currently provide 33% of all household energy in the States. 4000 years power plants But for as long as coal has been an energy source, it has been plagued by environmental issues. Burning coal produces hazardous acid rain and irritating particulate matter, and it releases climate-warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. plagued From a global warming standpoint, burning coal is significantly worse than burning other fossil fuels, as its chemistry allows for the production of more CO2 per reaction, as discussed in a December 2010 Atlantic article about clean coal technology: article Compared with most other fossil-fuel sources of energy, coal is inherently worse from a carbon-footprint perspective, since its hydrogen atoms come bound with more carbon atoms, meaning that coal starts with a higher carbon-to-hydrogen ratio than oil, natural gas, or other hydrocarbons. This situation is especially unfortunate for the United States, since the country has large domestic reserves of cheap coal, and because many local economies depend on coal mining jobs that could be lost if regulations were to make coal economically unfeasible. The intersection of these environmental and economic concerns has made coal mining and energy a polarizing political issue in the United States. domestic reserves Clean coal is not a special type of coal, nor is it a new technology that reduces the environmental impact of coal mining. Instead, it refers to technology used to clean up the emissions from burning coal after it has already been burned for energy, or technology used to treat coal just prior to being burned. In the context of global warming, the main technology that is cited is carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, defined on the U.S. Department of Energy web site thusly: defined Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), also referred to as carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, is a process that captures carbon dioxide emissions from sources like coal-fired power plants and either reuses or stores it so it will not enter the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide storage in geologic formations includes oil and gas reservoirs, unmineable coal seams and deep saline reservoirs -- structures that have stored crude oil, natural gas, brine and carbon dioxide over millions of years. The term clean coal was first used by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in 1980s during an initiative they sponsored to demonstrate the commercial viability of technology that could scrub acid-rain creating toxins from the emissions of coal burning. At the time of the initiative, acid rain was the primary environmental concern, and greenhouse gases were an afterthought: afterthought The early program, however, was focused on the environmental challenges of the time  primarily concerns over the impact of acid rain on forests and watersheds. In the 21st century, additional environmental concerns have emerged  the potential health impacts of trace emissions of mercury, the effects of microscopic particles on people with respiratory problems, and the potential global climate-altering impact of greenhouse gases. The term was, in effect, rebranded in 2007 by an industry-funded group called the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, who were concerned about the prospect of increased coal regulations under an Obama presidency. They made the term clean coal a household name through a 30 million dollar public relations campaign touting the benefits of clean coal technology. campaign  The problem, though, is that from the standpoint of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the technology (for all practical purposes) does not yet exist on a scale that could be considered at all meaningful. In terms of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration technology, the only projects underway in the United States are pilot studies. These are not viable on larger scale, as the DOE admits: technology admits Today, there are commercially available First Generation CO2 capture technologies that are being used in various small-scale industrial applications. At their current state of development these technologies are not ready for widespread deployment on fossil fuel based power plants [...]. Furthermore, there are a number of barriers to the successful implementation of carbon capture technology at coal-burning power plants, as discussed in a report by the British humanitarian think tank the Overseas Development Institute. First, the pace and scale of carbon capture technology is unlikely to overcome its limitations in a time period that would have any relevance to reducing atmospheric CO2: report Essentially, coal-powered CCS has yet to be technologically proven as planned even at a quarter-scale. With per-plant investments running to the billions, this stepping-stone from laboratory to full commercial rollout of just the first phase of coal-powered CCS plants is incredibly important and getting past it is going to take years. Although the industry might argue that it is close, it has clearly not yet refined an off-the-shelf product. The investment and time needed to build, test, and learn from projects to reduce costs means that CCS for coal power will not be ready to be commercially deployed at scale for at least a decade. Second, implementation of CCS makes the cost of coal too high to be competitive, and it reduces its output by consuming energy from the power plant trying to sell that energy: To capture CO2 at a power station requires adding a large separation unit, which also requires a significant amount of power to run. Adding the extra process currently doubles the capital costs of a plant, while running the separation process effectively decreases the overall efficiency of the plant by around a quarter. This efficiency penalty means that only the most efficient coal plant (advanced coal) can feasibly be used with CCS. Together these mean that adding CCS to a coal-fired plant will make the electricity it produces substantially more expensive than both conventional and advanced current coal plants. These problems were made plainly visible by a recent pilot study of a coal-burning power plant in Canadas Saskatchewan province that used a nearby hydroelectric dam to power the separation of CO2 from its exhaust. Though early reports painted a rosy picture, a March 2016 New York Times article suggested that the system was affected by a number of critical problems: article Known as SaskPowers Boundary Dam 3, the project has been plagued by multiple shutdowns, has fallen way short of its emissions targets, and faces an unresolved problem with its core technology. The costs, too, have soared, requiring tens of millions of dollars in new equipment and repairs. At the outset, its economics were dubious, said Cathy Sproule, a member of Saskatchewans legislature who released confidential internal documents about the project. Now theyre a disaster. This is not to say that research into minimizing the effect of the emissions from coal burning is necessarily futile. As discussed in a 2010 Atlantic article, there are two arguments to be made in favor of funding clean coal technology: article One is that coal can be used in less damaging, more sustainable ways than it is now. The other is that it must be used in those ways, because there is no plausible other way to meet what will be, absent an economic or social cataclysm, the worlds unavoidable energy demands. The latler argument is a staple of the pro-coal camp, who argue that, like it or not, we are going to have to use coal in the future to supply energy for our country. So why not try to make it cleaner in the process? staple The push against that argument is well summarized by a comment made by Mary Finley-Brook, a professor of geography, environmental studies and international studies at the University of Richmond in Virginia, to the science news website Live Science: Live Science "Clean coal does not currently exist," Finley-Brook wrote in an email. "It will be expensive to develop and is uncertain (unlikely) to work, depending on what technology is selected. This is moving in the wrong direction from a climate change mitigation perspective. We need energy transition away from fossil fuels, not nice-sounding names to confuse people who don't know better." Regardless of ones view on the philosophical debate about spending money to clean a technology we may begrudgingly have to use for years to come, the fact is that currently, so-called "clean coal" technology can for now do nothing to reduce carbon emissions on any appreciable or significant scale. Some fathers help their daughters by teaching them how to ride a bike. But if youre Dick Cheney, you do it by attacking her political rival on national television. The former vice president appeared on ABCsThis Weekon Oct. 27, 2013, to discuss national security issues, and was asked about the Republican primary battle in Wyoming between incumbent Sen. Mike Enzi and his daughter, Liz Cheney. ThoughLiz Cheney has previously said her father wouldnt be campaigning for her, he didnt pass on the opportunity to take a few shots at Enzi. He accused the three-term senator of getting about 84 percent of his campaign funds from Washington-based PACs, which Cheney said was more than any senator of either party. Enzi is far from the most prestigious, vocal or well-known lawmakers on the Hill. So we were surprised to hear that the three-term senator from Wyoming, of all places, is the upper chambers leader in percentage of donations from PACs. We decided totake a deeper look. Counting PAC money Off the bat, we ran into trouble with the term Washington-based PAC. The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign finance data, noted that most political action committees, but not all, are based in the nations capitol, and its difficult to separate which of Enzis donors are from D.C. What's probably safe to say is that the vast majority are not based in his home state, Viveca Novak at the center told PoltiFact (which is what Cheney was driving at anyway). According to data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, in the Senate campaign cycle beginning in 2009, Enzi raised $1.64 million, with $1.19 million, or 73 percent, coming from PACs. Thats not the 84 percent figure that Dick Cheney mentioned. Liz Cheneys campaign said they got to 84 percent by including a $74,463 transfer to the campaign from a joint fundraising committee, as well as $826,000 given to Enzis leadership PAC from other political groups. So the Cheney campaign counted those transfers as PAC money, while the center didnt. Using the centers data, Enzis percentage of PAC money is higher than any other senator -- by quite a bit actually. The next closest is Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., who has received 66 percent of his donations from PACs in the last five years. The disparity is even larger over the course of Enzis entire career. Nearly 70 percent of the $6.55 million