Do rising levels of ice in the Arctic and Greenland suggest that global warming may be less certain?
On 1 October 2017, pseudoscientific alternative health website NaturalNews.com, which is geared primarily toward supplement enthusiasts with a discerning taste for deep state conspiracy theories, posted an article ("Dont Look Now, But Arctic Sea Ice Mass Has Grown Almost 40% Since 2012") that attempts to cast doubt on the scientific veracity of global warming by first presenting the following grotesque caricature of a straw man argument: article straw man One of the most popular pieces of "evidence" that climate alarmists just love to bring up to prove the global warming narrative is the "all the ice is melting in the Arctic and the polar bears are dying" line. Weve all seen the documentaries where a polar bear is desperately clinging to a tiny piece of ice and you just know hes going to die soon. They article then presents two observations that make the generally factual point that there has been relatively more sea ice in the Arctic and glacial ice on Greenland in 2017 than there have been at specific times in the recent past: The latest figures from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, located at the University of Colorado, show that sea ice extent has increased by 40 percent since 2012. [...] [The Danish Polar Portal reports that]: If we rank the annual surface mass balance since 1981 from low to high, the lowest on record was 2011-2012 (38 Gt) and this year is the 5th highest out of the 37 year record. Danish Polar Portal To be clear, the primary data scientists use to document global warming are records of Earth's temperature over time, not doomed polar bear imagery. Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist for the independent, nongovernmental Berkeley Earth research group told us in an e-mail that, in this area, pretty much "all groups who provide estimates" of global temperature unequivocally point to nearly uninterrupted temperature rises since the 1970s, as shown in this comparison of various estimates produced by the climate and energy policy website Carbon Brief: Zeke Hausfather produced   "People interested in global warming are best-served looking at actual global temperatures," Hausfather said. While this temperature trend is uncontroversial and clear, the climate system as a whole is a complex beast with numerous entangled parts. The basic approach to writing a blog post that "debunks" the concept of global warming is to highlight without explanation various parts of that system at a single point in time. NaturalNews.com is no exception to that basic strategy here. Arctic Sea Ice Natural News cites a climate change denial blog called ClimateDepot.com as evidence of the claim that sea ice has grown 40 percent since 2012. In reality, the claim made by this website was more specific and less useful. In a post dated 18 September 2017, Climate Depot stated: stated Arctic sea ice extent is up 40% from this date five years ago. "Sea ice extent" is one of many different metrics used to characterize the presence of sea ice, and is generally defined as "the area of ocean [based on pixels in satellite imagery] where at least 15 percent of the surface is frozen". On the day of 17 September 2017, sea ice extent was indeed higher than it was on 17 September 2012: defined   This does not mean, however, that sea ice has grown almost 40 percent since 2012, nor does it mean that the overall trend in arctic sea ice is toward growth  it hasn't and it isn't. The issue here is that sea ice extent is quite variable from year to year, and thus looking at two discrete points is a fairly useless exercise without the full context. "We don't expect it to monotonically decrease every year," Hausfather told us.  This chart (using data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center) shows September sea ice extent compared against the same average used in the maps cited by Climate Depot, showing both this aforementioned variability but also an overall trend of reduced ice extent. Note that the year 2012 was no random year to select for comparison; it is actually the record lowest year in terms of Arctic sea ice extent  making anything compared to it necessarily higher: from   The overall trend of declining sea ice is even clearer when you look at a different measure: sea ice volume (presented by the Polar Science Center, below). Not only do such records show a clear negative trend, they also show just how anomalous 2012 was as a data point: Polar Science Center   In reality, 2017 was the eighth lowest year on record for Arctic sea ice extent since satellite measurements began in 1978. But in no world but the pseudo-scientific fringe internet would the concept of global warming rely on every single year breaking the previous year's record for sea ice minimum. eighth Tom Karl, the former director of NOAAs National Centers for Environmental Information, told us that 2017's sea ice extent was still much lower than the 1980-2010 average (by two standard deviations), and that, despite claims to the contrary, "one can't look at a trend over 5 years and say much about the impact of global warming as other factors are also important on these short time scales." director Glacial Ice on Greenland The NaturalNews.com approach for glacial ice on Greenland was similarly lacking scale and context. The main source for these arguments was a completely legitimate end-of-year report put out by the Danish Polar Portal, a website run by the Danish Meteorological Institute. In that report, the organization makes this factual statement: report Heavy snow and rain in winter with a relatively short and intermittent summer melt season have left the Greenland ice sheet with more ice than has been usual over the last twenty years  in fact we have to go back to the 1980s and 90s to see a year similar to this one in terms of snow fall and ice melt. This statement, and the figures presented by NaturalNews.com, are referring to a metric known as Surface Mass Balance (SMB), which Polar Portal describes: describes Each year glaciers gain ice from snow and freezing rain and lose ice by melt that runs off. Adding these together gives the surface mass budget (SMB) in Greenland, the ice sheet typically gains mass from around September to May and loses more mass than it gains in the ablation [melting] season of June, July and August. Importantly, however, this measurement only presents half the picture in terms of how much mass is being lost from year to year from Greenland's glaciers. That's because it does not include the rather significant portion of ice that breaks  or calves  off into the ocean to melt elsewhere. On average this accounts for about 500 Gt [gigatons] of further ice loss. This, as stated in the Polar Portal post, nearly matches the estimated gain in SMB reported by Natural News, effectively canceling it out. In a post on Carbon Brief, analysts with the Danish Meteorological Society put this years measurement in context: post While the Greenland ice sheet has seen a neutral, or small positive, change in ice for this year, it should be noted that Greenland has lost approximately 3,600bn tonnes of ice since 2002. Like the record of Arctic sea ice earlier, when put in the context of the entire trend of Greenland's ice mass over time (presented by Polar Portal below), 2017's measurement does nothing to change larger and completely unambiguous trends of overall melting: Polar Portal    Further, in the case of Greenland's ice sheet, there is not much of a mystery surrounding the lackluster amount of melting this year; a massive storm  the remnants of Hurricane Nicole  parked itself atop the continent, dumping a large amount of snow on the ice-covered continent: Hurricane Nicole dumping Heavy rain and snow in October in especially eastern Greenland gave record totals of precipitation in the main east coast town of Tasiilaq as the remnants of former hurricane Nicole passed by and, much as with Harvey in Houston this year, got lodged over eastern Greenland for some days. However, after Nicoles extreme precipitation, the rest of the winter was actually pretty average in terms of the amount of snow that fell. Because neither the higher-than-2012 arctic sea ice from 17 September 2017 nor the neutral amount of ice loss in Greenland in 2017 do anything to disrupt the overall trends of decreasing ice, and because climatological science does not require (nor does it expect) ice or temperature records to be broken every single year, we rank the claim that these observations are reasons to doubt the tenets of climate change as false. Watson, Tracey.  "Dont Look Now, but Arctic Sea Ice Mass Has Grown Almost 40% Since 2012."
  Natural News.  1 October 2017. Mottram, Ruth, et al.  "Guest Post: How the Greenland Ice Sheet Fared in 2017."
  Carbon Brief.  1 September 2017. Polar Portal.  "End of the SMB Season Summary 2017."
  12 September 2017. Morano, Marc.  "Massive Arctic Ice Gain (Up 40%) Since Low Point of 2012.
  Climate Depot.  19 September 2012. Hausfather, Zeke.  "State of the Climate: Warm Temperatures and Low Sea Ice Mark First Half of 2017."
  Carbon Brief.  21 July 2017. National Snow and Ice Data Center.  "Arctic Sea Ice at Minimum Extent."
  19 September 2017. Polar Science Center.  "PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis."
  Accessed 4 October 2017. NASA.  "End-of-Summer Arctic Sea Ice Extent Is Eighth Lowest on Record."
