Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending
Claim:  E-mail reproduces a 1999 newspaper article warning about potential troubles with Fannie Mae. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] Right out of the pages of the NY Times!!!And look at the date..!!!  September 30, 1999Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending  In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets  including the New York metropolitan region  will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  In any crisis, one of the most common reactions is to ponder the question, "How did we get into this mess?"  People begin to search for explanations about who was responsible for bringing about the current state of  affairs, who had the ability to head it off (but failed to act or was thwarted), and who foresaw the looming danger (but declined to speak up or was ignored).  With the United States currently in the throes of an economic crisis, of which one symptom was the September 2008 government takeover of the foundering Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly known as Fannie Mae), a nine-year-old warning about the home mortgage underwriter's being vulnerable to economic problems that could require government rescue was bound to pique public interest. On 30 September 1999, the New York Times published an article entitled "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending" by Steven A. Holmes.  The complete text of the article is available online, but in a nutshell the Times reported that Fannie Mae was easing its credit requirements for home mortgage loans in response to increasing pressure from a variety of groups: text  Clinton administration officials who wanted Fannie Mae "to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people" (particularly minority groups).  Stockholders who wanted Fannie Mae "to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."  Banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies (from whom Fannie Mae purchases loans) who wanted the company to facilitate  "more loans to subprime borrowers." In light of recent events, what caught the attention of most readers was a couple of paragraphs in the middle of the article cautioning about the possible consequences of Fannie Mae's loosening its credit requirements: In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.  "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." Another New York Times article that has attained a significant amount retrospective interest is an 11 September 2003 article entitled "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae" by Stephen Labaton, which reported on the efforts of the Bush administration to create a new regulatory agency to assume oversight of those mortgage lenders: article The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt  is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. Of especial interest to current readers were the following paragraphs about Congressional resistance to the Bush administration's regulatory proposal: Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. "These two entities  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Last updated:  2 October 2008    Sources:   Holmes, Steven A.  "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending."   The New York Times.  30 September 1999.    Labaton, Stephen.  "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae."   The New York Times.  11 September 2003.
On 8 June 2016, the Facebook page "The Bern Report" shared a document authored by researchers Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of Stanford University suggesting that "the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic Party nomination contest [are not] completely legitimate: That social media share described the document as "a fantastic research piece put together by a couple of college students, Rodolfo Cortes Barragan & Axel Geijsel." That document (properly termed a "paper," not a "study," as the latter term implies some form of professional vetting) concluded with the statement that the data examined by its author "suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election" and that "this fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders": document Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive. At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging evidence for this claim. First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support. In an appendix, Geijsel and Barragan stated that their research was still in progress and had not yet been subject to peer review, but since the information was highly topical they believed it better to pre-release their findings due to the ongoing primary ballot count in California (among other factors): Statement on peer-review: We note that this article has not been officially peer-reviewed in a scientific journal yet. Doing so will take us several months. As such, given the timeliness of the topic, we decided to publish on the Bern Report after we received preliminary positive feedback from two professors (both experts in the quantitative social sciences). We plan on seeking peer-reviewed publication at a later time. As of now, we know there may be errors in some numbers (one has been identified and sent to us: it was a mislabeling). We encourage anyone to let us know if they find any other error. Our aim here truly is to understand the patterns of results, and to inspire others to engage with the electoral system. The post-introduction portion of the paper began with a comparison of outcomes in "primary states with paper trails and without paper trails," holding that potentially inaccurate results led the researchers to "restrict [our] analysis to a proxy: the percentage of delegates won by Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders." After identifying via the Ballotpedia web site 18 states that use a form of paper verification for votes compared to 13 states without such a "paper trail," they concluded that states without "paper trails" demonstrated a higher rate of support for Hillary Clinton: Analysis: The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton than states with paper trails. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations, including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time. The information included in the Appendix didn't explicate exactly what those alternative explanations might be: Are there other variables that could account for our main effect (states without paper trails going overwhelmingly for Clinton)? We conducted a regression model and included the % of Non-Hispanic Whites in a state as of the last Census, the states electoral history from 1992 to 2012 of favoring Democratic or Republican nominees for President (i.e., the blueness of a state), and our variable of interest: paper trail vs. no paper trail. As expected, race/ethnicity and political ideology played a role: The Whiter and more liberal a state, the less it favored Clinton. However, the effect for paper trail remains significant. States with paper trails show significantly less support for Clinton. As such, even beyond the potential for other likely factors to play a role, the potential for fraud is associated with gains for Clinton.  