the Wyoming Republican has raised since 1991 comes from PACs. In second is Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, at a distant 52 percent. A large chunk of Enzis PAC money comes from congressional leadership groups who are backing the senior senator over Cheneys challenge. He gets quite a bit from health groups, as well -- which isnt surprising, since he has worked prominently on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for years. Its not that Enzi is taking more money from PACs than all of his colleagues, but a higher proportion of his money raised is from these outside groups Its worth noting that of the 10 senators who have relied the most on PACs this cycle, nearly all hail from states in the bottom third of the population rankings. Candidates from smaller states have a shallower pool of in-state donors to pull from, pushing them to rely on PACs in their increasingly expensive election fights. Cheney has proven to be a formidable fundraiser, pulling in $1 million between July and September, for her contest against Enzi. Doug Weber at the Center for Responsive Politics had another explanation for Enzis reliance on PACs. Enzi hasn't really raised and spent much in the past, Weber said in an email. His 2002 and 1996 elections were the cheapest Senate victories of their cycle. So it may be a function of a modest fundraising effort -- raising from individuals involves a lot more work. (Republican House Speaker John) Boehner raised more from individuals just this year than Enzi has since 1989. And even though Enzi tops this list, hes far from the most prolific fundraiser in Washington. In the current Congress,hes 356th in money raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Enzis campaign didnt deny Cheneys claims. While spokeswoman Kristin Walker noted that two-thirds of Enzis individual donors in the last cycle were from Wyoming, she added he has always raised the money he needed to be competitive. Our ruling While Dick Cheney differed from our nonpartisan sources on the final number, the fact remains he was right: Enzi has received a higher proportion of his money from PACs than anyone in the Senate. Its more a product of circumstancesEnzis from a small state and hes facing a strong challengerthan evidence that Enzi has gone Washington, as Cheney was implying. We rate it Mostly True. In the summer of 2020, multiple readers asked Snopes to investigate claims that former U.S. Vice President and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden had called for an end to "shareholder capitalism." In July and August, Facebook users shared posts that contained the following text: users shared posts "Biden wants to end Shareholder Capitalism...that's your 401[k]...your pensions...your retirement...are you voting for that?"   Another social media meme suggested that Biden's proposals would result in the destruction or liquidation of 401(k) pension savings:   Those memes did not accurately reflect remarks made by Biden in July 2020 on the subject of "shareholder capitalism." At a July 9 event in Dunmore, Pennsylvania, Biden gave a relatively conventional stump speech, hitting on several familiar themes  his working-class upbringing in nearby Scranton, the values he inherited from his family, and his vision for an American economy that, according to him, places less emphasis on corporate profit, and a greater emphasis on rewarding hard work and smaller-scale entrepreneurship, especially in the context of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, which devastated some smaller businesses and left millions unemployed.  As part of this broader "Wall Street versus Main Street" theme, Biden said the following (emphasis added): theme Enough is enough, it's time reverse the priorities in this country. It's time to help small businesses, middle-class folks, manage their way through a pandemic, and let's help millions of would-be entrepreneurs get out from under their debts so they can start businesses. And it's time corporate America paid their fair share of taxes...The days of Amazon paying nothing in federal income tax will be over. Let's make sure that workers have a power, and the voice. It's way past time to put an end to the era of shareholder capitalism  the idea [that] the only responsibility a corporation has is to its shareholders. That's simply not true, it's an absolute farce. They have responsibility to their workers, their community, to their country. That isn't [a] new or radical notion. These are basic values and principles that helped build this nation in the first instance. Now the challenge is to take these fundamental values, and apply them to the new economy we have to build in the years ahead..."  