The market is making this decision. The market has driven down the cost of coal, so you have companies going bankrupt.
Some coal country voters see Hillary Clinton as a threat, someone who would install regulations that would hurt rather than help the struggling coal industry. But Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, told CNNs Anderson Cooper that she thinks it's necessary to move away from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy, and she wants to do what she can to help current coal mine workers make that transition. But the market is making this decision, she said May 4. The market has driven down the cost of coal, so you have companies going bankrupt. So what I'm offering is a $30 billion plan to really revitalize coal country, to provide support for coal miners and their families, and I think that is the least the country owes these brave people. Coal has historically been the countrys primary electricity generator. But several major coal companies have gone bankrupt in recent years, including Arch Coal, Alpha Natural Resources and Peabody Energy. We decided to dig into the question of how much of that change is due solely to market forces, rather than environmental regulation. We talked to coal industry experts who told us that the primary forces working against coal are market-based, notably the growth of natural gas as a cleaner, cheaper alternative. But now that coal is vulnerable, environmental regulations may seal coals demise. Coal has always been able to absorb new regulations, said Robert Godby, a professor and expert in energy economics at the University of Wyoming. But the impact natural gas has had since the fracking boom has been amazing to watch. He added: This would all still be happening regardless of regulations. Natural gas is eating coals lunch, and the coal companies made a bad bet on Chinese demand. Coalused to generateabout 50 percent of electricity in the United States, but now its down to about 30 percent. Just in the past couple years, natural gas has begun todisplacecoal. (In this Energy Information Administration chart, the grey line represents coal, and the orange line represents natural gas.) A recent boom inhydraulic fracturing(fracking) in the United States has dramatically increased the availability of natural gas. Natural gasprices are low, and it produces abouthalf as much carbon. Consequently, demand for natural gas is going up, and demand for coal is going down, and fast. While natural gas is the main threat, a growing demand and diminishing costs for renewable energy, like wind and solar power, also takes away from coal demand, said West Virginia University law professor Patrick McGinley. He added that on top of all this, its getting harder to produce cheap coal in the Appalachia region because a century of mining has depleted supply, and so the costs of mining new coal are going up. This is all a huge problem for coal, because electricity is about 90 percent of the coal market, said Andy Roberts, research director for global thermal coal markets at the consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. He said the trend is unlikely to reverse. But it was a big, failed bet on the international coal market that ultimately pushed companies to a point where they couldnt pay off their debts, forcing them to file for bankruptcy reorganization. About five years ago, the big coal companies   Arch, Alpha and Peabody  took out massive loans to invest in metallurgical coal, a type found in the Appalachia region. They thought fast-growing Asian countries, particularly China, would want the coal to facilitate economic development. But Chinas growth slowed, and the demand never materialized. The companies have been unable to pay back their debts on this project, and thats what sent them into bankruptcy, Godby said. Regulations may make electricity companies apprehensive about investing in coal down the line. This is the best way to think about how environmental regulations affect coal: If youre an electricity company considering building a new coal-powered plant or rehabilitating an outdated one, youre already on the fence about whether thats a good investment, because of the threat of natural gas. But then you remember you might have to face strict carbon emission limitations down the line, which convinces you to go with a natural gas plant instead of a coal plant. Take President Barack Obamas Clean Power Plan, a major initiative that would affect coal-powered plants by reducing carbon emissions. It isnt in effect yet, and it faces court hurdles. Even so, the uncertainty of what kinds of carbon limitations coal plants will face, and the possibility that they could be significant, has already reduced coal plant investment, Roberts said. So, investment in coal plants is now basically nil, Roberts said. And when the CPP begins in earnest in 2022, coal demand, already suffering, will more rapidly and inexorably decline. Similarly, the2015 Mercury and Air Toxics Standardsis a federal regulation that has had a significant impact on the coal industry and contributed to coal-powered plant closures. But its impossible to tell how much of the changes in the coal market can be attributed solely to the regulations, rather than the regulations plus the market forces. Multiple experts we asked said that so far, its primarily been the market putting pressure on coal. But looking toward the future, as coal becomes more vulnerable and environmental rules get bigger, regulations may play a larger role. Yes, as Secretary Clinton notes, the market is sorting this out, Roberts said. Competitive natural gas, the market, does indeed have something to do with that. But so do the CPP and federal subsidies for renewable generation. The combination of all these elements has been toxic for coal companies and lethal for those with too much debt. In reality, the market for coal is partially economic but increasingly regulatory. In October,Appalachian Power President Charles Patton saidcoal power wont be able to rebound with or without the Clean Power Plan  the economics just dont make sense. Our ruling Clinton said, The market is making this decision. The market has driven down the cost of coal, so you have companies going bankrupt. Economic forces on both the national and international markets are the main reason coals prominence in the American energy sector is now vulnerable, forcing coal-burning plant closures and several high-profile bankruptcies. For a long time, coal has been impervious to government regulation. But more recently, regulations  a non-economic force  might be the straw that breaks the camels back, especially going forward now that coal is on shaky ground. Clintons claim is missing this important context, so we rate it Mostly True.