Dependent variable: Percent support for Clinton in the primaries  In the paper's second portion, the researchers examined discrepancies between exit polls and final results by state, a subject of debate (hashtagged #ExitPollGate on social media) that antedated the publication of their paper and was addressed in a Nation article disputing the claim that exit polls revealed fraud. The Nation's analysis held that fraud detection exit polling varied significantly from the type of exit polling typically carried out in the United States: While exit polls are used to detect potential fraud in some countries, ours arent designed, and arent accurate enough, to accomplish that purpose. [A polling company VP], who has conducted exit polls in fragile democracies like Ukraine and Venezuela, explained that there are three crucial differences between their exit polls and our own. Polls designed to detect fraud rely on interviews with many more people at many more polling places, and they use very short questionnaires, often with just one or two questions, whereas ours usually have twenty or more. Shorter questionnaires lead to higher response rates. Higher response rates paired with larger samples result in much smaller margins of error. Theyre far more precise. But it costs a lot more to conduct that kind of survey, and the media companies that sponsor our exit polls are only interested in providing fodder for pundits and TV talking heads. All they want to know is which groups came out to vote and why, so thats what they pay for. As well, standard exit polling conducted in the U.S. can be very inaccurate and systematically biased for a number of reasons, including: including o Differential nonresponse, in which the supporters of one candidate are likelier to participate than those of another candidate. Exit polls have limited means to correct for nonresponse, since they can weight only by visually identifiable characteristics. Hispanic origin, income and education, for instance, are left out. o Cluster effects, which happen when the precincts selected arent representative of the overall population. This is a very big danger in state exit polls, which include only a small number of precincts. As a result, exit polls have a larger margin of error than an ordinary poll of similar size. These precincts are selected to have the right balance of Democratic and Republican precincts, which isnt so helpful in a primary. o Absentee voters arent included at all in states where they represent less than 20 percent or so of the vote. As the New York Times put it, "[N]o one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do." Nonetheless, Geijsel and Barragan contended in their paper that: Anomalies exist between exit polls and final results Data procurement: We obtained exit poll data from a database kept by an expert on the American elections. Analysis: On the overall, are the exit polls different from the final results? Yes they are. The data show lower support for Secretary Clinton in exit polls than the final results would suggest. While an effect size of 0.71 is quite substantial, and suggests a considerable difference between exit polls and outcomes, we expected that this difference would be even more exaggerated in states without paper voting trails. Indeed, the effect size in states without paper voting trails is considerably larger: 1.50, and yields more exaggerated support for the Secretary in the hours following the exit polls. The expert whose numbers were utilized for the paper wasn't expressly cited by name, but his moniker appeared on the linked spreadsheet: Richard Charnin. Charnin indeed lists some impressive statistical credentials on his personal blog, but he also appears to expend much of his focus on conspiracy theories related to the JFK assassination (which raises the question of whether his math skills outstrip his ability to apply skeptical reasoning to data). spreadsheet conspiracy theories Geijsel addressed questions about exit poll numbers in a subsequent e-mail to a blogger who was highly skeptical of his research: skeptical In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there's a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they're accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play. Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it's the latter. Though that's our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place. That blogger passed the anlysis on to his father ("a retired Professor Emeritus in Mathematics and Applied Statistics at the University of Northern Colorado"), Donald T. Searls, Ph.D., for comment: comment I simply asked him to review it in full and send me his comments as to its methodology and his view as to its validity. For the record, he has been a Republican for as long as I can recall and has no interest in voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be. I received his response via e-mail today. Here is what he wrote: I like the analysis very much up to the point of applying probability theory. I think the data speak for itself (themselves). It is always problematic to apply probability theory to empirical data. Theoretically unknown confounding factors could be present. The raw data is in my mind very powerful and clear on its own. My personal opinion is that the whole process has been rigged against Bernie at every level and that is devastating even though I don't agree with him. I called him after receiving his response to [ask him to] clarify his remarks on the application of probability theory to the data. His comment to me was that he did not believe it was necessary for the authors to take that step. If he had done the study himself, he would not have bothered with doing so. As he said, the data speaks for itself. Although Geijsel cited a number of sources to substantiate the claim that fraud was well-documented in the 2016 primary season, most of those citations involved persons with an interest in the overall dispute (such as groups party to lawsuits). That factor doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the researchers' findings, but it highlights that not much independent and neutral verification of their conclusions has occurred yet.  Cohn, Nate.  "Exit Polls, And Why The Primary Was Not Stolen From Bernie Sanders."
  27 June 2016. Geijsel, Axel and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan.  "Are We Witnessing a Dishonest Election?"
  7 June 2016. Holland, Joshua.  "Reminder: Exit-Poll Conspiracy Theories Are Totally Baseless."
  The Nation.  7 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "My Dad's View of Election Fraud Study."
  11 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "Election Fraud Study Authors Respond."