  19 September 2017. NASA.  "NASA Sees Tropical Storm Nicole Going Extra-Tropical."
  18 October 2016.
Claim:  Former USAF General Dick Hawley delivered a caustic speech about "thoughts of such surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed." Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] Speech from the former ACC commander (now retired and not restricted to being politically correct), Gen Hawley.  Since the attack, I have seen, heard, and read thoughts of such surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed.  You've heard them too.  Here they are: 1) "We're not good, they're not evil, everything is relative." Listen carefully: We're good, they're evil, nothing is relative.  Say it with me now and free yourselves.  You see, folks, saying "We're good" doesn't mean, "We're perfect." Okay?  The only perfect being is the bearded guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.  The plain fact is that our country has, with all our mistakes and blunders, always been and always will be, the greatest beacon of freedom, charity, opportunity, and affection in history. If you need proof, open all the borders on Earth and see what happens. In about half a day, the entire world would be a ghost town, and the United States would look like one giant line to see "The Producers." 2) "Violence only leads to more violence." This one is so stupid you usually have to be the president of an Ivy League university to say it.  Here's the truth, which you know in your heads and hearts already: Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky, half-measures lead to more violence.  However, complete, fully-thought-through, professional, well-executed violence never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead. That's right, dead.  Not "on trial," not "reeducated," not "nurtured back into the bosom of love." Dead.  D-E-Well, you get the idea. 3) "The CIA and the rest of our intelligence community has failed us." For 25 years we have chained our spies like dogs to a stake in the ground, and now that the house has been robbed, we yell at them for not protecting us.  Starting in the late seventies,  under Carter appointee Stansfield Turner, the giant brains who get these giant ideas decided that the best way to gather international intelligence was to use spy satellites.  "After all," they reasoned, "you can see a license plate from 200 miles away." This is very helpful if you've been attacked by a license plate.  Unfortunately, we were attacked by humans.  Finding humans is not possible with satellites.  You have to use other humans.  When we bought all our satellites, we fired all our humans, and here's the really stupid part.  It takes years, decades to infiltrate new humans into the worst places of the world.  You can't just have a guy who looks like Gary Busey in a Spring Break '93 sweatshirt plop himself down in a coffee shop in Kabul and say "Hiya, boys.  Gee, I sure would like to meet that bin Laden fella." Well, you can, but all you'd be doing is giving the bad guys a story they'll be telling for years. 4) "These people are poor and helpless, and that's why they're angry at us." Uh-huh, and Jeffrey Dahmer's frozen head collection was just a desperate cry for help.  The terrorists and their backers are richer than Elton John and, ironically, a good deal less annoying.  The poor helpless people, you see, are the villagers they tortured and murdered to stay in power.  Mohamed Atta, one of the evil scumbags who steered those planes into the killing grounds (I'm sorry, one of the "alleged hijackers," according to CNN-they stopped using the word "terrorist," you know), is the son of a Cairo surgeon.  But you knew this, too.  In the sixties and seventies, all the pinheads marching against the war were upper-middle-class college kids who grabbed any cause they could think of to get out of their final papers and spend more time drinking.  At least, that was my excuse.  It's the same today.  Take the Anti-Global-Warming (or is it World Trade? Oh-who-knows-what-the-hell-they-want demonstrators) They all charged their black outfits and plane tickets on dad's credit card(!) before driving to the airport in their SUV's. 5) "Any profiling is racial profiling." Who's killing us here, the Norwegians?  Just days after the attack, the New York Times had an article saying dozens of extended members of the gazillionaire bin Laden family living in America were afraid of reprisals and left in a huff, never to return to studying at Harvard and using too much Drakkar.  I'm crushed.  I think we're all crushed. Please come back.  With a cherry on top?  Why don't they just change their names, anyway?  It's happened in the past.  Think about it.  How many Adolfs do you run into these days?  Shortly after that, I remember watching TV with my jaw on the floor as a government official actually said, "That little old grandmother from Sioux City could be carrying something." Okay, how about this: No, she couldn't.  It would never be the grandmother from Sioux City.  Is it even possible?  What are the odds?  Winning a hundred Powerball lotteries in a row? A thousand?  A million?  And now a Secret Service guy has been tossed off a plane and we're all supposed to cry about it because he's an Arab?  Didn't it have the tiniest bit to do with the fact that he filled out his forms incorrectly  three times?  And then left an Arab history book on his seat as he strolled off the plane?  And came back?  Armed?  Let's please all stop singing "We Are the World" for a minute and think practically.  I don't want to be sitting on the floor in the back of a plane four seconds away from hitting Mt. Rushmore and turn, grinning, to the guy next to me to say, "Well, at least we didn't offend them." SO HERE'S what I resolve for the New Year: Never to forget our murdered brothers and sisters. Never to let the relativists get away with their immoral thinking. After all, no matter what your daughter's political science professor says, we didn't start this. Have you seen that bumper sticker that says, "No More Hiroshimas"?  I wish I had one that says, "You First.  No More Pearl Harbors." Dick Hawley Origins:  Yes, Gen. Richard E. Hawley is a real person, a United States Air Force general who served as commander of the USAF's Air Combat Command until his retirement in 1999, but no, he didn't write or deliver the speech quoted above.   This "speech" is actually a column by humorist Larry Miller which appeared in The Daily Standard Gen. Richard E. Hawley Air Combat Command The Daily Standard People have been making New Year's resolutions for a long time. Usually they're personal and last no longer than a smoke ring or one of Tom Daschle's smiles. You know the drill: "I'm going to cut down on my drinking, lose a few pounds, and read more books." Of course, by January 3rd, you get drunk, order a pizza, and buy a satellite dish.  This year, though, my resolutions won't be personal, and they won't look forward. They'll look back. Four months back. As you know, since September 11, our leaders and soldiers have done a fine job, frequently a brilliant job. (I mean, please, how about that Rumsfeld? If he were a woman, I'dWait. Come to think of it, I'd still do nothing.) I don't even care that so many of our fellow Americans have been contrary and mealy-mouthed. What makes me want to scream like an actress and throw things is this: Since the attack, I have seen, heard, and read thoughts of such surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed. You've heard them too. Here they are:  [ . . .] So here's what I resolve for the new year: To never forget our murdered brothers and sisters. To never let the relativists get away with their immoral thinking. After all, no matter what your daughter's political science professor says, we didn't start this. Have you seen that bumper sticker that says, "No More Hiroshimas"? I wish I had one that says, "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."  I resolve to be more vigilant and watchful. A good warning sign that these mutts were nuts was when they started dressing their women in heavy-duty, baby-blue bubblewrap. Any man who doesn't want to glance at a woman is, by definition, already very easy to talk into killing himself. Then again, to be fair, we haven't seen their women.  To scream, "Keep going!" when everyone else says, "Stop."  I'll just cut down on my drinking next year. Hell, I really wasn't planning to, anyway. General Hawley said of the words now mistakenly attributed to him: There is a piece zooming around the internet that attributes some pretty forceful statements to me, Dick Hawley - one time fighter pilot, General, thoughtful consultant, neophyte strategist, master of the artful compromise. The words did not flow from my pen, but if the e-mails mean anything, those words are now indelibly linked to my name. So do me a favor - if you receive this, please send it on to the same people to whom you forwarded the one that I did not write.  It's not that I don't share many, if not most, of the sentiments attributed to me, but the piece is just not my style. Here's what I would have said if I'd been asked to comment on those five important issues. 1) Goodness, Evil and Relativity: There are some really good people in this world.  They volunteer to help those who need it, and ask nothing in return. There are also some really bad people in this world.  They exploit those who need help, or who have less wit or "charisma", and motivate them to join in committing unspeakable acts of cruelty against people they don't even know. Then there are the rest of us.  Average people who try each day to do no harm, to provide for their families, to do an occasional act of kindness. The evil that was perpetrated against our land on 9/11 was the product of Mullahs who see our prosperity and power as a threat to their control over the uneducated Muslim masses on whose shoulders they ride through life. And so they preach hate. They are evil. 2) Violence begets violence:  It's true.  Violence does beget violence.  But sometimes there is no alternative but to confront those who would perpetrate evil acts against us.  This is one of those times.  We are blessed to have courageous men and women willing to put their lives on the line to track down and annihilate those who have been so imbued with evil as to be beyond redemption.  But violence is not a strategy.  It is a necessary and fully justified reaction to an unimaginable threat.  But it is not a strategy.  If we are to win this war, we must defeat the Mullahs.  And to defeat the Mullahs, we must find ways to separate them from their uneducated flocks. We cannot kill all those who have been taught to hate us, nor should we wish to.  Far better to change their minds than to change their state of being. 