]In May 2015, a fraudulent offer for $200 Home Depot coupons started circulating on Facebook. The message contained a link that redirected bargain hunters to a web site adorned with Home Depot's logo that has nothing to do with the real Home Depot:   The $200 Home Depot coupon scam is very similar to other schemes that targeted Costco, Amazon, and Kroger shoppers. While each scam has slight variations, they all feature three main components. First, they require people to like or share the message on Facebook in an attempt to spread the scam around the Internet. Second, they direct people to complete a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and credit card numbers. Lastly, these scams never end with a "free" rewards, because users must first agree to sign up for several costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print to claim their coupons. Costco Amazon Kroger In April 2017, another Facebook coupon scam targeted Home Depot. In that iteration the chain was purportedly doling out $50 coupons "to celebrate Mother's Day, and links directed users to www.homedepot.com-grabitnow.us (a URL clearly unaffiliated with the legitimate Home Depot website): Home Depot   Home Depot didn't address the 2017 Facebook coupon scam on their social media channels as of 24 April 2017, but it was nevertheless clearly not a legitimate promotion affiliated with the chain. The Better Business Bureau gave these three tips to identify scams on Facebook: Facebook 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. 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. Claim:  Barack Obama removed the U.S. flag from the tail of Air Force One and replaced it with his own logo.    Example:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2011] HOW DOES ANYONE GET AWAY WITH THIS? SAD. Obama Removes American Flag from His Plane He has turned Air Force One into a campaign slogan carrier... not only the Obama Campaign logo on the tail, it bears his Campaign Slogan. I do believe in most States there are laws against something so blatantly an abuse of power, using public funds for campaigning. Atop this "personalization of Air Force One", Obama has logged more miles than any previous President. We have a triple A president Audacity, Abuse, and Arrogance... He should pay for the cost of repainting/restoring the craft.... this guy has to go.  Photograph  Rob Olewisnki Rob Olewisnki    Origins:  In late 2011, the pictures displayed above were circulated with the claim that emblems depicting the U.S. flag had been removed from Air Force One and replaced with an Obama campaign logo.   This claim is completely false: both of the two Boeing 747-200B airplanes typically used by the President of the United States (and commonly referred to as Air Force One) remain with their standard markings (i.e., the words "United States of America," the American flag, and the Seal of the President of the United States) intact: Air Force One  This rumor was just a repackaging of an item that had circulated years earlier, during the 2008 presidential campaign, regarding the removal of American flag emblems from the airplane used by the Obama campaign.  As we wrote at that time: Given the length and breadth of modern presidential campaigns, it has become de rigueur for most major party candidates to have their own airplanes for ferrying themselves and staffers, press, security, and other personnel from stop to stop along the campaign trail.  Such planes may be purchased by the candidate's campaign, or they may be leased or chartered from commercial airlines.  Typically when a campaign owns its own airplane or leases a plane under a dedicated charter arrangement, the aircraft's exterior markings will be modified to identify it as a particular candidate's campaign plane, with some notable recent examples of this practice including aircraft used by presidential candidates Bob Dole (1996), George W. Bush (2000), John Kerry (2004) and John McCain's "Straight Talk Express" campaign plane (from 2008): Bob Dole George W. Bush John Kerry    Although Senator Barack Obama flew on a variety of aircraft during the long 2008 presidential campaign season, from March through June 2008 he primarily used a Boeing 757-200ER aircraft chartered from (and operated by) North American Airlines as his campaign plane.  During that period, the plane bore the standard color scheme and company markings of a North American Airlines aircraft: North American  However, once the primary campaign effectively ended and Senator Obama became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, his campaign plane underwent a month-long refurbishment to prepare it for the general election campaign, a process that included reconfiguring the interior seating and modifying the exterior markings to identify and publicize the aircraft as Barack Obama's official campaign plane.  The latter activity included replacing the North American Airline color scheme and markings with the Obama campaign slogan ("Change We Can Believe In"), the BARACKOBAMA.COM domain name, and Obama's sunrise/flag "O" campaign logo:  Two U.S. flag images were removed from the airplane during the refurbishment, although technically they were not ordinary representations of the American flag; rather, they were commercial markings of North American Airlines, whose logo  (a registered trademark of that company) employs a stylized rendition of the U.S. flag.  The North American flag/logo on the forward portion of the fuselage was removed and the one on the tail was replaced with the Obama "O" campaign logo, while traditional depictions of the U.S. flag adjacent to the plane's registration numbers remained: trademark Original North American versionModified Obama campaign version Last updated:  16 April 2012    Gavrilovic, Maria.  "Obama's New Plane to Meet Him Overseas."   CBSNews.com.  20 July 2008.    Kapp, Bonney.  "Obama's 757 Is Back in Service."   FOXNews.com.  20 July 2008.    Oinounou, Mosheh.  "Air 'Straight Talk' Launches."   FOXNews.com.  30 June 2008. As President Donald Trump prepared on 8 January 2019 to deliver a televised speech to the nation making the case for billions of dollars to construct a wall along the roughly 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, some social media users circulated an inaccurate meme containing the claim that the preceding Obama administration, with the help of Democratic lawmakers Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, had given Iran $150 billion in cash.   President Trump battled Congress over his request for $5.7 billion to fulfill a 2016 campaign promise to "build the wall." The resulting impasse over budget appropriations for the wall's construction led to a protracted shutdown of the federal government. build the wall impasse shutdown As with many memes, the one above paired two topics that were unrelated to each other, along with a generous helping of inaccuracy. The "enemy of the U.S." referred to Iran, which was never given a $150 billion cash payment by President Barack Obama with the help of Pelosi and Schumer. Instead, billions of dollars worth of Iranian assets were unfrozen as a result of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated with that country, which had nothing to do with the U.S. federal budget or border wall construction. nuclear deal Trump floated the "$150 billion" figure in conjunction with his desired border wall construction in a 12 December 2018 Twitter post: The Democrats and President Obama gave Iran 150 Billion Dollars and got nothing, but they cant give 5 Billion Dollars for National Security and a Wall?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2018 December 12, 2018 The $150 billion figure is an estimate of the value of Iranian assets that were unfrozen as a result of Iran's agreeing to the terms of the nuclear agreement reached with seven nations in 2015, including the U.S., an agreement formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In other words, Iran gained access to assets that already belonged to them, assets that had been frozen in various financial institutions around the world due to sanctions imposed to curb Irans nuclear program. But Iran didn't get $150 billion in cash, nor did they receive any money at all from U.S. taxpayers -- they only regained access to assets that had been frozen in several different countries (not just the U.S.), and the $150 billion figure was merely an upper estimate. agreement Moreover, that $150 billion figure was the highest estimate of the value of Iran's frozen assets, with multiple sources reporting much lower figures. For example, Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, supplied written testimony to a U.S. Senate committee in August 2015 stating that U.S. assessment of the total liquid assets Iran would regain control of as a result of the nuclear agreement was "a little more than $50 billion": testimony We must also be measured and realistic in understanding what sanctions relief will really mean to Iran. Estimates of total Central Bank of Iran (CBI) foreign exchange assets worldwide are in the range of $100 to $125 billion. Our assessment is that Irans usable liquid assets after sanctions relief will be much lower, at a little more than $50 billion. The other $50-70 billion of total CBI foreign exchange assets are either obligated in illiquid projects (such as over 50 projects with China) that cannot be monetized quickly, if at all, or are composed of outstanding loans to Iranian entities that cannot repay them. These assets would not become accessible following sanctions relief. Nader Habibi, professor of economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University, told us via email his best estimate was that between $30 billion and $50 billion of unfrozen funds were made available to Iran as a result of the deal. On 8 May 2018, President Trump announced that he was pulling the U.S. out of the nuclear deal with Iran, which had been negotiated over the course of two years. Associated Press.  "Democrats and Obama Did Not Give $150 Billion to Iran."