  13 June 2016. Despite lower income-tax rates enacted by lawmakers, Wisconsin workers didnt see the result in their paychecks in 2013 unless they took special action. Taxpayers will see the benefit when they file their tax returns this year and get either a larger refund or a smaller bill. Why? The state did not change the tax withholding tables to reflect the new, lower rates -- following a long tradition in Madison. The state currently has no plan to update the withholding tables in 2014, either. Thats the sum of what we learned as we checked out a claim by state Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, D-Alma, about what the average worker would save from the tax cut approved in 2013 by Republican lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker. Vinehout, who is mulling a run for governor this fall, opposed the tax cut, as did many Democrats. She says the savings for individual families wasnt worth the $650 million in lost revenue to the state over two years. This is what shetold a small audiencein Waukesha on Dec. 5, 2013: Get rid of the tax decrease, Vinehout said. Did you know -- you might not know this -- if you make the average amount of people in Wisconsin, $50,000, you got $1.60 less a week in taxes? You might not have known that because they didnt change the withholding tables, so it didnt show up in your paycheck. She added: But, if you file for your refund, and lets say you file it a little late, and you get that refund sometime in June, youll maybe have a little more money, which might be just about the time the governors is out there on the campaign trail saying, hmm, you got more money in your pocket because of what I gave you. Lets examine the elements of Vinehouts claim. Checks in the mail Wisconsin Revenue Department spokesperson Laurel Patrick confirmed that withholding tables were not updated after the tax cut, and said no decision has been made to do so in 2014 either. The tax cut reduced rates in all five tax brackets. That means the tax-rate changes are not automatically reflected on peoples paychecks. To get the tax savings on their regular paycheck, employees must file a new WT-4 or WT-4A form with their employer. Todd Berry, president of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, said the state, with a few exceptions, has long tried to help its immediate cash flow needs by not automatically making tax cuts show up on peoples paychecks. The practice predates Walker. The state is now over-withholding by 20 percent or more because it has typically not adjusted the tables, Berry said. Many taxpayers may prefer getting a lump sum at refund time, Berry said, but they should understand that as a group they essentially are giving state government a billion-dollar annual no-interest loan that adds to the state deficit under generally accepted accounting principles. Politicians know its more politically valuable for people to get a nice refund in 2014, Berry said. Whats the savings? The rest of Vinehouts claim was that if you make the average amount of people in Wisconsin, $50,000, you got $1.60 less a week in taxes under the income tax cut. When we asked for evidence, Vinehouts office pointed to a Legislative Fiscal Bureau analysis of the tax savings from the income-tax changes, and to separate state figures on tax burdens. The average Wisconsin adjusted gross income, across all types of filers, was $47,310 for tax year 2010, according to a Revenue Department analysis. There is 2011 data, the latest available, that puts the figure at $48,537, according to Dale Knapp, research director at the Taxpayers Alliance. Vinehout looked up that average income in the June 2013 memo by the non-partisan Fiscal Bureau, which presents ranges of income along with tax changes estimated for 2014. The Fiscal Bureau is the independent budget scorekeeper in Madison, and its reports on taxes are used by both parties to gauge the impact of proposals. The bureaus analysis said that in the $40,000 to $50,000 range, the average savings is $85 for one year. That works out to $1.63 a week, which Vinehout referred to as $1.60 in her claim. So, Vinehout puts the average income into the slot, and with a bit of rounding her figure for the average tax change is on target. Theres some imprecision built in here, though, because the Fiscal Bureau memo uses income ranges rather than one particular income. So while Vinehout mentions $50,000, she gets the $1.60 average tax change from an income range of $40,000 to $50,000. And because the average state income is above the midpoint of that range, its likely the average tax change would differ slightly from the $1.60. There are other ways to illustrate the impact of the tax cut. One is to look at the types of filers rather than just the composite income brackets as in the Fiscal Bureau memo. Depending on the example used, one approach yields a smaller tax change figure than Vinehouts approach, the other a larger one. The average single person who filed taxes had $26,556 in income, while married couples had an average of $83,480, said Knapp. Walker, for his part,chooses the married couple example. Such a couple with two children would save about $173 a year, or $3.33 per week over the two years. On the lower end, the average single would see a weekly savings of about 73 cents. The overall state average that Vinehout cites is a middle ground between those two numbers. Our rating Vinehout said that if you make the average amount of people in Wisconsin, $50,000, you got $1.60 less a week in taxes under the $650 million state income-tax cut, but it didnt show up in your paycheck. The average income she cites is slightly high but within reasonable rounding range. She uses a reliable source for her tax-change numbers, and they are on target or very close, with the caveat that the analysis is set up for income ranges rather than a precise income. Shes right that the tax cut did not just show up in workers paychecks, due to inaction by the state. With the clarifications noted, we rate her claim Mostly True. If you wish to comment on this item, please clickhereto go to JSOnline.com. Haiti's relationship with the United States and Europe can most charitably be described as complicated. Haiti's earliest days were characterized by oppression and opposition: the country (once the French colony of St. Domingue) was born from a successful slave insurgency and declared its independence in 1804. This beginning characterized an often-antagonistic relationship between countries that profited handsomely from African slavery (such as the United States) and Haiti. Foremost among fears about Haiti was that slaves would learn successful uprisings were possible. insurgency profited After Haiti formally declared its independence, the United States suspended all diplomatic and trade relationships with the country. While the U.S. eventually re-opened trading routes, America didn't recognize Haiti diplomatically for nearly sixty years after that. Other countries followed the United States' example (and France demanded millions of francs in reparations for its rebellion in exchange for recognizing Haiti as a sovereign nation) plunging Haiti into debt and an economic depression that lasted for years, from which the country never fully recovered. eventually Multiple invasions and economic and political tinkering followed, leaving Haiti in a turmoil of political instability and corruption, economic crisis, and a ravaged infrastructure, historically one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere, despite its fertile land and ability to grow cash crops such as sugar. tinkering poorest Today, child labor and trafficking are endemic in Haiti, particularly in the country's manufacturing sector, which is outsourced to foreign companies (many of them contractors for American companies, such as Hanes, Dockers, and Fruit of the Loom). Even when they are not trafficked, laborers in Haiti's