Was there a tweet by O.J. Simpson stating that he intended to participate in the SAG-AFTRA strike?
In mid-July 2023, the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), the union representing Hollywood actors and performers, voted to go on strike against major studios after negotiations broke down. voted A tweet by @KeatonPatti went viral on July 13, 2023, purporting to show a screenshot of a tweet and video in which O.J. Simpson appeared to show his support for the strike. The screenshot shows Simpson wearing a green shirt while standing in front of flowers. An overlaid caption quotes him as saying, "As a proud SAG member, I can't wait to join you all on the picket line." tweet The screenshot also indicates that Simpson tweeted from his official Twitter account, adding the words, "Union strong. #SAGStrike." Oh no. pic.twitter.com/Cbx0lXJ8w5 pic.twitter.com/Cbx0lXJ8w5  Keaton Patti (@KeatonPatti) July 13, 2023 July 13, 2023  However, the screenshot is fake. There is no evidence that Simpson issued such a tweet, nor that he made a video in which he expressed support for the guild strike. The writer Keaton Patti, who has previously written stories for humor sites like The Onion, likely shared this screenshot as a joke. Indeed, the replies to the tweet are largely joking about the impact the spectacle of the controversial figure joining the strikes would have. replies We went to Simpson's Twitter account, which primarily consists of videos of him sharing his views on a range of topics, but found no tweets in which he expressed support for the strike. The screenshot was likely created by editing a real screenshot from a July 11, 2023, tweet from Simpson titled, "Sports should be equal and fair," in which he shared his views on the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports. In that video, Simpson was shown sitting in front of the same flowers, with the same shirt on, with the camera at the same angle as the one in the manipulated screenshot, and the same reflection in his glasses. Twitter account July 11, 2023, (Screenshot via Twitter/TheRealOJ32)  Sports should be equal and fair. pic.twitter.com/efsqiDpd7k pic.twitter.com/efsqiDpd7k  O.J. Simpson (@TheRealOJ32) July 11, 2023 July 11, 2023  Simpson, a former professional football player, gained notoriety in the 1990s after a sensational trial in which he was acquitted of the murder of his estranged wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. In 2008, he was found guilty in a botched robbery and sentenced to more than three decades in prison, of which he served nine years. acquitted 2008 Simpson also produced andactedprofessionally, appearing in "The Naked Gun" movie series, among others. His finances fell under scrutiny upon his 2017 release from prison. Tom Scotto, his friend, told USA Today that Simpson received money from a SAG pension, in addition to his National Football League pension and his personal investments in a retirement fund. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Simpson's SAG pension was protected from the millions of dollars he owed to the families of Brown Simpson and Goldman, after they won a wrongful death lawsuit against him in 1997. acted USA Today Hollywood Reporter won Simpson's acting and producing credits entitled him to SAG membership and he appears to have a SAG pension as well, but the extent of his active participation in union activities and current status is unknown. Regardless, the above screenshot clearly does not show Simpson supporting the actor's strike, rather it was manufactured by altering a separate video and adding a fictional caption. As such, we rate this claim as False. Barco, Mandalit del. "Hollywood Actors Go on Strike, Say It's Time for Studio Execs to 'Wake Up.'" NPR, 13 July 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/07/13/1187310535/hollywood-actors-strike-sag-aftra.Accessed 14 July 2023. Gardner, Eriq. "O.J. Simpson's Former Attorney F. Lee Bailey Gets Bad News About His SAG-AFTRA Pensions." The Hollywood Reporter, 4 Oct. 2017, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/oj-simpsons-attorney-f-lee-bailey-gets-bad-news-his-sag-aftra-pensions-1045756/.Accessed 14 July 2023. News, A. B. C. "26 Years Ago, OJ Simpson Was Acquitted: Timeline of His Life and the Sensational Trial." ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/US/key-moments-oj-simpsons-life/story?id=48724637. Accessed 14 July 2023. "O.J. Simpson | Actor, Producer." IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001740/. Accessed 14 July 2023. "O.J. Simpson Acquitted." HISTORY, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/o-j-simpson-acquitted. Accessed 14 July 2023. Peter, Josh. "O.J. Simpson's Finances Will Be Closely Watched If Paroled." USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2017/07/19/o-j-simpsons-finances-closely-watched-if-paroled/493639001/. Accessed 14 July 2023. Vercammen, Paul. "O.J. Simpson to Focus on 'friends, Family and Golf,' Live in Gated Community after Release." CNN, 29 Sept. 2017, https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/us/o-j-simpson-parole-release-road-to-freedom/index.html.Accessed 14 July 2023.