3) The intelligence community let us down:  Well, maybe just a little.  Lots of senior and not so senior intelligence people became just as enamored of high tech gadgets as their political masters.  The protests over our evisceration of the human intelligence component of the agency were not very loud or forceful. Keeping spies on the ground is a high risk and often dirty business, and it wasn't just liberal politicians who didn't have much stomach for it. 4) Poverty is the breeding ground for terrorists:  No, it isn't; but religious extremism is.  The Mullahs fear our wealth and power because it shows that a secular society with democratic institutions and a free market economy can do a better job of taking care of its peoples' needs, both spiritual and physical, than the oppressive Islamic regimes that they aspire to lead.  The Mullahs are the problem, not poverty, but poverty does make it easier for the Mullahs to spread their evil - as do governments that tolerate and even reinforce their hateful message. 5) Profiling: We are at war here!  We are not talking about traffic stops. If we were at war with Iceland, I would expect those charged with our defense to pay very close attention to any Icelander who ventured near our shores.  In this war I expect them to pay very close attention to Muslims with ties to the places that spew hatred against us.  Random checks when there are no such obvious targets available are a good way to keep the evil ones guessing, but let's not make small children and grandmothers take their shoes off while we watch far more likely candidates walk aboard unchecked. 6) Resolutions:  a. Never forget that what happened on September the 11th of 2001 was an act of war.  b. Never sit silently by while someone tries to justify what happened on that day as an understandable reaction to U.S. policies in the Middle East or elsewhere.  c. Fly our nation's flag proudly - it represents this world's greatest hope to move beyond the pain and suffering that inflict so many across the globe. Richard E. HawleyGeneral, USAF, RetiredFormer Commander, Air Combat Command Last updated:  8 March 2008    Sources:   Miller, Larry.  "You Say You Want a Resolution."   The Daily Standard.  14 January 2002. 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 February 2016, the transcriptof a speech Hillary Clinton purportedly gave to Goldman Sach's on 4 June 2013 started circulating online: The following is a leaked transcript of Hillary Clintons 1st speech to Goldman Sachs delivered on 6/04/2013. Two other speeches are also rumored to be in circulation. This is the full transcript. Secretary Clinton received $225,000 for this speech. HILLARY CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Lloyd [Blankfein], and thanks to everyone at Goldman Sachs for welcoming me today. Im delighted to be back among friends, colleagues, collaborators, supporters, kindred spirits Let me jump right in. You know, over the past few months, there have been popular concerns about an economy that still isnt delivering for the majority of Americans. Its not delivering the way that they feel it should, that they feel entitled to. Most Americans that you speak to, speak a populist rhetoric that claims it is stacked for those at the top, that those of you here have it too good. (Laughter) But we know the hopes that the little people have for their future  things like school, job, food, clothing on their backs all of those little things would not be possible without your leadership and innovation. Several publications,such asBSNews, CounterPunch,andDissident Voice, lent credence to thetranscripts when they published them in full.These web sites all attributed itstext to author K.J. Noh, who is not affiliated with the Clinton campaign. BSNews CounterPunch Dissident Voice While the aforementioned web sites are not exclusively satirical publications, they do occasionally (as is the case above)publishsatire: BSNews, in stark contrast, is here to tell you the truth. We pride ourselves on covering the news stories the corporate media wont dare touch. We will from time to time take satirical side swipes at journalists within the MSM (see Special Reports) and we will be producing spoof media animations (see Podcast) but we will never deliberately lie or mislead OUR audience about the most important news stories of the day. While we couldn't find any indication that BSNewshad labeled the above-quoted story as satire,Counter Punchfeatured a "satire alert" at the top of its article and theDissident Voice(where thepurported transcript of Clinton's speech first appeared) filed the story as piece of fiction:   The transcripts of Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs have not been leaked or published anywhere on the internet. When the Democratic presidential candidate was asked about the speeches she made during a town hall meeting on 18 February 2016, she said that she would releasethemwhen the other candidates did the same: release At another town hall, on Feb. 18, a man in the audience pleaded, Please, just release those transcripts so that we know exactly where you stand. Mrs. Clinton had told him, I am happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate in this race has given speeches to private groups. In late December 2020, a misleading online advertisement appeared to announce that Monica Lewinsky was dead and that her net worth stunned her family. It read: "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family At Age 47. Monica Lewinsky Leaves Behind A Net Worth That Will Boggle Your Mind." appeared   However, this was not true. She is alive, and despite what the ad claimed, there was no indication in the resulting story that her net worth shocked her family. The ad was sponsored by the Therapy Joker website and was hosted on the Yahoo! Gemini advertising service. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a 430-page story with the headline: "The Biggest Hollywood Celebrities & Their Incredible Net Worth  Can You Guess Who Has The Biggest Bank Account?" Lewinsky's net worth appeared on page 417. This meant that readers had to click "Next Page" 417 times to reach the page for Lewinsky: page 417 Monica Lewinsky: Activist and TV Personality - $500,000 Monica Samille Lewinsky is a lady of many skills. This popular American television personality is also a successful fashion designer, activist, and a former intern at the White House. The papparazi constantly followed her and she was a regular face in the media during her time at the White House. However, she made up her mind to leave all that behind and went on to pursue a different career. Besides that, she has also authored the book, Monica: Her Story which added to her fame. The London School of Economics and Political Science alumni [sic] is now 47 years old and is a popular television personality. She took a lavish apartment on rent and had quite a luxurious lifestyle. Her fleet of cars includes a Mini Cooper and a Cadillac. We hope she has a professional financial advisor is coming to her aid as far as her banking is concerned. Currently, the media personality, activist, and fashion designer has retained her fame and we hope Lewinsky does the same for the money shes accumulated over the years. The page mentioned nothing about Lewinsky's purported death, nor did it present any information about her family being stunned by her net worth. The misleading advertisement and exceptionally lengthy article reflect a strategy known in the advertising world as "arbitrage." The Therapy Joker website's goal was to make more money from ads displayed on each of the 430 pages than it cost to lure readers with the initial "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family" ad in the first place. The business and technology blog Margins defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." Margins also referred to it as "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." defined Lewinsky was a White House intern in the mid-1990s who became famous after her affair with former U.S. President Bill Clinton became a public scandal. In December 1998, Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the Senate did not vote to convict and remove him from office. He served the remainder of his second term in the White House. impeached We previously covered similar misleading net worth stories for Sean Connery, Jaleel White, Richard Gere, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, and Alex Trebek. Sean Connery Jaleel White Richard Gere Chuck Norris Clint Eastwood Alex Trebek 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 As U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated unsubstantiated attacks on the legitimacy of mail-in voting during the summer of 2020, numerous Snopes readers asked us to investigate whether the leader of the U.S. Postal Service was carrying out a nefarious scheme to help Trump win another presidential term. mail-in voting In late July and early August, various rumors surfaced regarding Louis DeJoy, a North Carolina businessman whom the Postal Service's governing board selected to run the agency in May 2020. For example, a viral tweet thread alleged: viral tweet My mailman just confirmed they have all officially been told to "SLOW THE MAIL DOWN," per trump's Postmaster General. ...He says that there is backed up mail ALL OVER THE FLOOR. He's never seen anything like it. It has ALREADY begun. But as long as we keep each other informed, we can beat their dirty tricks with INFORMATION.   The claim's underlying notions were these: DeJoy was a political ally to the Republican president, and the new postmaster general had used his new authority to order Postal Service carriers and clerks to slow deliveries to help Trump win the 2020 November election. A backlog of ballots in the weeks or days before Election Day, critics of the president worried, could lead to votes going uncounted or deemed invalid due to state laws governing mail-in election deadlines. state laws What follows is an examination of federal documents obtained by Snopes  including letters by members of Congress, campaign finance reports, and internal memos to Postal Service employees  as well as interviews with postal union representatives and a Postal Service spokesperson, to determine the legitimacy of those questions. DeJoy could not be reached for an interview for this report.  