  14 December 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie.  "Schumer and Pelosi Tap Themselves to Respond to Trump Speech."
  The New York Times.  8 January 2019. Bozorgmehr, Najmeh.  "Iran to Keep Most Unfrozen Overseas Assets in Foreign Banks."
  Financial Times.  8 February 2016. Cunningham, Erin, and Bijan Sabbagh.  "Iran to Negotiate with Europeans, Russia and China About Remaining in Nuclear Deal."
  The Washington Post. 8 May 2018. Dahl, Fredrik.  "Iran Has $100 Billion Abroad, Can Draw $4.2 Billion: U.S. Official."
  Reuters.  17 January 2014. Habibi, Nader. " Irans Frozen Funds: How Much Is Really There and How Will They Be Used?"
  The Conversation.  11 August 2015. A 30 November 2016 negotiation between Donald Trump and the company Carrier in order to keep some 1,000 jobs in the United States was soon followed by claims that he either owned (or was a shareholder in) the company or parent United Technologies: Carrier claims As part of its #TrumpLeaks program, the Democratic Coalition Against Trump has uncovered the financial disclosures Trump filed in May 2016, which shows he owns stock in UT. According to the 104-page financial disclosure form that all candidates running for President are required to fill out, Trump made between $2,501 and $5,000 in interest from an investment in United Technologies. The entry in the financial disclosure can be found on page number 45 under Part 6. The full financial disclosure can be found online here. The material quoted above cited the Democratic Coalition Against Trump, which claimed to be pursuing legal action against Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) head James Comey. That group was involved in several questionable efforts against Trump, and appeared to exist solely to mount legal and media-based challenges against him. Democratic Coalition Against Trump James Comey Claims that Trump owned Carrier or stock in United Technologies closely mirrored similar rumors the President-elect was similarly vested in the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. Although the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had at one point owned Carrier or United Technologies stock in 2014 or 2015, his 2016 Personal Financial Disclosure [PFD] did not reflect any such investment: Dakota Access Pipeline reported reflect   Trump's spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that a "goal of the immediate transfer of management of The Trump Organization and its portfolio of businesses to Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump as well as a team of highly skilled executives." Trump's transition team vowed that any holdings that represented potential conflicts of interest would be transferred before his January 2017 inauguration. In early December 2016 additional details about the Carrier deal emerged, including the total number of jobs preserved in the negotiation as well as a portion slated for outsourcing by the end of 2017. Carrier Grimaldi, James V and .  "Donald Trump Had Investments In Carrier Corp.s Parent."
  Wall Street Journal.  2 December 2016. Korte, Gregory.  "Donald Trump Financial Disclosure Report, 2016."
  USA Today.  18 May 2016. Claim:  Item describes penalties for non-compliance with the PPACA individual health insurance mandate. MOSTLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] WARNING CONCERNING OBAMACARE ----Immediate Attention Required PLEASE ----- If you do not have to sign up with Obamacare on their website PLEASE DON'T! Once you see the cost of premiums and yearly deductible and choose to opt out from that point they will within a few hours email you stating your actual fees in which now they will by any means collect. REAL EXAMPLE ---- Please Read & Please Forward ASAP!!! A comment posted on the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare FB page: I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 "Silver Plan" and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I "opt-out" and chose to continue along with no insurance. I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the "REPERCUSSIONS PORTION" for "non-payment" of yearly fine. First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with "Non-Payment" and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy "Automatically withdraw" your "penalties" weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is "Free" or even "Affordable." Origins:  One of the key (and most controversial) provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare," is its establishment of an individual mandate to buy health insurance.  Beginning in 2014, U.S. citizens and legal residents are required to either have PPACA-qualifying health insurance coverage (public or private) or pay a penalty for not carrying insurance.  Shortly after the opening of PPACA-created state- and federal-run insurance exchange marketplaces on 1 October 2013, which consumers could use to shop online for qualifying  insurance plans, the item reproduced above began circulating on the Internet.  This item claimed that after a consumer priced an insurance plan on one of the exchanges and found it to be unsuitably non-affordable (and so declined to enroll in it), he received a notice stating that he would be fined over $4,000 and have his driver's license suspended, and if he failed to pay the fine within two years the a federal tax lien would be placed on his home. Without knowing more details about the person referenced in this item, it's difficult to accurately assess whether the figures quoted for insurance coverage ($597.00 per month with a $13,988 yearly deductible) are completely accurate.   However, the PPACA sets annual limits on out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families on plans offered through the state-based exchanges, so a yearly deductible of nearly $14,000 for someone shopping for coverage through an insurance exchange isn't a plausible offering. The penalty for failing to carry qualifying health insurance coverage varies with household size, income, and year.  In general, the penalties for non-compliance will be assessed as follows: For individuals (whichever is greater): 2014    $95 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $325 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $695 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold  For families (whichever is greater):  2014    $285 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $975 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $2085 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold The $4,037 fine claimed in this item doesn't jibe with those figures.  Since the non-compliance penalty for an individual in 2014 is $95 or 1% of income above the tax filing threshold (whichever is greater), that individual would have to earn a yearly income of $403,700 (above the tax filing threshold) in order to incur a fine of that magnitude for a single year  an income level which is far larger than the $45,000-$55,000 range claimed in this item.   Even adding together all the potential fines for three straight years of non-compliance beginning in 2014 produces a figure in the $3,000 range, not one over $4,000.  (The figures could be higher under a scenario in which multiple persons in the same household were non-compliant, but the item quoted above references only an individual.) According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the PPACA Penalty Provision and the Internal Revenue Service, collection of the penalty for failure to maintain qualifying health insurance coverage may include the IRS' withholding money from federal income tax refunds and obtaining liens against the taxpayer's property, but the PPACA does not allow for criminal prosecution or the seizure of bank accounts or other property: report   The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) limits the means the IRS may employ to collect the penalty established in the [PPACA]. First, the taxpayer is protected from either criminal prosecution or penalty for failure to pay the penalty. Second, the IRS is prohibited from either filing a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) or levying any property in an effort to collect the penalty. There is no prohibition, however, on establishing a statutory lien against the taxpayers property. No additional limits are placed on the IRS using correspondence or phone calls, either through its own employees or through private collection agencies, in an effort to collect the amount owed. Additionally, no restriction was placed on the IRS's ability to use the refund offset as a means of collecting the amount due. Those who are required to pay the penalty for failure to maintain minimum coverage but choose not to do so will be subject to increases in the amount owed due to interest and late payment penalties imposed on the penalty after it has been assessed by the IRS.  