On 25 January 2017, RedStateWatcher.com published an article misleadingly titled "Popular Restaurant Chain Offering to Fund Planned Parenthood with Portion of Every Sale."  Readers predictably inferred from the headline that the Chili's restaurant chain was "fund[ing] Planned Parenthood ... with every sale," prompting an avalanche of angry social media comments on the chain's Facebook page.  article page Many articles popular on Facebook are viewed only in news feeds, meaning that many users may have seen the headline but did not read the underlying article: Ok. Im really upset over this. Chilis is one of my favorite restaurants, but I may need to seriously rethink my dining options. Chilis restaurants in two states have apparently joined with Planned Parenthood to raise funds for the infanticide mill. The article cited an anti-abortion blog but didn't link to any official information from Chili's announcing or confirming the purported Planned Parenthood initiative. None of the versions we could find specified the origin of the claim, and the only substantiation appeared to be a screenshot of a since-deleted post:   We contacted Chili's media relations department for clarification about whether the chain was donating 15 percent of every check to Planned Parenthood in two states, or in any location. In a statement we received from Chilis Grill & Bar, a representative for the chain explained: At Chilis, we have a longstanding history and take pride in giving back to unite our local communities together. We recognize every community is unique, and encourage our restaurant managers and franchise partners to support causes that help bring communities together and leave a positive impact on our valued Guests, neighbors, friends and families we serve. Yesterday, we learned that an independent franchise partner of Chilis in Indiana and Kentucky made the decision to host a Chilis Give Back Event on behalf of Planned Parenthood Indiana and Kentucky. While our franchise partner had the best intentions; we have received growing feedback and concern from community members regarding the Give Back Event. This feedback does not reflect Chilis focus on bringing communities together and the event was never intended to be viewed as a partisan event or political statement, therefore we, along with our franchise partner, have decided to cancel the event.  We will more clearly communicate the focus of Chilis charitable giving efforts, so that our restaurant managers and franchise partners can feel empowered to support local organizations that bring communities together. The Chili's chain at no point had a plan to donate 15 percent of every check to Planned Parenthood. Rather, a single independent franchisee planned to host a "Chili's Give Back" event in support of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, an initiative that Chili's and the franchisee canceled after myriad objections. The backlash was similar to that stemming from prior claims that Olive Garden "funded" Planned Parenthood (false), and that Macy's had stopped "funding" the organization (unproven on both counts). Olive Garden Macy's During the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic in the spring of 2020, questions arose about protective measures. Social media users shared related images, and in one case, a newspaper column claimed that continual or prolonged use of face masks resulted in breathing too much of one's own exhaled carbon dioxide, which can lead to health concerns.  images,  one case, "Dr. Dennis A Castro B" wrote in the Nigerian newspaper Vanguard, for instance, that prolonged use of face masks causes hypoxia:  Vanguard Breathing over and over exhaled air turns into carbon dioxide, which is why we feel dizzy. This intoxicates the user and much more when he must move, carry out displacement actions. It causes discomfort, loss of reflexes and conscious thought. It generates great fatigue. In addition, oxygen deficiency causes glucose breakdown and endangered lactic acid rise. The post does not specify what kinds of masks cause these issues (though the article image does show N95 respirator masks), nor does it indicate whether this affects people with respiratory conditions more. It should be noted that hypoxia is a condition in which the tissues of the body are starved of oxygen.  hypoxia Another post on Facebook argued that prolonged mask usage caused hypercapnia, a condition arising from too much carbon dioxide in the blood.  Facebook hypercapnia  Image via Facebook.  Symptoms cause hypoxia But research articles and experts suggest that such extreme symptoms are unlikely to occur in most people. Dr. Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, an epidemiologist and lecturer at the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at University of New South Wales Australia, says the risk of hypoxia and hypercapnia are unlikely to take place with cloth and surgical masks, because they are not tight-fitting:  Dr. Abrar Ahmad Chughtai Some people with pre-existing respiratory illnesses (like asthma, COPD), may face breathing difficulty with use of certain types of tight fitted masks, called respirators. [There is] less chance of hypoxia as they may discontinue using masks in that case. Risk is very low with cloth and surgical masks as they are not tight around [the] face. He also argued that in the case of prolonged usage of any of these masks, "Dizziness [was] less likely, but fatigue may occur." The N95 respirator is an example of personal protective equipment (PPE) usually worn by health workers to protect the wearer from airborne particles and from liquid contaminating the face. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does not recommend that the general public use these masks because health workers and other medical first responders need them more.  N95 respirator A team of Stanford engineers is developing an N95 face mask to counteract the side effects of oxygen deficiency. In an interview, John Xu, a mechanical engineer behind the effort, said: interview N95 masks are estimated to reduce oxygen intake by anywhere from 5 to 20 percent. Thats significant, even for a healthy person. It can cause dizziness and lightheadedness. If you wear a mask long enough, it can damage the lungs. For a patient in respiratory distress, it can even be life threatening. And their focus is on getting these masks to healthcare workers first. We are targeting this to anyone who has to wear a mask for the long term, first responders, doctors, nurses and even patients who dont want to infect others. In the near term, we hope to get these into healthcare workers as soon as possible. The general public is unlikely to wear masks for a prolonged period other than for short stints outside of homes, according to Reuters. A CDC representative spoke to Reuters:  Reuters The CO2 will slowly build up in the mask over time. However, the level of CO2 likely to build up in the mask is mostly tolerable to people exposed to it. Youmight get a headache but you most likely [would] not suffer the symptoms observed at much higher levels of CO2. The mask can become uncomfortable for a varietyof reasons including a sensitivity to CO2 and the person will be motivated to remove the mask. It is unlikely that wearing a mask will cause hypercapnia. The CDC recommends that the general public wear cloth masks, leaving N95 respirators and surgical masks to healthcare workers. They also offer exceptions for who should be wearing them: recommends exceptions Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance. With these recommendations comes the additional guidance that face masks should not be a substitute for social distancing.  guidance The CDC also responded to Snopes about the impact an N95 respirator would have on healthcare workers:  Hypoventilation (deficient ventilation of the lungs) is a primary cause of significant discomfort while wearing an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR). However, studies [indicate] that hypoventilation did not pose a significant risk to healthcare workers over the course of less than one hour of continuous N95 use. When healthcare workers are working longer hours without a break while continuously wearing an N95 FFR, CO2 may accumulate in the breathing space inside of the respirator and continuously increase past the 1-hour mark, which could have a significant physiological effect on the wearer, including headache, altered cognitive judgement, and increased breathing frequency, among other symptoms. deficient To fix the problem of breathing too much CO2 that has built up within the respirator facepiece, a worker can simply remove the respirator. Some facilities practice oxygen supplementation during these breaks from respirator use, but there really is no need for this as the oxygen in the environment is more than enough to relieve most of the symptoms listed above. The Vanguard piece also says it is dangerous to use masks in cars: Some people drive their car with the mask on, that is very dangerous, because, the stale air can make the driver lose consciousness. Chughtai said he believed such danger was "less likely," and that running while wearing such a mask also was "unlikely" to cause breathing issues, unless the runner had a pre-existing respiratory illness. In all, little research has been done on the impact of masks on wearers, according to Chughtai. In some studies, participants noted breathing difficulties, but not hypoxia.  Ultimately, the impact of a mask on its wearer depends on the wearer's health, any pre-existing respiratory illnesses, the type of mask, and the length of time the person wears it. In most instances, the effects of prolonged cloth mask usage are small. Masks, like most short-term measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, should be worn only if the wearer has to be in close proximity to others, and be used in addition to necessary measures like social distancing, and more. As such, we rate this claim about the dangers of masks as "false."  only if Castro B, Dennis A. "WARNING: Prolonged use of facemask produces hypoxia."
