Did an article from 1933 state that Hitler would not cause turmoil in Germany?
In perhaps one of the worst miscalculations in modern political history, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in January 1933 in the hopes that he could successfully form a coalition government amidst a collection of competing minority parties (including his own Nazi Party) and that the worst impulses of Hitler and the Nazis could be "controlled" or "tamed" once they bore responsibility for leading the national government (rather than criticizing others' administration of it).   But shortly after Hitler's swearing-in as chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933, the Nazis began to systematically suspend civil liberties and eliminate political opposition, with the passage of the Enabling Act two months later effectively establishing Hitler's government as a legal dictatorship that could issue decrees without the involvement of the German parliament (Reichstag) or president. Enabling Act One example of the navet that held sway in Germany at that time caught the attention of Americans in February 2020, in the wake of impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump.  That example took the form of a snippet from a purported 1933 Wall Street Journal article which was widely circulated via social media:  This article did in fact appear in the Feb. 2, 1933, edition of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).  Under the headline "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly," the report from the WSJ's Berlin bureau briefly referenced contemporaneous assessments of Hitler -- that "there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power," that Hitler would not "disrupt the nation's affairs," that it was "not believed" Hitler would "accomplish a change in the constitution" -- and that a rise in stock prices indicated public confidence in these assessments:     Rise in Stocks Reflects Confidence He Will Not Disrupt Nation's Affairs Berlin is settling down to pass judgment on political developments. Politicians, economists and bankers declare there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power. Consequently, it is not believed that Hitler will accomplish a change in the constitution or that [Reich Minister of Economics Alfred] Hugenberg will bring about a general reduction of interest rates. The government wants to obtain an adjournment of the Reichstag for several months, but it is questionable whether the Centre [Party] will approve of such action. After calmly dismissing the threat that Hitler posed (and which would come to pass in just a few short months) the article provided a short summary of the "considerable gains in stocks" that supposedly indicated good times were ahead under the new government -- including, ironically, a rise in the price of stock in I.G. Farben,  the German chemical company that manufactured the Zyklon B gas later used to kill millions of Jews during the Holocaust: I.G. Farben The Boerse closed with considerable gains in stocks. Rhenish Coal advanced 7, Mannesmann Tube 5, I.G. Farben 4 and Rhine-Westphalia Electric 4. Bonds registered average losses of 2 points. Common stocks were favored as being less susceptible to talk of devaluing the currency or of other inflationary experiments. Furthermore, profits are expected to increase for many industries from expanded public works projects. The Wall Street Journal.  "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly."
  1 February 1933  (p. 12)
The head of the University of Wisconsin System says its high time for employee pay raises after several years of freezes, cuts and furloughs.We will all pay the price in lost talent and sliding reputation unless UW starts closing a pay gap between it and peer institutions nationally, System President Kevin Reilly told the Board of Regents on Dec. 7, 2012. No operation  public or private  can keep its talent if compensation languishes for too long.Reilly, president since 2004, said the gap between our UW employees compensation and that of their peers has widened in recent years, and that gap continues to grow.He added: Indeed, faculty salaries at UW System institutions have now fallen more than 18 percent below the national average.We suspect, with the state budget season fast approaching, that well hear that 18 percent figure again.So lets test it.There are many ways to compare salaries at schools. Reilly chose to roll all the UW campuses into one, which as we shall see has limitations.That said, Reilly made clear that his figure was system-wide, so ultimately well focus on that.We turned tosalary figurescollected annually by theAmerican Association of University Professors, a member organization established to advance academic freedom and shared governance, to define fundamental professional values and standards for higher education, and to ensure higher education's contribution to the common good.The groups figures for instructional faculty pay, gleaned from its surveys of institutions for 2011-12, are widely quoted, notably in salary comparisons compiled and analyzed by the Chronicle of Higher Education.Reilly didnt make clear whether UWs peers include competing private schools, or just public, so well examine both.For 11 of the UW Systems four-year campuses, the AAUP peer group is masters-granting schools. The Madison and Milwaukee campuses are compared to a more select group, doctoral institutions.TheChronicle of Higher Education siteshows that all but one of the UW Systems 13 four-year campuses pay professor salaries that are far below the national median for full professors at public, private and independent institutions of similar type. Madison is the lone exception; average pay for full professors there ($114,690) is merely below the median for doctoral institutions. Figures are for full-time professors.Pay at 11 of the 13 schools for another group of faculty -- assistant professors, which is considered the entry level -- was below or far below the national median. At the other two, it wasabovethe national median -- Madison ($75,860) and Whitewater ($62,178).At the UW Systems 13 two-year campuses, professors of all types collectively are paid far below the national median, the salary figures show. Thetwo-year campusesinclude schools such as such as Rock County, Fox Valley, Waukesha and Barron County.Lets quantify the size of the gap.At the flagship Madison campus, full professors collectively would need a 4 percent to 5 percent raise to reach national averages, depending on whether independent and private schools are included in the comparison, according to calculations we did using the AAUP data.Assistant professors at Madison, by contrast, are 4 percent to 6 percentabovethe national averages.But Madison stands alone as coming close to the national averages in both categories.The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the states only other public doctoral institution, runs 24 percent to 27 percent below national levels for full professors, with average pay of $95,570. Assistant-professor pay there runs 6 percent to 8 percent behind.The other 11 four-year campuses range from 15 percent to 33 percent below average for full professors. Full professor pay at the four-year campuses (not including Madison and Milwaukee) ranged from $67,008 to $75,857.Assistant professor pay at 10 of the 11 fell short by 5 percent to 19 percent (with Whitewater the only school above the median).Those two positions -- full professor and assistant -- dont comprise the entire faculty.Reillys specific claim was not about individual schools, or