A taxpayer who chooses not to pay the required penalty may ultimately forfeit more than the amount of the penalty if that taxpayer is ever in the position of having an overpayment to the IRS for any reason, since the refund offset applies not only to overpayments shown on original tax returns, but also to any subsequent adjustments, for example an audit by the IRS that results in an overpayment. Further, as explained above, it is possible that the IRS could present its claim when property is being sold and collect both the original penalty amount along with accrued interest and applicable penalties. (Note that a "lien" and a "levy" are two different things.  A lien is a claim against property that does not involve the right to seize property, while a levy is a seizure of property. A lien does not allow the lienholder to sell another's property, but when property subject to the lien is sold, the lien establishes the right to receive proceeds from the sale of the property before they are distributed to the seller.)  In short, failure to pay the PPACA non-compliance penalty might result in the IRS' sending you warning letters and deducting the penalty amount from your future tax refunds  (if you have any), but not throwing you in jail, forcibly taking money from your bank account, or seizing your house or other property.  We have also found no provision of the PPACA or IRS code that would allow the federal government to suspend an individual's driver's license as a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate provision of the PPACA. Last updated:  4 October 2013 In February 2016, a meme about the lack of business acumen and experience exhibited by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, began circulating online:  The criticisms offered in meme were a mixture of true, false, irrelevant, and misleading statements. To wit: Never owned a business Right off, this meme begins with a rather nebulous criticism. Although having owned a business is an experience many voters would like to see on the rsum of a potential chief executive, a literal application of that term isn't of much relevance. Technically, a person who once operated a roadside lemonade stand has "owned a business," while a person who has spent his career serving as the CEO of a public multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation has not -- even though everyone would agree the latter has vastly more business experience than the former. And certainly a number of highly-regarded U.S. presidents in the modern era (e.g., Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan) never owned their own businesses. Moreover, one might validly say that Sanders started and operated his own business (whether he "owned" it is somewhat arguable, as it was a non-profit), the American People's Historical Society, which was created in 1978 to produce educational film strips about the history of Vermont. The University of Vermont has archived several of the brochures produced by the American People's Historical Society, one of which includes a statement from Sanders outlining the purpose of his film strips: includes Director Bernard Sanders explained, "It is our belief that state and regional history has too long been neglected by the audio-visual industry, and we are happy to begin the process of rectifying that situation. We believe that students have the right to learn about the state and region in which they are living." While the financials of the American People's Historical Society are not available, Sanders wrote in his memoir Outsider in the House that the business was reasonably successful and "a lot of fun." A friend of Sanders' told Politico that the film strip business "wasn't just a way to make money ... He made filmstrips about people he admired and believed in. He just thought kids should know the truth of how things really were." Never invented anything Once again, this is a rather nebulous criticism. The concept of "inventing" something could range from simply thinking up a novel idea (but doing nothing more about it), to creating and building a device for personal use (but not marketing it), to actually obtaining a patent for a new product. Bernie Sanders is certainly no inventor and holds no patents, but it's hard to see how that fact is of any relevance, as the same is true of nearly every U.S. president. Thomas Jefferson might legitimately be considered an inventor for having conceptualized various devices (including a macaroni machine, a swivel chair, a spherical sundial, a moldboard plow, and a cipher wheel), although he held no patents because he believed them to be a form of monopoly. Abraham Lincoln was the only U.S. president who ever held a patent, having been issued Patent #6,469 for "A Device for Buoying Vessels Over Shoals" on 22 May 1849. Beyond that, "inventing" has historically had nothing to do with the qualifications or success of candidates for the White House. Never had a 9 to 5 job This criticism is too vaguely worded to allow for much cogent analysis. What does holding a "9 to 5 job" mean? That one literally works from 9 AM to 5 PM (and not some other period of the day)? That one holds full-time employment? That one is paid on an hourly basis? That one toils at what is commonly referred to as a "blue collar" job? That one works for someone else rather than being self-employed? If we assume the most seemingly relevant application of the term  that it refers to holding steady, full-time employment  then one might fairly say it applies to Bernie Sanders. After receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Chicago in 1964, Sanders primarily worked a series of odd jobs while attempting to get his political career off the ground, and a Politico article observed that he "didn't collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old." However, that same article did list a variety of jobs Sanders held (even if they weren't steady or didn't provide a livable wage) before he finally reached public office upon being elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, at age 39  working as an aide at a psychiatric hospital, as a Head Start preschool teacher, as a carpenter, and as a freelance writer for local publications: article Sanders rented a small brick duplex at 295 1/2 Maple Street that was filled with not much furniture and not much food in the fridge but stacks of checked-out library books and scribbled-on legal pads. "Pretty sparse," Gene Bergman, an old friend, said about the apartment. "Stark and dark," said Darcy Troville, a fellow Liberty Unionite who lived around the corner and shared with Sanders homemade jellies and jams. "The electricity was turned off a lot," Barnett said. "I remember him running an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn't pay his bills." He worked some as a carpenter, although "he was a shitty carpenter," [Liberty Union party member John] Bloch told me. "His carpentry," [Liberty Union member Danny] Morrisseau said, "was not going to support him, and didn't." He worked as a freelance writer, putting intermittent pieces in the low-budget Vermont Freeman, a Burlington alternative weekly called the Vanguard Press and a glossy, state-supported magazine called Vermont Life. His writing wasn't a living. The Vanguard paid as little as the rest. "It would've been not more than 50 bucks," said Greg Guma, a former