Says the military accounts for about 10 percent of Florida's economy.
Gov.-elect Rick Scott kicked off a five-day, 10-city tour of the state's major industries on Dec. 6, 2010, by meeting with defense contractors and Florida-based military leaders.Scott started the tour in the Panhandle, meeting with about 20 defense contractors, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, L-3 Communications and InDyne Corp., at the University of Florida Research and Engineering Education Facility in Shalimar, before meeting with military leaders at Eglin Air Force Base.We want to make sure we're always thought of as a very military-friendly state,Scott said to reporters at a brief press conference. We're going to focus on what our strengths are. We're clearly a logical place for the military to expand and for the defense industry to expand. We've got a lot of talent in the state, we like the defense industry and the military, so we're going to figure out where we have the most value.Scott tried to underscore the importance of the military to Florida by noting that the military accounts for about 10 percent of Florida's economy, according to theSt. Petersburg Times.Florida is home to 20 major military installations and three unified combatant commands. The Gulf of Mexico is a key training ground for both the Air Force and the Navy, and the state also has two U.S. Coast Guard air stations and another dozen other Coast Guard stations.But does all of that translate to a 10 percent share of the state's gross domestic product,which was $737 billion in 2009?The answer comes from an arm of Enterprise Florida called theFlorida Defense Alliance, a public/private partnership created in 1998 to help position Florida to keep its military infrastructure in place and expand in other areas when opportunities arise. The group commissioned a study in 2008 to examine the economic impact of Florida's stationed military and auxiliary defense industry work.The study was conducted by Rick Harper, an economist from the University of West Florida, who has studied the economic impact of the film and entertainment industry in Florida and who represented Northwest Florida on former Gov. Jeb Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2001-2006. Using 2005 data, Harper concluded that defense-related spending is responsible for $52 billion, or 7.5 percent, of Florida's gross state product that year.The military spent $27 billion across Florida counties in fiscal year 2005, Harper concluded -- $10.4 billion was for goods and services, $12.4 billion for pensions and transfer payments, and $4.3 billion for salaries and wages. The rest of the economic impact is measured in indirect and induced spending, which would include parts of the private defense industry as well as parts of the Florida economy that help service the military, the defense industry and their employees.Harper said that defense and military spending accounted for 732,300 direct and indirect jobs in the state and generated state and local tax revenues of nearly $1 billion.Counties with larger installations enjoy larger impacts, Harper found. Military and defense spending in Duval County had a $12.1 billion impact, a $5.3 billion impact in Hillsborough County and a $6.6 billion impact in Okaloosa County. All but six counties have at least $3 million per year in direct defense-related spending.Harper and Florida Defense Alliance executive director Rocky McPherson noted that the study does not include the economic impact generated by the Florida National Guard or Coast Guard operations. You can see a short synopsis of the study for yourselfhere. Or if you have a lot of time, here's thethree-volume version.Harper's study relies on five-year-old data, so we wanted to see if there was anything more recent. McPherson said Harper and University of West Florida researchers were updating their study using 2008 data but, he said, that report is not available yet. Harper declined to share the results of the study with PolitiFact Florida, but did talk about the results in general terms.Since 2005, Department of Defense spending has risen substantially, particularly in terms of procurement (i.e., contracting), as well as payments to disabled veterans, although active duty military staffing numbers (number of people) have declined somewhat and payments to retirees are not growing as they did earlier due to attrition of WWII and Korean era veterans, Harper wrote. The overall growth in military spending (the study to be released uses 2008 federal spending data), combined with weakness in other areas of the Florida economy in the most recent years, means that DoD (Department of Defense) spending will have risen as a share of the total economy.We searched around for other studies measuring the military's economic impact in Florida, but found none. In examining Harper's study, we found it to be a straightforward, unbiased report. Researchers relied on Department of Defense actual expenditures, precise personnel levels and actual government contracts.Where does it leave us? Scott told reporters military spending makes up about 10 percent of the state's economy. In 2005, military spending accounted for 7.5 percent of the state gross domestic product, but that figure did not include the impact of the Florida National Guard or Coast Guard bases. The author of the study, who is now updating his report using 2008 numbers, said that while he cannot release more up-to-date numbers, that the military's position in the economy has risen since 2005. That will make Scott's point nearly right on. We rate this claim True.
Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio is pushing a proposal to cap the sizes of large banks. He appeared on ABC News'This Weekwith Jake Tapper to talk about that, as well as Democratic efforts to pass financial reform.Let me give you one statistic, if I could, Jake, Brown said. Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP, 17 percent of GDP. The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP. ... We've got to deal with risk to be sure, but we've got to deal with the size of these banks, because if one of these banks is in serious trouble, it will have such a ripple effect on the whole economy. So we simply can't let them get this big and have this kind of economic power over Main Street, over a small business in Canton, Ohio, or a worker -- a manufacturing plant in Dayton. I mean, we just can't let this happen.Some very smart people disagree on Brown's point that big banks resist regulation by reason of their sheer mass.People likeSimon Johnson, the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, urge measures that would limit the size of the biggest banks. Meanwhile, people likePaul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winningNew York Timescolumnist, say that breaking up the banks isn't necessary to avert the next meltdown if the proper regulations are put in place.We were interested in Brown's statistic though: That 15 years ago the top six banks' assets totaled 17 percent of GDP, while today that's 63 percent.Brown's staff said he got the numbers from13 Bankers:The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown, a book by Johnson and James Kwak, that describes the financial crisis and advocates steps for reform, including limits on the size of banks. Johnson also cited the number in an article in theNew Republic, co-written with Peter Boone, thatcriticizedPresident Barack Obama for not pushing rules that are tougher on big banks.The numbers are a fairly straightforward calculation. You take the bank's total assets, such as loans, cash and securities. (Remember that to banks, a loan is an asset, since they make money off loans.) Then you divide by GDP, which is gross domestic product, and is the total economic output for a country during a given year. Last year, the U.S. gross domestic product was $14.3 trillion.Johnson's book lists the six biggest banks of 2009 as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.The numbers in the book looked right to us, but we wanted to find an outside expert to confirm it. Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia agreed to run the numbers to see if they got the same thing.Sure enough, they found the same thing. The figures were off by a few percentage points because the researchers were able to use numbers from the fourth quarter of 2009 and compared them with the same quarter in 1994. Johnson's book cites numbers from the third quarter.Here's the information the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia sent us:Assets (in billions), Dec. 31, 2009Bank of America Corp. - 2,224.5JP Morgan Chase - 2,032.0Citigroup - 1,856.6Wells Fargo - 1,243.6Goldman Sachs - 849.3Morgan Stanley - 771.5Total 8,977.5Nominal GDP 14.453.8Percentage 62.1%Assets (in billions), Dec. 31, 1994Citicorp - 250.5BankAmerica Corp. - 215.5Chemical Banking Corp. - 171.4Nationsbank Corp. - 169.6JP Morgan - 154.9Chase Manhattan - 114.0Total 1,075.9Nominal GDP 7,248.2Percentage 14.8%A couple of experts we asked about these numbers noted that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were for years categorized as investment banks, and would not have been counted in the 1994 numbers. That changed in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis, when the two firms becamebank holding companiesso they could borrow from the Federal Reserve. The underlying point, though -- that there has been significant consolidation in the banking industry -- remains true, they said.Brown said, Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP ... The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP. Independent sources and experts confirm that, so we rate his statement True. In early 2022, folk-rock legend Neil Young found himself the target of a laughable conspiracy theory after he spoke out against COVID-19-related misinformation. On Jan. 24, Young wrote that he wanted his music removed from the streaming platform Spotify, unless the company ended its agreement to host Joe Rogan's podcast, which has on several occasions provided a forum for potentially harmful misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. In response, Spotify removed Young's back catalog from its library, rather than cutting ties with Rogan.  wrote misinformation removed In the midst of that controversy, vaccine skeptics and COVID-19 conspiracy theorists shared a ludicrous conspiracy theory claiming that the pharmaceutical company Pfizer  which produces a widely-used COVID-19 vaccine  either owned the rights to Young's music catalog or, through a chain of connections, held sway over the rock star and influenced, or even ordered, his pro-vaccination stance.  For example, some social media users posted a meme with the text, "When you realize Neil Young's music catalogue is owned by Pfizer": posted meme   Others did not explicitly claim that Pfizer itself owned some or all of Young's catalog, but did suggest that the company held sway over him, by way of a series of connections, and that therefore Young's opposition to Rogan and his criticism of vaccine misinformation should be dismissed as the result of corruption and self-compromise, rather than a principled stance.  did suggest series connections On social media, a conspiracy theorist who uses the moniker An0maly outlined the theory in helpful detail, starting with the observation that in January 2021, Young reportedly sold half of his catalog to a U.K.-based investment fund called Hipgnosis, for around $150 million. An0maly continued: outlined the theory So, 50% to UK investment fund Hipgnosis. In October of 2021, Blackstone and Hipgnosis Song Management launched [a] "$1 billion partnership to invest in songs, recorded music, music IP and royalties." Interesting. Blackstone is "an American alternative investment management company" who, interestingly enough, in 2020 announced the appointment of "Jeffrey B. Kindler, former chairman and CEO of Pfizer, as [a] senior adviser." Now I don't know the answer to this, but did Neil Young independently make the decision to try and blackball Joe Rogan for questioning big pharma and the government narrative? Or was it a team decision with a multi-billion-dollar investment firm who also owns a big chunk of his music? The first point to note here is that, even among those promulgating the Young-Pfizer theory, it is not seriously suggested that Pfizer itself  which is, after all, a pharmaceutical company  owns the rights to any of Young's music. That claim can be dismissed.  Before assessing the logic behind the theory, and its coherence, it's worth briefly evaluating the accuracy of each of its components. First, it appears to be true that, in January 2021, Young sold half of his songs to Hipgnosis. In a news release, Hipgnosis wrote: "...The Company has acquired 50% of Neil Youngs worldwide copyright and income interests in his entire song catalogue comprising 1,180 songs." news release Secondly, it is also true that in October 2021, Blackstone bought an ownership stake in Hipgnosis, as demonstrated in news releases published by both companies. Finally, it is also true that in August 2020, Blackstone hired Jeff Kindler as a senior advisor, and that Kindler used to be the chairman and CEO of Pfizer.  