groups of schools, but that system-wide faculty pay has fallen 18 percent below the national average.We asked AAUPs research director, John Curtis, to calculate a system-wide figure, one that rolls up all the campuses into one amount, and includes all types of full-time faculty, including associate professors, instructors and lecturers.Based on his figures, we found a collective 20 percent faculty pay gap between UW System salaries and those at similar public, private and independent schools.The gap is 18 percent for just the four-year, public Wisconsin campuses (leaving aside the two-year schools).Reillys office told us he, too, relied on the AAUP figures to reach his conclusion. His spokesman, David Giroux, provideddetailed comparisonsthat also factored in a cost-of-living adjustment based on geography. In addition, Reillys approach compared schools with a select peer group rather than all schools of the same general type.The bottom line from the UW-provided data: It reaches very similar conclusions to the analysis by Curtis. There was one major exception. Reillys analysis put UW-Madison professor salaries much further below the median.Our bottom line: Reillys math appears to be on target.Curtis cautioned that a system-wide number may signal a disparity in a broad sense, but really is not very meaningful for addressing pay institution-by-institution because the overall figure combines a wide range of institutions of different types.A system-wide look does not shed light on pay differences by field, either -- history professors vs. engineering professors, etc.Our ratingReilly said faculty salaries at UW System institutions have now fallen more than 18 percent below the national average.The aggregate figure has its limitations as a precise guide for future action, but Reilly scores with this broad comparison, which suggests a significant disparity.We rate his claim True. [featured-image] Claim:USAF General Chuck Yeager wrote an essay endorsing Donald Trump for President.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, December2015] I've been repeatedly seeing a post that Chuck Yeager is endorsing Donald Trump for President.But on Yeager's website there is no mention of it and he seems to shy away from politics, in general. Origins: On 5 November 2015, the web site GaryForbes.wix.com published an article purportedly written by retiredUnited States Air Force General Chuck Yeager, endorsing Donald Trump for President of the United States: article The criticisms of Trump are amazingly missing something. They are lacking in negative stories from those who work for him or have had business dealings with him. After all the employees he's had and all the business deals he's made there is a void of criticism. In fact, long term employees call him a strong and merciful leader and say he is far more righteous and of high integrity than people may think. And while it may surprise many, hes actually humble when it comes to his generosity and kindness. A good example is a story that tells of his limo breaking down on a deserted highway outside of New York City. A middle-aged couple stopped to help him and as a thank you he paid off their mortgage, but he didnt brag about that. Generous and good people rarely talk of charity they bestow on others. But as much as all this is interesting, the real thing that people want to know is what Donald Trumps plan is for America. Its funny how so many people say they dont know what it is, or they act like Trump is hiding it. The information is readily available if people would just do a little homework. But, since most Americans won't do their own research, here, in no particular order, is an overview of many of Trumps positions and plans: This article, titled "Donald Trump  Who He REALLY Is by Chuck Yeager," was not written bythe retired USAF General, nor was it first published on theGary Forbes web site. The article has been posted on a variety of blogs and web sites, with the earliest iteration being published to Doug Johnson's Horse Sense blog on 4 July 2015. variety blogs published Johnson's article wasn't particularly popular, but the majority of its content soon started circulating via e-mail and online forums, where it was cmommonly attributed to an "unknown author."Chuck Yeager's name was eventually tacked on to the essay, first by Catholic.org in August, and later by Gary Forbes, but this form of credit was undertaken without the USAF General's knowledge or approval. attributed August In fact, General Yeager has asked some Twitter users to delete links tothe purported endorsement,maintaining that he does not endorse political candidates (although he has apparently done so before): delete apparently      Last updated: 7 December 2015 Originally published: 7 December 2015 Known as a famous Hollywood actor and one of the original men to portray the iconic character James Bond, Sean Connery died on Oct. 31, 2020. According to TMZ, he died at 1:30 a.m. "at his home in the Bahamas." TMZ Sean Connery died in his sleep from pneumonia, heart failure and old age ... according to his death certificate. TMZ obtained Connery's death cert and it shows he died from respiratory failure as a result of pneumonia, old age and atrial fibrillation ... an irregular heart rate that can increase the risk of strokes, heart failure and other heart-related complications. Entertainment Tonight made contact with the family, reporting that "Connery's wife, Micheline Roquebrune, and his two sons, Jason and Stephane, told ET that he died peacefully in his sleep, surrounded by family." reporting Following his death, at least one advertiser bought ad space on the social media platform Reddit, or on a mobile app that displays Reddit content. The ad read: "sean connery's Net Worth Left His Family In Tears." Connery's name was lowercase, likely because the "Net Worth Left His Family In Tears" part is a template. It's not true. It's fabricated and completely baseless. Sean Connery's family was not left "in tears" because of his net worth. We previously reported on the "net worth left his family in tears" advertising ploy with "Jeopardy" host Alex Trebek. The late Kenny Rogers also appeared to be a victim of the ploy. previously reported appeared   The advertisement in question appeared to lead to Life Exact, a viral content website. It was first documented by Reddit user JezCon. It's unclear if the advertisement is still active on the website. We were unable to locate the ad, but it likely lead to a slideshow with multiple pages, where the idea was to make more money on the advertisements displayed during the slideshow than it cost to run the original ad alongside Reddit content. This is known as advertising "arbitrage." first documented Business and technology blog Margins is managed by Ranjan Roy and Can Duruk, and Roy defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." He also called it "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." Margins Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us In a Milwaukee Public Radiointerviewon Sept. 22, 2014, Democrat Mary Burke critiqued Gov. Scott Walkers jobs strategy, saying the Republican governor generally believes that you give tax breaks to those at the top and the special interests and somehow it trickles down and creates jobs. Well, Im a business person. Thats not how jobs get created, countered Burke, who formerly served as a Trek Bicycle Corp. executive and state Commerce secretary. So, its a flawed model and I have a very different model and I lay out in my jobs plan the five core strategies on how were going to do this, Burke