 Vanguard. 3 May 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "How to Protect Yourself & Others."
 24 April 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Use of Cloth Face Coverings to Help Slow the Spread of COVID-19."
 13 April 2020. Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Hypoxia."
 Updated 17 October 2019. Medical News Today. "What to know about hypercapnia."
 5 January 2018. Medical News Today.  "What to know about COPD hypoxia."
 4 December 2019. Reuters. "Partly false claim: Continually wearing a mask causes hypercapnia."
 5 May 2020. Stanford. "COVID-19 prompts Stanford engineers to rethink the humble face mask."
 14 April 2020. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "N95 Respirators and Surgical Masks (Face Masks)."
 5 April 2020. Charles Francis says Raleigh isnt spending its parks money fairly. Francis, a Democrat, is running for mayor of Raleigh against three-time incumbent Nancy McFarlane, whos unaffiliated. Theyre in a runoff after none of the three candidates  Francis, McFarlane and Republican Paul Fitts  secured the 50 percent of the vote required to win. (McFarlane got 48 percent, Francis got 36 percent and Fitts got 12 percent) In a debate Friday, Francis suggested the city shouldnt focus all of its energy on Dix Park when more basic needs go unaddressed. Dix Park is a 308-acre property just south of downtown Raleigh that the city bought from the state in 2014 and plans to develop into a destination recreation spot. Its not right that there are parks in Southeast Raleigh that still dont have air conditioning in the gym, he said. Weve got to have equity in the way we approach our parks. Southeast Raleigh, the citys lone predominantly black area, hasnt enjoyed the same economic success as other areas of the city where businesses are opening and property values are rising. Francis grew up there and is campaigning on the idea that the city should be doing more for the area. A recent PolitiFact analysis of the Oct. 10 election showed Francis got his most fervent support in Southeast Raleigh. And he has previously talked about howthose voters could swing the election. There are 80,000 black voters in Raleigh, Francis said at a forum in September. McFarlane normally wins with 25,000 to 30,000 votes. If only a quarter of African-American voters vote  and vote the right way  were going to win. Given the city's budget is $919 million, PolitiFact wondered whether there are, indeed, gyms in Southeast Raleigh that dont have air conditioning. What we found Turns out, the city controls 23 gyms at 19 venues. And yes, there are three gyms in southeast Raleigh that dont have air-conditioning units, according to Raleighs parks, recreation and cultural resources department. Biltmore Hills Park, John Chavis Memorial Park and Tarboro Road Park are all located in southeast Raleigh and lack air conditioning units. But thats not the whole story. There are six other Raleigh gyms that also lack air-conditioning. The gyms at Green Road Park, Lions Park in northeast Raleigh, Method Community Park in west Raleigh, Millbrook Exchange Park in north Raleigh and two gyms at Laurel Hills Park in northwest Raleigh also lack air conditioning. Most area gyms have AC There are also four gyms in the Southeast Raleigh area that do have air conditioning: Barwell Road Community Center, Halifax Community Center, Roberts Park Community Center and the Worthdale Community Center. The city says it didnt begin putting air-conditioned gyms in park facilities until 2006. It costs about $300,000 to install units in older facilities. The city says its budget for capital projects will fund air-conditioning units in eight of the nine AC-less gyms by 2022. Method Park, the lone outlier, is being considered for AC funding as part of the 2023 budget, the city says. Our ruling Francis said gyms in Southeast Raleigh don't have air conditioning. There are four area gyms that have it and six gyms elsewhere in the city that don't have it. That context is important when debating city priorities and Francis didn't elaborate during the televised debate. But he's right: there are three gyms in Southeast Raleigh that don't have AC. We rate his claim Mostly True. On 27 May 2016, President Obama became the first sitting president to visit Hiroshima, Japan since the end of World War II. While some media outlets painted the historic visit as another stop on Obama's "apology tour," the president did not actually apologize. apology tour Still, social media users were outraged at the President's supposed apology:    On 26 May 2016, the New York Post published an article criticizing the president for his "shameful" apology tour. While the author assumed that Obama would apologize (despite the White House saying that an apology would not be forthcoming), the article came out a day before Obama's speech and therefore did not serve as evidence: article An American presidents highest moral, constitutional and political duty is protecting his fellow citizens from foreign threats. Presidents should adhere to our values and the Constitution, and not treat Americas enemies as morally equivalent to us. If they do, they need not apologize to anyone. The White House says that President Obama wont apologize as he visits Hiroshima Friday. But who believes his press flacks? The president did make an apology while he was in Japan, but it wasn't for the atomic bomb. On 25 May 2016, the President offered his "deepest regrets" for the death of a Japanese woman who reportedly had been murdered by a former U.S. Marine: murdered "The U.S. will continue to cooperate fully" and will continue to ensure "justice is done under the Japanese legal system," Obama said. While critics of President Obama preemptively condemned him for apologizing for the United States' 1945 actions (which collectively killed more than 100,000 people), and while the President did apologize for an unrelated incident, he did not actually offer an apology during his speech. Obama did offer condolences for the loss of those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but nowhere in the full text of his remarks did he offer an apology: actions apology ull text Seventy-one years ago, on a bright cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed. A flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself. Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in a not-so-distant past. We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans, a dozen Americans held prisoner. Their souls speak to us. They ask us to look inward, to take stock of who we are and what we might become.  NY Times.  "Text of President Obamas Speech in Hiroshima, Japan."
