Costco CEO
Claim:  Image presents information about Costco CEO James Sinegal. PARTLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2012] Is this true? Costco CEO pays his employees $17 hour plus benefits and resists Wall Street demands to cut pay and benefits.  Origins:   This graphic featuring a photograph and information about  Costco warehouse store chain CEO James Sinegal was circulated in November 2012 and was generally accurate, but a bit outdated.   Jim Sinegal co-founded Costco and served as the company's President and CEO for nearly three decades, but he stepped down from those positions in January 2012 (although he remains a company advisor and a member of the Costco board of directors).   The accompanying text about employee pay and benefits and Sinegal's resistance to Wall Street criticisms appears to have been drawn from a July 2005 New York Times profile of Sinegal and Costco: Combining high quality with stunningly low prices,  [Costco products] appeal to upscale customers  and epitomize why some retail analysts say Mr. Sinegal just might be America's shrewdest merchant since Sam Walton. But not everyone is happy with Costco's business strategy. Some Wall Street analysts assert that Mr. Sinegal is overly generous not only to Costco's customers but to its workers as well. Costco's average pay, for example, is $17 an hour, 42 percent higher than its fiercest rival, Sam's Club. And Costco's health plan makes those at many other  retailers look Scroogish. One analyst, Bill Dreher of Deutsche Bank, complained last year that at Costco "it's better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder." Mr. Sinegal begs to differ. He rejects Wall Street's assumption that to succeed in discount retailing, companies must pay poorly and skimp on benefits, or must ratchet up prices to meet Wall Street's profit demands. Good wages and benefits are why Costco has extremely low rates of turnover and theft by employees, he said. And Costco's customers, who are more affluent than other warehouse store shoppers, stay loyal because they like that low prices do not come at the workers' expense. "This is not altruistic," he said. "This is good business." He also dismisses calls to increase Costco's product markups. Mr. Sinegal, who has been in the retailing business for more than a half-century, said that heeding Wall Street's advice to raise some prices would bring Costco's downfall. Despite Costco's impressive record, Mr. Sinegal's salary is just $350,000, although he also received a $200,000 bonus last year. That puts him at less than 10 percent of many other chief executives, though Costco ranks 29th in revenue among all American companies. Similarly, Slate wrote in 2008 that: It's not hard to make a case that Costco pays employees more. The most relevant comparison is between Costco and Sam's Club, Wal-Mart's membership warehouse, since both business models rely on membership fees for a large percentage of revenues. A Sam's Club employee starts at $10 and makes $12.50 after four and a half years. A new Costco employee, at $11 an hour, doesn't start out much better, but after four and a half years she makes $19.50 an hour. In addition to this, she receives something called an "extra check"  a bonus of more than $2,000 every six months. A cashier at Costco, after five years, makes about $40,000 a year. Health benefits are among the best in the industry, with workers paying only about 12 percent of their premiums out-of-pocket while Wal-Mart workers pay more than 40 percent. In my interview with Costco CFO Richard Galanti, he mentioned Jim Sinegal every couple of minutes, attributing the company's high wages to the CEO's personal values. CFO Galanti acknowledged having at times argued with his boss, urging him to curb Costco's generosity on health care. (Sinegal eventually agreed with him, reluctantly, in 2003 but insisted that care remain affordable to employees.) Sinegal's kindliness is impressive, but he's also 72 years old and thus won't be around forever. Perhaps he's created a corporate culture strong enough to outlast him, but that's impossible to predict. In a November 2010 report of data gathered by the job site CareerBliss.com, Costco employees gave the company "the highest ratings for salary, benefits and work-life balance." CareerBliss.com According to Yahoo! Finance, in 2011 Jim Sinegal's  total yearly compensation as a Costco company executive, including salary and bonuses, was $629,000, and he garnered another $12,300,000 through the exercise of stock options. Yahoo! Finance Last updated:  28 November 2012    Featherstone, Liza.  "Wage Against the Machine."   Slate.  27 June 2008.    Goldwert, Lindsay.  "Costco Employees Give company Top Ratings ."   New York [Daily News].  29 November 2010.    Greenhouse, Steven.  "How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart."   The New York Times.  17 July 2005.    Schmit, Julie.  "Costco Wins Loyalty with Bulky Bargains."   USA Today.  23 September 2004.