Biden did not propose dissolving the stock market, or prohibiting the public trading of companies, or shareholder investment and dividend. In saying "It's way past time to put an end to the era of shareholder capitalism," Biden was taking a position in a long-running ethical debate between "shareholder" and "stakeholder" theories. One academic has helpfully summed up that philosophical conflict as follows: summed up Shareholder theory asserts that shareholders advance capital to a companys managers, who are supposed to spend corporate funds only in ways that have been authorized by the shareholders. As Milton Friedman wrote, "There is one and only one social responsibility of business  to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it  engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud." wrote On the other hand, stakeholder theory asserts that managers have a duty to both the corporations shareholders and "individuals and constituencies that contribute, either voluntarily or involuntarily, to [a companys] wealth-creating capacity and activities, and who are therefore its potential beneficiaries and/or risk bearers." Although there is some debate regarding which stakeholders deserve consideration, a widely accepted interpretation refers to shareholders, customers, employees, suppliers and the local community. In the short video below, philosopher and professor of business administration R. Edward Freeman  arguably the primary advocate for stakeholder theory  outlines the approach:  Biden characterized the era of shareholder capitalism as one in which the following idea holds sway  "[that] the only responsibility a corporation has is to its shareholders." His rejection of that principle was classic stakeholder theory: "That's simply not true, it's an absolute farce. They [companies] have responsibility to their workers, their community, to their country." We asked the Biden campaign for details on any specific proposals the former vice president had, or how exactly he envisioned an end to "the era of shareholder capitalism," but we did not receive a response in time for publication.  Although those details were not available, it's clear that Biden was not calling for the abolition of shareholding itself. Rather, he proposed bringing an end to the era of shareholder capitalism, meaning an end to the predominance of that particular ethical approach and a new gravitation towards the stakeholder-driven approach, a position that, whether or not one agrees with its tenets, has in recent years become orthodox among progressives, within the Democratic party, and even among business leaders themselves. In 2019, for example, the Business Roundtable  an influential group of chief executive officers of some of the largest companies in the United States  executed a high-profile shift in its approach, writing: writing "Since 1978, Business Roundtable has periodically issued Principles of Corporate Governance that include language on the purpose of a corporation. Each version of that document issued since 1997 has stated that corporations exist principally to serve their shareholders. It has become clear that this language on corporate purpose does not accurately describe the ways in which we and our fellow CEOs endeavor every day to create value for all our stakeholders, whose long-term interests are inseparable." What Biden called for in his Dunmore speech was therefore, as he rightly said, not a "new or radical notion." It was not an end to the stock market nor the ability of individuals to buy and sell shares, and therefore it was not a proposal that would cause pensions to evaporate, as several Facebook memes falsely claimed. Corporate Finance Institute. "Main St. vs Wall Street: The Mutual Dependence and Conflicts Between the Two."
  7 July 2020. Smith, H. Jeff. "The Shareholders vs Stakeholders Debate."
  The Sloan Management Review, Massachussetts Institute of Technology." 15 July 2003. Friedman, Milton. "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits."
  The New York Times. 13 September 1970. Business Roundtable. "Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation."
  19 August 2019. One of the forms of political expression that frequently arrives in our inbox for verification is the "evil plan" warning, items which present the notion that some malevolent entity (ranging from Communists to Satan himself) not only expressed an intent to destroy our society from within, but outlined a specific plan for doing so. A quote attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin that a reader emailed us in November 2011 exemplifies the genre: Soviet dictator Josef Stalin "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."   The specifics of these plans (no matter how long ago they may supposedly have been formulated) generally relate to current events, and the political purpose of circulating them is to make readers aware that trends which threaten the health of our society are currently in place (i.e., "This is EXACTLY what is happening now!"), and to warn them that we must be vigilant about holding our course and stopping or reversing the encroachment of these socially unhealthful trends. This form has been expressed in such widely circulated items as Paul Harvey's "If I Were the Devil" essay, an (apocryphal) quotation by Karl Marx about the perils of consumer debt, and an (also apocryphal) warning from Abraham Lincoln about the accumulation of vast wealth in the hands of a few. If I Were the Devil Karl Marx Abraham Lincoln The putative quotation from Stalin referenced above is another item of this genre, one which presents the concept that Communist enemies of the U.S. viewed patriotism, morality, and spirituality as America's greatest assets and cannily plotted that the U.S. could be made to collapse from within if these values were sufficiently undermined (and which, of course, serves as an admonition to American readers to be attentive in maintaining these values). Whatever level of truth one might find in this sentiment, however, it's highly unlikely that Stalin ever spoke these words. Proving a negative is often an uncertain proposition, but our reasons for believing this quotation to be of dubious origin are: Josef Stalin Internet Archive Stalin documents letter Cummings, Jeanne.  "Gingrich Out to Save America."The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 16 January 1994 (p. G1). "Readers Respond to 'The Day After'."Lawrence Journal-World. 23 November 1983 (p. 9). Stalin Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/subject/index.htm. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Stalin, Joseph, 1879-1953 | The Online Books Page. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Stalin%2c%20Joseph%2c%201879-1953. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Updated [Sept.15, 2022]: Sources and links refreshed. Among the many conspiracy theories surrounding the October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada is one that involves Chad Nishimura, a Mandalay Bay Hotel valet worker who said he parked suspected shooter Stephen Paddock's car on his arrival at the hotel.  shooting According to conspiracy theorists, Nishimura told a reporter in his native Hawaii that Paddock did not appear to have many bags with him, thus contradicting the "official" narrative that Paddock acted alone, and prompting Nishimura's sinister disappearance. On 10 October 2017, the disreputable and rarely accurate web site Neon Nettle wrote:  Neon Nettle A valet worker from the Mandalay Bay hotel, who parked the suspected Las Vegas shooting gunman's car, has mysteriously vanished after giving an interview saying Stephen Paddock was a "normal guy" who "didn't have many bags." There is no evidence that Nishimura has disappeared or been reported missing, and this account contains several important factual errors and logical mistakes, typical of much of the content that Neon Nettle and other sites of its ilk publish. It is true that Nishimura spoke to KITV 4, a Honolulu ABC affiliate, for an article published on 3 October 2017 that has since been deleted: A Kamehameha graduate working as a valet at the Mandalay Bay Resort said he parked the shooter's car on Saturday. The gunman, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock, checked his car into the hotel on Saturday morning. Valet Chad Nishimura, who is from Mililani, said he spoke briefly with Paddock."Just in shock, really. It's scary to know that I was close to someone that was that dangerous. I would've never thought. He seemed like a normal guy. When he came in, nothing too weird about him. He didn't have any crazy bags with him that I can remember. We are a convention hotel so we have a bunch of people that have boxes and multiple carts worth of stuff. There's nothing weird that I can remember," Nishimura said. (An archived version of the story can be viewed here.) here The first thing to note here is that Nishimura did not say Stephen Paddock didn't have many bags. He said Paddock didn't have any "crazy bags" and brought "nothing weird" that he could could remember. Further, it requires a logical leap to propose that if Stephen Paddock didn't have much luggage with him upon arriving at the Mandalay Bay Hotel, it follows that he must have had an accomplice in the 1 October 2017 mass shooting. Nothing in Nishimura's account of meeting Paddock eliminates the possibility that Paddock made multiple trips to the hotel, therefore making that particular conspiracy theory surrounding Nishimura fall down on this logical point alone.  Neon Nettle also attributes the removal of the KITV 4 article to "higher-ups at ABC taking issue with a report that conflicts with the narrative they are pushing on the public," and falsely states that the reporter Moanike'ala Nabarro had declined to answer readers who asked why the story had been deleted.  In fact, Nabarro gave a clear answer to this question on 7 October 2017, three days before Neon Nettle published its story, saying that the decision was made in order to protect Nishimura's privacy: saying Mililani native says he spoke to shooter before checking his car into the valet at Mandalay Bay- https://t.co/GjkRE9HRVk https://t.co/GjkRE9HRVk  Moanike'ala Nabarro (@moanikitv) October 3, 2017 October 3, 2017  Finally, there is no evidence that Chad Nishimura has "vanished"  mysteriously or otherwise  and in fact, there is evidence to contradict this claim.  According to Neon Nettle, Nishimura "has completely vanished since the report was published, with all of his social media accounts being scrubbed from the internet." This is completely and provably false. Nishimura has been active on Facebook after 3 October, the publication date of the KITV 4 article which  at least according to the conspiracy theory being pushed here  prompted his "disappearance". (His Facebook account remains active, but we are not linking to it in the interest of protecting Nishimura's privacy from readers provoked by the groundless conspiracy theory peddled and promulgated by Neon Nettle and others.) and others On 5 October 2017, Nishimura wrote: I'm okay everyone, I was at the concert the night before, thankfully cut my wristband off and didnt [sic] go on Sunday. However I did park the shooters [sic] car...Thats been the rough part for me.    Furthermore, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has not listed Nishimura as a missing person. listed This conspiracy theory is illogical, not supported by any evidence, contradicted by other evidence, and is false. Neon Nettle has a history of publishing inaccurate conspiracy theories, hoaxes and other fabricated content. The Chad Nishimura case joins a laundry list of conspiracy theories and hoaxes revolving around the October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas.  history conspiracy theories Nabarro,Moanike'ala. "Hawaii Native Parked Shooter's Car."