  27 May 2016 . Spitzer, Kirk.  "Sympathy for victims but no apology as Obama makes historic Hiroshima visit."
  USA Today.  27 May 2016. Bolton, John.  "Obama's Apology Tour Lands In Hiroshima."
  NY Post.  26 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 coronavirus disease pandemic of March 2020 threatened to shut down businesses across America for an extended period of time, the U.S. government faced the difficult task of deciding which industries should be provided economic assistance to keep them afloat for the duration. Public sentiment in some quarters was strongly against government bailouts for businesses such as airlines and cruise companies, on the grounds that over the last several years many of the major operators had spent billions of dollars in profits buying up their own stock rather than paying down their debts. In USA Today, John M. Griffin and James M. Griffin wrote: strongly against Start with the airlines. Rather than using their profits from the past five years to pay off debts and save for a rainy day, the big four  American, United, Delta and Southwest  instead grew their combined liabilities to $166 billion, all while spending $39 billion on share repurchases. That number, which is only from the big four, is almost 80% of what theyre asking for now from U.S. taxpayers. Similarly, the three largest Cruise companies -- Carnival, Norwegian, and Royal Caribbean -- have liabilities of $47.5 billion and engaged in share repurchases of $8 billion. Had these companies paid down liabilities instead of using stock repurchases to bid up their stock prices, they would have been far better prepared to weather this emergency. Of course, higher share prices made their stock options more valuable. This allowed top airlines executives to pay themselves $666 million in compensation over the five-year period. The top cruise executives managed to haul in $448 million. Now, taxpayers are unwillingly being called upon to bail out their profligate behavior. A widely circulated meme on social media offered another reason why cruise lines were supposedly unworthy of government bailouts -- because although they might be headquartered in the U.S., their ships were foreign-flagged in order to put them out of reach of U.S. law:  That nearly every major cruise line registers their ships somewhere outside the U.S. is hardly a disputable point. As a 2011 news report noted, only a single major cruise ship at the time was U.S.-flagged: news report [O]nly one major cruise ship -- NCL America's Pride of America -- is registered in the United States, according to data from CyberCruises.com. Most of the big boats fly Bahamian flags, but other popular registries include Panama, Bermuda, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands. In fact, according to Cruise Lines International Association, 90% of commercial vessels calling on U.S. ports fly foreign flags. The three cruise lines called out by name in the meme -- Disney, Celebrity, and Carnival -- do indeed engage in this practice. It's not difficult to verify that Disney cruise ships are registered in the Bahamas, Celebrity ships in Malta, and Carnival ships in Panama. Of course, the cruise industry and their critics offer differing reasons for why cruise ships are flagged in countries other than the U.S., with the former asserting that: Bahamas Malta Panama reasons CLIA [Cruise Lines International Association] maintains there are reasons for such policies: "There are many factors that determine where a cruise ship -- or for that matter, any maritime vessel -- is flagged. Those determinations are made by individual cruise lines and other ship operators based on varying factors including the capabilities of the flag to deliver the services needed; representation and reputation of the flag in the international shipping community; the performance of the flag state, which dictates how a ship is prioritized by port states; the pool of seafarers able to meet the needs of the flag; and the flag's fees/charges and taxes," the association said by e-mail. This can be viewed as a robust free-market debate. Some maintain burdensome U.S. regulations have forced cruise operators to plant their flags elsewhere, while others say these corporations are seeking to attract American dollars while skirting American safety and consumer protection laws. On the other hand, an academic paper by Caitlin E. Burke of the University of Florida about "Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships" made no bones of observing that reflagging of ships had long been used as a means of avoiding U.S. federal taxes, labor and safety laws, environmental laws, lawsuits, criminal investigations, and other regulations: paper Aside from the majority revenue generated by U.S. passengers, cruise lines are independent of the U.S. economy. Even though nearly 75 percent of passengers are U.S. citizens, cruise line corporations and their ships are not traditionally American-owned or registered ... (Tomlinson, 2007) Cruise line companies are not concerned about increasing minimum wage, rising insurance premiums, or higher corporate taxes. Cruise lines escape federal taxes and labor laws by registering their corporations and vessels in foreign countries [such as] Panama, Liberia, and the Bahamas. In fact, employees of cruise lines are often mistreated due to lackadaisical labor laws. Worst of all, employees will find little to no recourse pursuing litigation. Likewise, a U.S. citizen passenger faces the same predicament. A vessels country of registration is commonly referred to as the "flag of convenience" (FOC). Flagging a ship under a foreign flag for the convenience of the cruise line is nothing new, nor is it rare. The majority of cruise ships today are registered to Panama, Liberia, or the Bahamas. It is important to pay close attention as many vessels within the same fleet are often registered to different countries. Carnival Corporation, for example, has flagged their cruise vessel Celebration under Panama and Destiny under the Bahamas. Cruise lines often avoid drawing attention to the FOC of by using the term "headquartered in Miami, Florida." It is important to understand that while the majority of these cruise lines have their headquarters in Miami, they are not registered in the U.S. Thus, U.S. laws do not apply and passengers are at the mercy of maritime law. That the practice of ship-reflagging is common and regular is undeniable. Whether cruise lines headquartered in the U.S. but operating ships registered in foreign countries "deserve" government bailouts in a time of pandemic is a subjective issue with no definitive answer, but certainly some critics have argued that they do not: critics Even in a crisis, companies with prudent balance sheets will survive and in time, thrive. Despite what politicians might tell you, the airplanes and ships of imprudent companies are physical property that will not suddenly disappear. They will fly or sail again under the same or different name, but hopefully with cheaper prices, better service and different executives. Like a college student sleeping off a hangover, a crisis is a time to sober up by removing debt from the system. Its not time for another drink. McGee, Bill.  "What Every Cruiser Should Know Before They Book."