Note: Snopes not only investigated DeJoy's relationship to Trump, but his financial stake in companies that compete with the Postal Service to evaluate if, or to what extent, his past investments provided any evidence of a plan to undermine the Postal Service's longstanding mission: to provide mail service to every American, no matter their address or income. Yes. DeJoy, who lives in Greensboro, donated more than $1.2 million to the Trump campaign between August 2016 and February 2020, according to campaign finance reports compiled by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Federal Elections Commission It's unclear when or how DeJoy developed a relationship with Trump, and why he decided to support the billionaire's political pursuits. In a 2005 interview with Greensboro's local newspaper, DeJoy  then-CEO of New Breed Logistics, a distribution and warehousing company  appeared less supportive of Trump, saying his self-important attitude on the reality-TV show "The Apprentice" was destructive. 2005 interview The Apprentice "I'd be fired," DeJoy said, if he was a contestant. Nonetheless, by early 2017, DeJoy was among his state's top donors to Trump (see below for The Charlotte Observer's list that ranks DeJoy at No. 3 with a total contribution of $111,000). And by October of that year, DeJoy had become close enough to the president to host him and other donors for fundraiser at his Greensboro house. top donors Greensboro house.     Also, by that time, DeJoy's wife, Aldona Wos, had been appointed by the president to serve as vice chair of a White House commission that oversees paid fellowships in federal offices, according to the couple's foundation website. foundation website In addition to his contributions to Trump's political campaigns specifically, DeJoy has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican causes or campaigns over decades, the FEC records show. The Postal Service's governing board, a group appointed by the president with confirmation from the Senate, selected DeJoy as Postmaster General on May 6, 2020, after what it described as an extensive nationwide search for qualified candidates. At the time of that decision, Trump had appointed all six board members  Chairman Robert Duncan, John Barger, Ron Bloom, Roman Martinez IV, Donald Moak, and William Zollars  since the early days of his presidency. what it described Robert Duncan John Barger Ron Bloom Roman Martinez IV Donald Moak William Zollars  DeJoy, who was in charge of fundraising for the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Charlotte when the board made its announcement, made the following donations since the start of 2020, according to filings from the FEC: National Republican Congressional Committee. National Republican Congressional Committee Facebook In sum, considering DeJoy's record of donations, as well as evidence of him hosting a Trump fundraiser at his Greensboro home in fall 2017, it is accurate to claim that the new postmaster general is a political ally to the Republican president.  home The answer to this question is less clear. In summer 2020, the viral claim about DeJoy  that he had directed carriers to delay mail to benefit Trump's reelection campaign (which we unpack below)  took on another layer: that DeJoy had also allegedly invested $70 million of his own money in delivery companies that compete with the Postal Service. another layer allegedly     That allegation, which we deemed true (see the explanation below), was particularly worrisome for critics of Trump and DeJoy, who believed the alleged holdings were more proof of the two leaders conspiring together  this time in an attempt to privatize the Postal Service. critics Here's some context before we dive into DeJoy's personal assets: Conservative Republicans have long pushed to remove government from mail services that they believe should be left to the private commercial market. Since Trump took office, he has called the Postal Service "a joke" or Amazon's "delivery boy," considering its package rates, and has floated the idea of eventually privatizing the agency. a joke delivery boy eventually privatizing the agency Meanwhile, others fear dismantling the federally-mandated mail service would disproportionately affect people who live in rural areas, where private companies such as FedEx and UPS either charge higher rates or do no shipments at all. At the same time, the Postal Service  which does not receive tax dollars for its operating expenses  faces a worsening financial situation due to a 2006 congressional mandate that required the agency to prepay health care benefits of retirees, as well as a decline in first-class mail customers. The coronavirus pandemic exacerbated those long-standing problems, forcing several post offices nationwide to completely close or scale back hours. congressional mandate coronavirus pandemic scale back hours For instance, on April 9, 2020, roughly one month before DeJoy was selected to lead the Postal Service, then-Postmaster General Megan Brennan said the agency was preparing for a $13 billion revenue shortfall due directly to COVID-19 and an additional $54.3 billion in losses over 10 years. Considering those projections, she said the agency could run out of cash this fiscal year  or the end of September  without federal intervention. (Brennan announced her retirement in October 2019, after more than 30 years with the agency.) April 9, 2020 announced her retirement The former Postal Service leader made those comments shortly after federal leaders negotiated a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 economic relief package, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which, initially, included a $13 billion one-time boost for the mail service. But, purportedly at the urging of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and aides to Trump, congressional leaders removed that provision from the stimulus package, and instead included a $10 billion loan that the Trump administration could leverage in its favor. Then, on July 29, 2020, The Washington Post reported that under DeJoy's leadership, the postal agency gave Mnuchin's office's proprietary information about the Postal Service's most lucrative private-sector contracts, such as Amazon, FedEx and UPS, in exchange for the loan money. economic relief package Steven Mnuchin The Washington Post By that time, Congressional leaders and Trump were battling yet again over another emergency relief package; Democrats proposed a $25 billion boost for the Postal Service but then lowered that amount to $10 billion during talks with Republicans. On Aug. 13, 2020, during an interview on Fox Business Network, the president said frankly the tug-and-pull over Postal Service funding was part of his administration's plan to try to make it harder for the agency to handle the expected surge in mail-in ballots in the November election. If we dont make a deal, that means they dont get the money, Trump told host Maria Bartiromo, referring to the false claim that Democrats are are proposing a universal mail-in voting system. That means they cant have universal mail-in voting; they just cant have it. told Which brings us to DeJoy's assets, and the above-mentioned claim that he had "$70 million invested in companies that compete with USPS." For the basis of this analysis, we considered private companies that provide shipping or distribution services, such as DHL, the FedEx Corporation, and United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), business competitors with the post office. For more than 30 years, DeJoy was the CEO of New Breed Logistics, a supply chain business that contracted with a variety of public and private companies, including the Postal Service. In 2014, XPO Logistics acquired DeJoy's company, and he served on the company's executive team or board of directors until May 2018. According to internal documents, which we obtained using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) database of company filings, XPO Logistics considered its competitors to include DHL, FedEx, UPS, and J.B. Hunt Transport Services.  XPO Logistics DHL FedEx UPS J.B. Hunt Transport Services Aside from that evidence, which proved DeJoy's former company competed for business with organizations that also competed with the Postal Service, Snopes uncovered a letter from his wife, Wos, to a White House legal advisor on January 3, 2020, that listed her family's financial assets, known as "Attachment A." According to that list, the family had stock in companies including UPS, J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., and XPO Logistics, Inc. letter She wrote the letter in response to a nomination by the Trump administration to serve as U.S. ambassador to Canada, and she said she would divest from all holdings in the document within 90 days of her confirmation. However, as of this writing, Wos had not been sworn into the position. The letter, which was available via the Office of Government Ethics, read: nomination Office of Government Ethics   As of June 15, 2020, the day DeJoy assumed his role as postmaster general, The Washington Post reported the couple had between $30.1 million and $75.3 million in assets in Postal Service competitors or contractors. XPO Logistics represented the vast majority of those investments, and the couple's combined stake in UPS and trucking company J.B. Hunt, for examples, was roughly $265,000. The Washington Post reported On DeJoy's first day, the Senate's top Democrat, Charles Schumer of New York, said in letter to the Postal Service's board of governors' chairman: "[DeJoy's] financial interests in companies that have business ties with the Postal Services, as well as his extensive campaign fundraising efforts, raise questions" over his ethical conflicts of interest and partisan interests. letter By that point, a spokeswoman for DeJoy told journalists he had resigned as finance chair for the Republican National Convention, and would "comply with any financial divestitures that are required" for the new leadership position. told journalists In sum, reports proved the DeJoy family at one point had millions of dollars in assets in companies that compete or contract with the Postal Service, which lend credibility to the viral assertion. But the exact amount of such investments was unclear, and as of this writing, it was unknown if or to what extent the couple had divested any of the financial holdings. Not exactly  but there is some truth to the claim. Upon our analysis, the rumor seems to have stemmed from a series of directives DeJoy gave Postal Service employees since he took over the agency. On his first day, for example, he addressed the agency in a video that alluded to impending changes under his leadership that aimed to create a "viable operating model," though he did not go into specifics. video Then, in mid-July, he issued several memos to employees, including a "New [Postmaster General's] expectations and plan." Those messages to all managers, clerks, and carriers nationwide appeared to be the source of the claim, and detailed changes to how and when the Postal Agency would deliver mail. A July 10, 2020, internal document to managers, which Snopes received from the American Postal Workers Union and refers to an "operational pivot" for the agency, said