editor. Vermont Life? "Our rate was 10 cents a word," said Brian Vachon, a former editor. "He was always poor," Sandy Baird, another old friend, told me in Burlington. "Virtually unemployed," said Nelson, the political science professor at the University of Vermont. "Just one step above hand to mouth," said Terry Bouricius, who was involved with Liberty Union, served at times as a de facto campaign manager for Sanders and at one point crashed for a couple months on his couch. Liberty Union "people found it difficult to support themselves while engaging in full-time political work," Michael Parenti, one of those people, wrote in the Massachusetts Review in the summer of 1975. "Some held jobs that allowed free time for campaign activities, while others lived off unemployment insurance." "His work was to be a politician," Guma said. "He put everything into what he was doing." We would also note by that by the standard used here, holding elective office (as Sanders has done for most of the last 35 years as a mayor, a U.S. representative, and a U.S. senator) is as much a "9 to 5" job as any other. Never proposed a bill that has passed This statement is not literally true, as during his tenure in Congress Sanders has sponsored three bills that were enacted, two of which were rather slight matters involving the naming of USPS facilities, and one of which was the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 (which provided "for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans"). Although that might seem like slight achievement for someone who has spent 25 years as both a U.S. representative and a U.S. senator, we would note that only a scant handful of bills submitted in Congress (about 4 to 6 percent) are ever brought to a vote, and even fewer (about 2 to 4 percent) end up being enacted. We would also note that sponsoring original legislation is but one small part of Congress members' duties: they also co-sponsor legislation submitted by colleagues (which Sanders has done for more than 200 successful bills), muster support (or opposition) among colleagues and the public for proposed legislation, review and vote on proposed bills, serve on various committees (Sanders holds six Senate committee appointments), meet with constituents, participate in oversight and investigation of governmental affairs, etc., as detailed in "The Many Roles of a Member of Congress": handful committee detailed First and foremost, the Member is a decision-maker. Members are faced with hundreds of decisions in both recorded and unrecorded votes on matters major and minor. Many decisions must be made quickly. Each decision, whether spontaneous or studied, balances the conflicting perspectives received from private citizens, public officials, party leaders. Decisions are often second-guessed by constituents, campaign opponents, colleagues, lobbyists, and media critics. Meetings are continual, in committee rooms, in private offices, in corridors, and in gatherings on the floor. Daily, sacks of mail are delivered. Faxes flow in a steady stream. Electronic mail jams congressional computers. Correspondence must be written and press releases issued. Highly visible issues are debated on the House or Senate floor, fully televised, and the absence or presence of a Member is duly noted. Scandals require investigation. Programs require oversight. Requests for information, both basic and complex, are received daily. Journalists seek comment. Constituents seek assistance obtaining federal grants, government jobs, and help in overcoming bureaucratic obstacles. Over time, these daily tasks and the always-changing expectations of the electorate have come together to establish a multi-faceted job. Lived off welfare before elected to public office As noted above, various acquaintances who knew Sanders in the years before he achieved public office have reported that he was "always poor," and he likely received public assistance at some point during that time, although what form of (and how much) assistance he received is difficult to determine at this remove. A contemporaneous newspaper account from the Bennington Banner reported that in 1974, when Sanders ran for the U.S. Senate on the Liberty Union Party ticket, he was collecting unemployment benefits: Sanders, 32, cares little what 'image' he conveys  and that's part of his image of being a bit rumpled and unshorn. He's on unemployment compensation right now, having worked for the Bread & Law Task Force, as a free-lance writer, and as a carpenter in the Burlington area. But the thing he likes best, and excels at, is 'talking the issues,' and he doesn't mind repeating himself sometimes." 74 year old  personal net worth of $300,000 As 247 Wall St. reported, determining the precise net worth of candidates is difficult for a number of reasons: net worth [R]eporting exact values is not required. Instead, candidates may disclose their assets and income in a range. Further, candidates do not necessarily report all their assets. For instance, candidates do not need to disclose their personal real estate and property values. Jeb Bush opted to omit assets generated by several holding companies, for example. In addition, while some candidates choose to include their spouses in their disclosures, some do not. Carly Fiorinas net worth of $59 million, for example, includes that of her husband, Frank. Hillary Clinton's reported net worth, on the other hand, does not include assets jointly owned by her and former president Bill Clinton, who is worth by some estimates more than $50 million. 247 Wall St. attempted to determine each presidential candidate's net worth in an article published on 24 August 2015. They estimated that Sanders was one of the "poorest presidential candidates" running for office in 2016, with a likely net worth somewhere around $330,000: estimated Bernie Sanders> Net worth: $194,026-$741,030 In 2013, Bernie Sanders had an average estimated net worth of $330,507, well below other prospective presidential nominees and among the lowest compared with other members of Congress. As of late 2019, Open Secrets, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics, estimated Sanders' net worth at between $729,000 and $1.8 million, making him neither the richest nor the poorest presidential hopeful in the 2020 field. estimated In any case, the meme's characterization of Sanders as a "loser" based on his net worth evinces a rather skewed perspective. Although many people view financial rewards as a tangible measure of one's success, it is far from the only factor by which accomplishment can be measured. (In fact, highly-regarded President Harry S. Truman had virtually no net worth even after leaving the White House in 1953 and afterwards was largely dependent upon Congress' finally establishing a pension for former presidents.) pension Bernie Sanders might equally be considered a "winner" for persevering at his goal of achieving a political career long after others might have given up, and for succeeding at that effort despite prolonged financial hardship. Unlike many others, Sanders might also be lauded for maintaining a rather plain life and not having enriched himself in public service (especially since candidates at the other end of the financial spectrum are frequently criticized for being "out of touch with the common man"). As 247 Wall St. wrote of Sanders: The Vermont senator, who is the longest-serving independent in U.S. history, is a self-identified socialist. He is seeking the Democratic nomination and is the most popular Democratic candidate after Hillary Clinton. In keeping with Sanders' stated intention of starting a grassroots movement, more than 90% of his campaign contributions have come from individual donors. Sanders' campaign speeches have drawn record numbers of attendants. Most recently, 19,000 people watched Sanders speak at an NBA arena in Portland, Oregon, the largest political event compared with all other candidates so far this election season. All in all, that sounds like quite an impressive career achievement for anyone  regardless of net worth. Kruse, Michael.  "Bernie Sanders Has a Secret."