both companies hired Jeff Kindler used to be However, rather than having uncovered a web of corruption, those pushing the Young-Pfizer story were engaging in the classic conspiracy theorist's fallacy of finding whatever possible connection they can between two separate entities (in this case, Young and Pfizer) without first testing the logical or chronological basis of that putative link. In other words, "connecting the dots" by whatever means available, rather than uncovering an actual, organic conspiracy.  Let's look at the sequence of events. Kindler left Pfizer in 2010  a full decade before he joined Blackstone, and before the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted Pfizer to develop a vaccine along with its German partner BioNTech. left Pfizer in 2010 Blackstone is a publicly traded company, meaning it has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and Kindler, in turn, has a professional obligation to provide sound business and strategic advice to Blackstone. Aside from presenting no concrete evidence whatsoever, those pushing the Young-Pfizer conspiracy theory appear to be asking readers to believe, despite these circumstances, one of two explanations: publicly traded company As outlandish as these scenarios are, they are premised on even shakier assumptions: for example, that Kindler was even consulted on the Blackstone-Hipgnosis deal; or that if he was, he was in favor of it; and that Young has any remaining financial or commercial obligations to Hipgnosis and/or Blackstone after the sale of half his music  after all, if that deal is already done, what is the supposed basis of Hipgnosis or Blackstone's putative leverage over Young? It's not necessary to list, in excruciating detail, each of the known factual and logical flaws associated with the Young-Pfizer conspiracy theory. The claim that the pharmaceutical company "owned Young's music catalog" was patently false, and the theory of a fantastical web of corruption, with Kindler at its centre, was presented without any concrete evidence and, perhaps more importantly, made no sense whatsoever. The October 2016 WikiLeaks series "The Podesta Emails" gave readers an inside look at operations in the Democratic Party by publishing the communications of Hillary Clinton campaign director John Podesta, and one rumor connected with that e-mail dump held that one of those documents revealed in part that President Obama had "directed his supporters" to engage in "a little all-American voter fraud." Misinterpretation and misrepresentation of WikiLeaks documents is rife, and the phrasing about "a little all-American voter fraud" came not from the actual text of one of the released documents but from a blog post about the WikiLeaks documents: blog post Wikileaks has done an amazing job of revealing to the American people just how screwed up and corrupt our government really is, at all levels. The most recent revelation comes from the very top, and shows that Obama may have directed his supporters in Colorado to engage in a little all-American voter fraud. In the email, John Podesta discussed his meeting to two Coloradans who made it clear that they wanted help in making sure that only legal and living people were allowed to vote in the 2015 caucuses. A search of WikiLeaks returns zero results for the "all-American voter fraud" phrasing: zero results  As with many purported WikiLeaks revelations, the blog included not a link to the complete underlying document but only a screenshot of an out-of-context e-mail along with commentary about it: screenshot  That e-mail was dated 14 May 2015, pertained to the upcoming 2016 Democratic caucuses in Colorado (eventually won by Bernie Sanders), and referenced unproven rumors that back in 2008 the Obama campaign had supposedly "flooded" the Iowa caucuses with ineligible voters from out of state: High importance. I met with Jim and Mike in Denver. They are both old friends of the Clintons and have lots of experience. Mike hosted our Boulder Road Show event. They are reliving the 08 caucuses where they believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters. They want to organize lawyers for caucus protection, election protection and to raise hard $. They are not just Colorado focused and have good contacts in the region A December 2007 Politico article examined the claim made by a Clinton aide at the time that the Obama campaign was trying to "manipulate the Iowa caucuses" by "busing in students from out of state": article A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, drew a distinction between her campaign's approach to college campuses and Obama's, amplifying Yepsen's criticism of the Obama campaign. Theres a big difference here. We are not systematically trying to manipulate the Iowa caucuses with out of state people. We dont have literature recruiting out of state college students. We didnt bus in folks from out of state to the JJ. We didnt bring in out of state activists to the Heartland Forum. An Obama aide also pointed out that there's no evidence his campaign was busing in students from out of state, while my colleague Ben Adler reported that Clinton volunteers from out of state were planning to come back to caucus (it's unclear to him how organized this effort is) and the Clinton campaign did email out a call for volunteers to come from other midwestern states prior to the Jefferson Jackson dinner. Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded to this controversy by saying: Rather than denigrating the caucus rights of students who go to school in Iowa, we would suggest the Clinton campaign organize them. Their attack here is borne out of pure political frustration. Iowans are determined to launch a winning candidate for the Democratic Party to bring real change for our country. They will not be deterred by efforts to dampen participation and 11th-hour attacks. In March 2016, the Clinton campaign allegedly repurposed these rumors and claimed Bernie Sanders' campaign was "busing in" ineligible voters to party caucuses. Sanders dismissed the rumor as a recycled smear used by David Brock: busing in Really? Based on what do they say that? Based on David Brock's long history of honest and integrity? The man who tried to destroy Anita Hill? Is that where this is coming from? Everyone of you know, you know it, that every day you're being flooded by all this negative stuff from Sec. Clinton's super PAC. I haven't heard of that. I don't want my integrity and honesty to be impugned. I have no idea who says this, that is a lie. An absolute lie. We will win or lose, we do it honestly, and I really dislike people suggesting we're going to bring in students from out of state who are going to perjure themselves, and say they are from Iowa? That's, talk about negative stuff, this is what ... Again, I don't think this is the Secretary ... but you bring people like David Brock ... into your campaign ... if this is the kinda stuff that they're planting, that's negative stuff. No e-mail released by WikiLeaks quoted John Podesta (or anyone else) saying that President Obama had engaged in (or suggested his supporters engage in) "a little all-American voter fraud" in Colorado. In 2015 Podesta referenced uncorroborated rumors from the 2008 campaign holding that President Obama had flooded the Iowa caucuses (not the Colorado caucuses, not any 2016 caucuses, and not any general election polling places) with ineligible voters during his run against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Smith, Ben.  "Clinton Aide: Obama Trying To 'Manipulate The Iowa Caucuses.'"