continued, before making a claim we want to check. It means we need to have a more entrepreneurial climate in Wisconsin. Thats one of them (her five strategies). Right now, were 46th in the country in terms of new businesses started. Just the other day, werated Truea Walker claim that Wisconsin ranks 11th in total business establishment growth, compared with 47th in the years that Burke was Commerce secretary. So we wondered whether Burkes claim contradicts that. As well see, terminology is key. Different measures Walker referred to business establishments, a term that means a business location, such as a new store or factory or farm. A single company can have multiple establishments, and new establishments can be opened by existing or new firms. So its a particular measure. Burkes terminology is different than Walkers,and refers to a different measuring stick. In October 2013, days after announcing her candidacy for governor, Burke said Wisconsin was 49th in the United States in new businesses created. We rated her statementMostly True. Burke cited the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity, an annual study produced by the nonpartisan Kauffman Foundation, a Kansas City-based group that works to foster entrepreneurial activity. Business administration professorStewart Thornhill, executive director of the Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies at the University of Michigan, told us it is a widely cited measure. The index uses U.S. Census data to capture the number of new business owners in their first month of significant business activity. InKauffmans 2013 index, Wisconsin tied with Michigan for 48th among the states in the number of entrepreneurs per 100,000 people, ahead of only Nebraska and Minnesota. So, whats the landscape now? Burkes evidence To back Burkes new claim, her campaign cited the2014 Kauffman index. Here are the states rated lowest in terms of new business owners in their first month of significant business activity:  Rank/State Entrepreneurs per 100,000 people U.S. average 280 (tie) Wisconsin and Washington 170 (tie) Minnesota and Indiana 160 Rhode Island 140 Iowa 110  So, Wisconsin is actually one notch higher than Burke indicated. On one hand, tying for 45th is an improvement from 48th in the 2013 index. On the other hand, Wisconsins 2014 rate of 170 entrepreneurs per 100,000 people is actually lower than its 2013 rate of 180. (Montana ranked first in both 2013 and 2014. Its 2014 rate was 610 entrepreneurs per 100,000 people.) Walkers response Walker campaign spokeswoman Alleigh Marre pointed out that in our earlier Burke factcheck, the Kauffman Foundation warned that its index isnt meant to provide a precise ranking of states. But its report in effect does that by reporting precise ratings and singling out states in the top five highest and lowest groups. Marre also cited other business-creation statistics, including the Walker claim about total business establishment growth. But, again, that is a different measure than the one Burke cites. Our rating Burke said Wisconsin is 46th in the country in terms of new businesses started. Wisconsin actually ties for 45th in the well-known Kauffman index, in terms of new business owners in their first month of significant business activity. We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelsweb page. Claim:  Amazon is giving out free $200 gift cards to Facebook users.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Amazon, it appears, is offering a $200 gift card if you "like" their page and comment about your appreciation.  Is this for real?  How exactly would they pay up??  If you like it, it posts to your facebook stream and other people see it and automatically trust you and click on like and share as well. Origins:  In October 2014, a fraudulent offer for a free $200 Amazon gift card started circulating on Facebook.  The message contained a link which redirected bargain hunters to a website adorned with Amazon's logo. That website, however, had no affiliation with the retail giant. It was also marked as "High Risk" by Scam Adviser. Scam Adviser  The $200 Amazon gift card scam is very similar to recent schemes which targeted Costco 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 fraudulent survey which extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and credit card numbers. Lastly, these scams never end with a free monetary gift card.  Costco Kroger 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. This isn't the first time that a Facebook scam has targeted Amazon shoppers. A similar scheme circulated around the social networking site in 2011 and again in 2012.  2011 2012   Last updated:  23 October 2014 John F. Kennedy Jr. was a popular public figure from his childhood until he died in a plane crash at the age of 38 in 1999. While there is never a shortage of conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedys, or for that matter, the Clintons, an unfounded rumor circulating in political circles during the 2016 presidential election claimed that John-John was on the cusp of a successful U.S. Senate bid until Hillary Clinton threw her hat in the ring  with the insinuation that Kennedy was killed to clear the way for her candidacy:  There is no evidence that Kennedy had definitively decided to stage a U.S. Senate run in 1999 in the face of Hillary Clinton's similar interest in the New York seat.  Days after Kennedy's 16 July 1999 death, the New York Daily News ran a story quoting two unnamed friends of Kennedy's who stated that Kennedy had mulled over running for the seat about to be vacated by retiring Senator Daniel Moynihan but had already dropped the idea when Hillary Clinton also expressed interest in it: story Earlier this year, in one of the best-kept secrets in state politics, Kennedy considered seeking the seat of retiring Sen. Daniel Moynihan in 2000, friends confirmed. The idea became moot once First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton signaled her interest in running, but the two friends said they expected the son of the slain President eventually would have jumped into politics as a candidate.  The friend who expected Kennedy to seek office in the "foreseeable future" also told of speaking with Kennedy earlier this year about the Moynihan seat. "I asked him was he casually thinking about it, or was he serious. He sort of said, 'I'm not sure. Let me think about it. But the second friend called Kennedy's interest "pretty serious," adding: "I think he was intrigued by the idea ... Would he have decided in the end to go for it? I don't know. But he was clearly thinking about it. He talked to a few people about it. Then the Hillary thing ended it pretty quickly. Clinton won the Senate election on 7 November 2000, beating Republican Rick Lazio more than a year after Kennedy Jr. was killed along with his wife, Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, 33, and his sister-in-law, Lauren G. Bessette, 34, in the crash of the single-engine plane he was flying to Martha's Vineyard. won The implication that the Clintons had somehow engineered the death of Kennedy Jr. to prevent him from challenging her in her first bid for elective office is contradicted by the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) report on the accident, which assigned the probable cause to pilot error: report The probable cause of the accident, as stated in the accident report, is: The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation. Factors in the accident were haze and the dark night. There was nothing suspicious about the circumstances of the