the following, for example: American Postal Workers Union The initial step in our pivot is targeted on transportation and the soaring costs we incur due to late trips and extra trips, which costs the organization somewhere around $200 million in added expenses. $200 million in added expenses The shifts are simple, but they will be challenging, as we seek to change our culture and move away from past practices previously used. But perhaps most relevant to the claim, the DeJoy-sponsored directives included instructions for employees to leave letters or packages at distribution centers if they delayed carriers from their routes  contradicting previous rules for deliveries  and said the Postal Service would no longer pay employees overtime to complete all mail deliveries. The July 10, 2020 memo said:  contradicting One aspect of these changes that may be difficult for employees is that  temporarily  we may see mail left behind or mail on the workroom floor or docks [in Processing and Distribution Centers], which is not typical. We will address root causes of these delays and adjust the very next day. Any mail left behind must be properly reported, and employees should ensure this action is taken with integrity and accuracy. As we adjust to the ongoing pivot, which will have a number of phases, we know that operations will begin to run more efficiently and that delayed mail volumes will soon shrink significantly. We also considered a separate message to employees in July 2020 that said, under a new initiative, carriers in certain regions would not sort any mail during the morning and instead clock in, retrieve sorted mail from the previous day and limit time in the office as much as possible. Then, when they returned from the streets, they would sort all available mail for the next day. July 2020 The agency said the extra spending on employees' overtime or delivery trips had not improved "our performance scores," without going into detail on what that meant, and framed the changes as necessary steps to improve its financial position. A July 27, 2020, public statement from DeJoy said: said public statement Given our current situation, it is critical that the Postal Service take a fresh look at our operations and make necessary adjustments. We are highly focused on our public service mission to provide prompt, reliable, and efficient service to every person and business in this country, and to remain a part of the nations critical infrastructure. David Partenheimer, manager of media relations for the Postal Service, told Snopes that the postmaster general was not doing any media interviews regarding the initiatives, nor about the underlying claims of this report. In a roughly 760-word email to us, however, Partenheimer reemphasized what the agency viewed as the need for the adjustments, and said: "We acknowledge that temporary service impacts can occur as we redouble our efforts to conform to the current operating plans, but any such impacts will be monitored and temporary ... and corrected as appropriate." Soon after the directives, American Postal Workers Union President Mark Dimondstein told us in a phone interview that employees and customers across the country were noticing mail delays. In the Philadelphia region, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported situations where residents were going upwards of three weeks without receiving packages and letters, and postal union leaders and carriers said mail was piling up at offices, unscanned and unsorted. Mark Dimondstein employees Philadelphia Inquirer "When you ... say this is what you have to do as workers, then that's what we have to do  [the change] runs counter to everything that the Postal Service is about, which is we treat the mail as our own; we get it to the customer as quickly as we can," Dimondstein said. "They've never seen mail backed up like this  it's not being moved." That meant, while DeJoy had not told carriers to "slow the mail down" verbatim, he initiated changes to how and when carriers go about doing their job that the Postal Agency said would cause temporary mail delays. However, it would be inaccurate to assume all slow deliveries under DeJoy's leadership were a result of the July 2020 directives specifically, when they could also be linked to reduced hours for some post offices or other circumstances. Roughly three months before the 2020 presidential election, voting rights groups and outspoken critics to the president believed the new directives by DeJoy occurred at a convenient time for Trump: when a record number of Americans were preparing to vote by mail and avoid potential exposure to the COVID-19 coronavirus by casting ballots at in-person polling places. Specifically, they worried the new requirements for post office carriers and clerks would lead to backlogs of mail-in ballots and thus create challenges for elections officials who, in the majority of states, must invalidate ballots that reach them after Election Day  even if they were postmarked before that date. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, for example, led colleagues in writing a letter to DeJoy on July 20, 2020, that said: Rep. Carolyn Maloney "While these changes [to mail service] in a normal year would be drastic, in a presidential election year when many states are relying heavily on absentee mail-in ballots, increases in mail delivery timing would impair the ability of ballots to be received and counted in a timely manner  an unacceptable outcome for a free and fair election." We asked Dimondstein, APWU president, whether he believed the July directives by Postal Service leadership were somehow linked to a plan to cause mail service chaos before the November election and help Trump win reelection. He said: What we do know for truth is this administration is, in written record, proposing and planning to sell the post office to private corporations, i.e. privatizing. ...That was June 2018. We also know as a fact that ...that [there are] calls for reduced service, increased prices, and less workers' rights and benefits. So if you take those two things together, certainly if they're implemented, then they're going to cause delays in mail; they're going to cause service being undermined. ... written record This is a fact: [DeJoy is] what's considered a mega-donor of the Trump administration and the Republican party. ... Anything that undermines the Postal Service' [service to customers] ... has us concerned that it could be linked back to those who have an agenda to eliminate [the Postal Service]. But I can't sit here and tell you that that's a fact. Partenheimer said any notion that DeJoy made decisions for the Postal Service under directions from Trump (which include claims that he issued the July 2020 changes that resulted in delays to help Trump's re-election campaign) were "wholly misplaced and off-base." He said the Postal Service, typically an apolitical agency, remains committed to "fulfilling our role in the electoral process" in places where politicians allow voters to cast ballots by mail and "to delivering Election Mail in a timely manner consistent with our operational standards." He elaborated: "[Despite] any assertions to the contrary, we are not slowing down Election Mail or any other mail. Instead, we continue to employ a robust and proven process to ensure proper handling of all Election Mail consistent with our standards." Days later, he said in a statement to news media that certain deadlines concerning mail-in ballots, may be incompatible with the Postal Services delivery standards, especially if election officials dont pay more for first-class postage. To the extent that states choose to use the mail as part of their elections, they should do so in a manner that realistically reflects how the mail works, he said. news media Then, on Aug. 18, 2020, DeJoy issued a statement in which he said he would temporarily suspend initiatives "that have been raised as areas of concern as the nation prepares to hold an election in the midst of a devastating pandemic," including the controversial July 2020 directives that eliminated overtime and some delivery trips. The statement read: statement To avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail, I am suspending these initiatives until after the election is concluded. I want to assure all Americans of the following: In addition, effective Oct. 1, we will engage standby resources in all areas of our operations, including transportation, to satisfy any unforeseen demand. In sum, it was accurate to state that DeJoy, a political ally to Trump, ordered Postal Service workers to leave late-arriving mail at distribution centers for delivery the following day and eliminate extra trips in July 2020  a change the Postal Service was expecting to cause temporary mail delays  although no verifiable evidence proved those directives were part of a deliberate scheme to disenfranchise voters in the November 2020 election. Additionally, there was no proof to show the changes aimed to help Trump win reelection. For those reasons, we rate this claim "Unproven." Ye Hee Lee, Michelle and Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Backlog Sparks Worries That Ballot Delivery Could Be Delayed In November".
 The Washington Post. 30 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War".
 NPR. 29 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War".
 NPR. 29 July 2020. USPS Contributor. "What Is The History Behind The Unofficial USPS Motto?"
 Postal Posts. 11 September 2015. USPS. "Postmaster General Statement On Operational Excellence And Financial Stability".
 27 July 2020. Office of Inspector General. "U.S. Postal Service's Processing Network Optimization And Service Impacts".
 USPS. 16 June 2020. Dawsey, Josh, et. al. "Top Republican Fundraiser And Trump Ally Named Postmaster General, Giving President New Influence Over Postal Service".
 The Washington Post. 6 May 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Memos Detail 'Difficult' Changes, Including Slower Mail Delivery".
 The Washington Post. 14 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "New Postmaster General Is Top GOP Fundraiser".
 NPR. 7 May 2020. Hummel, Marta. "New Breed CEO No One's 'Apprentice' Louis DeJoy Is A Big Supporter Of George W. Bush But Says The Clinton Era Was His Most Profitable".
 News & Record. 7 January 2005. Heckman, Jory. "USPS Board Names Logistics Executive As New Postmaster General".
 Federal News Network. 6 May 2020. Gordon, Aaron. "USPS Plans To Slash Hours At Many Post Offices, Hoping To Save A Buck".
 Vice. 29 July 2020. Cohen, Rachel. "USPS Workers Concerned New Policies Will Pave The Way To Privatization".
 The Intercept. 29 July 2020. Derysh, Igor. "With Trump Donor In Charge, Postal Service May Shut Locations And Cut Service Before Election Day".