  Politico.  1 December 2007. In August 2016, at the height of the presidential campaign, a Reddit user programmed a robot to respond to any mention of the words "tax return" with a comment insinuating that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump refuses to release his tax returns because he has donated millions of dollars to an organization that promotes pederasty. The bot called AutoModerator responds to every comment in the sub-reddit EnoughTrumpSpam with the phrase: EnoughTrumpSpam Speaking of tax returns, did you hear Donald Trump is refusing to release them because Donald Trump has donated to NAMBLA? That's what all the best sources, the most tremendous sources are saying, and if they're all saying that Donald Trump donated to NAMBLA, well, I can see why Donald Trump would want to cover up his donations to NAMBLA. I'm not claiming that Donald Trump donates to NAMBLA, but that's what these excellent sources are alleging, that Donald Trump does indeed donate to NAMBLA. The phrase is accompanied by a disclaimer that it was generated by a bot. But that hasn't stopped the oblique accusation that Trump may be a member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association from making its way around the Internet: Also, @seanhannity? Look into this disgusting Trump/NAMBLA nonsense. So gross how the left lies.Trump.NAMBLA.Say that every night. @seanhannity  Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) August 9, 2016 August 9, 2016  A Reddit user who calls himself J. Peterman  possibly a reference to a character on the television sitcom Seinfeld  said he created the bot to mock Trump for his habit of making claims that he attributes to nameless "people:" character claims I created it by taking advantage of an existing bot, /u/automoderator, made available for all moderators to use to automate certain tasks, and you can make custom code for the subreddit's configuration of auto moderator. I did that and I made it reply to the trigger word "tax returns" with the copy/paste you see. /u/automoderator For example, in June 2016, Trump hinted that President Barack Obama may have had a connection to the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, saying: saying People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can't even mention the words 'radical Islamic terrorism.' There's something going on. It's inconceivable. There's something going on... He doesn't get it or he gets it better than anybody understands  it's one or the other, and either one is unacceptable. A Reddit moderator who goes by "Faiz" and claims to have helped launch the bot told us that he believes it turns Trump's own manner of generating suspicions against his opponents against him: We didn't expect it to take off like this, but the community effort on EnoughTrumpSpam really helped it go viral. The joke spread off Reddit and began confusing people so much so that some news outlets even began picking the story up. I think it's success is, in a way, emblematic of the way Trump spreads lies and gets people to believe them by constantly repeating them. A random user originally posted the block of text and it became instantly popular on Reddit. We all loved it because of how much it imitated Trump's style of making unsubstantiated accusations. You really can't tell the difference between some of the text in the meme and some things Trump wrote during Obama's birther conspiracy. As for why Trump, we picked it up mostly because, as suggested by the name (EnoughTrumpSpam), we are an anti-Trump community and we found this to be a perfect foil to highlight the way Trump spreads conspiracy theories. J. Peterman said he was taken aback by how much attention the bot generated. The prank seems to have caught fire, with someone jumping in to create a fake Fox News page with the title: "NAMBLA neither confirms nor denies Trump's donation allegations."  page Now that it's taken off, I'm quite surprised. I'm surprised by how much press attention the bot's coding has garnered as well as the meme in general. I cannot take credit for creating the meme, that was around for a week or so before I did the bot, and it was everyone else who kept the meme going. Faiz, the moderator, said he hopes that the prank goes far enough that Trump's campaign is forced to respond to it. The ultimate coup de grce, he told the Daily Beast, would be if it forces Trump to do something he has adamantly refused to do: release his tax returns. Daily Beast The only logical conclusion would really be Trump releasing his tax returns but he would never do that because hes hiding donations to NAMBLA, Faiz told the Daily Beast. Thats what Ive heard from some very smart people anyway. You can see the bot in action in the screenshot taken from Reddit here: Reddit    It's worth noting that even if the story were true, NAMBLA is not a nonprofit organization, and so donations to the group would not show up on Trump's tax returns. NAMBLA returns Around 5 p.m. EDT on March 16, 2021, a 21-year-old white man allegedly shot and killed eight people -- six of whom were Asian women -- at three Atlanta-area spas. The investigation into the mass shooting remained ongoing, as of this report. allegedly shot and killed investigation As word of the tragedy spread online, however, people flooded social media with messages of sympathy for the deceased. Many posts classified them as unknowing victims of the country's increasing xenophobia, given a surge of attacks against Asian Americans that coincided with the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S, or pervasive violence against women. surge of attacks Among such posters was Aaron Rupar, a journalist at Vox. A couple of hours after the incident, for instance, he blamed former U.S. President Donald Trump's characterization of the coronavirus as a reason for growing hate crimes against Asian Americans, and tweeted: Vox tweeted "[I] don't think it's a coincidence that Trump spent the better part of a year using a virus as a slur against Chinese people while hate crimes against Asian Americans spiked by 150 percent." Rupar was referring to Trump's repeated insistence on calling the coronavirus the "Chinese virus" -- going against widely accepted public health guidelines that warn against titling disease outbreaks after nations or regions of the world to