garment industry earn a pittance by the standards of other countries: the minimum wage was $0.24 (USD) an hour for many years. trafficking In June 2009, the Haitian Parliament unanimously passed a law requiring that the minimum wage be raised to $0.61 an hour, or $5 a day. (The average cost of living is estimated to be the equivalent of about $23 a day.) This pay raise was staunchly opposed by foreign manufacturers who had set up shop in the country, and the United States Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development backed those manufacturers. After Haiti's government mandated the raise, the United States aggressively (and successfully) pushed Haiti's president to lower the minimum wage for garment workers to what factory owners were willing to pay: the equivalent of about $0.31 an hour (or $2.50 per eight-hour day). estimated lower In 2011, WikiLeaks released a set of previously-secret diplomatic cables. The American publication The Nation partnered with Haitian news organization Hati Libert to cover them, finding (among other things) how strongly the United States had opposed the minimum wage hike: WikiLeaks partnered Hati Libert cover among other things To resolve the impasse between the factory owners and Parliament, the State Department urged quick intervention by then Haitian President Ren Prval. A more visible and active engagement by Prval may be critical to resolving the issue of the minimum wage and its protest spin-offor risk the political environment spiraling out of control, argued US Ambassador Janet Sanderson in a June 10, 2009, cable back to Washington. Two months later Prval negotiated a deal with Parliament to create a two-tiered minimum wage increaseone for the textile industry at about $3 per day and one for all other industrial and commercial sectors at about $5 per day. Still the US Embassy wasn't pleased. A deputy chief of mission, David E. Lindwall, said the $5 per day minimum did not take economic reality into account but was a populist measure aimed at appealing to the unemployed and underpaid masses. The Obama administration (and the Bush administration before it) had been closely monitoring the situation in the garment manufacturing sector for a long time. In 2006, Congress passed the HOPE bill (which stood for the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement) and provided duty-free entry to garments manufactured in Haiti for U.S. companies. That body also passed an updated version of the bill (HOPE II) in 2008, which mandated a framework for labor reform in factories. According to cables released by WikiLeaks, it was exactly these efforts that the United States claimed would be jeopardized by a higher minimum wage. HOPE HOPE II higher  So it's true that the State Department (then led by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State) strongly opposed a minimum wage increase in Haiti in 2009. However, the State Department's efforts did not occur in a political or economic vacuum, and Clinton wasn't the sole architect of efforts to quash a minimum wage hike (as the meme suggests). It was a concerted effort on the part of Haitian elites, factory owners, free trade proponents, U.S. politicians, economists, and American companies that kept the minimum wage so low, and to lay the blame squarely at the feet of any sitting Secretary of State would be an incomplete assessment, and thus inaccurate. A law establishing a new minimum wage of $5.11 per workday ($0.64 an hour) was finally approved in 2014, which still fell far short of both the demanded raise by workers (to the equivalent of $11.36 per workday, or $1.42 per hour) and the recommended daily wage of 1,006 Haitian gourdes, or USD$22.86. approved recommended gourdes Related rumors of the Clintons' relationship to Haiti appeared in October 2016, this time alleging that after the Haiti's infrastructure was devastated by a major earthquake in 2010, the State Department steered relief contracts to personal friends of the Clintons. However, while Hillary Clinton did recommend specific companies to help with the rebuilding process and e-mails have surfaced indicating that special attention was given to "FoBs" ("Friends of Bill"), there's no evidence that the United States government awarded contracts to any of those contenders. earthquake recommend e-mails evidence Alexander, Leslie.  "A Pact with the Devil? The United States and the Fate of Modern Haiti."
  Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective, Vol. 4, Issue 5.  February 2011. Coughlin, Dan and Kim Ives.  "Let Them Live on $3 a Day."
  The Nation.  1 June 2011. Dubois, Laurent.  "Haiti: The Aftershocks of History."
  Metropolitan Books: Henry Holt and Company, 2012. U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian.  "Milestones: 1784-1800: The United States and the Haitian Revolution."
  Accessed 5 April 2016. Federal Procurement Data System.  "Haiti Earthquake Report."
  Accessed 5 April 2016. Apr. 6, 2016: Statements were added to the What's True and What's False fields of this article to better explicate its rating. Oct. 7, 2016: This article was modified to incorporate a related rumor, to adjust the wording of the subhead and claim, and to add supplementary sources.  Jan. 12, 2018: The rating for this article was adjusted from true to  to better reflect post-publication revisions. On 14 March 2017, Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) office posted an image on his Facebook page criticizing the lack of federally-funded family leave in the U.S. by highlighting how similar policies are implemented in three other countries: Facebook   Sanders, who ran for the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination, expressed support for a federal family leave program in the U.S., as stated on his campaign website: stated In my view, every worker in America should be guaranteed at least twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave. Thats why I am a proud cosponsor of the FAMILY Act, introduced by Senator [Kirsten] Gillibrand, which does just that. Under this measure, every employee would receive twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave: to take care of a baby, to help a family member who has been diagnosed with cancer or another serious medical condition, or to care for themselves if they become seriously ill. This would be funded through an insurance program, like Social Security. Workers would pay into it with every paycheck, at the price of roughly one cup of coffee per week. There is no reason not to pass this bill now. His office's claim that the U.S. and Papua New Guinea are alone "out of 188 countries" in lacking federal family leave programs is based on a 2015 study by the International Labour Organization (ILO) reporting that statistic. Sanders' post was also accompanied by an image listing individual claims about parental leave policies in Canada, Germany, and Norway.  