  USA Today.  26 April 2011. McGee, Bill.  "Why Are Cruise Ships Registered in Foreign Countries?"
  USA Today.  11 December 2012. van Doorn, Philip.  "Airlines and Boeing Want a Bailout  But Look How Much Theyve Spent on Stock Buybacks."
  MarketWatch.  22 March 2020. Griffin, John M. and James M. Griffin.  "Coronavirus Bailout for Airlines and Cruise lines Is Socialism for the Undeserving Rich."
  USA Today.  20 March 2020. Burke, Caitlin E.  "A Qualitative Study of Victimization and Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships."
  Accessed 23 March 2020. During an interview with Noticias Telemundo, Vice President Kamala Harris said that Latino entrepreneurs don't get as much financial support as other business owners do, and the Biden administration wants to change that. Venture capitalists need to invest more in Latino-owned businesses, Harris said. Latino small businesses are 1 in 4 new businesses, but only 1% of venture capital funding goes to Latino businesses, HarrissaidApril 21. Yes, we've got to change that. We wondered whether Harris claim was true. A Harris spokesperson told PolitiFact that the data comes from a 2021reportby the global management consulting firmBain & Co. Bain & Co. analyzed data from several sources for its report, including: CrunchBase, a company that provides business data on public and private companies; A 2021 brief from Democratic members of CongressJoint Economic Committeeabout Hispanic businesses and entrepreneurship; and Data from theStanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative, a collaboration between Stanford University and the Latino Business Action Network, a nonprofit organization advocating for Latino entrepreneurship. Those sources relied on data covering 2007 to 2021 and predictions for 2022. Bain & Co. did not define Latino-owned business, but the Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiativesaidthey are companies with 50% or more ownership that identifies as Latino or Hispanic. The Joint Economic Committees brief said that nearly 1 in 4 new businesses are Hispanic-owned. (TheU.S. Small Business Administrationhas also used this statistic, citing the committee brief as its source.) Staff for Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., who chaired the committee when the report published, told PolitiFact the figure comes from a 2018 report by theFederal Reserve Bank of New York. (The report includes data up to 2016.) The Federal Reserve Bank of New York also shared this statistic in a2019 tweet. An October 2022 report by theEwing Marion Kauffman Foundation, a nonprofit that provides grants to other nonprofits and businesses, said that in 2021 nearly a quarter of new entrepreneurs were Hispanic or Latino. The foundation used data from the Census BureausCurrent Population Surveyfor its analysis. TheCensus Bureaus 2021 Annual Business Surveyoffers a different and lower figure for the share of Hispanic-owned businesses. That survey showed that in 2020, there were approximately 375,000 Hispanic-owned businesses, and about 12.4% were new (operating for less than two years). But the two surveys are not directly comparable, because the survey samples, questions and size may not be the same, said Patricia Ramos, a Census Bureau spokesperson. The Current Population Survey data centers on the labor force  people who are working or actively looking for work. The Annual Business Survey focuses on business and business owners by demographics; it also excludes data for businesses without employees. Small Business Shoeshine Stands Jairo Cardenas owner the Alpha Shoe Repair Corp., polishes a boot he is repairing, Friday, Feb. 3, 2023, in New York. (AP). Bain & Co.s report said that cumulatively, Latino-owned businesses received roughly 1% of capital from the top 25 venture capital and private equity firms between 2007 and 2017. Separately, the report noted that Latino-owned businesses received less than 1%, or approximately $680 million, of the $487 billion invested by the top 500 largest venture capital and private equity firms in 2020. LatinxVC, a group that helps Latino businesses get funding from venture capitalists, cited the 1% Bain & Co. figure on itsState of Latino/a VCs Second Annual Report, published in November 2022. Crunchbasereported that Latino-owned companies received $2.7 billion  or 1.7%  of $161.4 billion from venture capitalists in 2020. Private equity firmsgenerally invest in companies from any industry, and venture capital firms focus on innovative sectors, such as technology. Most Hispanic-owned firms are related to construction, administrative support, and transportation and warehousing, according toCensus Bureaudata. Based on existing research, the statement on venture capital funding for Latino-owned businesses seems to be in line with existing estimates, saidBarbara Gomez-Aguinaga, associate director at the Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative. Ilene Grabel, an economics professor at the University of Denver, said that historically,  Latino entrepreneurs have not received significant financing from traditional banks and instead turn to venture capitalists for funding. Still, Latino-owned businesses need to enroll twice as many investors as white-owned businesses to get the same level of funding, according to the Bain & Co. report. Harris said, Latino small businesses are 1 in 4 new businesses, but only 1% of venture capital funding goes to Latino businesses. The 1-in-4 statistic is supported by a 2021 brief from the Democratic members of a congressional committee and research from a nonprofit that provides grants to other nonprofits and businesses. A Census Bureau survey found a smaller percentage of new Hispanic-owned businesses in 2020  12.4%. The claim about 1% of venture capital going to Latino-owned businesses matches estimates from a consulting firms 2021 report. Thats based on investments from 25 venture capitalists and private equity firms from 2007 to 2017. Investments in 2020 from these companies was under 1%, according to the report. Another source pegs that investment as high as 1.7%. We rate this claim Mostly True. CORRECTION, May 17, 2023: This fact-check was updated to clarify Rep. Don Beyers former leadership of the Joint Economic Committee. Wearing pink shirts and holding up signs, people gathered outside the Statehouse in Trenton recently as Democratic legislators led a rally to increase womens health care funding in the face of opposition from Gov. Chris Christie.When Assemblyman Herb Conaway Jr. (D-Burlington/Camden) addressed the crowd on June 20, he claimed Christie