Sometimes, Snopes readers stumble on old stories that require us to revisit key moments of history. One such story was of the courageous actions of Neerja Bhanot, an Indian flight attendant on Pan Am flight 73, which was hijacked in 1986 by Palestinian militants on its way to the United States while on a stopover in Karachi, Pakistan. Neerja Bhano Many of our readers shared social media posts, and queries, asking us to detail some of the main events of the hijacking, including Bhanots death from a gunshot wound. posts   One reader asked us to confirm the following: When radical Islamic terrorists hijacked her A/C in Karachi, Pakistan she informed the pilots (who used their escape hatch to runaway) and kept both the passengers/remaining crew calm. When the terrorists demanded to know who the Americans were on the flight so they could execute them she gathered all the passports and hid the ones belonging to Americans under seat cushions. The terrorists confused and unable to determine the national origins of the passengers didn't execute anyone. When Pakistani police raided the plane she was able to nearly singlehandedly evacuate all the passengers as the firefight ensued. She being one of the last people on board did a last check and found three children still hiding. As she led the children to safety the surviving terrorists spotted the children and opened fire on them. Neerja jumped in the way of the bullets and was mortally wounded. She was able to evac the children to safety before dying from her wounds. Neerja was awarded the Ashok Chakra Award by India, the highest peacetime gallantry award possible. She was the youngest and first civilian to ever be awarded this honor. Through testimonies from the flight crew and passengers during the sentencing of one of the hijackers, and interviews done by the BBC, we were able to gather key facts from that fateful day. In 2004, Zayad al Safarini, a Jordanian hijacker who was part of the attack, was sentenced by a U.S. district judge to 160 years in prison. At the hearing for his sentencing, a number of passengers, flight attendants, and Bhanots brother, came forward to recount the events of the hijacking. The full transcript of their testimonies can be read here. testimonies BBC sentenced here The Palestinian militants who hijacked the aircraft were affiliated with the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), which was opposed to U.S. and Israeli policies in the Middle East, and was described as a secular international terrorist organization. When the hijackers boarded the plane, they began trying to identify any Americans on board. A 2016 BBC report included interviews with the surviving flight attendants, described the scene: described BBC report Sunshine, Madhvi Bahuguna and another flight attendant began collecting passports, quietly avoiding collecting any that were American. They then went through the bags of passports they had collected, secretly sifting out any remaining American ones and tucking them under their seats or concealing them in their clothing. Mike Thexton, a passenger on the plane, describes the act in his book What Happened to The Hippy Man? as "extremely brave, selfless and clever". "I may be biased but I feel that day proved that the flight attendants on board were some of the best in the industry." Descriptions from passengers and family members from the sentencing of Safarini detailed the moment that flight attendants were told to gather passports, and the ways in which they tried to protect the Americans among them. Aneesh Bhanot, Neerjas brother, who was not on the plane as these events took place, described this effort as one carried out by all the flight attendants together: Descriptions Neerja was an Indian citizen. All the other flight attendants were also Indian citizens. Mr. Safarini and his gang were targeting Americans, as was very obvious from the passenger calls which you heard later on. Neerja and all the other attendants knew this. That is why when they asked them to get the passports of all the passengers, they hid the American passports on the airplane. He also cited the testimony of another passenger that was published in the Cincinnati Enquirer in September 1986. A clipping of that paper is available below (in which Bhanot is referred to as Neerja Mishra):   Michael John Thexton, a British passenger, recounted the following: recounted Then came the call for passports, and I should have ignored it. But I felt that I had to obey orders. So I took out my passport and I handed it in, still thinking that the Americans would be in front of us, not reckoning the ingenuity and the extraordinary bravery of the stewardess who was making the collection in discarding American passports that had a white face. I suppose the British were [the] third choice for the terrorists. And after the Americans and the Israelis, mine was the only one of a small handful of British passports with a white face in that pile. I think maybe six or seven, something of that sort. So the call came over the public address for passenger Michael John to come forward, then Michael John Thexton, and I knew that they wanted to shoot me. Darrell Pieper, an American passenger, credited flight attendant Sunshine Vesuwala for protecting his identity. In his testimony, he said, Sunshine hid my passport when she realized the hijackers are looking for Americans. I'm grateful to her for her quick thinking and action, which again saved my life. credited Gregg Maisel, the attorney representing the U.S. government, said, the flight attendants, risking their own lives, deliberately refused to accept United States passports from some passengers and hid several United States passports under seat cushions. said Given that Bhanot played a big role in protecting the American passengers by hiding their passports, but was not the only flight attendant doing this, we rate this part of the claim as true. In this instance, even as Bhanot showed remarkable bravery in getting passengers to safety, she was not alone in this effort. According to Maisel, passengers escaped after Bhanot and others were able to open up some exits: escaped As the bullets and grenades flew, Neerja Bhanot, as well as other flight attendants and passengers, heroically managed to force open two exits in the economy section. The opening of the rear exit triggered inflation of the emergency slide, but the opening of the exit over the wing did not trigger the inflation of a second emergency slide. People clamored to reach both exits fearful that the hijackers would resume the assault.[...]This diagram illustrates the efforts of surviving hostages to escape the aircraft using the emergency slide and climbing onto the wing of the plane. While the slide was a safer escape route, the sheer number of people attempting to leave the plane through this exit at night resulted in additional injuries to some who were unable to exit quickly enough to avoid being crushed by others behind them.