 Salon. 31 July 2020. Rushing, Ellie. "Mail Delays Are Frustrating Philly Residents, And A Short-Staffed Postal Service Is Struggling To Keep Up".
 The Philadelphia Inquirer. 2 August 2020. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney. "Maloney, King Lead Bipartisan NY Delegation Call For Immediate Help For The Postal Service".
 28 April 2020. House Committee On Oversight And Reform. "Senior Democrats Request Information On Postal Service's Operational Changes".
 20 July 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Trump Ally Takes Over Crisis-Ridden Postal Service As Top Senate Democrat Demands Inquiry On Hiring".
 The Washington Post. 15 June 2020. Murphy, Brian. "NC Businessman, A Big-Time GOP Donor, Is Tapped To Lead US Postal Service".
 The News & Observer. 7 May 2020. Shear, Michael. "Mail Delays Fuel Concern Trump Is Undercutting Postal Service Ahead Of Voting".
 The New York Times. 1 August 2020. Sargent, Greg. "Trump Just Told Us How Mail Delays Could Help Him Corrupt The Election".
 The Washington Post. 31 July 2020. Reichmann, Deb, and Izaguirre, Anthony. "Trump Admits He's Blocking Postal Cash To Stop Mail-In Votes."
 Associated Press. 14 August 2020. USPS. "Postmaster General Louis DeJoy Statement."
 18 August 2020. This report was updated to include an interview by Trump with Fox Business Network on Aug. 13, 2020, where he acknowledged that he was intentionally blocking Postal Service funding in an attempt to make it harder for the agency to process mail-in ballots in the November presidential election. This report was updated to include a statement by DeJoy on Aug. 18, 2020, in which he announced the suspension of certain initiatives "to avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail." On the heels of the longest federal government shutdown in United States history, and on the potential precipice of another shutdown in February 2019, Facebook users started to share a meme about how the country of Australia handled their own government shutdown back in 1975:   The text of the meme stated: "In 1975 Australia had a government shutdown. In the end, all the members of Parliament were fired and then elections were held to restart from scratch. They haven't had another shutdown since." This meme is largely accurate. Australia's government was effectively shutdown due to a budget impasse in October 1975, the prime minister was dismissed, both houses of Parliament were dissolved, and a new election was held. Since then, Australia has not had another government shutdown. However, Australia's constitutional crisis in 1975, often referred to as "The Dismissal," was a bit more complicated than portrayed in this meme. Furthermore, the meme is often offered up on social media as a solution to government shutdowns in the United States, but Australia's government doesn't function in the same manner as the U.S. government. Some of the key differences that enabled "The Dismissal" to occur in Australia is that the country is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy, which means that despite Australia's having elected officials, the head of state in Australia is still the Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, as represented by the governor-general). While the Queen rarely exercises her power and is often viewed as a mere figurehead in Australia, the monarch (and in turn the governor-general) is afforded some powers in the country's constitution. During the constitutional crisis of 1975, Governor-General Sir John Kerr used his constitutional authority to dismiss Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. constitutional monarchy Australia's constitution also permits a "double dissolution" procedure to resolve deadlocks between the House and Senate: The Australian Constitution gives almost identical powers to the House of Representatives and the Senate. A bill (proposed law) must be agreed to by both houses in order to become law. The drafters of the Constitution saw the possibility of a deadlock occurring between the two houses, in which there may be disagreement over a bill. Section 57 of the Constitution provides a mechanism to resolve the disagreement, by dissolving both houses of Parliament and calling an election to let the voters decide what the outcome will be. The double dissolution mechanism only relates to a bill that originates in the House of Representatives. While the viral meme states that members of parliament were "fired" due to the government shutdown, that isn't exactly accurate. Both houses of parliament were dissolved, so all of the seats in the House and Senate went up for election again. The "fired" lawmakers therefore still had a chance to retain their seats by winning them back in a subsequent election. In 1975, Prime Minister Whitlam and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) held a majority in the House of Representatives, but the Opposition controlled the Senate. When the two parties failed to pass appropriations bills to fund the government, Governor-General Kerr dismissed the prime minister and commissioned Malcom Fraser of the Liberal Party as the caretaker prime minister. Fraser then passed an appropriations bill, and Kerr dissolved Parliament, setting up a double dissolution election to be held the following month. Here's a summary of what took place from the Australian Broadcast Corporation: Australian Broadcast Corporation The Dismissal of the Whitlam Government by the Governor-General, on November 11, 1975, still stands as the most dramatic and controversial event in Australias political history. The decision of the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to dismiss the Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, and install the Liberal Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, as caretaker prime minister, on condition that he called an election, was a sensational development that ended a three-week parliamentary stand-off. The crisis began on October 15, when the Opposition parties announced they would block the governments Supply Bills in the Senate, as a means of forcing the government to an election. Whitlam refused to call an election and three weeks of parliamentary debate and public campaigning convulsed the political system. On November 11, Whitlam sought a half-Senate election from the Governor-General. Kerr rejected the advice and dismissed Whitlam. He commissioned Malcolm Fraser as caretaker prime minister. Fraser immediately secured the passage of Supply through the Senate and recommended a double dissolution of the parliament. The election was held on December 13, 1975. The Fraser-led Coalition won the largest victory in Australias federal history. The Parliament of Australia website provided some additional context to this historic event: context Several weeks later, and after intense negotiations and a third attempt to enact the appropriation bills, the new Governor-General took the extraordinary and unprecedented step of acting at his own initiative to invoke his power under sec. 62 of the Constitution: There shall be a Federal Executive Council [in practice, the Government] to advise the GovernorGeneral in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the GovernorGeneral and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure. (emphasis added) Governor-General Kerr dismissed the Whitlam Government, even though it still enjoyed majority support in the House of Representatives to which, by constitutional convention, it was responsible. To replace it, Kerr appointed a caretaker Liberal Government with Fraser as prime minister. In justifying his decision, the Governor-General argued that, in the Australian system, the confidence of both Houses on supply is necessary to ensure its provision: When ... an Upper House possesses the power to reject a money bill including an appropriation bill, and exercises the power by denying supply, the principle that a government which has been denied supply by the Parliament should resign or go to an election must still applyit is a necessary consequence of Parliamentary control of appropriation and expenditure and of the expectation that the ordinary and necessary services of Government will continue to be provided. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 104) In this position the Governor-General was supported by the Chief Justice, who wrote that: the Senate has constitutional power to refuse to pass a money bill; it has power to refuse supply to the Government of the day. ... a Prime Minister who cannot ensure supply to the Crown, including funds for carrying on the ordinary services of Government, must either advise a general election (of a kind which the constitutional situation may then allow) or resign. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 105) Not surprisingly, the two houses reacted very differently. The Senate acted almost instantaneously to pass the stalled appropriation bills. The House agreed to a motion expressing its lack of confidence in the newly-designated prime minister and requesting the Speaker to ask the Governor-General to have Whitlam again form a government. But before the Speaker was allowed to deliver this message, the Governor-General declared, at Frasers request and by pre-arrangement, a double dissolution of both houses. As Solomon put it: In the 1975 double dissolution, the Governor-General had to dismiss a Prime Minister (who controlled a majority in the House of Representatives) and appoint another (who lacked the confidence of that House) to find an advisor who was prepared to recommend to him the course he wished to adoptnamely the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament under section 57. (Solomon 1978: 169) While some Americans may look at Australia's constitutional crisis of 1975 as a "solution" to modern U.S. government shutdowns, "The Dismissal" remains one of the most controversial events in Australia's history:  Australia.gov.au.  "How Government Works."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. AustralianPolitics.com.  "Comparing the American and Australian Political Systems."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Whitlamdismissal.com.  "What Happened."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Barnett, Bronwyn.  "The Dismissal: Through the News Camera Lens."
  National Film and Sound Archive of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "The Crisis of 1974-75."
  Parliament of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. ABC.Net.Au.  "The Dismissal, Australia's Constitutional Crisis."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "Australia Had a Government Shutdown Once. In the End, the Queen Fired Everyone in Parliament."