study Canada allows parents to take 35 weeks' worth of leave while still receiving up to 55 percent of their regular salaries. The country's paid leave benefits are applied as part of its employment insurance (EI) program, which states: program For most people, the basic rate for calculating EI benefits is 55% of your average insurable weekly earnings, up to a maximum amount. As of January 1, 2017, the maximum yearly insurable earnings amount is $51,300. This means that you can receive a maximum amount of $543 per week. While parents can divide the 35 weeks of leave between themselves, mothers can take an additional 15 weeks as part of the program:  EI maternity benefits can be paid for a maximum period of 15 weeks. You cannot receive EI maternity benefits beyond 17 weeks after the expected or actual week of childbirth, whichever of the two is later. EI parental benefits can be paid for a maximum period of 35 weeks. The payments must be made within 52 weeks of the week your child was born or the week your child was placed with you for adoption. Parents seeking to take the paid leave must also meet criteria regarding length of employment, and while parental benefits are open to "biological, adoptive, or legally recognized parents while they are caring for their newborn or newly adopted child," maternity benefits are only available to a child's biological mother: To be eligible for EI maternity benefits, you must have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment in your qualifying period. If you are a self-employed fisher, you must have earned $3,760 from fishing during the 31-week qualifying period immediately before the start of your benefit period. To be eligible for EI parental benefits, each parent who applies for benefits must have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment in his or her qualifying period. If you are a self-employed fisher, you must have earned $3,760 from fishing during the 31-week qualifying period immediately before the start of your benefit period. In Norway, as Sanders' office stated, parents may take 49 weeks of parental leave while receiving 100 percent of their pay. But the Norwegian government's web site also notes that parents have another option that provides lesser coverage for a longer period of time: notes When you apply for parental benefit, you must choose between 100 percent or 80 percent degree of coverage The total benefit period for parental benefit in the case of a birth, is 49 weeks at 100 percent coverage, and 59 weeks at 80 percent coverage. The parents must choose the same degree of coverage. Expectant mothers are also required to use three of their benefit weeks prior to their child's birth and can start using their benefits up to 12 weeks before the child's due date, though only nine of those weeks would be withdrawn from their accrued leave time.  Adoptive parents also have two options: take 46 weeks off while receiving 100 percent of their pay, or take 56 weeks off at 80 percent of their pay. In Germany, there are two ways to take parental leave, one of which is mentioned in the post by Sanders' office: parents can each take between two and 12 months off while receiving "two-thirds of [their] previous income." Benefits range from at least 300 Euros a month to a maximum of 1,800 Euros a month. (Unemployed parents are also eligible for the benefits program.) receiving Parents who are already employed are each protected from losing their jobs while utilizing their family leave. However, parents taking the time off together can extend their benefits period to 14 months. Additionally, parents who participate in the "ElterngeldPlus" program can also add four months to their leaves if they each work up to 30 hours a week during their benefit period.  Parents seeking to take part in Germany's parental leave program must submit applications to their employer (if applicable) at least seven weeks before they intend to start taking the time off. Additionally, as of 1 July 2015 parents are eligible for up to 24 months of parental leave if their children are between the ages of two and seven.   Government of Canada.  "Employment Insurance Maternity and Parental Benefits." 
  Accessed 16 March 2017. Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration.  "Parental Benefit." 
  19 July 2013. [Danish] Federal Office for Migration and Refugees.  "Parental Allowance and Parental Leave."
   Accessed 16 March 2017. International Labour Organization.  "Social Protection for Maternity: Key Policy Trends and Statistics." 
  2015.  Sanders, Bernie.  "Real Family Values." 
  berniesanders.com. Former Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland didnt waste any time attacking Republican Sen. Rob Portman for opposing the 2009 automotive bailout and calling it a lousy deal. He said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio, Strickland told an audience during his opening statement at the third Senate debate in Cleveland. This isnt the first time Strickland made this claim. Strickland made the charge in front of some Ohio delegates during a meeting held the week of the Democratic National Convention, according to theColumbus Dispatch. We wondered if Strickland was right. Did Portman call the automotive bailout a lousy deal? Stricklands campaign said the remark in question comes froma 2009 statement from Portman, who was a candidate for Senate that year but was not yet in office. The campaign accessed the news release using the Wayback Machine, an Internet Archive website. The General Motors bankruptcy plan Washington announced today is a lousy deal for Ohio, reads the statement. Taxpayers, including hard working Ohioans, are investing $50 billion in a GM plan that we now find includes shutting down plants in Mansfield, Parma, and Columbus, Ohio. The reason for this unprecedented taxpayer bailout and government intervention was to preserve jobs. Instead, for our $50 Billion taxpayer investment, thousands more workers will see their jobs disappear. Ohio deserves better than this. Thats the only direct reference to lousy Stricklands campaign sent PolitiFact Ohio, but they also sent an article from theColumbus Dispatchthat quotes Portmans former spokesperson in 2011 saying Portman still thinks the auto bailout was not a good deal for Ohio. Portmans campaign told PolitiFact Ohio that although Portman was not in office when the bailout launched, he would have supported the auto rescue. As evidence of this, Portmans campaign pointed to a 2010 U.S. Senate debate against Democrat Lee Fisher. Portman was asked if he would have supported the 2009 bailout, which Portman responded to with a yes, while also mentioning he would have liked to see more conditions in the bailout. $50 billion of our taxpayer money went to a private entity that the government essentially took over, and then they closed four plants here in Ohio. Portman said at the debate. So, if I had been in office at the time I would have supported it, but I would have been sure that Ohio didnt fall behind. Our ruling Strickland said Portman said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio. As a candidate for Senate, Portman did call the 2009 automotive bailouts of GM and Chrysler a lousy deal in a press release from 2009. Strickland cited this remark without including the fact Portman said he still would have supported the bailout. Stricklands claim is accurate, but needs a slight clarification. We rate Stricklands claim Mostly True. Debate over raisingthe minimum wageis heating up. President Obama is advocating for it, Democrats in Congress are promoting it and their Republican counterparts are warning that it would have a negative impact on the U.S. economy. Adding