[...]At the direction of several flight attendants, other passengers reentered the plane climbing over the wounded and the dead and used the rear exit where the slide was inflated to the safer escape route. Aneesh Bhanot also recounted an article written by a Pakistani passenger: recounted There's another passenger from Pakistan, a gentleman called Hussein, who had written an article in a newspaper called the Star of Pakistan. And he wrote again that says as the lights went out at 10:00 p.m. we was herded with the passengers and the shooting started. From nowhere, his savior, Neerja, and I'm sure other flight attendants also did the same thing, had the presence and the nerve to steer through the pandemonium to lead the passengers where to go. Neerja, by sheer zest, it seems, single-handedly opened the chute. Her favorite words to him and other passengers were, get out, run. In this instance, since Bhanot appeared to have taken the lead in helping passengers escape and was also aided by other crew and passengers, we rate this part of the claim as a mixture, given that she did not do this alone. Bhanots death was described through different accounts, based on information gathered in the aftermath of the attack. Some reports said she was protecting three children, while flight attendants described her being shot during the escape. Jennifer Levy, another attorney representing the U.S. government, described Bhanots final moments: described When the lights went out just before the final assault, Ms. Bhanot ran for the emergency door and activated the inflatable chute. Instead of escaping as one of the first off the aircraft, she remained on board to help others out of the plane. She was shot in the final assault. Although she was taken off the plane alive by her fellow flight attendants, she died shortly afterwards of massive bleeding. Viraf Daroga, Pan Ams director in Pakistan, described how Bhanot was brought down from the aircraft through the emergency chute: described Those who were injured were picked up as they came down the chute, put in ambulances that came rushing to the aircraft, and were driven off to various hospitals. Neerja, the senior purser, was brought down by her colleagues and was taken to the hospital. She died in the hospital in the arms of one of my staff. Aneesh Bhanots testimony described how Bhanot was indeed protecting three children when she was shot and killed: described Neerja could have been the first one to escape from the aircraft as she opened the emergency door, yet she chose not to do that. Instead, she got the passengers out and gave her own life, as we are told, while shielding three small children from gunfire. Her actions probably saved hundreds of lives. The Pan Am Historical Foundation also described her death by saying As the hijackers opened fire on passengers and crew, Neerja Bhanot lost her life shielding three children from bullets. described Since reports differ on what happened during Bhanots final moments, and some details remain uncertain, we rate the overall truth of this claim as "Mixture." But there is no doubting that her actions, as well as the actions of other flight attendants and crew, saved many lives. She was posthumously awarded the Ashok Chakra award, which is India's highest civilian decoration for bravery.  Ashok Chakra award Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In late May 2020, social media users shared a meme that contained a misleading claim about the state of California. The meme said the state had announced it would give undocumented residents a stimulus payment on the same day it said it would lay off first responders due to diminished state funds resulting from the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, implying the two events are causally linked.   California Gov. Gavin Newsom on April 15, 2020, acknowledged undocumented residents paid $2.5 billion in state and local taxes in 2019. He then announced the state would draw up a total of $125 million sourced from charitable donations and taxpayer funds to provide $500 stimulus payments to those residents. That was because they didn't qualify to receive federal stimulus checks under the CARES Act, a relief package meant to blunt the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. acknowledged CARES Act This announcement was unrelated to another statement Newsom made more than a month later. In the latter, he urged the federal government to provide financial assistance to states and local governments struggling with economic shortfalls to their operating budgets due to forced business closures during the pandemic. In an interview on CNN on May 21, Newsom stated that without federal help, cities and counties may be forced to lay off first responders. interview "The next time they want to salute our heroes, our first responders, our police officers and firefighters, consider the fact that they are the first ones to be laid off by cities and counties," Newsom said when asked by CNN host Jake Tapper what would happen if the federal government failed to bail out states and local governments. "The folks who are out there, the true heroes of this pandemic, are health care workers and nurses. Those county health systems have been ravaged, their budgets have been devastated and depleted, the budget accounts depleted since this pandemic." Budgets that deal with first responders like police, firefighters, and paramedics are generally administered by local governments, meaning it would be cities and counties in California, not the state itself, that would have discretion over whether or when to cut those services. Furthermore, Newsom didn't "announce" such layoffs would take place; he simply suggested cuts may occur in the absence of intervention from the federal government to financially shore up local governments. As of late May, California was facing a $54 billion budget shortfall resulting from economic fallout of stay-at-home orders that forced shuttering of most commerce beginning in mid-March, in an effort to slow the spread of the COVID-19 disease. The state one year earlier had a surplus of $21 billion. $54 billion In sum, Newsom didn't "announce" layoffs for first responders but instead projected that layoffs at the local level were a looming possibility. He also didn't make the statement on the same day that he announced California would commit $125 million ($75 million of which would come from taxpayers) to give undocumented state residents $500 stimulus payments. The two events are unrelated, although the meme attempted to link them causally. We therefore rate this claim  Lightman, David."Fact Check: Gavin Newsom Warns of Layoffs for Police, Firefighters. Is He Exaggerating?"
Sacramento Bee.21 May 2020. CNN."Newsom Warns of Police, Fire Layoffs in California."
21 May 2020. Associated Press."California Announces $125 Million Fund for Undocumented Immigrants Impacted by Coronavirus."
15 April 2020. Associated Press."California Faces a Staggering $54 Billion Budget Deficit Due to Economic Devastation from Coronavirus."