  The Washington Post.  1 October 2013. Claim:   One in two children will be autistic by 2025 due to use of glyphosate on food crops. UNPROVEN Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] I've seen this same article floating around on Facebook and since I work with children with autism, I was hoping to check up on the veracity of this article: Senior MIT Scientist Warns 1 In 2 Children Will Have Autism by 2025  The overuse of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide on our food is causing glyphosate toxicity and it is now being considered as the single most important factor in development of autism and other chronic disease. At a recent panel discussion about GMOs, a senior scientist has stated that one in two children will be autistic by 2025... Origins:  On 23 December 2014, the website Alliance for Natural Health published an article titled "Half of All Children Will Be Autistic by 2025, Warns Senior Research Scientist at MIT." It described a dire  article prognostication made "at a conference" in early December by Stephanie Seneff, PhD (whose web biography described her as a "Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory," not an individual specializing in epidemiology.) The precise location, date, and general scope of the December 2014 conference in question was not disclosed in the article, but a reference was made to the general subject of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). biography The headline's reference to looming autism diagnosis spikes was continued in the article's first line: "Evidence points to glyphosate toxicity from the overuse of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide." After describing Seneff's background in computer science, the article continued: At a conference last Thursday, in a special panel discussion about GMOs, she took the audience by surprise when she declared, "At today's rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic." She noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity, and presented data showing a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder. The article conflated a number of unrelated claims and beliefs about autism and its causes, jumping from pesticides to vaccines and back again in the course of its travels. A USDA report issued in December 2014 about acceptable levels of pesticides (that made no mention at all of autism) was among the cited material: In addition, as we have previously reported, the number of adverse reactions from vaccines can be correlated as well with autism, though Seneff says it doesn't correlate quite as closely as with Roundup. The same correlations between applications of glyphosate and autism show up in deaths from senility. Of course, autism is a complex problem with many potential causes. Dr. Seneff's data, however, is particularly important considering how close the correlation is  and because it is coming from a scientist with impeccable credentials. Earlier this year, she spoke at the Autism One conference and presented many of the same facts; that presentation is available on YouTube. Both the article and Seneff's biography mention work with the group AutismOne, a group of parents (not scientists) who've espoused the fervent belief autism is caused not by genetic factors but environmental contaminants. An About Us page on the AutismOne web site explains: About Us AutismOne is a non-profit charity organization 501(c)(3) started by a small group of parents of children with autism. Parents are and must remain the driving force of our community, the stakes are too high and the issues too sacred to delegate to outside interests. AUTISM IS A PREVENTABLE/TREATABLE BIOMEDICAL CONDITION. Autism is the result of environmental triggers. Autism is not caused by "bad" genes and the epidemic is not the result of "better" diagnosis. Children with autism suffer from gut bugs, allergies, heavy metal toxicity, mitochondrial disorders, antioxidant deficiencies, nutritional deficiencies and autoimmune diseases  all of which are treatable. Both Seneff and AutismOne appear to reject the accepted findings of science on the heretofore not fully understood causes of autism, namely in terms of genetics. The claim also deviates from mainstream science on whether autism is truly more prevalent or whether diagnostic criteria and awareness have caused the increase in the number of children diagnosed with the disorder each year. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) explained in a March 2014 autism surveillance summary it was difficult to rule out improved diagnostics as a factor in a perceived increase in autism across populations of children:  explained The global prevalence of autism has increased twentyfold to thirtyfold since the earliest epidemiologic studies were conducted in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At that time, prevalence estimates from European studies were one in 2,500 children in the population, and by the 2000s prevalence estimates from large surveys were 1%-2% of all children. Although the underlying reasons for the apparent prevalence changes are difficult to study empirically, select studies suggest that much of the recent prevalence increase is likely attributable to extrinsic factors such as improved awareness and recognition and changes in diagnostic practice or service availability. The article stated that Seneff made very specific claims at the December 2014 conference: that half of all children will be diagnosed with autism by 2025, and the perceived increase in the prevalence of autism is due to the use of glyphosate (an  herbicide sold by Monsanto under the brand name Roundup) on crops. From  the information in the article, it appeared Seneff's claims rested on somewhat shaky foundations. Regarding autism rates in 2025, the "50 percent of children" estimate looks to be a rudimentary extrapolation of an apparent uptick in autism diagnoses in recent years. Particularly if the cause of such an uptick is improvements in screening and access to diagnostics, it's just as likely the rate would plateau or even dip in the near future when considered by itself. No explanation was proffered (in the article, at least) to justify an affirmative belief the prevalence of autism would rise so drastically  (and by that logic we might assume that by 2050, 125 percent of the population will be diagnosed with autism). Even disregarding the sloppy mathematics, the claim's very basis (that glyphosate is the cause of a perceived increase in autism) is unsupported. No mention was made of how glyphosate was isolated and shown to be a cause (or even a factor) in some or any cases of autism in the article. No autism spikes near agricultural facilities were described, nor was any definitive causative link at all cited by the article (and presumably, Seneff) to back up the purported link between glyphosate and autism rates anywhere other than the imaginations of those making the claim. The single link of merit made within the article (to a USDA report) made absolutely no mention of autism at all but was misleadingly arranged to suggest a connection. What the claim seemed to hinge on largely was a correlation/causation fallacy: Because [unclear activity involving glyphosate] occurred, a corresponding rise in autism diagnoses must be due to that unspecified issue with glyphosate. Claims of a similar nature have been dispelled with graphs like the following that show how difficult (or simple) it is to "prove" any one cause correlates with any one effect:   Clearly the graph is tongue-in-cheek, but the sentiment is clear. Without peer-reviewed reproducible research, any number of factors can be blamed for what looks like a rise in autism rates. In actuality, scientists in a number of relevant fields have been working full-time to find real and provable answers to that question.  Whether educated or not, guesswork is only the start of research in epidemiology, and no published research exists to prove (or even suggest) a link between glyphosate and autism. No evidence was presented in the article to provide context for why glyphosate (or GMOs) would be any more likely to account for the presumed increase than other environmental factors, and it appeared the only visible connection between the two was their inclusion on a graph presented at a conference of an indeterminate nature. Last updated:  21 December 2015 UPDATE 6:15 p.m., Sept. 26, 2014:We revised the story below to note that at a Sept. 23, 2014, forum Wiley said almost 1,000 workers have six-figure salaries. This additional information, pointed out by a reader, didn't change our rating of the claim we checked. Rich rich rich! City of Austin employees strike it rich! Sorry. We got carried away by a claim at a forum for Austin City Council candidates thrown by the League of Women Voters and the City of Austin. According to anAustin American-Statesmannews storyposted online Sept. 16, 2014, a council candidate, lawyer Jay Wiley, said the day before theres room in the city budget to staff offices in each of the 10 newly created single-member districts. Wiley, running in District 6 in Northwest Austin, also said at the forum: Weve got, actually, over 1,000 city employees that make six-figure salaries. Does that add up? We failed to reach Wiley to learn the origin of his figure. Meantime, city spokeswoman Melissa Alvarado emailed achartindicating that as of Sept. 1, 2014, 879 workers earned from $100,089 to $304,657. To follow-up queries, Alvarado sent a chart listing 24 vacancies at that time for positions paying $100,000 or more. So, you could say the city had 903 positions paying six figures at the time Wiley spoke. Alvarado said the city then had 11,852 workers, which means its $100,000-plus earners accounted for 7 percent of its workers. Plus, more workers were heading into the six-figure class shortly. To our inquiry, Alvarado said 3.5 percent raises taking effect Sept. 21, 2014, (before the start of the new fiscal year in October) would result in 1,162 employees earning $100,000 or more. At that time, she said, the city expected there to be another 36 open positions paying more than $100,000 each. So at that time, the city projects, 1,198 positions will pay six figures. Alvarado said the city had 12,780 positions budgeted for fiscal 2015. We also looked at which city workers make the most. Peruse that sampling below. Top-Paid Employees City of Austin Sept. 1, 2014 NAME TITLE/DEPARTMENT SALARY Larry Weis General Manager/Austin Energy $304,657 Marc Ott City Manager $269,755 Paul Hinchey Medical Director/EMS System $246,688 Michael McDonald Deputy City Manager $220,126 Cheryl Mele Chief Operating Officer/Austin Energy $211,494 Kerry Overton Deputy General Manager, Shared Services/Austin Energy $211,494 Sue Edwards Assistant City Manager $203,860 Robert Goode Assistant City Manager $203,860 Humberto Lumbreras Assistant City Manager $203,860 Anthony Snipes Assistant City Manager $203,860 Reynaldo Arellano Assistant City Manager $200,116 Art Acevedo Police Chief $199,118 Claire Hart Chief Financial Officer $206,003 Elizabeth Little Senior Vice President/Austin Energy $202,716 Jose Cabanas Rivera Deputy Medical Director, Office of the Medical Director $200,969 Source: Information provided by City of Austin, September 2014. The fullchart is here. After we initially posted this fact check, a reader pointed out thar Wiley said at a Sept. 23, 2014, forum the city has almost 1,000 workers earning six-figure salaries. Our ruling Wiley said more than 1,000 city workers make six-figure salaries. When he spoke, 879 workers earned more than $100,000, meaning he overshot. Then again, raises were about to take effect lifting workers in this pay category to 1,162. We rate the statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. A 30 November 2016 negotiation between Donald Trump and the company Carrier in order to keep some 1,000 jobs in the United States was soon followed by claims that he either owned (or was a shareholder in) the company or parent United Technologies: Carrier claims As part of its #TrumpLeaks program, the Democratic Coalition Against Trump has uncovered the financial disclosures Trump filed in May 2016, which shows he owns stock in UT. According to the 104-page financial disclosure form that all candidates running for President are required to fill out, Trump made between $2,501 and $5,000 in interest from an investment in United Technologies. The entry in the financial disclosure can be found on page number 45 under Part 6. The full financial disclosure can be found online here. The material quoted above cited the Democratic Coalition Against Trump, which claimed to be pursuing legal action against Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) head James Comey. That group was involved in several questionable efforts against Trump, and appeared to exist solely to mount legal and media-based challenges against him. Democratic Coalition Against Trump James Comey Claims that Trump owned Carrier or stock in United Technologies closely mirrored similar rumors the President-elect was similarly vested in the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. Although the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had at one point owned Carrier or United Technologies stock in 2014 or 2015, his 2016 Personal Financial Disclosure [PFD] did not reflect any such investment: Dakota Access Pipeline reported reflect   Trump's spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that a "goal of the immediate transfer of management of The Trump Organization and its portfolio of businesses to Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump as well as a team of highly skilled executives." Trump's transition team vowed that any holdings that represented potential conflicts of interest would be transferred before his January 2017 inauguration. In early December 2016 additional details about the Carrier deal emerged, including the total number of jobs preserved in the negotiation as well as a portion slated for outsourcing by the end of 2017. Carrier Grimaldi, James V and .  "Donald Trump Had Investments In Carrier Corp.s Parent."