  Politico.  9 July 2015. Frohlich, Thomas C. et al.  "The Net Worth of Each Presidential Candidate."
  24/7 Wall St.  24 August 2015. Delaney, Arthur.  "Bernie Sanders Ran for Office While on Unemployment."
  The Huffington Post.  29 May 2015. Murphy, Tim.  "How Bernie Sanders Learned to Be a Real Politician."
  Mother Jones.  26 May 2015. OpenSecrets.org.  "Net Worth of 2020 Presidential Candidates."
 Accessed 18 October 2019. Michael Wolff's bombshell bookFire and Fury: Inside the Trump White Houseis full of salacious stories from President Donald Trump's first year in office. As media outlets published excerpts from the book in early January 2018, Twitter user PixelatedBoat took advantage of the frenzy to share a fake passage in which White House aides purportedly confessed that they had created a "Gorilla Channel" in order to placate a furious Trump: book share  (@pixelatedboat/Twitter) This fake excerpt ended up getting mixed in with real excerpts from the book, effectively fooling some readers into believing (in not such an unlikely turn of events, given how improbable much of 2016 and 2017 were) that the White House had actually created a "Gorilla Channel" to entertain the President of the United States. Twitter user @PixelatedBoat is best known for creating the internet phrase"Milkshake Duck," which refers to a beloved entity that the Internet quickly turns on and devours after damaging information about it is revealed; they frequently post humorous and obviously satirically content on their feed. After the Gorilla Channel joke was mistaken for a genuine excerpt, they changed their handle to "the gorilla channel thing is a joke" and posted a message expressing remorse: @PixelatedBoat phrase Milkshake Duck tfw you parody a guy making up shit about Trump but people believe it so you become part of the problem PixelatedBoat's "Gorilla Channel" joke is reminiscent of the fake transcripts between President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair that were created by comedian Michael Spicer. In case you were curious, Bill Clinton never said that he punchesslabs of ham to work through his frustrations. punches On Nov. 15, 2023, a user on X with the handle @PatMaguire10 published a post (archived) that said Fox News had reported former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida had received a foreclosure notice from Deutsche Bank. We received reader mail that asked if this was true. post archived The post read, "BREAKING FOX NEWS: Deutsche Bank has filed a notice to foreclose on Mar A Lago. The Trump property is part of a larger estate lien that is 190m$ delinquent. Court documents show a 3.4b$ loan that's in default. Trump hasn't respond to repeated attempts for comment. Developing story."  However, a quick check of @PatMaguire10's X bio showed that the account posts "parody" content. In other words, Fox News didn't report on any such foreclosure notice, nor was there any public record of a foreclosure of Mar-a-Lago taking place or scheduled to happen in the future. For a little more background on the subject that was referenced, on the same day that the post was created, Trump's legal team reportedly asked for a mistrial to be declared in the civil fraud trial brought against him in New York. mistrial Weeks earlier, the same trial featured testimony from retired Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh. Haigh provided information to the court about the bank's decision to loan Trump roughly $125 million for the purchase of the Trump National Doral property in Miami in 2011, according to ABC News. ABC News As for Mar-a-Lago, Miami Herald reported in August 2022 that Trump had received a loan from Chase Manhattan Bank  not Deutsche Bank  for his 1985 purchase of the property: Miami Herald Mar-a-Lago itself cost Trump $8 million, which he financed with an $8.5 million loan from Chase Manhattan Bank. The other parcel - oceanfront land next to the manor - cost $2 million. Trump was able to use $500,000 from the estate loan and a $1.5 million mortgage from the seller, Jack C. Massey, to cover the bill. For further reading, we previously published a report titled, "Media Literacy: How Can You Tell if a Post Is Satire/Parody?" report Bromwich, Jonah E. Trump Lawyers Call for Mistrial in Civil Fraud Case, Attacking Judge. The New York Times, 15 Nov. 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/nyregion/trump-mistrial-fraud-case.html. Charalambous, Peter, et al. Bank Relied on Trumps Financial Statement to Secure Loan. ABC News, 11 Oct. 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-fraud-trial/bank-relied-on-trumps-financial-statement-to-secure-loan-103895871?id=103642561. ---. Deutsche Bank Executive Set to Take Stand. ABC News, 11 Oct. 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-fraud-trial/deutsche-bank-executive-set-to-take-stand-103889913?id=103642561. Ibrahim, Nur. Media Literacy: How Can You Tell If a Post Is Satire/Parody? Snopes, 25 Feb. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/articles/464404/media-literacy-satire-parody/. Kleinman, Jeff. How Donald Trump Changed a Palm Beach Mansion. The Story behind His Mar-a-Lago Takeover. Miami Herald, 9 Aug. 2022, https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article264318476.html. Spencer, Terry. Is Mar-a-Lago Worth $1 Billion? Trumps Winter Home Valuations Are at the Core of His Fraud Trial. The Associated Press, 9 Oct. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/trump-maralago-lawsuit-palm-beach-51fea4e520b1901c1c045590b2a7bdc0. Claim:  A miraculous car that gets 200 miles to the gallon is sold by mistake then reclaimed by the factory and is never seen again.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 1999] A retiring General Motors employee, after many years of service, receives a car as a retirement gift. (as well as a nice pension, etc.). So he is given permission to select a car from the lot there at the factory. He selects a Chevrolet Caprice, a big, luxury car. After receiving it, he is satisfied with his choice. After all, who wouldn't enjoy driving around in a roomy, comfortable car. After driving it for a while, he noticed something quite odd ... a car like this usually consumes a substantial amount of fuel, but the gas gauge hardly moves at all.  After a few weeks, he gets suspicious. Things like this don't happen. Being the company man he is, he returns it to the factory. Explaining this to the service tech must've caused some strange looks, but they took it in anyway. After he got his car back, he noticed it got the typical gas mileage of a comparable car. Could've this car had some secret "modifications" that allowed him to drive for weeks, on the same tank of gas? Detroit's automakers have purportedly seized, er.. bought out patents of items that improve gasoline mileage like the 100 mpg carburetor, etc. Maybe the R&D department at GM put this theory to practice, and this was an example.  [Collected via e-mail, 1997] A couple journeys from Western Canada to Detroit to buy a new car and presumably save shipping costs while having a vacation in the States at the same time.  