fuel to that fire was Tuesday'sCongressional Budget Office report, which predicted that increasing the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty but cost 500,000 jobs. U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-RI, went on thefloor of the House on Feb. 11to argue that inflation has eroded the value of the minimum wage, now $7.25 per hour, over time. It's been five years since those working for the minimum wage have seen an increase in the minimum wage, and according to one study, the minimum wage today is worth $2 less than in 1968. This is shameful, and we have the responsibility to address growing income inequality by increasing the minimum wage immediately, he said. In other words, a worker in 2014 would need to earn $9.25 an hour to have the same buying power a minimum-wage worker had in 1968. We wondered whether that was true. Cicilline's office wouldn't say what study the congressman was referring to. When we asked Cicilline about it during a Feb. 18 news conference, he said couldn't recall. Instead, his chief of staff said a Google search had just uncovered a June 2013 Huffington Post article headlined, The Minimum Wage Is Worth $2 Less Today Than It Was In 1968: Study. The Huffington Post article citesa study from the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington, D.C. think tank funded by organized labor, that quotes the $2 figure but doesn't analyze the minimum wage directly. Instead, it quotesanother EPI studythat did, looking at the minimum wage value from 1968 through 2012. It reports that the 1968 minimum wage of $1.60 per hour was essentially worth $9.25 in 2012 dollars, precisely two dollars less than $7.25. But what was the difference when Cicilline gave his speech this month?The latest EPI study, issued Dec. 19 byDavid Cooper, puts that difference at $2.15. When we tried to confirm that calculation by going to theonline inflation calculatorfrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, we came up with an amount that was even higher: It said that today's $7.25 minimum wage is worth $3.46 less than in 1968, a much bigger difference than what Cicilline cited. Why the difference? The online calculator, Cooper said, uses the conventional Consumer Price Index, known as CPI-U. He and other researchers use a variant of that, called theCPI-U-RS, which tries to take the modifications that have been made to the CPI-U over the years and apply them to previous years. Although the government doesn't claim one index is better than another, he said the CPI-U-RS is designed to do a better job of accurately capturing the changing value of the minimum wage. If you adjust an old minimum wage for inflation using the traditional CPI, its value appears much higher today. In summary, Cicilline says he was quoting a report, but we're not sure what report that was. There is a report that supports his claim, as his staff noted, but it's out of date. He said the buying power of the minimum wage in 1968 was, in effect, $2 higher than its value today. The difference in 2013 dollars, by one measure, is actually $2.15. That's pretty close. By another measure, it's even more: $3.46. His underlying point -- that the minimum wage has significantly less buying power than it had 45 years ago -- is correct, and the erosion in the minimum wage is even more dramatic if you use the conventional cost of living index. We rate his statementMostly True. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) In efforts to lure Amazon to the Midwest, Missouri officials sent three proposals to the tech-giant by Oct. 19 to be considered for the location of its second headquarters. Kansas City and St. Louis officials threw their hats into the ring, and state officials proposed an innovation corridor along I-70, which would link the two metro areas. Missouris brochurereleased on theMakeMOHQ2Home websiteclaims the state ranked third in average yearly growth of high-tech industries. When you think of a high-tech state, California and New York may be the first states to come to mind, but not Missouri. We wanted to find out how high-tech Missouri really is, and how it ranks in the country. We spoke with the researchers behind the data and economic experts who all agreed that rate of growth can be misleading. The Bureau of Labor Statistics notes that defining high-tech is a moving target. Generally, though, it considers jobs with lots of workers in science, technology, engineering and math fields to be part of the high-tech industry. Missouri officials used a2016 Milken Institute studyin their claim.The Milken Instituteis a nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank. The Milken Institute has a free-market slant, said Michael Leeds, chair of the economics department at Temple University, but (is) a credible group of scholars. Minoli Ratnatunga, director of regional economics research at the institutes Center for Regional Economics, was a researcher in the study. Ratnatunga said the group considered 19 industries it thought were high-tech. A few of these industries include: pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing, commercial and service industry machinery manufacturing, medical equipment and supplies manufacturing, telecommunications and computer systems design. The Milken Institutes2016 State Technology and Science Indexshows that Missouri ranked third in average yearly growth of high-tech industries from 2010 to 2015. However, this is just one component that makes up Missouris overall placement. In 2016, Missouri ranked 28 out of 50. Two years prior, Missouri ranked 34 out of 50. In 2012, Missouri ranked 29 out of 50. These scores are based on several factors: human capital investment, research and development, risk capital, technology and science workforce, and technology concentration. Massachusetts, Colorado and Maryland were ranked the top three states overall in 2016. Kansas, Tennessee and Oklahoma ranked behind Missouri, with West Virginia rated last. That tells us where Missouri ranks relative to its peers, Ratnatunga said. Its improving, and things like (high-tech) growth is one aspect thats impacted its overall ranking, but its not in the top tier. Ratnatunga said its easy for Missouris high-tech industry to look as if its grown exponentially. If you have a relatively small sector, its easier to get a higher growth rate, Ratnatunga said. The same 500 jobs added in California would be a smaller growth rate. Leeds also said the rate of growth can be deceiving. If you have a very small base, twice a very small number is 100 percent growth, but it can be a very small number, he said. Ratnatunga said companies like Amazon need to look at the index overall when considering a states economy. This means recognizing qualities like overall growth in the economy, the quality of the workforce, universities, capital investments and research and development inputs. If it doesnt meet Amazons requirements, it might be a great choice for other companies that are looking to grow in high-tech, Ratnatunga said. Missouri officials claimed Missouri ranked 3rd (in) average yearly growth of high-tech industries. While Missouri high-tech industries may have seen growth, the size of base matters. Missouri has seen a growth in high-tech jobs, but the claim can be misleading when you dont