crash. Kennedy was an inexperienced pilot, and he chose to take his plane up despite questionable weather that caused haze to obscure the view of the horizon. The New York Times reported in 2000 that one of his instructors had offered to accompany him on the flight, but he declined. Kennedy only had about 72 flying hours logged without an instructor at the time of the accident: reported Weather reports on the night of the crash  July 16, 1999  cited haze or mist and visibility as low as four miles. Pilots who flew over the Cape Cod-Martha's Vineyard area that night reported serious haze; one told investigators he had flown over Martha's Vineyard and thought there was a power failure on the island, because he could not see any lights. It's not inconceivable that the Kennedy family at one time eyed the seat being vacated by Moynihan. JFK Jr.'s death seemed to put a final nail in the coffin of the Kennedy myth known as "Camelot" and the family's political star power, but a 25 July 1999 Washington Post article on the family's future political prospects suggested that his cousin, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (who did not "conveniently" die), had been approached about entering the New York senatorial race: article But there are suggestions  among liberal Democrats it is a fervent desire  that [Joseph P. Kennedy II's] brother Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 45, might become a candidate. The environmental lawyer from the Hudson River Valley has some of the electricity of his martyred father, and has said in the past that he could be interested in being governor of New York. According to one Kennedy insider, leading Democrats unsuccessfully approached RFK Jr. to run for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. John Kennedy Jr. had won the nation's heart when at two years old he was seen on camera saluting his father's coffin during the nationally televised funeral procession after President Kennedy's November 1963 assassination. Nicknamed John-John, he grew up handsome and charismatic and was thus seen as a potential heir to the family's glory days of political influence and celebrity. While his death was untimely and no doubt a tragedy, it was ruled an accident. And though Kennedy may have been personally popular and polled well, it is misleading to describe him as a "frontrunner" in a Senate race in which he was never actually a candidate. Clean coal, a broad term for technology that can reduce the environmental impact of burning coal, has become a popular political buzzword in the past two U.S. presidential campaigns. To those who promote it, clean coal is a third way that will allow humans to continue to mine and burn that form of fossil fuel in a more responsible way, obviating the need for regulations on the coal industry or heavy investment in green energy. To detractors, it is an expensive marketing ploy selling an unrealized and unrealistic fantasy. marketing ploy Humans have used coal as fuel for at least 4000 years. A combustible rock formed from the chemical transformation of organic plant matter over hundreds of millions of years of burial, coal is a relatively cheap and easy source of energy. Its widespread use powered the industrial revolution, and coal-burning power plants currently provide 33% of all household energy in the States. 4000 years power plants But for as long as coal has been an energy source, it has been plagued by environmental issues. Burning coal produces hazardous acid rain and irritating particulate matter, and it releases climate-warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. plagued From a global warming standpoint, burning coal is significantly worse than burning other fossil fuels, as its chemistry allows for the production of more CO2 per reaction, as discussed in a December 2010 Atlantic article about clean coal technology: article Compared with most other fossil-fuel sources of energy, coal is inherently worse from a carbon-footprint perspective, since its hydrogen atoms come bound with more carbon atoms, meaning that coal starts with a higher carbon-to-hydrogen ratio than oil, natural gas, or other hydrocarbons. This situation is especially unfortunate for the United States, since the country has large domestic reserves of cheap coal, and because many local economies depend on coal mining jobs that could be lost if regulations were to make coal economically unfeasible. The intersection of these environmental and economic concerns has made coal mining and energy a polarizing political issue in the United States. domestic reserves Clean coal is not a special type of coal, nor is it a new technology that reduces the environmental impact of coal mining. Instead, it refers to technology used to clean up the emissions from burning coal after it has already been burned for energy, or technology used to treat coal just prior to being burned. In the context of global warming, the main technology that is cited is carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, defined on the U.S. Department of Energy web site thusly: defined Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), also referred to as carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, is a process that captures carbon dioxide emissions from sources like coal-fired power plants and either reuses or stores it so it will not enter the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide storage in geologic formations includes oil and gas reservoirs, unmineable coal seams and deep saline reservoirs -- structures that have stored crude oil, natural gas, brine and carbon dioxide over millions of years. The term clean coal was first used by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in 1980s during an initiative they sponsored to demonstrate the commercial viability of technology that could scrub acid-rain creating toxins from the emissions of coal burning. At the time of the initiative, acid rain was the primary environmental concern, and greenhouse gases were an afterthought: afterthought The early program, however, was focused on the environmental challenges of the time  primarily concerns over the impact of acid rain on forests and watersheds. In the 21st century, additional environmental concerns have emerged  the potential health impacts of trace emissions of mercury, the effects of microscopic particles on people with respiratory problems, and the potential global climate-altering impact of greenhouse gases. The term was, in effect, rebranded in 2007 by an industry-funded group called the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, who were concerned about the prospect of increased coal regulations under an Obama presidency. They made the term clean coal a household name through a 30 million dollar public relations campaign touting the benefits of clean coal technology. campaign  The problem, though, is that from the standpoint of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the technology (for all practical purposes) does not yet exist on a scale that could be considered at all meaningful. In terms of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration technology, the only projects underway in the United States are pilot studies. These are not viable on larger scale, as the DOE admits: technology admits Today, there are commercially available First Generation CO2 capture technologies that are being used in various small-scale industrial applications. At their current state of development these technologies are not ready for widespread deployment on fossil fuel based power plants [...]