7 May 2020. In his new film,Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore makes a case that the richest Americans used to shoulder a much bigger portion of the tax burden back in the years of his childhood. In the 1950s, A lot of people got rich  and they had to pay a top tax rate of 90 percent, Moore says in the film. Considering that the top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans today is 35 percent, that figure seems astounding. But it's true that in the 1950s, the topmarginaltax rates were over 90 percent. So does that mean that someone in 1955 making a half million dollars had to fork over $450,000 of it to Uncle Sam? No. We are talking here about marginal tax rates. Moore doesn't go out of his way to explain this, so we will. The marginal tax rate is the top rate of income tax charged to individuals on their last dollar of earnings. So in 1955, for example, when the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, that was the tax rate owed on a person's income over $300,000. That person would, however, pay 20 percent on the first $2,000 of income; 21 percent on the next $2,000 in income; 24 percent on the next $2,000 and graduated on up to the highest rate. On average, a person making, say, $500,000 would pay substantially less than 90 percent of their income in federal taxes. The top marginal tax rates peaked in 1952 and 1953 at 92 percent for income over $300,000. Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center did some math for us to give this some perspective. In 1952 and 1953, Williams said, when the top income tax rate was 92 percent for income over $300,000, a person would have to make waaaay more than $300,000 to actually end up paying an average of 90 percent of their income. According to Williams, someone would have to make $2,328,400, and therefore pay $2,095,560, to get to that 90 percent threshold. But people with income of less than $2.3 million  remember we're talking about 1952 and 1953  would have paid, on average, something less than 90 percent, and perhaps much less. Still, Moore's point is valid. The top marginal tax rates paid by the richest Americans were far higher in the 1950s than they are now. In 2009, the top marginal rate was 35 percent on income above $372,958. And although Moore didn't use the term marginal tax rate, he did say top tax rate. People without CPAs might mistake that for a person's average tax rate (it's not), but it's valid wording. And so we rule this one Mostly True. State Rep. John Jay Edwardswas a gueston WHJJ's Helen Glover show when the issue came up of requiring motorists to pay a toll to cross the Sakonnet River Bridge, which connects Portsmouth and Tiverton and is a main thoroughfare to and from Aquidneck Island. Edwards represents both towns.It's just another tax on the people who live in East Bay, he said. I'm sure there is going to be a split fare between the people who have a Rhode Island E-ZPass and those who do not. They're saying that 40 percent of the traffic that goes over that is [from] out of state.Glover expressed skepticism over that percentage. I think that's mostly locals commuting for jobs, she said.It sounded like the perfect thing to track down.We called Edwards to find out precisely who they are. He told us he got the information from the Rhode Island Department of Transportation and said he had his own doubts about the factoid. I think they may be using it to make it sound more palatable, he said.When we contacted the DOT, spokesman Bryan Lucier, wrote us to say The Director [Michael Lewis] has stated publicly that approximately 40 percent of the traffic is from out of state.Lucier said the percentage comes froma DOT studythat tracked license plate numbers. He told us that 38.2 percent of the cars and trucks traveling southbound -- from Tiverton to Portsmouth -- had out-of-state plates and 31.4 percent going northbound.Average daily out-of-state volume was 35.1 percent, not 40.The traffic count was done on just two days in the middle of winter -- Jan. 26, a Thursday, and Jan. 28, a Saturday. And it was conducted only from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The afternoon rush hour was not included.Among the out-of-state vehicles, 90 percent had Massachusetts license plates, 2 percent were from Connecticut, and 1 percent were from New Hampshire, New York and New Jersey.The bridge currently has an 18-ton weight limit, which requires a lot of trucks to detour around it. Lucier said the expectation is that when the bridge is replaced, truck traffic will increase and that will increase the percentage of out-of-state vehicles using it.Our rulingRep. John Edwards said, They're saying that 40 percent of the traffic that goes over [the Sakonnet River Bridge is from] out of state.The DOT says Edwards is correctly quoting Michael Lewis, who has been saying approximately 40 percent and whose source is a two-day traffic study commissioned by the DOT that concludes that the actual percentage is 35.Clearly, when he was talking to Glover, Edwards was saying that the data wasn't his and he told us, after the fact, that he had doubts about its accuracy. It turns out, he may have reason for skepticism.We rate the statement made by Lewis and repeated by EdwardsMostly True. (Get updates fromPolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.) In December 2020, right-leaning observers and prominent Republican politicians cried foul after a federal court judge blocked attempts to remove thousands of names from voter rolls in Georgia, ahead of January's two U.S. Senate run-off elections in the state.  On Dec. 28, Politico reported that: Politico A federal judge in Georgia on Monday ordered two counties to reverse a decision removing more than 4,000 voters from the rolls ahead of the Jan. 5 runoff elections that will decide control of the U.S. Senate. The judge, Leslie Abrams Gardner  the sister of former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, a prominent ally of President-elect Joe Biden who has led voter registration efforts across the state  concluded that the counties appeared to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations in the two counties. The bulk of the registrations that the counties sought to rescind, more than 4,000, were in Muscogee County, which Biden won handily in November. An additional 150 were from Ben Hill County, which Trump won by a wide margin. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas responded by tweeting: "This is absurd. This is an obvious case for recusal. For Stacey Abrams sister to refuse to recuse  and issue this decision despite her indisputable bias  undermines the integrity of the entire judicial system." Donald Trump Jr. wrote "Nothing shady here..." tweeting wrote Doug Collins, the outgoing Republican congressman who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 2020, said Abrams Gardner should recuse herself from the case because "her own sister is a party!" said   In reality, Abrams was not a party to the case on which her sister ruled in December 2020. Collins stated a significant falsehood in claiming otherwise.  Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and Leslie Abrams Gardner are indeed sisters. Over the years, Abrams has repeatedly confirmed as much, including when she congratulated Abrams Gardner on her U.S. Senate confirmation and appointment as U.S. District Court judge for the Middle District of Georgia, in 2014 and 2015. 