consider the size of the base. Overall, Missouri is about average in the rankings. We rate this Mostly True. Ohio Board of Regents Chancellor Jim Petro was firing up the troops.During a speech Aug. 11, 2011, at Ohio State University to announce a new enterprise university plan aimed at cutting red tape for public universities, Petro preached to his audience of higher education types why pushing up the college graduation rate in Ohio is so important.Only 26 percent of Ohioans hold a bachelors degree, Petro told his audience. Raising that figure toward the national average of 31 percent would give Ohios economy a tremendous boost.While Petro told the crowd hes seen various estimates of the economic impact of a rising bachelors degree rate, he said he had a solid and good estimate. Every 1 percent increase in the number of Ohioans with bachelors degrees, Petro said, would mean multiple billions a year in sustained economic growth.For every percent we move up, it means economic activity growing the next year and for each year thereafter (by) $2.5 billion dollars, he said.While the correlation between education levels and higher wages for individuals is fairly well-established, we were struck by the specific price tag Petro was able to put on Ohioans getting their sheepskins. So PolitiFact Ohio checked it out.Spencer Waugh, a policy liaison for the Ohio Board of Regents, sent us three documents to corroborate Petros claim. In an e-mail, Waugh said Petros estimate of $2.5 billion is fair and conservative given that some studies show less and at least one study shows more.The first document was a memo from Waugh to Petro which claimed that a 1 percent jump in Ohioans with bachelors degrees would net an income increase of $1.09 billion. Waughs memo multiples the number of new Ohioans with bachelors degrees by $19,000 a year  a figure he says represents the annual gain for those going from holding a high school diploma to a bachelors degree.Waughs figures were based on a data from the National Center for Education Statistics as well as 2007 census data, according to Kim Norris, Petros communications director.The 2007 census data states that the gap is $20,000 per year for adults. The National Center for Education Statistics data shows the gap at $18,000 for males but only $15,000 for females in the age group of 25-34. So $19,000 is in the ballpark.Using the $19,000 multiplier assumes that everyone who went back to school and got the bachelors degree had only achieved a high school education. Presumably some in that group would be people who already have associates degrees or some college and didnt have far to go to get a bachelors degree. People who have some college or an associates degree generally make more than those with just a high school diploma, and that would have an impact on net benefit to Ohios economy.Regardless, the figure is well below Petros estimate of $2.5 billion.The second document is a memo from Board of Regents staffer Patrick Maloney to Petro which outlines a 2008 Arizona State University study which found that a 1 percent jump would add $1.5 billion to that states economy.The ASU study focuses solely on Arizona and relies on a 2004 Journal of Econometrics paper that estimated the effects on the earnings of all working adults from increasing the proportion of the workforce with a university degree. It used data from the 1980 and 1990 census.However, the papers author, Enrico Moretti, didnt specify how he defined adults nor how he calculated hourly wages. And Moretti finds a spillover effect which pushes up wages for all workers on every education level as the share of workers with a bachelors degree increases.Because Morettis spillover effect requires different calculations over each level of educational attainment, its virtually impossible to compare Arizona to Ohio as the states have different profiles. Additionally, Arizonas labor market is much smaller than Ohios with only 1.82 million workers year-round versus 5.11 million in Ohio  nearly three times as many.If the gains projected in Arizona would come true in Ohio, then you could probably assume an economic benefit of nearly three times what was projected for Arizona -- about $4 billion a year.The third study cited by Waugh comes from a CEO for Cities study, which concludes that an improvement of 1 percentage point in each of the 51 largest metropolitan areas in the United State would increase aggregate personal income by $124 billion nationwide.In the report, the authors explain that each additional percentage point in aggregate adult four-year college attainment was associated with a $763 increase in annual regional per capita income.Per capita income refers to the income of each man, women and child. If we apply the increase to Ohios  11.5 million population, we get an additional $8.8 billion a year in income.So where does all this leave Petros claim?As chancellor of the Board of Regents, Petro wanted to show the importance of more adults getting their college degrees.To underscore this point, Petro claimed that a good and solid estimate showed that increasing the number of bachelors degree holders in Ohio by 1 percent would increase economic activity in the state by $2.5 billion a year.Asked for studies to prove this point, Petros staffers muster a pair of memos which assert Ohios income would rise by $1.09 billion a year and another which estimates that Arizonas would rise by $1.5 billion a year. The Arizona estimate would extrapolate to about $4 billion in Ohio given the larger labor market here.Lastly, they cite a study done on the nations biggest urban areas, which if applied to Ohios population would mean $8.8 billion in additional income.The underlying point in Petros statement is accurate -- that raising the percentage of Ohioans who have a bachelors degree would benefit Ohios economy.What is less clear is how great that benefit would be. Petros estimate was $2.5 billion. But the supporting documentation his staff provided shows that estimates very wildly.Is it $1 billion? $4 billion? $8.8 billion? Something in between?Thats a point that needs clarification.On the Truth-O-Meter the claim rates as Mostly True. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman sees Texas as a model for how things might be going wrong across the nation and in hislatest blast, posted online Feb. 27, he pokes at the states reputedly low taxes.Texas taxes are low, at least if youre in the upper part of the income distribution, Krugman writes. He adds, parenthetically, that taxes on the bottom 40 percent of the population are actually above the national average.Its undisputed that the two major Texas state and local taxes--sales and property--impose a greater burden on low-income Texans. According to the Texas State Comptrollers lateststudyof tax incidence, issued last month, Texas households earning $29,223 or less are expected to spend 6 percent of their income in general sales taxes and 5.3 percent of their income on school property taxes in 2013. The report says households earning more than $29,223 are likely to spend on average no more than 3.4 percent of their income on each of the two taxes.The left-leaning Austin-based Center on Public Policy Priorities wrote in 2009: Texas relies on the sales tax for more than half of all state tax revenue  a