Driving back to the prairies, they find to their astonishment that the gas gauge is not moving down to "empty" even though they've been driving for hours.  Arriving home some thousands of miles away from Detroit, they have only refilled the tank once or twice. A few days after returning, the husband looks out at his driveway in the morning to find two mysterious men tinkering with his car (the hood is up).  Running out, they race off; he checks under the hood, finds nothing amiss, and concludes it's just vandals or would-be thieves whom he was fortunate to apprehend before any damage was done.  BUT, when they drive the car, they find their gas mileage is now normal. Variations:  The miraculous car legend ends one of four ways:    Mysterious men appear and tinker with the engine, rendering the car no different than any other.   The car is reclaimed by the factory. If the owner afterwards gets the same car back (sometimes it's replaced outright with another vehicle), it now gets ordinary gas mileage. No-nonsense business types show up to make a fabulous offer for the car, which is accepted. The owner wakes up one morning to find the car vanished without a trace. Origins:  The legend of the miracle high-mileage automobile has been around longer than most of our readers, with a version set it Philadelphia having appeared in a 1948 newspaper. (Even at that time, the story proved unverifiable, with the article's writer identifying it as such and passing it along only as an example of a current rumor   sweeping through the community.) Since that early sighting of more than half a century ago, the legend has gone on to enthrall audience after audience as each couple of years sees it pop up anew. Its origins are as strange as the story itself. Between 1928 and 1935, Charles Nelson Pogue, an inventor from Canada, applied for numerous patents for what he claimed was a new type of carburetor that supposedly completely vaporized gasoline before introducing it to the cylinders, thereby extracting a great deal more energy from the fuel. According to the Pogue patent description, fuel was introduced into the engine in this vaporous "dry" state rather than in the normal droplet-laden "wet" state, thus combining more readily with air, making it burn with far greater efficiency. Better combustion combined with the raising of the engine's operating temperature from 160F to 180F were said to be responsible for vastly improved fuel economy.  So much for the techno-talk. The Pogue carburetor was touted as getting 200+ miles to the gallon. Glowing reports about this miracle of ingenuity's making a 1,879 mile trip on 14.5 gallons appeared in the May 1936 issue of Canadian AutomotiveTrade magazine, reports which Pogue later denied.  A manager of a Winnipeg auto dealership claimed he had driven a Pogue-equipped car 217 miles on a gallon of gasoline. A different dealer principal claimed to have driven 26 miles on a pint of fuel.  The story snowballed onward from those breathless testimonials as one rumor quickly followed on the heels of another. Thieves were reputed to have broken into Pogue's shop and made off with three of his carburetors. There was talk of armed guards and wolfhounds guarding the shop and the now-famous inventor. Wealthy backers (from Winnipeg or Toronto, depending on whom you heard the story from) were rumored  to be bankrolling Pogue, but the arrangements mysteriously fell through. Ford of Canada was said to have bought the invention outright. All in all it was a very exciting time. Alas, one can get by on mere smoke and mirrors for only so long. Those with sense enough to not be deafened by the hyperbole were not long kept at bay with tales of wolfhounds, thieves, and mysterious briefcase-toting moneymen. They wanted to see the carburetor. That, of course, was never permitted. No one reputable was allowed to see the mechanical miracle in action, let alone have a chance to measure its results. After the initial excitement over Pogue's 1936 announcement had faded, more serious types began to openly doubt that the carburetor would work as described.  In the December 1936 issue of Automotive Industries magazine, its engineering editor, P.M. Heldt, said of a sketch of the Pogue carburetor: "The sketch fails to show any features hitherto unknown in carburetor practice, and absolutely gives no warrant for crediting the remarkable results claimed." Other journalists were beginning to voice similar opinions. In response to calls to put up or shut up, Pogue's miracle carburetor was heard of no more. Faced with the choice of believing someone had made claims his invention couldn't later live up to or that a monied bad guy had bought up a technology to forever keep it off the market, at least some chose to believe the suppression theory. That the carburetor never made it to the public, they said, was proof enough of its existence. Those 1930s news stories breathlessly trumpeting Pogue's miracle of technology form the basis of the economical carburetor legend now before us.  As gas prices  fluctuate, our dependence on fossil fuels is driven home time and again. Who wouldn't long for a miracle of engineering that would free us from the tyranny of the gas pump? And thus the groundwork for belief is laid. As sometimes happens in the world of urban legends, desire for something to be true transforms a rumor into certainty that this very thing is fact. Over the years, our legend about a 200 mpg car has bobbed to the surface in community after community, been debunked in numerous respected publications, and bobbed right back up in the wake of those debunkings. The need to believe in this wondrous technology and the evil car manufacturers who are deliberately withholding it from the market appears too strong to combat. A bit of rational thought should be all that's needed to lay this legend to rest. Why would the car manufacturers at all care about keeping such a technological advance away from consumers? Unlike the petroleum companies, they've no vested interest in how much fuel a car uses. An automaker's self interest is best served by getting the newest irresistible technology to the consumer before his competitors do. If any one of them possessed the secret of the 200 mpg car, he'd have rushed it into production, hoping to beat his competitors to the punch. Those who are tempted to believe the Evil Government is responsible for keeping this miracle out of our hands should reflect for a moment on the current state of world politics. The government of the United States would like nothing better than to throw off the yoke of dependence upon foreign oil. A miraculous carburetor would grant that freedom, allowing Americans to continue to enjoy current levels of use without the need to go hat in hand to OPEC or even those dastardly Canadians. The domestic supply would be more than enough. Though rarely is this tale told about anything other than a gas-miserly carburetor, this version describes a miraculous lightbulb: It was around 1920, shortly