eliminate stigmatization -- and 2020 hate crime statistics in 16 U.S. cities compiled by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University. repeated insistence guidelines 2020 hate crime statistics About 20 minutes later, Rupar added:   The underlying claim was true  as authorities in the Atlanta area embarked on a manhunt to catch the suspect on the evening of March 16, Trump referred to the coronavirus as the "China virus" on Fox News. a manhunt to catch the suspect But let this be clear: No evidence explicitly connected the former president's use of the term on national television with the tragedy unfolding simultaneously in Georgia. Furthermore, it was unclear whether he was even aware of the mass shooting when he said "China virus" while talking about unrelated matters -- specifically, his presidential administration's approach to the American economy. The interviewer did not ask him about the Atlanta-are shooting. Here's what happened: Between roughly 6 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. EDT, according to The Associated Press, the victims' bodies were reported inside massage parlors, and authorities arrested the suspected gunman -- Robert Aaron Long, of Woodstock, Georgia -- as he was driving on the interstate. Meanwhile, at 7 p.m. EDT, Trump called in for a phone interview with Fox News' Maria Bartiromo, a recording of which Snopes obtained via the media outlet's website and is displayed below. Maria Bartiromo Throughout much of the interview, the former president lambasted his successor's approach to immigration, criticized election security, and took credit for the ongoing efforts to provide COVID-19 vaccinations to every American willing to get one. Then, at approximately the 5-minute mark, he said: immigration COVID-19 [The economy] was recovering under my administration -- twice. We got it to a level that the world has never seen before. We were the envy of the world and then when we got hit by the, as I call it, 'the China virus' -- COVID -- it obviously went down along with every other economy. And then we were the first to get it back up. You can watch the segment here: On 19 December 2016, a photograph purportedly showing a Russian flag on display at the Texas State Capitol was circulated on social media:  Many social media users shared the above-displayed photograph along with claims that it showed pro-Russian elements celebrating Donald Trump's election and insinuated that Russia had helped installed him as the next President of the United States. In fact, this image actually shows a group of demonstrators who were protesting Trump's election on the day Texas' electors met to cast their ballots for him, taken by a Texas Tribune photographer who goes by the handle @BobPhoto on Twitter: Russian flag flies at Texas Capitol prior to #ElectoralCollege @TexasTribune @bobphoto #txlege pic.twitter.com/0pcYFoY3bA #ElectoralCollege @TexasTribune @bobphoto #txlege pic.twitter.com/0pcYFoY3bA  bobphoto (@bobphoto) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016  Guys with Russian flag in line House gallery #ElectoralCollege #txlege @TexasTribune @bobphoto pic.twitter.com/PZ9YqtRdMj  bobphoto (@bobphoto) December 19, 2016 #ElectoralCollege #txlege @TexasTribune @bobphoto pic.twitter.com/PZ9YqtRdMj December 19, 2016  Aliyya Swaby, another reporter for the Texas Tribune, added some more context to these photographs when she shared an image of the protesters outside of the capitol building: Joke contingent of pro-Russia supporters shows up to "protect our investment" and ensure electors vote Trump pic.twitter.com/xuod4x3tWk pic.twitter.com/xuod4x3tWk  Aliyya Swaby (@AliyyaSwaby) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016  This display was not one celebrating Trump's alleged friendly relationship with Russia; it was a tongue-in-cheek message delivered by a group of protesters. Well-rounded vegan diets may be less hazardous and better for the health of dogs compared to conventional meat or raw meat diets, according to research published in April 2022.  Pets are multibillion-dollar industries. According to estimates published in 2018, there are 471 million pet dogs and 373 million pet cats worldwide, which sets the international worth of pet food sales at nearly 132 billion euros. Such high demand has a large impact on the environment, particularly in the sourcing of the animal and agricultural products that make up pet food. Feeding pets is also a lucrative market. In 2020, the vegan pet food market alone was worth $8.7 billion in the U.S., and was expected to grow to over $15 billion in the next six years expected Because pets and their nutrition represent large shares of both the economy and its production line, researchers at the University of Winchester in the U.K. set out to determine what diets are best for the health of pets. To determine the links between diet and health, the team advertised an online survey through social media between May and December 2020 to determine the links between diet and health, and analyzed the data of more than 2,500 dogs that were included in survey responses from the pets' guardians.  Each dog had been living with its guardian for at least one year. About half were fed conventional meat-based diets, around one-third raw meat, and 13% were fed a vegan diet. The survey included questions about the dogs health, such as veterinary visits, medications, and overall health disorders, and consulted both the guardian and a veterinarian on its health status.  We believe our study of 2,536 dogs is by far the largest study published to date, exploring health outcomes of dogs fed vegan and meat-based diets, wrote the researchers in a news release.  news release It analyzed a range of objective data, as well as owner opinions and reported veterinary assessments of health. It revealed that the healthiest and least hazardous dietary choices for dogs, are nutritionally sound vegan diets.   Figures show the three main diets fed to the 2,536 dogs included in the survey. PLOS One  PLOS One Publishing their work in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS One, the team found that overall, dogs on conventional meat diets were less healthy than those on raw meat or vegan diets. Previously it was thought that raw meat diets were linked to an increased risk of pathogen exposure, while vegan diets may result in nutritional deficiencies. But when necessary hygienic and nutritional supplements were taken into consideration, both diets were, by and large, shown to be healthier and less hazardous to the canine consumer.  