. Furthermore, there are a number of barriers to the successful implementation of carbon capture technology at coal-burning power plants, as discussed in a report by the British humanitarian think tank the Overseas Development Institute. First, the pace and scale of carbon capture technology is unlikely to overcome its limitations in a time period that would have any relevance to reducing atmospheric CO2: report Essentially, coal-powered CCS has yet to be technologically proven as planned even at a quarter-scale. With per-plant investments running to the billions, this stepping-stone from laboratory to full commercial rollout of just the first phase of coal-powered CCS plants is incredibly important and getting past it is going to take years. Although the industry might argue that it is close, it has clearly not yet refined an off-the-shelf product. The investment and time needed to build, test, and learn from projects to reduce costs means that CCS for coal power will not be ready to be commercially deployed at scale for at least a decade. Second, implementation of CCS makes the cost of coal too high to be competitive, and it reduces its output by consuming energy from the power plant trying to sell that energy: To capture CO2 at a power station requires adding a large separation unit, which also requires a significant amount of power to run. Adding the extra process currently doubles the capital costs of a plant, while running the separation process effectively decreases the overall efficiency of the plant by around a quarter. This efficiency penalty means that only the most efficient coal plant (advanced coal) can feasibly be used with CCS. Together these mean that adding CCS to a coal-fired plant will make the electricity it produces substantially more expensive than both conventional and advanced current coal plants. These problems were made plainly visible by a recent pilot study of a coal-burning power plant in Canadas Saskatchewan province that used a nearby hydroelectric dam to power the separation of CO2 from its exhaust. Though early reports painted a rosy picture, a March 2016 New York Times article suggested that the system was affected by a number of critical problems: article Known as SaskPowers Boundary Dam 3, the project has been plagued by multiple shutdowns, has fallen way short of its emissions targets, and faces an unresolved problem with its core technology. The costs, too, have soared, requiring tens of millions of dollars in new equipment and repairs. At the outset, its economics were dubious, said Cathy Sproule, a member of Saskatchewans legislature who released confidential internal documents about the project. Now theyre a disaster. This is not to say that research into minimizing the effect of the emissions from coal burning is necessarily futile. As discussed in a 2010 Atlantic article, there are two arguments to be made in favor of funding clean coal technology: article One is that coal can be used in less damaging, more sustainable ways than it is now. The other is that it must be used in those ways, because there is no plausible other way to meet what will be, absent an economic or social cataclysm, the worlds unavoidable energy demands. The latler argument is a staple of the pro-coal camp, who argue that, like it or not, we are going to have to use coal in the future to supply energy for our country. So why not try to make it cleaner in the process? staple The push against that argument is well summarized by a comment made by Mary Finley-Brook, a professor of geography, environmental studies and international studies at the University of Richmond in Virginia, to the science news website Live Science: Live Science "Clean coal does not currently exist," Finley-Brook wrote in an email. "It will be expensive to develop and is uncertain (unlikely) to work, depending on what technology is selected. This is moving in the wrong direction from a climate change mitigation perspective. We need energy transition away from fossil fuels, not nice-sounding names to confuse people who don't know better." Regardless of ones view on the philosophical debate about spending money to clean a technology we may begrudgingly have to use for years to come, the fact is that currently, so-called "clean coal" technology can for now do nothing to reduce carbon emissions on any appreciable or significant scale. Liberal MSNBC television host Rachel Maddow and conservative Republican U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio are engaging in a multimedia tit-for-tat over tax cuts and the federal deficit.All set to a background of peppy elevator music, winks and clever one-liners.We're not kidding.The back and forth started on July 14, 2010, when Maddow decided to poke fun at Rubio's 12 Simple Ways To Grow Our Economy. She noted, correctly, that most of the ideas are ripped straight from the Republican playbook.Extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Repeal the estate tax. Repeal the federal health care legislation. Fight cap and trade.Maddow criticized the ideas as failing to consider the GOP's (and Rubio's) other golden rule -- thou shall not increase the deficit.Republicans want to be the anti-deficit and anti-debt party right now, but they also want to run on George Bush's tax policies, Maddow said. And that is the giant awkwardness at the heart of Republicanism right now. Because George W. Bush's tax policies did to the deficit what the 'I only eat fried cheese' diet does to your cholesterol.The Maddow rant got a reaction from the Rubio campaign two days later, in a web ad set to that peppy elevator music we talked about.On Tuesday, Marco Rubio announced 12 simple ways to grow the economy and create jobs, the ad, called Maddow begins. How can you know the plan is right? Rachel Maddow thinks it's wrong. (You really should watch these ads, by the way. Rubio at one point facetiously plugs Maddow's 9 p.m. show; Maddow, in return, facetiously thanks him, and so on).On July 19, Maddow issued her reply to Rubio's ad -- in her own ad that mimics Rubio's.Marco Rubio has proposals for cutting the deficit and growing the economy. He wants to: Make Bush's '01 and '03 tax cuts permanent, end the estate tax, prevent cap-and-trade energy legislation, repeal health reform, Maddow's ad says. How does Marco Rubio say you can know his plan is right? 'Rachel Maddow thinks it's wrong.' Seriously. That's his argument. That's it.Even if everything about me is inherently wrong just by virtue of who I am, this is still true about Marco Rubio: His economic proposals will add $3.5 trillion to the federal deficit.The Rubio camp issued their latest response on July 21, highlighting the state's unemployment rate and the number of Floridians facing foreclosure while taking a shot a President Barack Obama and Senate rival independent Gov. Charlie Crist.Think Obama and Crist's policies are working just fine for Florida? the ad, called Again, Rachel asks.For Rubio, the ads are a chance to take on a liberal media-type like Maddow. And we're pretty sure we haven't seen the last of it. That said, we found it an appropriate time to jump in with a fact check. The question we're after: Will Rubio's economic ideas add $3.5 trillion to the federal deficit?Maddow's case We know government spending is a big issue for Rubio. On July 16, 2010,we checked and found Truea Rubio claim that $0.40 of every $1 being spent by the federal government is now borrowed. We also know Rubio vigorously opposed the federal stimulus bill because it added substantially to the federal deficit. A spokeswoman for Maddow said the talk show host got her deficit