pattern typical of regressive tax systems. Since low- and moderate-income Texans tend to spend all of their income each year to support their families, the sales tax takes a much greater percentage of their income then it does from higher-income families, who can afford to save some of their income or spend it on services that are not subject to the sales tax.Yet do the states poorest residents also pay higher taxes than the national average?By e-mail, Krugman told us he based his statement on an analysis released Nov. 18, 2009 by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a research arm of Washington-based Citizens for Tax Justice, which says it advocates for fair taxation of middle- and low-income families.The study says the 20 percent of Texas families earning less than $18,000 a year spend 12.2 percent of their income on state and local taxes, while the next-wealthiest 20 percent of families, earning $18,000 to $31,000, spend 10.2 percent of income on the taxes, which largely consist of sales and property taxes. Nationally, the poorest 20 percent and next-poorest 20 percent of families spend an average of 10.9 percent and 10 percent of income, respectively, on state and local taxes, the study says.Conversely, the study says, the 60 percent of Texas families that earned $31,000 or more put less of their income into state and local taxes than the national average. Texas households in the top 20 percent of income, earning $89,000 or more, paid 5.8 percent of their income or less, while such households nationally paid 8.8 percent or less.Texas is among 10 states with particularly regressive tax systems, the study says. One result is that low-income families pay almost six times as much of their earnings in taxes as do the wealthy and middle-income families in these states pay up to three-and-a-half times as high a share of their income as the wealthiest families.We reached Matt Gardner, the institutes director. He said the study drew on data from the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureaus American Community Survey. He said it was methodologically improved from earlier attempts by the institute to gauge who bears the brunt of state and local taxes. Next, we shared the methodological details that Gardner aired with Billy Hamilton, a former deputy state comptroller of Texas. Hamilton, who was involved in the states past studies of tax incidence, said: It sounds like what they did is very logical. Gardner said Krugmans comparison accurately tracks the study. We noticed that the difference between what the second-poorest 20 percent of Texas households pays and the national average looks small; the Texans paid only .2 percent more. Based on a $30,000 annual income, thats $60 more. Though measurable, its not a huge difference, Gardner said.Footnote: Krugmans statement might not have applied to both subsets of lower-income Texans in the past. The institutes previous studies, based on different methodologies and 1995 and 2002 tax payments, similarly showed the poorest 20 percent of Texans paying more than counterparts nationally. But the next-to-poorest 20 percent of Texans paid less of their incomes to state and local taxes than residents in the same income group nationally, Gardner said.We rate Krugmans statement True. Claim:  The Dalai Lama once said that if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2013] Did the Dalai Lama really say "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." I've found this on many sites, but just can't believe it's true. Origins:  In May 2001 Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th and current Dalai Lama (the head monk of the Gelugpa lineage of Tibetan Buddhism), made a three-day visit to Portland, Oregon, during which he gave a talk to 7,600 area high school students in what was billed by organizers as the "Educating the Heart Summit."  As reported by the Seattle Times, during that talk the Dalai Lama responded to a question posed by a student about how to react to a potential school shooter by stating that it would "be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun," with the proviso that one should aim to wound and not to kill: His message resonates in an era when schools must be on guard against violent acts by gun-toting students. Included in the audience were some 35 students from Thurston High School in Springfield, Ore., where Kip Kinkel went on a May 1998 rampage in which his parents and two students were killed and 24 other students were wounded. Students, in a question-and-answer period, asked some hard questions. One girl wanted to know how to react to a shooter who takes aim at a classmate. The Dalai Lama said acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators. But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg. Many Americans might find the Dalai Lama's response surprising, given that he has expressed a dedication to nonviolence, and Buddhism is widely viewed in western culture as a religion that embraces pacifism.  However, commentators have noted that the image of Buddhist pacifism is an exaggerated one which has been projected onto Buddhism by others: commentators Buddhist cultures, including Tibet, have not historically been pacifist. The previous dalai lama strove to develop a modern military. So the current one's dedication to nonviolence should not be taken as a matter of course. He was influenced by Gandhi, a British-trained lawyer whose pacifism was rooted in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. His nonviolent approach is exceptional for a Buddhist political leader and integrates Indian and western concepts of nonviolent struggle. The exaggerated image of pacifism projected on Buddhism (and Hinduism) was embraced and promoted by natives, as it conveyed moral superiority over colonialist oppressors and missionaries. Getting the message fed back by natives reinforced the original misconceptions. But the ultimate source is Euro-Americans themselves, weary of a century of warfare and longing for a pacifist Shangri-La. Buddhist cultural values were never so simplistic and practically served rajas, khans, and daimyo for millennia. The main reason Buddhists' history does not match our expectations, aside from them being as human as the rest of us, is that our expectations have been mistaken. Some think that fantasies of a pacifist utopia benefit the Tibetan cause. It can also be argued that they encourage communists to contemptuously dismiss western support for Tibet and obstruct Buddhists from engaging their values. The Buddhist world is racked with violence and it has never been more important to understand Buddhist ethics. These include never acting in anger; exhausting alternatives such as negotiation; striving to capture the enemy alive; avoiding destruction of infrastructure and the environment; and taking responsibility for how one's actions and exploitation cause enemies to arise. They also emphasise the great psychic danger to those who act violently, something we see in the large number of suicides among youth sent to these wars. Above all, rather than "national self-interest", the guiding motivation should be compassion.    Last updated:  10 October 2015    Jenkins, Stephen.  "It's Not So Strange for a Buddhist to Endorse Killing."   The Guardian.  11 May 2011  (p. B1).