2014 2015 The case in question was Majority Forward and Gamaliel Warren Turner vs. Ben Hill County Board of Elections et al. Majority Forward is a non-profit voter registration organization, and Turner is a resident of Muscogee County, Georgia. According to Abrams Gardner's Dec. 28 ruling, the basic facts of the case were as follows. Earlier in December 2020, Tommy Roberts  a City Council member in Fitzgerald in Ben Hill County  challenged the eligibility of 328 registered voters in the county. Based on his own cross-referencing of the U.S. Postal Service's National Change of Address database, Roberts contended that those voters had moved out of the state and were therefore no longer eligible to vote in Ben Hill County.  ruling The board of elections in Ben Hill County determined that Roberts' challenge to the eligibility of 152 of those voters was likely valid, and they designated those 152 voters "pending hearing" and contacted them to advise that they would only be allowed to cast provisional ballots in the January 2021 Senate run-off election, and would subsequently have to "cure" those ballots by providing proof of their residency. In Muscogee County, a man named Ralph Russell brought a similar challenge, claiming to have found 4,033 registered voters in Muscogee County who, according to the National Change of Address database, had moved out of state. The Muscogee County Board of Elections determined that Russell's challenge was probably valid, and contacted those 4,033 "targeted voters" to inform them they could only cast provisional ballots, and would have to provide proof of residency. Turner was one of those targeted voters. On Dec. 23, Majority Forward challenged the actions of Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, and filed for a temporary restraining order on Dec. 27. On Dec. 28, Abrams Gardner granted that order, meaning the counties were ordered, for the next eight days, not to remove the targeted voters from registration lists, or require them to cast only provisional ballots. Since that time period covered the Jan. 5, 2021, elections, the targeted voters were therefore allowed to vote as normal in the U.S. Senate run-off elections. Abrams Gardner's reasoning can be examined in the ruling itself.  ruling The defendants in the case filed a motion to request that Abrams Gardner recuse herself. They argued, in part, that Fair Fight  the voting rights group founded and chaired by Abrams  was involved in similar litigation before the U.S. District Court in Georgia's Northern District, and the same lawyers represented Fair Fight and Majority Forward in the cases. They also argued that Abrams Gardner's ruling in the Majority Forward case could have a bearing on the judge's decision-making in the Fair Fight litigation, which directly involved Abrams, since she is the chairperson of that organization. The defendants wrote: motion wrote In addition, any relief rendered in the instant case as it relates to the NCOAR [National Change of Address Registry] would likely be cited as persuasive authority in the Fair Fight Litigation. Abrams interest could therefore be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding. For this reason, Judge Gardners impartiality might reasonably be questioned were this case to proceed before her. In a footnote to her Dec. 28 ruling, Abrams Gardner noted the request for her to recuse herself, but stated simply, "The Court has reviewed the motion and finds no basis for recusal." Abrams Gardner added that "an order detailing the court's reasoning" was forthcoming. As of Dec. 31, no such order was available on the case's online docket.  Contrary to Collins' claim, Abrams was not a "party" to the Majority Forward litigation on which her sister ruled in December 2020. However, she is the chairperson of Fair Fight, a voting rights organization that acted as a plaintiff in a very similar case, albeit in a different U.S. District Court, in Georgia, at the same time.  Whether that connection, in combination with her familial relationship with Abrams Gardner, should constitute grounds for recusal, is ultimately a matter of subjective interpretation. But Collins undoubtedly erred when he claimed that "Stacey Abramss sister is ruling on a case in which her own sister is a party!" In mid-February 2019, social media users shared a meme containing a fabricated quote seemingly attributed to newly elected U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York:   We found no record U.S. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez made that remark or said anything that could reasonably be paraphrased as such. The faux quote also encapsulated the mistaken belief that the Democrat representing New York's 14th Congressional District was solely responsible for "chasing" Amazon out and driving them to cancel their plans to establish a second headquarters in that area.  In late 2018, reports emerged that New York state and city officials, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio, were aggressively lobbying the Seattle-based, retail-and-delivery giant to open a second headquarters ("HQ2") in New York. But that news also spurred public backlash over New York's proposal to offer $3 billion in publicly funded incentives and subsidies to Amazon. reports $3 billion Although Ocasio-Cortez was a vocal opponent of the HQ2 project, many other local and state legislators and residents were also opposed to the plan. For example, speaking to the crowd at a 14 November 2018 protest, New York City Councilman Jimmy van Bramer criticized the proposal, saying: "When Jeff Bezos needed $3 billion, the governor and the mayor found it sure damn quick. The governor and the mayor conspired secretly to cut a deal with Jeff Bezos to the exclusion of everyone else." criticized Furthermore Long Island City falls into the 12th Congressional district and is represented by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, not Ocasio-Cortez. Criticism of the Amazon deal continued to grow in New York, and after a 30 January 2019 City Council meeting, Curbed New York reported the proverbial welcome mat was gone: "Council members blasted the officials with a laundry list of concerns including Amazons union opposition, its investment in the city, and accusations that city and state officials failed to accurately calculate the costs of bringing the conglomerate to Long Island City." Residents and activists began sharing critical social media posts using the hashtag #noAmazonNYC: Dozens of people here in Queensbridge Houses this morning. People are joining a canvassing blitz against Amazon all across Queens  from Flushing to LIC. Our neighbors are here to let Amazon, our city + state governments know that, QUEENS IS NOT FOR SALE! #noAmazonNYC pic.twitter.com/EPMd6toZeW #noAmazonNYC pic.twitter.com/EPMd6toZeW  PrimedOut NYC (@PrimedOutNYC) February 9, 2019 February 9, 2019  On 14 February 2019, Amazon announced they were no longer planning to build HQ2 in Queens, blaming the decision on "a number of state and local politicians [who] have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City." announced In an op-ed column published a few days later, de Blasio reversed his previous support for the retail giant, slamming their decision to suddenly back out of New York: op-ed column There was a clear path forward. Put simply: If you dont like a small but vocal group of New Yorkers questioning your companys intentions or integrity, prove them wrong. Instead, Amazon proved them right. Just two hours after a meeting with residents and community leaders to move the project forward, the company abruptly canceled it all. Although Ocasio-Cortez made no secret of her opposition to Amazon's opening a location in her district, she was not the only such critic, and it is difficult to imagine such a complex deal would have been scrapped solely because of her opinion. Ultimately, it was a groundswell of opposition from residents and other legislators that "chased" Amazon out of New York. Hess, Abigail.  "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Amazon Abandoning Its Plans for a New York Headquarters Proves 'Anything Is Possible.'"