figures from the Congressional Budget Office, Congress' nonpartisan number-crunching arm. The CBO produced a series of revenues estimates in February should Congress enact three Republican-held tax cutting ideas -- extend the set to expire 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, repeal the federal estate tax and continue indexing the Alternative Minimum Tax for inflation(The AMT was enacted in 1969 to make sure wealthy people couldn't avoid taxes altogether, but it wasn't indexed for inflation. Congress manually adjusts the AMT for inflation each year).All three proposals are part of Rubio's 12 ideas -- specificallyIdeas 1, 3 and 5.Together, the CBO found thatthey would increase the federal deficit by $3.4 trillion from 2011-2020, mostly from lower revenues but also from increased outlays for refundable tax credits. Preventing cap and trade legislation, Rubio's Idea 9, also would have a negative effect on the federal deficit, according to the CBO. The theory behind cap-and-trade is that the government sets a limit on how much carbon different companies, such as electric utilities or manufacturers, can emit (the cap). The government then issues permits to companies and allows them to buy and sell the permits as needed so they can conduct business (the trade). If the policy works as planned, overall emissions decline, companies determine for themselves the best way to lower emissions, and the free market rewards those who lower emissions most effectively.In a letter dated July 7, 2010, CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf said that opposing cap and trade legislation would have the effect of raising the federal deficit by about $19 billion from 2011-2020.Those are the four major ideas Maddow uses in making her claim. But we wanted to at least consider Rubio's other ideas. Many of them, it turns out, come with deficit impacts that are difficult to measure, or at least appear to have no impact on the deficit. Rubio proposes reducing the corporate tax rate, for instance, but he doesn't say how much -- making it impossible to judge the revenue impact.Another Rubio idea is to repeal the federal health care bill (you can see all 12here). The federal health care bill enacted is estimated to reduce the deficit slightly -- about $143 billion from 2010-2019 -- according to the CBO. But a substitute health care bill -- something Rubio favors -- could reduce the deficit as much. So we've decided to discount the deficit reduction for the sake of this fact check.Excluding the health care repeal, that's about $3.4 trillion that we can verify that will be added to the federal deficit between now and 2020 if Rubio's economic ideas are put in place.Economic debateWe turned to economists and Rubio's campaign to see what we're missing.Karen Campbell, a policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the CBO deficit projections do not account for a fundamental Republican philosophy -- that lower taxes can bolster economic activity across a broader spectrum. Put simply, the lower tax rates are, or the less taxes people are required to pay, the more opportunities that exist for people to make money.It's a sentiment echoed by the Rubio campaign.A growing economy means more people are employed and generating revenue, more businesses are being started and expanded, and fewer people are claiming unemployment benefits, Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos said.That's not an argument for everyone, however.If you cut taxes, you borrow money, that's it, said Chuck Marr, the Director of Federal Tax Policy at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. For a lot of Republicans it's gotten to the point, that deficits only concern spending. A deficit is when you spend more than you tax. But for them, it's become just what the spending is. They seem to think that taxes don't matter. Mathematically it's ridiculous.Added Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution: I cannot see any way that extending the Bush tax cuts or repealing the estate tax could have any effect other than to produce an increase in the expected size of the future deficit. Period. There is no plausible set of private economic responses that would generate an increase in future total tax revenue if those two policies were adopted. The federal government would simply collect less income tax revenue and less estate tax revenue than it is now expected to do.Greg Mankiw, who was the chairman of George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors from 2003 to 2005, estimated in 2005 that a broad-based income tax cut would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects.Mankiw, who teaches macroeconomics at Harvard, referred to people who believe that broad-based income tax cuts could actually raise tax revenue charlatans and cranks in the first edition of his textbook, Principles of Economics.Our rulingWe realize we're not going to be able to change people's basic economic philosophies. We're not here today trying to disprove supply-side economics, or boost another economic thought. Based on our analysis, we do think it's a stretchfor someone like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to suggestthe Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were revenue neutral. And yet we also see the logic in the argument that lower taxes could stimulate investment in the economy, creating an army of new taxpayers. Rubio, himself, realizes spending cuts also will be necessary to offset at least some of the tax cuts he's proposed -- and to shrink the federal deficit. Rubio's campaign announced he would roll out ideas to cut government spending on July 26 in Jacksonville.And we'll be ready to examine them. But in this case, we're sticking to Maddow's claim that Rubio's economic proposals will add $3.5 trillion to the federal deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, repealing the estate tax and continuing to adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax for inflation will increase the federal deficit $3.4 trillion between now and 2020.That's right about on the mark, and only measures the impact of three of Rubio's tax cutting ideas. But unlike Maddow, we do want to leave some leeway for the economic growth those broad-based tax reforms could generate, as well as Rubio's spending cuts, still to be revealed. We rate her statement Mostly True. FACT CHECK:  Are the claims made in an e-mail titled "New American Way of Life" accurate?  Claim: An e-mail titled "New American Way of Life" accurately describes a generous safety net available to Americans who opt not to work.     Examples: [Collected via Facebook and e-mail, August 2015] Do you have any info on this article? I find a lot of it to be wrong, and no sources are cited. From what I understand less than 5% of the population abuses welfare, Pell grants barely cover college tuition and books. Who gets free cell phones? Does a mother of 2 really get $600 a month in food stamps? I've seen this posted 3 times today in my FB feed and feel it needs to be dispelled  ------------------------  The Key to Success for Those Who Are Inheriting America in 13 Easy Steps! How to get $75,000 in benefits every year from the US Government for you and your girlfriend? Follow these proven and simple steps. First ... get a girlfriend         1. Don't marry her.         2. Use your mom's address to receive your mail.         3. The guy buys a house.         4. Guy rents out house to his girl girlfriend who has 2 of his kids.         5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom home.         6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn't have to pay for family insurance.         