peer-reviewed PLOS One In summary, when jointly considering health outcomes and dietary hazards, our results and those of other studies indicate that the healthiest and least hazardous dietary choices for dogs, are nutritionally sound vegan diets, concluded the researchers. However, there are several limitations to the study that should be taken into consideration. For one, it could be the case that dogs given a raw meat diet were not necessarily healthier than those given a conventional diet, but rather that their guardians might have been less likely to take their pets to a veterinarian. Because the frequency of veterinarian visits was considered a health indication, this internal bias may have skewed the results. Furthermore, dogs given a raw meat diet tended to be younger in age than those eating other diets, which could further explain why they were deemed healthier.  The study authors also didnt factor in the sex or breed of each dog, a limitation that may have influence the results given that certain breeds are more prone to illness than others.  Lets also look at the structure of the study itself. Participating guardians were asked to consider the main ingredients within your pets normal diet, which means that a pet may not have been fed the identified diet exclusively, nor were treats or other dietary supplements excluded. It was also an opinion-based study in which respondents gave their thoughts on a dogs health in a non-standardized way. Additionally, because the survey was conducted online, this required that respondents have internet access and the time necessary to complete the survey, which may have excluded pet guardians of lower income statuses.  Lastly, there is an inherent unconscious bias within the study structure, which means that a given guardian might have been expecting a better health outcome based on the preferred diet, and this expectation could have influenced how they responded to the survey question.  While there is now scientific evidence to suggest that both raw meat and vegan diets are better than conventional diets alone, the study authors said more research is needed to determine which of the two is associated with better dog health outcomes. Dog guardians should ensure that all aspects of their dogs nutrition are being met, regardless of primary diet preference. Check pet food labels and check with manufacturers to make sure that healthy practices are in place to provide nutritional soundness.  https://www.theinsightpartners.com, The Insight Partners. Vegan Pet Food Market to Grow at a CAGR of 7.7% to Reach US$ 15,651.22 Million from 2020 to 2028. The Insight Partners, https://www.theinsightpartners.com/reports/vegan-pet-food-market. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. Vegan Pet Food Market to Grow at a CAGR of 7.7% to Reach US$ 15,651.22 Million from 2020 to 2028. The Insight Partners, https://www.theinsightpartners.com/reports/vegan-pet-food-market. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. Knight, Andrew, et al. Vegan versus Meat-Based Dog Food: Guardian-Reported Indicators of Health. PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 4, Apr. 2022, p. e0265662. PLoS Journals, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265662. Vegan Diets for Dogs May Be Linked with Better Health, and Could Be Less Hazardous, than Meat-Based Diets. EurekAlert!, https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/948887. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022. FACT CHECK: Did Kentucky hire an Amish DMV clerk who refused to issue driver's licenses based on her religious beliefs?      Claim:  Kentucky hired an Amish DMV clerk who refused to issue driver's licenses based on her religious beliefs.    Example:   [Collected via Twitter and Facebook, August 2015] Why can't an Amish worker at a DMV refuse to give out driver's licenses? pic.twitter.com/fntubM4XGB pic.twitter.com/fntubM4XGB  Hamybear (@hamybear) August 16, 2015 August 16, 2015    Origins: On 26 June 2015, the Supreme Court's decision in the case Obergefell vs. Hodges [PDF] held that same-sex couples were guaranteed the right to marry under both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Almost immediately, that decision led to a number of rumors and viral claims; that pedophiles would soon be granted similar rights, that Joe Biden had gone on a victory spree, and that Facebook had begun tracking the political beliefs of users via a celebratory rainbow filter for profile pictures.) PDF pedophiles Joe Biden rainbow filter Tangential rumors circulated pertaining to individuals and businesses who subsequently (or previously) went out on a limb for their religious opposition to marriage equality, which included a false claim involving a pastor purportedly  jailed for refusing to marry a gay couple and the true case of an Oregon bakery ordered to pay damages stemming from a pre-decision refusal to serve a same-sex couple. The meme displayed above was inspired by Kentucky court clerk named Kim Davis, who unwittingly starred in a viral video during which she refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple shortly after the June 2015 Supreme Court ruling. jailed bakery Kim Davis On 12 August 2015, U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning ordered Davis [PDF] to begin issuing licenses as requested. Bunning wrote in his ruling that by "openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others," Davis had violated the law, adding: ordered PDF Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. The humorous image above was clearly created to poke fun at Davis over the legal dispute (and the general issue of allowing personal religious beliefs to trump the requirements of employment and public service), a subtlety lost on many social media users who hadn't heard of the marriage license controversy in Kentucky and consequently didn't get the joke. The jape partially relies outsider assumptions about Amish  culture, one of which is the notion that Amish people are prohibited from driving due to their religion. That's not precisely accurate, as