  CNBC.  14 February 2019. Giridharadas, Anand.  "The New York Hustle of Amazons Second Headquarters."
  The New Yorker.  17 November 2018. Amazon.  "Update on Plans for New York City Headquarters."
  14 February 2019. Plitt, Amy.  "Amazon HQ2 and NYC: A Timeline of the Botched Deal."
  Curbed New York.  18 February 2019. De Blasio, Bill.  "The Path Amazon Rejected."
  The New York Times.  16 February 2019. Soper, Spencer.  "Amazon Scraps Plan to Build a Headquarters in New York City."
  Bloomberg.  14 February 2019. Updated to note that Long Island City is in the 12th congressional district, which Ocasio-Cortez does not represent. On Jan. 14, 2021, the day after U.S. President Donald Trump was impeached for the second time and a few days before his scheduled departure from the White House, a photograph started circulating online that supposedly showed members of the Trump administration carrying a bust of Abraham Lincoln out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. On social media, some people speculated that this item, and other White House artifacts, were being "looted" by the Trump family.  This is a genuine photograph of a statue being carried out of the White House, but it doesn't appear to document any "looting."   At the start of every president's term, the incoming president has the opportunity to work with the White House curator to populate 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with various paintings, sculptures, and other artifacts. These items are often loaned to the White House from various museums and galleries. At the end of the president's term, these items are then returned.  White House curator Art.net writes: writes A 1961 act of Congress formalized the White Houses art collection, which now contains about 65,000 objects, if one counts things like utensils and glasses individually. The collection also includes around 500 paintings. When a new president arrives, the White House curators office selects new works for display in public spaces and the West Wing. The works can subtly communicate political priorities as well as personal tastes. President Ronald Reagan reportedly installed a portrait of Calvin Coolidge in the cabinet room as a nod to the importance of fiscal conservatism. When she was first lady, Hillary Clinton installed a painting by Georgia OKeeffe in the Green Room. Michelle Obama acquired a bright abstract painting by Alma Thomas, which became the first work by a female African-American artist to enter the White House collection. A new first family can also request art to decorate private spaces. Two paintings by Edward Hopper, for example, hung in the Oval Office during Obamas final term, on loan from the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York. The Independent reported that the bust of Lincoln seen in the viral photo was indeed being removed from the White House, but would be returned to a museum: reported A bust of Abraham Lincoln was also ushered out of the West Wing by the staffers  though not because it is a personal item. The statue will be returned to a museum, as incoming officials generally choose their own items from among national artefacts to decorate the White House during their term. We have not been able to independently verify this. However, Stewart McLaurin, the president of the White House Historical Association, said that there was no reason to be concerned about these viral pics. McLaurin said that all of the items on loan to the White House are carefully cataloged by the curator. McLaurin added that members of the Trump administration may have also brought personal items to the White House, which they are allowed to take with them when they leave: Stewart McLaurin In March 2021, new employment figures showed that the U.S. economy added 379,000 jobs in February, the first full month of Joe Biden's presidency. The news was greeted with cautious optimism, with the Wall Street Journal reporting that the gains had "set up a stronger recovery" for the spring of 2021, and The Washington Post reporting that the figures had "surpassed analysts' estimates." Politico wrote that: Wall Street Journal Washington Post Politico U.S. employers added a robust 379,000 jobs last month, the most since October and a sign that the economy is strengthening as confirmed viral cases drop, consumers spend more and states and cities ease business restrictions.The February gain marked a sharp pickup from the 166,000 jobs that were added in January and a loss of 306,000 in December. Yet it represents just a fraction of the roughly 10 million jobs that were lost to the pandemic. On social media, other observers  in particular those more broadly opposed to Biden  sought to undercut the significance of the jobs figures, claiming that a large majority of the increased employment came in one sector, namely food and beverage services. On Twitter, the libertarian economics blog Zerohedge wrote: wrote Of the 379K jobs added, 286K were waiters and bartenders.   The stockbroker and financial commentator Peter Schiff tweeted: tweeted 75% of the 379k jobs "created" in Feb. were waiters and bartenders returning to work. Since many restaurants and bars that closed will never reopen there's a limit to how long this can last... The right-wing British blog Guido Fawkes tweeted: tweeted "US economic recovery sees 379,000 jobs added this week, 286,000 were waiters and bartenders. God bless America and cheers!" Those figures were accurately stated, although "waiters and bartenders" was a reductive description of the occupations in question. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "true." The standard measure of job growth is "total nonfarm payroll employment, seasonally adjusted," a metric that is collated and published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), each month. On March 5, the BLS published figures for the preceding month, February 2021, writing that: "Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 379,000 in February..." In effect, this means that there were 379,000 more jobs in the United States in February than there were in January. published The BLS provides in-depth breakdowns of job gains or losses, and unemployment, including details on the demographic and sectoral contours of each month's data. According to the same set of figures, the "leisure and hospitality" sector gained 355,000 of the 379,000 total new jobs in February (Summary Table B).  