also has been cutting health care funding for another group: people with AIDS.This governor has cut funding repeatedly for people who have AIDS, who need drugs to save their life, said Conaway, a physician specializing in internal medicine. People who have AIDS today can live out their life...almost as long as anybody else if they get the drugs they need and this governor, time and time again, has cut that.PolitiFact New Jersey confirmed that the Christie administration had cut or proposed to cut state funding for AIDS and HIV services, but in two cases, other funding sources would allow the same number of individuals receiving those services to be served.When we asked Conaways chief of staff, Ethan Hasbrouck, to back up the statement, he pointed to two funding cuts in the governors proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 as well as a change made last year in eligibility for the AIDS Drug Distribution Program.Although a final budget for fiscal year 2012 was approved at the end of June, this Truth-O-Meter item focuses on the proposed budget at the time of Conaways statement. We later called Hasbrouck twice and sent him multiple emails to set up an interview with Conaway about our findings, but we never heard back.Lets review those three items one at a time.Hasbrouck said the fiscal year 2011 budget lowered the income eligibility for the AIDS Drug Distribution Program. That disqualified about 960 people from the program, saving $7.9 million.But the state later set up a new drug benefits program to assist those individuals who would no longer be eligible under the AIDS Drug Distribution Program. That new program was funded through additional rebates from pharmaceutical companies and a new federal grant program.The state increased AIDS Drug Distribution Program funding last year for people who met the new income eligibility, but reduced spending in other categories of HIV services, according to Dawn Thomas, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Senior Services.Now, lets turn to the cuts in the originally proposed fiscal year 2012 budget.Hasbrouck correctly states that the governors proposed budget would have cut $4.7 million for special-care nursing facilities, including Broadway House in Newark, the states only long-term care facility for people living with HIV and AIDS.The second proposed cut cited by Hasbrouck was $3.7 million from the AIDS Drug Distribution Program.Although that state funding was proposed to be cut, the mix of funding sources would enable the same amount of participants to receive access to medications through both the AIDS Drug Distribution Program and the other drug benefits program, according to Thomas.But remember this: two of the funding cuts cited by Hasbrouck were only proposals at the time of the assemblymans statement.Heres how the final budget for fiscal year 2012 affects AIDS and HIV funding:The income eligibility for the AIDS Drug Distribution Program was restored to its previous level, but state funding for the program has been further reduced for a total cut of about $10.7 million, Thomas wrote in an email. Other funding sources will allow the same number of participants to be served, she wrote.The budget reduces overall funding for nursing facilities, but there is no longer a specific cut to special-care nursing facilities like Broadway House, Thomas wrote. The impact on those special-care facilities remains unclear, she wrote.Lets review:Conaway claimed at a Statehouse rally that Christie has repeatedly cut AIDS funding. His chief of staff pointed to three pieces of evidence, one from the budget approved last year and two from the proposed budget for fiscal year 2012.A spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Senior Services confirmed cuts to AIDS and HIV funding in both budgets.But last year, a new program was created to assist people impacted by the eligibility change. This year, state funding was proposed to be cut, but other funding sources were to maintain services for participants. Conaway correctly stated that Christie has cut state funding for AIDS and HIV programs, but at least when it comes to pharmaceutical assistance, people continued to receive medicine for their AIDS and HIV treatment. We rate his statement Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. On 9 September 2018, the web site Your Daily News published an article headlined "Danny Trejo The Famous Native American Actor Dies at age 74":  Curiously, however, the article text provided no details about the time or manner of Trejo's alleged passing, nor even mentioned Trejo's death -- it simply provided a summary of the actor's life and career: Danny Trejo was born Dan Trejo in Echo Park, Los Angeles, to Alice (Rivera) and Dan Trejo, a construction worker with his intimidating, tattooed, muscle-bound appearance, character actor Danny Trejo has formed a successful career as the all-purpose hard case over his curious and enduring cinematic career. Beating the odds of repeat offender syndrome after being released from prison, Trejo has risen through the ranks to find himself in high demand as an actor, and has even expanded his talents to include a producer credit to his resum. That lack of information is not surprising, because the article was a hoax -- Danny Trejo is not dead and is still actively posting on social media: Rest in peace Burt Reynolds. You were an icon and one of my heroes. -DT pic.twitter.com/0fKZhaKpuH pic.twitter.com/0fKZhaKpuH  Danny Trejo (@officialDannyT) September 6, 2018 September 6, 2018  The only source reporting Trejo's death in September 2018 was Your Daily News, a site which had only been active a very short time and as of this writing was no longer reachable. Your Daily News Moreover, Trejo himself has previously been the subject of celebrity death hoax rumors (which he has personally disclaimed): Trejo DANNY TREJO IS NOT DEAD  Danny Trejo (@officialDannyT) November 8, 2016 November 8, 2016 As Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders gains ground on Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, the two candidates supporters have been sparring, including over campaign donations. Recently, a reader sent us a social media meme that paints Clintons list of donors as dominated by corporate interests, whereas Sanders top 10 donors come largely from labor unions -- a dichotomy that, to Democratic primary voters, puts Sanders in a more favorable light. Hillary: Top ten donor list. Representing banks, corporations and media, the meme reads, providing a top-10 list with dollar amounts. Bernie: Top ten donor