7. Being a single mother, Girlfriend gets to go to college for free!         8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps        9. Girlfriend gets free cell phone from US Government       10. Girlfriend get free utilities.       11. Guy moves into home but still uses mom's house to receive mail.       12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes.  Now you both get to claim head of household at $1,800 credit.       13. Girlfriend gets disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1,800 a month and never has to work again.         This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay at home mom yields $0 dollars. An unmarried couple with stay at home mom nets $21,600 disability + $10,800 free housing + $6,000 free obamacare + $6,000 free food + $4,800 free utilities + $6,000 Pell Grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell Grant + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits. Any idea why the country is 18 + trillion in debt? Welcome to the new multicultural diverse, fundamentally changed America, thanks to the ever popular and exciting, everyone is entitled to everything world. Origins: The item reproduced above has been circulating online since at least April 2015, and after it was published the Miller County Liberal of to Colquitt, Georgia, on 19 August 2015 it received a boost in popularity due to the implied authority of appearing in print. (Although it was attributed to "John Tabb," an earlier version was credited to "Jeffery Rightmire.") published credited As is often the case with e-mail polemics focused on purported welfare abuse and taxpayer outrage, the "New American Way of Life" offers an implausible, far-fetched scenario to condemn those who use public assistance to make ends meet: polemics welfare abuse taxpayer assistance   1. Don't marry (your girlfriend).  2. Use your mom's address to receive your mail.  3. The guy buys a house.  4. Guy rents out house to his girlfriend who has 2 of his kids.  5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom home. Points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the forward pertain to the imagined generosity of the housing program colloquially called "Section 8," the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) assistance program that provides very low-income families with subsidized vouchers they can use towards paying a portion of their monthly rent. Section 8 HUD While Section 8 is frequently derided in the fashion referenced above, it's very difficult to play the system in the manner described due to the low supply versus tremendous demand for housing and vouchers among those in need of it.  Applicants typically have to spend years on waiting lists before Section 8 housing becomes available, and in many cases it takes years to even get one's name on a waiting list in the first place.  Waiting lists for the program close to new applicants for years at a time on a not-infrequent basis, as a 24 August 2015 article in the Albuquerque Journal reported: close years The waiting list for Section 8 subsidized housing will re-open on Sept. 1, after closing 28 months ago, the Bernalillo County Housing Department announced Friday. But getting onto that waiting list is no assurance that a person will move into Section 8 housing anytime soon. According to Housing Department senior administrative assistant, Craig Smith, the waiting list will re-open with 600 people still on the list, and we expect to add thousands by the time the list is closed back down, though there is no tentative date when that will happen. The wait list was shut down on May 1, 2013, because of sequestering of funds and budget cuts from the federal government, in particular the federal department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD. So it's extremely unlikely the baby daddy landlord in this hypothetical scenario could simply make a residence available for the Section 8 program and then immediately rent it to the tenant of his choosing.  He'd typically have to wait years for his preferred renter (i.e., his girlfriend) to get on a Section 8 waiting list, then more years for her to work her way to the top of the list, before he could double-dip by getting the government to subsidize his girlfriend's paying him rent to live in a house he owns.  The baby daddy in this scenario (one who can afford to buy his own house) would probably be far better off financially if he simply lived in the house with his girlfriend, or rented it out to someone other than his girlfriend. 6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn't have to pay for family insurance. There is a persistent misperception that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as PPACA, the ACA, or "Obamacare") somehow allows low-income Americans to "sign up" for free medical care and/or free health insurance.  It doesn't.  It does provide lower-income households with tax credits/subsidies for the purchase of health insurance, but one would generally have to be at the very lower end of the ACA income scale and select the least expensive type of health insurance plan available to avoid paying anything at all for insurance.  (And even then, the family would still have to pay out of pocket for all the costs not necessarily covered by insurance, such as copays for office visits, diagnostic tests, lab work, prescriptions, hospital stays, etc.) PPACA  7. Being a single mother, Girlfriend gets to go to college for free! If there is any guaranteed way for a "single mother" to obtain a college education for free, we've yet to locate it.  Yes, federal Pell Grants can provide qualifying students with up to almost $6,000 per year towards the cost of attending college (depending upon financial need), but they aren't tied to one's status as a single mother.  There are some grants and scholarships available for single parents to both help them afford school while they are in and and help them pay it off once they have graduated, but those types of programs are scant, and very, very few unpartnered mothers could get a free ride to any college on the basis of their status as single parents alone. Pell Grants single parents scant 8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly known as "food stamps") is an often criticized assistance program aimed at combating hunger by financially struggling families. Eligibility for SNAP varies based on household size, but the maximum monthly allotment ranges from $194 for a family of one to $1,169 for a family of eight. Each additional family member after that can qualify a household for up to $146 more each month in benefits, or just under $5 per person per day.  The household size posited here (a single mother with two children) wouldn't qualify for $600 per month in SNAP benefits. food stamps criticized Eligibility The Department of Agriculture (under which the program operates) estimates a total annual program "loss" of about four percent.  Despite widespread belief that the SNAP program is rampantly abused with little oversight, fraud in the program is aggressively investigated and prosecuted where applicable. estimates investigated 9. Girlfriend gets free cell phone from US Government The Lifeline program (commonly known as "Obamaphones," even though the program was actually initiated long before the Barack Obama took office) requires phone service providers to offer monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service to eligible low-income consumers.  