Summary Table B Of those, 285,900 jobs were specifically in "food services and drinking places" (Table B-1). That's the source of the "286K" figure presented by Zerohedge. Those 285,900 jobs made up 75.4% of the total number of new jobs added in February, the percentage figure provided by Schiff in his tweet. Table B-1 However, the "food services and drinking places" subsector is made up of more than just "waiters and bartenders." The following is how that subsector is defined in the official North American Industry Classification System: defined Industries in the Food Services and Drinking Places subsector prepare meals, snacks, and beverages to customer order for immediate on-premises and off-premises consumption. There is a wide range of establishments in these industries. Some provide food and drink only; while others provide various combinations of seating space, waiter/waitress services and incidental amenities, such as limited entertainment. The industries in the subsector are grouped based on the type and level of services provided. The industry groups are full-service restaurants; limited-service eating places; special food services, such as food service contractors, caterers, and mobile food services; and drinking places. The BLS figures for February 2021 don't specify the proportion of those 285,900 jobs composed of specific occupations, but it's highly unlikely they were all "waiters and bartenders." In 2019, the most recent year for which figures are available, the following was the breakdown of occupations within the "food services and drinking places subsector": breakdown As can be seen from those figures, "waiters and waitresses" made up less than one-third of workers within that subsector. If the distribution of occupations was even broadly similar among the 285,900 new "food services and drinking places" jobs added in February, then it would appear highly unlikely that even a majority of those 285,900 new jobs were made up of "waiters and bartenders" alone. One of the less well knownaspects of the history of slavery is how many and how oftenpeople of color owned and traded slaves in earlyAmerica. Free Black slave holders could be found at one time or another "in each of thethirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," historian R. Halliburton Jr. observed. That Black people bought and sold other black people raises "vexing questions" for 21st-centuryAmericanslikeAfrican American writerHenry Louis Gates Jr., who writes that it betraysclass divisions that have always existed within the Black community. For others, it's an excuseto deflect the shared blame for the institution of slavery in America away from white people. Henry Louis Gates Jr. In the latter vein, a "9 Facts About Slavery They Don't Want You to Know" meme laysouta mixture of true, false and misleading historical claims. We'll address each one in turn below:   The first legal slave owner in American history was a Black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson. Possibly true. The wording of the statement is important. Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner in American history, but he was, according to historians, among the first to have his lifetime ownership of a servant legally sanctionedby a court. sanctioned A former indentured servant himself, Anthony Johnson was a so-called "free negro" who owned a 250-acre farm in Virginia during the 1650s, withfive indentured servantsunder contract tohim. One of them, a Black man named John Casor, claimed that his term of servicehad expired years earlier and Johnson was holding himillegally. In 1654, a civil court found that Johnson in fact owned Casor's services for life, an outcome historian R Halliburton Jr. calls "one of the first known legal sanctions of slavery other than as a punishment for crime." John Casor North Carolina's largest slave holder in 1860 was a Black plantation owner named William Ellison. False. William Ellison was a very wealthy Black plantation owner and cotton gin manufacturerwholivedin South Carolina (not North Carolina). According to the 1860 census (in which his surname was listed as "Ellerson"), he owned 63 Black slaves, making him the largest of the 171 Black slaveholders in South Carolina, but far from the largest overall slave holder in the state. William Ellison census American Indians owned thousands of Black slaves. True. Historian Tiya Miles provided this snapshot of the Native American ownership of Black slaves at the turn of the 19th century forSlatemagazine in January 2016: snapshot Miles places the number of enslaved people held by Cherokees at around 600 at the start of the 19th century and around 1,500 at the time of westward removal in 1838-9. (Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, she said, held around 3,500 slaves, across the three nations, as the 19thcentury began.) "Slavery inched its way slowly into Cherokee life," Miles told me. "When a white man moved into a Native location, usually to work as a trader or as an Indian agent, he would own [African] slaves." If such a person also had a child with a Native woman, as was not uncommon, the half-European, half-Native child would inherit the enslaved people (and their children) under white law, as well as the right to use tribal lands under tribal law. This combination put such people in a position to expand their wealth, eventually operating large farms and plantations. In 1830 there were 3,775 free Black people who owned 12,740 Black slaves. Approximately true, according to historian R. Halliburton Jr.: There were approximately 319,599 free blacks in the United States in 1830. Approximately 13.7 per cent of the total black population was free. A significant number of these free blacks were the owners of slaves. The census of 1830 lists 3,775 free Negroes who owned a total of 12,760 slaves. Many Black slaves were allowed to hold jobs, own businesses, and own real estate. Somewhattrue. There were exceptions, but generally speaking especially after 1750, by which time slave codes had beenentered into the law books in most of the American colonies  Black slaves were not legally permittedto own property or businesses. From theOxford Companion to American Law (2002): Under these early codes, slaves had virtually no legal rights IN most areas they could be executed for crimes that were not capital offenses for whites. Their testimony was restricted in legal cases and could not be used either for or against whites. Trials of slaves were usually by special courts. Slaves could not own property, move about without consent of their owners, or legally marry. Brutal Black-on-Black slavery was common in Africa for thousands of years. True, in the sense that the phenomenonof human beings enslaving other human beings goes back thousands of years, but not just among Blacks, and not just in Africa. Most slaves brought to America from Africa were purchased from Black slave owners. Sort of true. Historian Steven Mintz describes the situation more accurately in the introduction to his bookAfrican-American Voices: ADocumentary Reader, 1619-1877: Apologists