  Wall Street Journal.  2 December 2016. Korte, Gregory.  "Donald Trump Financial Disclosure Report, 2016."
  USA Today.  18 May 2016. 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 As the COVID-19 pandemic ravaged the global economy in 2020, resulting in growing unemployment, governments scrambled to support people and businesses to varying degrees, announcing a range of stimulus relief funds meant to help struggling businesses and furloughed employees. By December 2020, lawmakers in the U.S. were also running out of time to pass another major coronavirus relief package. ravaged running out of time A meme began circulating in late 2020 that compared the U.S. governments stimulus checks -- given to a significant portion of the U.S. population -- to coronavirus relief funds deployed around the world. The meme effectively argued that the U.S. was not giving enough money to support workers compared with other countries. We broke down the numbers below and learned that, while the numbers are largely accurate, the meme was comparing apples to oranges.   Below are the respective stimulus relief funds being provided to populations around the world, particularly across Europe, Australia, and the U.K. In March 2020, the Australian government outlined a plan to subsidize the wages of 6 million people in order to keep them in their jobs. The plan would pay employees at any company that saw a 30% reduction in revenue around $1,500 Australian dollars (the equivalent of $928 U.S. dollars according to Reuters) every two weeks. March 2020 outlined pay Reuters This calculation would amount to $1,856 U.S. dollars per month. But according to conversion rates calculated by Newsweek in April, the relief check amounted to around $1,993 per month. Based on current conversion rates calculated on Google Finance, this same amount would now be more than $2,200 every four weeks. Newsweek Australia also had a number of other social security measures including one-off Economic Support Payments of AU$750 in April and July 2020 to qualifying recipients.  Economic Support Payments The Canadian government provides $500 Canadian dollars per week for up to 26 weeks for workers who stopped working or had their income reduced by at least 50% due to COVID-19. Based on current conversion rates on Google, this amounts to around $1,565 U.S. dollars per month. The meme presumably pulled their data from Newsweek's April 2020 story, which calculated the amount as being $1,433 U.S. dollars per month at that time. provides Newsweek Overall, the Canadian government aims to spend up to $75 billion U.S. dollars in emergency aid and economic stimulus to assist members of their population who are struggling financially. Measures include boosting child benefit payments, wage subsidies for small businesses, and tax relief measures. Overall The Danish government will cover up to 75% of employee salaries in private companies as long as those companies agree to not fire people. According to Flemming Larsen, a professor at the Center for Labor Market Research at Denmarks Aalborg University, this would amount to up to $3,288 per month (roughly based on the conversion rate at the time of the interview), which lines up with the number in the meme. For hourly workers who qualify, the government would cover 90% of their wages. Flemming Larsen hourly workers The deal, which was struck between the government and trade unions, covers companies who have to lay off at least 30% of their staff, or 50 staff or more. But this particular form of coverage does not support the self-employed and other vulnerable groups. deal self-employed According to The Guardian, more than 12 million people in France are covered by a partial unemployment scheme that covers 70% of salaries when companies are forced to reduce or suspend work, which is up to 6,927 euros per month (which according to Newsweeks calculations in April were $7,575 U.S. dollars, but around $8,400 today). Employees previously on minimum wage receive 100% coverage of their salaries. The Guardian $7,575 U.S. dollars The French government is also giving paid leave to parents who cannot work from home and who are responsible for children younger than 16. paid leave The German scheme covers 10 million workers according to The Guardian, paying up to 67% of net wages lost due to shorter hours, to a maximum of 6,700 euros per month (again, $7,326.78 U.S. dollars in April according to Newsweek, but $8,125 today) for employees with children and 60% for those without children. The Guardian $7,326.78 The budget also includes a 50 billion euro program to help the self-employed and small businesses threatened with bankruptcy, giving them direct payments of up to 15,000 euros (more than $18,000). Irelands temporary wage subsidy scheme allows affected companies to recoup up to 70% of their net income up to 21,400 euros until May. After May 4, 2020, the scheme became more generous, paying an 85% subsidy up to the same amount. temporary wage subsidy After May 4, employees would be given a maximum of 350 euros per week if they earned less than or equal to 412 euros per week, and they would receive a maximum of 410 euros per week if they earned between 500 and 586 euros per week. 410 euros amounted to $448.36 U.S. dollars per week according to Newsweek in April, which matches up with the memes calculation of $1793.44. Today that amounts to around $1,987. May 4 Newsweek The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme reimburses companies for 80% of their gross salaries up to 2,500 pounds per month (which amounts to around $3,300 U.S. dollars today, and according to Newsweek was $3,084 in April). As of August, some workers were able to return to their jobs part-time, and in November the government extended the scheme until March 31, 2021. Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme Newsweek November The U.S. government did indeed give many qualifying people a one-time stimulus relief check of $1,200, which on the surface appears to be to a small fraction of what these other countries appear to be giving workers who are unemployed or in danger of being furloughed. This check was given to individual taxpayers who made less than $75,000 in adjusted gross income in 2018. They would receive between $600 and $1,200 with the highest earners getting the maximum payment. one-time given But this meme did not account for the overall stimulus package, including unemployment benefits and additional funds granted for dependents. The data from other countries showcased relief funds for helping the unemployed or preventing lay-offs, so the numbers were comparing two totally different items. The CARES Act, a $2 trillion dollar relief bill that was passed in March 2020, increased unemployment benefits and added $600 dollars per week from the federal government on top of whatever base amount workers received from their state. The legislation also added 13 weeks of unemployment insurance. However, many of the provisions from this expired in July. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act also expanded paid family and medical leave options for some workers. A new relief bill is being debated by congress, with Republicans and Democrats disagreeing over how much stimulus the U.S. economy needs. CARES Act Families First Coronavirus Response Act debated Given that the numbers cited in the meme compare very different stimulus packages around the world, with a range of complex provisions, to a one-time payment in the U.S. that does not reflect the full stimulus relief package, we rate this claim a Mixture.