list. Representing people. The meme is topped by each candidates presidential campaign logo. (See the meme below.) We cant tell who produced this meme, but we thought it was worth a closer look. Well start by noting that reasonable people can disagree about whether labor unions represent people, as the meme says, as opposed to just unionized workers, who are a relatively small subset of the entire population. Well also note that while this meme may appeal to union supporters and critics of Wall Street and big corporations, it also could be used as evidence that Sanders is just as reliant on one type of donor -- labor unions -- as Clinton is on big corporations. We found that the data cited in the meme refers to cumulative donations over the course of each candidates political career as calculated by the Center for Responsive Politics, not just fundraising from the current presidential cycle. (ClintonandSandershave announced their fundraising hauls for the second quarter of 2015, but have not yet released the full data that is due at the Federal Election Commission by July 15; a more complete analysis of the data will be compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics after that.) ForClinton, we found a high degree of similarity with the meme when we checked the database on July 6. Clintons top 10 cumulative donors between between 1999 and 2016 were, in descending order, Citigroup ($782,327), Goldman Sachs ($711,490), DLA Piper ($628,030), JPMorgan Chase ($620,919), EMILYs List ($605,174) Morgan Stanley ($543,065), Time Warner ($411,296), Skadden Arps ($406,640), Lehman Brothers ($362,853) and Cablevision Systems ($336,288). That list is quite close to what the meme says. It includes five financial-services companies, two law firms that do a lot of corporate work, two media conglomerates and one group, EMILYs list, that supports abortion-rights Democratic candidates. Its worth noting that Clinton was a senator from New York, meaning that some of the donors on her list were not simply Wall Street and corporate behemoths, but also constituents, based in New York. The database results forSandersare also quite close to whats in the meme. The data for Sanders goes back to 1989. His top 10 are, in descending order, Machinists/Aerospace Workers union ($105,000), Teamsters union ($93,700), National Education Association ($84,350), United Auto Workers ($79,650), United Food & Commercial Workers union ($72,500), Communications Workers of America ($68,000), Laborers Union ($64,000), Carpenters & Joiners Union ($62,000), National Association of Letter Carriers ($61,000), and the American Association for Justice ($60,500). In the meme, the letter carriers union makes the list, but the Center for Responsive Politics has the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees cracking the top 10 instead. Either way, nine of the 10 are unions, and the tenth is the national association representing plaintiffs attorneys. During his career, Sanders has received strong support from progressive Democrats, so this pattern of financial backing is not surprising. So the meme is pretty accurate for both candidates. However, we see a few things worth pointing out. As we noted, this data refers to their entire political careers back to the 1990s. Once the full presidential data is released, those figures may show different patterns. That is not made clear in the meme, said Anthony J. Corrado, a campaign-finance expert at Colby College. Most people would assume that this is money raised so far in the 2016 presidential campaign. Also, the donors listed are not the ones who gave the money, since that would be against the law. Rather, it was their PACs, employees and those employees families. In fact, due to how the forms are filled out, the data is less likely to capture individual donations from union members than from employers of companies. Most individual donations are listed by employer, and if, say, a union carpenter lists his affiliation as his company, the fact that hes a union member wouldnt be recorded. Finally, lists such as this ignore that both candidates are collecting many small donations, too. According to the Clinton campaign, she raised roughly $50 million in contributions under $200 during her '08 campaign. Data for the 2016 cycle is not available yet. All told, its possible to look at the top donors on the two lists and say both candidates are captive to a particular set of interest groups, said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabatos Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. However, he added, labor is a Democratic constituency whose beliefs generally line up with Democratic policies, and were talking about a Democratic primary here. So all things being equal, Sanders donor list probably looks better, politically, than Clintons. Kondik added that, as the meme indicates, Clinton has a much larger reservoir of money than Sanders has. The value of having a large financial advantage over your competitors in a primary setting seems to be worth occasional questions about how the financial advantage was built, he said. Our ruling Social media memes say that Clintons top 10 donors are mainly banks, corporations and media, while Bernie Sanders top 10 donors are labor unions. This contention fits quite closely with campaign data from the Center for Responsive Politics. However, its worth noting that this data refers to cumulative donations as far back as the 1980s, rather than just donations to their current presidential bids. The statement is accurate but needs clarification, so we rate it Mostly True. You comparison shop for cans of tuna. Mitt Romney rides on Donald Trumps jet.A new Obama campaign ad shows those scenes to hammer at the lifestyle differences between struggling middle-class Americans and the Republican presidential candidate. Then it takes aim at Romneys economic proposals.Now he has a plan, theadsays, that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle-class families by up to $2,000 a year.We know from ourprevious reportingon Romneys tax plan that it offers across-the-board cuts, including for the very wealthy. But a new independent study offers broader perspective on how taxpayers at all income levels would be affected by Romneys plan. So we decided to take a look.Romneys tax plan We need to be clear from the start that the problem independent analysts, journalists and fact-checkers have with digging into Romney's tax plan is that much of the plan isn't yet known. Romneyhassuggestedgeneral parameters:  The rate cuts would be paid for without adding to the