for the African slave trade long argued that European traders did not enslave anyone: they simply purchased Africans who had already been enslaved and who otherwise would have been put to death. Thus, apologists claimed, the slave trade actually saved lives. Such claims represent a gross distortion of the facts. Some independent slave merchants did in fact stage raids on unprotected African villages and kidnap and enslave Africans. Most professional slave traders, however, set up bases along the west African coast where they purchased slaves from Africans in exchange for firearms and other goods. Before the end of the seventeenth century, England, France, Denmark, Holland, and Portugal had all established slave trading posts on the west African coast. Yet to simply say that Europeans purchased people who had already been enslaved seriously distorts historical reality. While there had been a slave trade within Africa prior to the arrival of Europeans, the massive European demand for slaves and the introduction of firearms radically transformed west and central African society. A growing number of Africans were enslaved for petty debts or minor criminal or religious offenses or following unprovoked raids on unprotected villages. An increasing number of religious wars broke out with the goal of capturing slaves. European weapons made it easier to capture slaves. Slavery was common for thousands of years. True, as noted above though how "common" slavery has been and what the specific nature of that slavery was has varied according to time and place. White people ended legal chattel slavery. It's rather self-serving to claim that "white people" ended legal chattel slavery in the United States (much less ended chattel slavery, period), given that the overwhelming majority of Blacks in the U.S. could not vote, could not run for political office, and, in every other way conceivable, were excluded from institutional power. Moreover, even as some white people were laboring to put an end to slavery, many other white people were fighting to preserve it. Slavery was eliminated in America via the efforts of people of various ethnicities, including white people, who took up the banner of the abolitionist movement. The names of the white leaders of that movement tend to be better known than those of the Black leaders, among whom were David Walker, Frederick Douglass, Dred Scott, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Nat Turner, and many others. When Congress passed (and the states ratified) the 13th Amendment in 1865, it was the culmination of many years of work by that multi-racial movement. efforts abolitionist 13th Amendment work  Davis, J.B. "Slavery in the Cherokee Nation."   Chronicles of Oklahoma, Vol. 11, No. 4.  December 1993. Gates Jr., Henry Louis.  "Did Black People Own Slaves?"   The Root.  4 March 2013. Gates Jr., Henry Louis.  "How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.?"   The Root.  6 January 2014. Hall, Kermit L.  The Oxford Companion to American Law.   New York: Oxford University Press USA, 2002. ISBN 0-195-08878-6. Halliburton Jr., R.  "Free Black Owners of Slaves: A Reappraisal of the Woodson Thesis."   The South Carolina Historical Magazine, Vol. 76, No. 3.  July 1975. Johnson, Michael P. and Roark, James L.  Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1986. ISBN 0-393-30314-4. Mintz, Steven.  African-American Voices: A Documentary Reader, 1619-1877.   New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.  ISBN 1-444-31077-1. Onion, Rebecca.  "America's Other Original Sin."   em>Slate.  January 2016. Rodriguez, Junius P.  The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery.   Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1997.  ISBN 0-874-36885-5. Russell, John Henderson.  The Free Negro in Virginia, 1619-1865.   Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1913.  ISBN 1-480-03049-X. Walton, Hanes and Smith, Robert C.  American Politics and the African American Quest for Universal Freedom.   London: Routledge, 2015.  ISBN 1-317-35045-6. Editor's note: Shortly after this article was published, U.S. President Donald Trump vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act. You can read more about Trump's veto here from the Associated Press. The original article continues below. Associated Press House Resolution 6395, or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA), was surprisingly controversial during the final weeks of 2020. U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to veto the military budget bill, which passed the House and Senate with more than a two-thirds majority vote, because it did not call for the removal of Section 230, an unrelated piece of legislation that provides internet publishers legal immunity from third-party content.  threatened to veto Section 230 On Dec. 22, 2020, conservative commentator Chuck Callesto claimed that there was another reason Trump might want to veto the bill. Callesto wrote that the NDAA contained a provision that "Nullifies the President's use of the Insurrection Act."   While Callesto presents his claim as if he is quoting directly from the bill, the phrase "nullifies the President's use of the Insurrection Act" does not appear anywhere in the NDAA (which numbers 1,480 pages, not 5,893 as Callesto claimed), the full text of which can be found here.  here Insurrection Act House Amendment 833 It's a bit of a moot point, however, as this amendment did not make it into the final bill. As of this writing, the NDAA does not include any language pertaining to the Insurrection Act.  The Hill reported on Dec. 6 that the amendment pertaining to the Insurrection Act was removed as Congress debated the NDAA: reported The NDAA also includes a modest rebuke of Trumps use of Pentagon funding on his southern border wall. The compromise includes House-passed language capping emergency military construction spending at $100 million annually for domestic projects. Trump took $3.6 billion from military construction funds to build the wall. The compromise jettisoned some rebukes of Trump, including House-passed language to restrict a presidents Insurrection Act powers and block funding for a nuclear test. But this year stands in stark contrast to last year, when most of House Democrats efforts to box in Trump on defense policy were stripped from the final product. In summary, the viral tweet claiming that the NDAA "nullified" the Insurrection Act is based on a House amendment proposed in July that would have restricted (not nullified) the president's use of the Insurrection Act. This amendment, which would have required the president to make certifications to Congress before invoking the Insurrection Act, did not make it into the final form of the legislation.