use of a horse-and-buggy over cars is primarily a cultural choice and not part of a specific anti-automobile religious edict applied to everyone: Amish anti-automobile Although the Amish are allowed to use automobiles for social and business functions, the church rules prohibit members from owning as well as driving a car. Amish businessmen are also not allowed to provide loans to non-Amish employees for the purpose of buying a vehicle. Ownership of an automobile is considered a taboo. It is important to the community to maintain the horse and buggy as a symbol of Amish identity. The joke also leans on a (fallacious) assumption that Amish citizens neither seek nor require state driver's licenses, part of a broad, inaccurate perception of the community as frightened of the outside world. The Amish often need state-issued ID for a variety of day-to-day purposes, including the operation of lucrative businesses (contrary to the belief Amish people reject wealth and/or financial success entirely or that they lack awareness of modern conventions). Photographic requirements have presented problems for Amish people seeking licenses, however, as their traditions generally favor the avoidance of photography. (Yet another misconception asserts the practice is due to a primitive, uneducated fear that the camera might "steal" a person's soul; in actuality, it's more due to intentional humility and not a fear of technology.) state-issued ID variety operation photography fear steal soul While the meme seen here satirizes the imposition of religious belief on outsiders by a presumably stricter sect, it should be noted that Amish communities are known for a marked disinclination to interact with the "English" world save for necessary circumstances. Although their religious beliefs are notoriously stringent, Amish folks are far likelier to be encroached upon by a conflict of law and faith than the other way around. disinclination Last updated:  17August 2015 Originally published: 17August 2015 Candidate for California governorDelaine Eastinsays she wants to create an economy that works for everyone. But with the states affordable housing crisis and deep poverty, Eastin believes thats not happening now, especially for young people. People become cynical, she wrote in an Oct. 11, 2017op-edin theSan Francisco Chroniclebecause the path to a brighter future is becoming more remote. Eastin continued: Ninety percent of people born in the 1940s ended up doing better financially than their parents. But those born in the 1980s, the much-maligned Millennials, have only a 50-50 chance of doing better (financially) than their parents, despite being the best-educated generation in our history. Millennialsare typically considered the children of the Baby Boomers and older Gen Xers. They were born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s. We wanted to know whether Eastin was right about this dramatic decline in children doing better than their parents. We set out on a fact check. Eastins background Eastin is one of several Democrats vying to succeed Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018. She served in the State Assembly from 1986 to 1994 and then as State Superintendent of Public Instruction from 1995 to 2003. She was the first, and remains, the only woman to hold that position. In addition to her desire to create a more equitable economy, Eastin has advocated for greater investment in education, the adoption of universal health care and continued work on climate change during her run for governor. Our research We asked Eastins campaign for evidence supporting her claim about millennials and their financial prospects. Jon Murchinson, her campaign spokesman, told us the statement is based on conclusions in aDecember 2016 studyby the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. The study is called The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Its findings, indeed, show that the fraction of children earning more than their parents has plummeted -- from 90 percent for children born in the 1940s to 50 percent for those born in the 1980s. The study accounted for inflation, taxes and other changes between the generations. Its basically a coin flip as to whether youll do better than your parents, Stanford economistRaj Chetty, one of the studys authors, said in anews releaseannouncing the studys publication in December 2016. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project Reached by email this week, Chetty told us Eastins characterization of this trend appears accurate. David Grusky, the studys co-author and director of Stanfords Center on Poverty and Inequality, added that Eastins statement is a fair summary of our headline conclusion. The Stanford study doesnt examine whether millennials are the best-educated generation in our history. That part of Eastins statement, however, was substantiated in a recentsurveyby the Pew Research Center. It found 27 percent of millennial women and 21 percent of millennial men had completed at least a bachelors degree by age 33. That was slightly higher than the percentages for men and women at the same age from Baby Boomer to Generation X populations. Inside the study While Eastin appears to have correctly represented the reports findings, we wanted to know how the Stanford researchers came to their conclusions and whether other researchers agreed with them. Grusky told us the report used millions of Internal Revenue Service records and Census data to compare income between parents and children. The report specifically looked at people born between 1940 and 1984 and measured household income for parents and children when both were 30 years old. Even after accounting for changes between the generations, such as millennials entering the workforce at an older age than their parents, Grusky said the findings on upward mobility did not change significantly. Only slightly more than 50 percent of children at age 40 had higher income compared with their parents income when their parents were 30 years old. Unequal growth The Stanford study also accounted for the rapid economic growth experienced during the Baby Boomer generation, when the nations post-World War II economy created a surge of new jobs and industries. Assuming both generations had experienced the same economic growth rates, Grusky said only 62 percent of millennials would do better than their parents. The key factor holding back broader financial success of this younger generation, the report concluded, was todays inequality of growth. Financial success, Grusky said, has become concentrated among a smaller share of families compared with the recent past. Ensuring that financial success is distributed more widely would make a lot of headway toward millennials doing better than their parents in future years, the researcher added. The report found declines in upward mobility for millennials across all 50 states. The biggest drops took place in Rust Belt states such as Ohio, Illinois and Michigan, Grusky said. Millennials in states such as California, New York and Massachusetts saw, on average, less substantial declines. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project For this study, Grusky said, researchers were not able to factor in student debt or address how people of different races and ethnicities are affected by the mobility trends. Behind the starting line Tom Allison, deputy policy and research director atYoung Invincibles, said the Stanford research is right in line with theconclusions reachedby his Washington D.C.-based group. Young Invincibles advocates for expanding economic opportunities for young adults and encouraging them to get involved in the political process. Allison said the Stanford study is both transparent and relies on credible public data. Factors from the Great Recession to student debt to globalization have all put millennials behind the starting line compared with their parents, he said. That is a cornerstone of the American Dream, Allison continued, that if you work hard and play by the rules, then you can exceed the living standards of your parents. And weve seen a precipitous decline in that. Our ruling Delaine Eastin recently claimed millennials have only a 50-50 chance of doing better financially than their parents, while those born in the 1940s had a 90 percent chance of doing better than their parents. Her claim is supported by a 2016 Stanford study, The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Stanford researchers found stronger economic growth combined with a broader distribution of that growth during the Baby Boomer generation drove greater upward mobility for people born in the 1940s. They said financial success has become more concentrated in recent decades, leaving millennials with much lower odds of doing better than their parents. Even after accounting for changes, such as inflation and millennials starting work at older ages, they found todays younger generation faces comparatively smaller odds of earning more than their parents. Other research, notably by the advocacy group Young Invincibles, agreed with the Stanford findings. We rate her claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Around 25 July 2016, various versions of the claim reproduced above began circulating, suggesting that Representative Elijah Cummings incorrectly stated Democrats were responsible for giving black people the right to vote during his 2016 Democratic National Convention speech: speech   The portion most in line with the meme included the following remarks: It was our Democratic party that pushed open the opportunities for me and millions of children across this great country. It was our party that fought for head start and good schools. And made college affordable and championed affirmative actions and school desegregation, that passed Social Security and Medicare, that fought for veterans back home, that fought for the rights of workers and made the dream of home ownership possible for millions of american families. Yes, it still is our Democratic party. Civil rights and voting rights -- and voting rights. As we democrats -- it is we Democrats who fully understand when you take away a person's right to vote, you take away their ability to shape their own destiny. And it was and it is our democratic party that fights for women's rights, gay rights, the LGBTQ rights. Our party understands that black lives matter. Cummings' quote was ambiguous, but he appeared to say that the Democrats "fought" for civil rights and voting rights, a fairly open-ended statement. Many critics held that Cummings' statement was incorrect based on historical fact: The 15th Amendment to the Constitution granted African American men the right to vote by declaring that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized for almost a century. Through the use of poll taxes, literacy tests and other means, Southern states were able to effectively disenfranchise African Americans. It would take the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before the majority of African Americans in the South were registered to vote. The meme reproduced above stated that 141 Republicans voted to approve the 15th Amendment, with zero Democrats in favor, 39 no votes, and seven abstentions.  According to the Library of Congress the vote was as follows: voted The House of Representatives passed the 15th Amendment on February 25, 1869, by a vote of 144 to 44 The Senate passed the 15th Amendment on February 26, 1869, by a vote of 39 to 13. The text of the 15th Amendment can be found in the United States Statutes at Large, volume 16, page 346 (15 Stat. 346).Secretary of State Hamilton Fish issued a proclamation certifying the ratification of the 15th Amendment by the states on March 30, 1870. A detailed tally of Senate Vote #586 in January 1869 indicated support by Republicans with 33 "yea" votes, and zero for Democrats: indicated   While the meme was close to accurate in providing tallies by party for votes on the 15th amendment, it was less so with Cummings' remarks. Putting aside the fact it did not mention any changes in party dynamics between the 1940s and 1970s [PDF], it also misconstrued Cummings' statements to suggest that he incorrectly attributed the 15th amendment specifically to Democrats and not Republicans. PDF  C-SPAN.  "Representative Elijah Cummings Delivers Remarks at the Democratic National Convention."
  25 July 2016. PBS.  "Passage Of The Fifteenth Amendment."
  (Undated.) Library of Congress.  "15th Amendment To The Constitution."
  (Undated.) C-SPAN.  "Representative Elijah Cummings Delivers Remarks at the Democratic National Convention."
  25 July 2016.