 KITV 4/Archive.is. 3 October 2017 (Archived). LaCapria, Kim. "Las Vegas Shooting Rumors, Hoaxes and Conspiracy Theories."
 Snopes.com. 5 October 2017. In February2016, links began circulating on Facebookpromising a treasure trove of Sharpie brand markers to users who completed a short series of steps:   The embedded links led toURLs which were generated seemingly at random and didn't link to Sharpie's web site. Users who clicked through to claim the promised prize were routed to pages which appeared plausibly Facebook-esque(but werehostedoff Facebook):   As evidenced by the above-reproduced screenshots, the associatedURLs don'tmatch the official domains of Sharpie or Facebook. The fake giveaway was another version of the common survey/sweepstakes scams which urge readers to share freebie bait on Facebook, which then spreads the scam to more friends and groups. Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among brandsused as enticementsbyscammers, many aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureauexplained how to identify and avoidbad actorsimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Officials in Jefferson County, Georgia, faced allegations of racially-motivated voter suppression in October 2018 in response to an incident in which a voter registration group was ordered to return a group of African-American seniors to a county-run senior center, after those seniors boarded a bus to cast ballots during early voting for the November elections. The liberal web site ThinkProgress reported of the incident that: reported Seniors in rural Georgia were dancing in the street, preparing to board Black Voters Matters bus to cast their ballots Monday, the first day of the states early voting period. But the county administrator ordered the senior center to take the 40 or so elderly African Americans off the bus  an act organizers described as live voter suppression. In a Facebook video about the incident, which took place on 15 October, the group's co-founders LaTosha Brown and Cliff Albright characterized the county's decision as racially-motivated voter suppression, with Albright saying: Somebody called the County Commission to complain because they saw all these black folks get on this big black bus -- it's the blackest bus in America -- somebody drove past, saw that, got nervous, got mad, called the County Commission's office, which then called the center. And the bottom line was, all the folks who had just got on the bus -- and the bus was full, this is a 50-passenger bus full of folks -- had to come off the bus. There's not a candidate on this bus, there's not a party symbol on this bus, but I'm going to tell you what is on this bus -- a whole bunch of black fists in the air with the word "power" underneath it. That's what scared them and made them say "Those folks have to come off that bus." However, Jefferson County administrator Adam Brett insisted that the event constituted "political activity," something that the county purportedly does not allow on county property or at county-sponsored events. Jefferson County Democrats Chair Diane Evans was on the bus in question and helped organize the visit to the senior center in the first place, as revealed in email correspondence published by Augusta television station WJBF. WJBF Furthermore, Brett said he had not "vetted" Black Voters Matter, and that allowing the senior citizens to leave with an unfamiliar outside group could have been a "liability" for the county, which operates the senior center in Louisville and also organizes its own chartered buses for seniors to get to polling stations. said In a statement sent to us, Brett wrote: The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners has a practice of not allowing political activities during normal business hours on County property or at County sponsored activities. On October 15th, the Senior Center staff declined to allow a third party and unknown bus operator to pick County residents on County property for political purposes. The Senior Center staff routinely arrange Jefferson County Public Transit to transport senior citizens to vote. In an email, Albright rejected Brett's "liability" argument, calling it "paternalistic" and pointing out that the Louisville senior center is an activities center, not a residential center: Seniors can come [and] go when they please and with whomever they choose to leave with. If they want to leave with a family member, an Uber driver, or an organization they trust, that is their own choice. These are grown adults who decided who they wanted to leave with, and despite Mr. Bretts paternalistic need to feel comfortable with that decision, he has no control over those choices, nor liability [for them]. We asked Brett what the legal basis was for his order (carried out by staff at the senior center) not to "allow" the seniors to travel to the polling station with Black Voters Matter and requested that he clarify Jefferson County's legal authority and liabilities relating to people who use the senior center. We did not receive a response to those questions. Albright told us that staff at the senior center had given advance permission for Black Voters Matter to visit the center and hold an event there, but not for them to escort seniors to polling stations. However, he