deficit. People at the high end will still pay the same share of the tax burden theyre paying now. Everyone would see tax rate reductions. He has outlined specific tax cuts on hiscampaign website. They include: cutting marginal rates by 20 percent on a permanent, across-the-board basis; eliminating interest, dividend and capital gains taxes for taxpayers earning less than $200,000; eliminating the estate tax; and repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.Romney would also cut the corporate rate to 25 percent. To offset those cuts, Romney hashinted thathe would eliminate some common tax write-offs and deductions for people with high incomes. The effect of Romney's plan Knowing all that, the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution that evaluates tax proposals submitted by presidential candidates,examinedthe effect of Romneys tax rate cuts combined with the elimination of several common tax deductions. Those include the mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving deduction and the exclusion for health insurance. The center published its findings on Aug. 1, 2012. To try and keep with Romney's guiding principles, the authors eliminated deductions and write-offs -- starting with the deductions for top earners first -- until they came up with enough revenue to offset the $360 billion in tax cuts that are part of Romney's plan. They determined that people who earn $1 million or more in taxable income would see an average net tax decrease of $87,117. Theyd save $175,961 from Romney's tax cut, but lose $88,444 in deductions. They would still get a tax cut, said Adam Looney, one of the authors. The dollar value of the tax cuts is just way bigger than the mortgage interest and other deductions. Theres no way to implement this plan in a way that doesnt result in a pretty big tax cut for that group (those making more than $1 million).People who earn between $500,000 and $1 million would see a cut of about $17,000, and taxes for people with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000 would decrease by about $1,800, the study found. But to make Romney's plan revenue neutral, deductions would also have to be removed for people with incomes below $200,000, and the effects of that would be significant, the study found. In fact, the elimination of the deductions would mean outright tax increases for everyone with incomes below $200,000. People with taxable income between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, would see an average net tax increase of $641. Theyd save $984 from Romney's rate cut, but lose $2,672 in write-offs.The authors specifically noted that taxpayers with children whose income is below $200,000 would see their taxes go up by an average of $2,041 -- the figure highlighted in Obamas ad.The reason for the increase is that the most popular tax breaks heavily benefit middle- and lower-income families, the 95 percent of the population earning less than $200,000 who carry mortgage debt and use employer-provided health insurance. And though Romney has suggested he would focus on taking the deductions away from the wealthy, the study concluded that alone would not make up the difference of the revenue sacrificed when rates are slashed.Somebody has to foot the bill for those tax cuts, Looney said. You have to tap into middle- and lower-income households. Bottom line: the study found that Romney couldn't keep all his goals based on what we know about his plan.Romney campaigns responseWhen the study appeared online, the Romney campaignposted a responseon its website that did not specifically address the discrepancy.President Obama continues to tout liberal studies calling for more tax hikes and more government spending. We've been down that road before  and it's led us to 41 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent, said Romney spokesman Ryan Williams.Looney is a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings who has a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He served on Obamas Council of Economic Advisers in 2009 and 2010.William Gale, another of the authors, is vice president of Brookings and director of its economic studies program. He served on President George H.W. Bushs Council of Economic Advisers.Lanhee Chen, the Romney campaigns policy director, later added in a press release that the study ignored the corporate tax rate cut Romney proposes and his deficit reduction plan.These glaring gaps invalidate the reports conclusions, Chen said. The Romney campaign said that the study ignored the assertion that lower tax rates will grow the economy -- which they say will translate into more tax revenues. That will help make the plan revenue neutral even with lower overall tax rates. Spending cuts, likewise, could help balance the tax cuts without having to raise taxes on people making less than $200,000. The study, for the record, did consider that possibility but concluded it was impossible to evaluate the effect of spending cuts without knowing what would be cut. They also noted that government spending tends to benefit low- and middle-income households. We find nothing in the study that distorts Romneys proposals. It makes assumptions favorable to Romney, namely that his plan would lead to greater economic growth and raise revenues. The Tax Policy Center, whose director is another former adviser to Bush, is well-respected for its unbiased work, and even the Romney campaign praised it in November 2011 for offering objective, third-party analysis. Our rulingObama said Romney is proposing a tax plan that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year. The claims are based on a study by the Tax Policy Center, which used what Romney has said about his tax plan and attempted to calculate outcomes for different groups of taxpayers. The study prioritizes the idea that the plan would be revenue neutral. In that scenario, millionaires lose deductions, but the lower rates would still decrease their tax bill by an average of $87,000. Middle-class taxpayers would see lower tax rates, too, but the loss of exemptions and deductions would hit them harder. People making $200,000 or less a year would see their taxes rise by an average of about $2,000. The study is making the point that Romneys plan is untenable: to cut rates that much without adding to the deficit, something has to give. It necessarily makes some assumptions, and therefore these conclusions are not definite as long as the details of the plan remain unknown. For that reason, people should be cautious in calling this Romney's plan. We rate the claim Mostly True.