after he had married, when the old man originally purchased the light bulb from a small store in town. It appeared to be a normal light bulb. However, when after sixty years it was still going strong, he decided to write to the manufacturers and tell them of this remarkable phenomenon. By return a reply came from the company indicating that they were very interested in the bulb and would like to send someone to see it. Eventually, one of the directors of the firm called and, instead of just showing interest, offered to buy it for 1,000. The old man, of course, refused, as the light bulb had given him good service. However, his curiousity was certainly aroused  why so much money for his light bulb? The director could provide no plausible explanation as to why they were willing to offer so much for the bulb, so the old man decided to explore this mystery further. With the help of a solicitor friend he did a little investigating and discovered that in the 1920s this particular light-bulb manufacturer had bought and tested the patent for an everlasting bulb. Only a few of these bulbs were made and the company, finding the invention worked, destroyed the bulbs and suppressed the idea  after all, it would have put them out of business. Unknown to the company one of the lights had accidentally become mixed up with a batch of ordinary bulbs and this was the light bulb which had lit the old man's kitchen for the past sixty years. (Sometimes lore collides with reality: A long-lived light bulb has been burning since 1901 and currently lights a fire station in Livermore, California.) light bulb Barbara "gasoline allied" Mikkelson Origins:  The legend about the need to suppress the steam-driven carburetor that can produce 200 mpg to protect the oil industry surfaces in an episode of the TV series Spoils of Babylon ("The Foundling: The War Within; original air date 9 January 2014). Last updated:  26 June 2014 The Mexican Pet    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Vanishing Hitchhiker.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.  ISBN 0-393-95169-3  (pp. 175-178). The Vanishing Hitchhiker    Dale, Rodney.  The Tumour in the Whale.   London: Duckworth, 1978.  ISBN 0-7156-1314-6  (pp. 114-115). The Tumour in the Whale    Dorson, Richard.  American Folklore.   Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1959  (p. 253). American Folklore    Ellis, William and Alan E. Mays.  "Art Linkletter and the Contemporary Legend."   FOAFTale News.  June 1994  (pp. 1-10).     Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker.  Rumor!   New York: Penguin Books, 1984.  ISBN 0-14-007036-2  (pp. 123-125).  Rumor!    Smith, Paul.  The Book of Nasty Legends.  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983.  ISBN 0-00-636856-5  (pp. 9, 67).  The Book of Nasty Legends    Vance, Bill.  "Was Winnipeg Inventor Victim of Oil Barons?"   The Toronto Star.  17 April 1993  (p. H2). The Complete and Totally True Book of Urban Legends    Holt, David and Bill Mooney.  Spiders in the Hairdo.  Little Rock: August House, 1999.  ISBN 0-87483-525-9  (pp. 85, 106). Spiders in the Hairdo   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 22). The Big Book of Urban Legends After the police shooting of 20-year-old Latrell Allen in Chicago's Englewood community on the afternoon of Aug. 9, 2020, unrest in that city extended through that night and into the early morning hours of the following day, with looters hitting some stores in Chicagos wealthiest shopping district on North Michigan Avenue. Latrell Allen extended The following evening, members of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement held a solidarity rally in that city with some of the people who had been arrested for looting the night before. Shortly after those events, social media users began circulating a meme stemming from that event, quoting a "BLM leader & organizer" named Ariel Atkins as saying, "I don't care if someone decides to loot, because that makes sure that person eats or has clothes. Anything they want to take, they can, because these businesses have insurance":  That was an accurate quote, according to Chicago NBC affiliate WMAQ-TV, who reported on the Aug. 10 event: reported Members of Black Lives Matter held a solidarity rally on Monday night [August 10] with the more than 100 individuals who were arrested after a night of looting and unrest in Chicago. The rally was held at the South Loop police station where organizers say those individuals are currently being held in custody. I dont care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macys or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats, Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. That makes sure that person has clothes. Black Lives Matter Chicago organized the rally after overnight unrest throughout the city, with police saying that more than 100 individuals were taken into custody for a variety of offenses, including looting. That is reparations, Atkins said. Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance. Atkins said essentially the same thing a few days later, when she was interviewed by Chicago NPR station WBEZ on the subject of "why she supports looting": interviewed A lot of people are really attacking our pages. Theyre like, Oh, you support the looters. And yeah, we do, 100%. Thats reparations. And like however people choose to protest, especially if it was definitely in line with what happened with the shooting, which would be powerful to see people reacting ... without organizers just being like, Were angry and this is what were gonna do. Were gonna take the power back. I feel like these stores, these Macys, these Guccis, the PNC Banks, theyre not here for us. The city puts way more money and investment into spending time and protecting their spaces and making sure that they exist. And yet our people are constantly being pushed out of the city ... Unemployment is incredibly high, like we are in an incredible situation, and the fact that anybody gives a s*** about these businesses over what is happening in this city right now and the pain that people are in and the suffering that is taking place, I dont care. I will support the looters till the end of the day. If thats what they need to do in order to eat, then thats what youve got to do to eat .... The whole idea of criminality is based on racism anyway, because criminality is punishing people for things that they have needed to do to survive or just the way that society has affected them with white supremacist B.S. So its like her deciding what is criminal and what isnt. WMAQ-TV [Chicago].  "Black Lives Matter Holds Rally Supporting Individuals Arrested in Chicago Looting Monday."
  10 August 2020. Black, Curtis. &nbps; "Latrell Allen Police Shooting Exposes Gaps in Body Camera and Foot Pursuit Policies."
  The Chicago Reporter.  14 August 2020. Yoon-Ji Kang, Esther.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  10 August 2020. Wildeboer, Rob and Chip Mitchell.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  12 August 2020.