maintained this was because the group had not initially planned to take the bus trip, which he said the seniors themselves had asked for, spontaneously: The seniors requested to ride the bus to go vote after they saw it and were excited. The center director approved/supported the request, which is why the seniors even got on the bus. It was not until the county administrator called the center director that it became a problem. Albright also questioned the sincerity of Brett's invocation of county policy on "political activities," pointing out that Jody Hice, a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives, is scheduled to host an event at the senior center on 27 October. (Albright emphasized that he thought the event in question was very worthy and should be allowed to take place at the center, but he saw it as an example of a double standard.) scheduled In fact, on the same day that the seniors were prevented from travelling with Black Voters Matter to a polling station, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners actually promoted Congressman Hice's event at the senior center on their Facebook page, in a post that was taken word-for-word from Hice's earlier press release: press release   We asked Brett to explain why the county had forbidden an event in which a bus carrying a local Democratic party official -- but no elected politician or candidate -- was to escort seniors to a polling station away from the center itself, but allowed a sitting Republican Congressman, who is actively campaigning for re-election, to host an event in the center itself. We also asked why the Board of Commissioners had promoted that event. We did not receive a response to those questions. re-election In a separate Facebook post, the Board of Commissioners explained that the bus trip had been forbidden because it "was led by the President of the Jefferson County Democratic Party [Diane Evans] and as such was considered a political event." However, the Black Voters Matter's visit had been organized with the assistance of Evans, and yet it was still allowed to take place. post We asked Brett why the Black Voters Matter visit was allowed to go ahead despite the involvement of Evans, but the bus trip was not, and asked whether he had considered requesting that Evans disembark the bus (given that her involvement was purportedly the source of the county's objections) rather than ordering the seniors to return to the center. Again, we did not receive a response to these questions. Conclusion It is true that on 15 October 2018, staff at the Jefferson County senior center in Louisville enacted the instructions of County Administrator Adam Brett by insisting that a group of seniors return to the center after they voluntarily boarded a bus operated on behalf of Black Voters Matter, a voter registration group. The leaders of that group characterized the incident as racially-motivated voter suppression, but Brett insisted otherwise, stating that the reasons for his order were twofold: the involvement of Jefferson County Democrats Chair Diane Evans meant that the bus trip constituted "political activity," something the county could not allow, and county officials had not vetted Black Voters Matter or the bus operator, creating a potential liability for the county which Brett was unwilling to assume. However, it must be acknowledged that significant problems exist with the coherence of the twofold rationale outlined by Brett. First, it is not clear that Jefferson County actually has any legal liability for anything that happens to those who use the center once they have left the center. Likewise, it's not clear that Brett had any legal authority to "not allow" seniors to travel to the polling station or Black Voters Matter to escort them there. Second, the consistency with which Jefferson County enforces their prohibition on "political activities" at the senior center is questionable. On the one hand, Brett forbade the bus trip to the polling station on this basis due to the involvement of a local Democratic official, even though the bus trip would have taken the seniors away from the senior center, and even though the county allowed a visit to the senior center which had been organized with the help of that same Democratic official. But Jefferson County's Board of Commissioners also sanctioned a forthcoming event to be hosted by Jody Hice, a sitting Republican Congressman and active election candidate, which is scheduled to take place in the center itself, and the Board of Commissioners has promoted that event on Facebook in a post taken word-for-word from Hice's earlier press release. Lerner, Kira.& nbsp; "'This Is Live Voter Suppression': Black Voters Matter Blocked grom Taking Seniors to Vote."
  ThinkProgress.  15 October 2018. DuBose, Renetta.  "Jefferson County: 'It Was Miscommunication, Not Voter Suppression.'"
  WJBF-TV.  17 October 2018. Hice, Jody.  "Press Release -- Hice to Host Helping Our Heroes Veterans' Event."
  U.S. Representative Jody Hice.  10 October 2018. The New York Times.  "Georgia Primary Election Results: 10th House District."
  29 May 2018. Correction [22 October 2018]: In some instances, this article previously referred to the Chairperson of the Jefferson County Democrats as Diane Davis. She is Diane Evans.