The program does not require those providers to issue "free cell phones" to anyone (although some cellular providers choose to do so at their own expense). Obamaphones 10. Girlfriend get free utilities. Various programs administered at the state level provide low-income families with financial assistance to offset the costs of essential utilities, but often only in emergency situations. utilities emergency 11. Guy moves into home but still uses mom's house to receive mail. One might theoretically do this, but the person who deliberately falsified his residence address in order to live in self-owned housing that he was being paid to rent to another party under the Section 8 program would be committing a crime, not simply taking legitimate and legal advantage of government assistance programs. 12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes.  Now you both get to claim head of household at $1,800 credit. Whether or not taxpayers are setting out to craftily claim tax deductions to which they are not entitled, the IRS's head of household tax filing status indeed entitles the person filing to a higher deduction ($9,250 in 2015 versus $6,300 for taxpayers filing as Single or Married Filing Separately). It's important to bear in mind that that dollar amount is what taxpayers may deduct from their taxable income, and not necessarily an amount that they will receive back in the form of a tax refund. head of household status entitles And of course, if each parent is claiming one of the two children as a dependent, than the mother can't be legally collecting benefits (such as SNAP) for both children. Girlfriend gets disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1,800 a month and never has to work again. For starters, one cannot simply declare herself to be mentally ill or have back problems, then sit back and collect disability payments for the rest of her (working) life.  Such claims have to be documented by medical professionals as genuinely disabling conditions, and even then those living with disabilities find that securing benefits isn't quite so easy. Presuming the woman in this anecdote is fairly young, she would have to have accrued sufficient work credits to qualify for lifelong disability payments (an unlikely scenario), and then she would still have to meet separate criteria for a qualifying condition (which precludes having earned more than $1,090 per month in that year). The condition under which a person qualifies also must be one that limits ability to do any other work: easy accrued work credits criteria If you cannot do the work you did in the past, we see if you are able to adjust to other work. We consider your medical conditions and your age, education, past work experience and any transferable skills you may have. If you cannot adjust to other work, your claim will be approved. If you can adjust to other work, your claim will be denied. According to data from the agency, more than half of disability claims are denied, and the wait for hearings has increased (partly due to an aging pool of applicants). The anecdotal claimant's purported plundering of disability benefits also conflicts with her concurrent sponging of educational grants, as the usefulness of the latter is negated by the former: A full-time student wouldn't  qualify for lifelong disability payments, and college would be unnecessary for the matriarch of a household who intended to remain home for life collecting benefits for her fabricated disability. denied aging This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay at home mom yields $0 dollars. An unmarried couple with stay at home mom nets. $21.600 disability + $10,800 free housing + $6,000 free   obamacare +$6,000 free food + $4,800 free utilities + $6,000 Pell Grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell Grant + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits. Any idea why the country is 18 + trillion in debt? As the excerpt above concludes, the figures bandied about in the e-mail encompass virtually all programs available to low-income Americans and extrapolates the fictional family described routinely accesses all of them. Some of the benefits described (such as free college for single mothers or free utility programs) don't seem to exist, and several of forms of assistance (such as Section 8 or disability) are not administered in the simplistic manner suggested by this item. Furthermore, while this item asserts that the complex welfare hustling plan described here is "perfectly legal," several aspects of it involve defrauding the system in an expressly prohibited (and largely criminal) fashion. Were any family to hide assets or lie about household income on application forms, they would be subject to severe penalties and prosecution should their perfidy be unraveled. The scheme also rests upon the (fallacious) notion that access to assistance programs is easy to both maintain and retain. fallacious Finally, the causes of the national debt are fairly complex. However, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense broadly account for most government spending. account Last updated: 31 August 2015 Originally published:  31 August 2015 Claim:  Photograph shows a kayaker being trailed by a Great White shark.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Hello I received this photo today, supposedly taken off Capetown, can you verify it please??     Origins:  Scarcely a week goes by in which we don't receive yet another photograph of a shark for verification,such is our fascination with these mysterious predators of the deep.  Of especial interest are pictures that show humans in (apparently) imminent danger from threatening  sharks, such as the infamous images of a diver attempting to board a helicopter just ahead of some breaching jaws (fake) and a surfer headed directly towards lurking trouble (misidentified). diver surfer The image above displays, according to its caption, a kayaker "sitting in a 3.8-metre sea kayak and watching a four-metre great white approach."  This photograph is genuine and was taken from a September 2005 Africa Geographic article titled "Shark Detectives," about researchers studying Great White sharks off the coast of South Africa, that described the circumstances under which this picture was snapped: article Sitting in a 3.8-metre sea kayak and watching a four-metre great white approach you is a fairly tense experience. Although we had extensively tested the sharks' reactions to an empty kayak and had observed no signs of aggression, this gave us little comfort as we eyed a great white heading straight for us, albeit slowly. Just a metre or so from the craft it veered off, circled and slowly approached from behind. It did this several times, occasionally lifting its head out of the water to get a better look. Then it lost interest, and as it continued on its way we were able to follow a short distance behind. Once we'd come to terms with having nothing between ourselves and a four-metre shark except a thin layer of plastic, our kayak made an ideal research platform for observing great white behaviour in shallow water. Its advantages are twofold: it is inconspicuous and appears not to cause the sharks to alter their behaviour for long, and it allows us to watch them in a natural situation, as it is not necessary to attract them to us with food. A similar article appearing in the December 2005 issue of the South African publication The Big Issue included another photograph from the same sequence. photograph Last updated:  29 May 2015    Peschak, Thomas P. and Michael C. Scholl.  "Shark Detectives."   Africa Geographic.  September 2005.