Did Clarence Thomas Say 'God Only Knows Where I Would Be' Without Affirmative Action?
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court "severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions," as described by Amy Howe at SCOTUS Blog: described By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which bars racial discrimination by government entities. [...] Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student "must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual  not on the basis of race," Roberts wrote. [...] Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Roberts opinion. Clarence Thomas' concurrence with the majority opinion led several media outlets to rehash an assertion that, at least for a period of time in the 1980s when he was chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Thomas's views on affirmative action programs were ambivalent  if not opportunist. This claim has been in recirculation since the Supreme Court announced that they had added cases challenging affirmative action to their docket: media outlets This claim recirculation  (@tonywolfness/Twitter) That claim appears to have first been raised following Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court  in a July 14, 1991 New York Times article titled "On Thomas's Climb, Ambivalence About Issue of Affirmative Action." That article cited a line from a January 1983 speech given by Thomas to employees of the EEOC: article In a 1983 speech to staff members at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which he then headed, he said that affirmative action laws were of "paramount importance" to him. "But for them, God only knows where I would be today," he said. "These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years." Though repeated in this way by several media outlets both during Thomas' Supreme Court nomination process in the 1990s and again in 2023, this is an incorrect paraphrase of Thomas's statements. Thomas's full remarks were published as a law article in the Journal of Labor Law in April 1983. repeated published When read with the full context of this speech, it is clear that the "them" used in the phrase "but for them" referred not to affirmative action laws in particular, but to equal employment opportunity laws  as articulated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964  more generally. The speech, broadly, was a defense of the EEOC's work during the Reagan administration, which faced criticism over a massive reduction in discrimination claims pursued under its leadership. faced criticism Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act  a landmark bill signed during the Lyndon Johnson Administration  prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The EEOC, which first began operations in 1965, was created as part of the 1964 Act as the agency tasked with investigating and enforcing Title VII violations. Title VII in 1965 Over the years, the EEOC has expanded to investigate and enforce violations of other Federal anti-discrimination laws including those against discrimination against pregnant women, age discrimination, and disability discrimination. By the end of the Carter administration, the EEOC had expanded considerably under chairwoman Eleanor Norton's tenure, as described in a March 1981 report: report Thanks in part to Ms Norton's streamlined methods, which enabled EEOC to process 50,000 cases per year during her tenure, she views the equal-employment field as "very stable now. We have had 10 years of extraordinary and deep court cases to build the law." "Even if they disbanded EEOC tomorrow," she said, "and there is no way they could, there would still be thousands of court cases presented each year based on precedent." Norton, here, was referencing an unpublished report commissioned by the Reagan transition team that was extremely critical of the EEOC, as reported by The Washington Post in January 1981: reported A Reagan administration advisory panel has urged that equal employment opportunity law and procedures to be changed so that much more evidence would be required to find a business guilty of discrimination and no business could be forced to adopt an "affirmative action" plan against its will. The advisory unit attacked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for having created a new racism in America in which every individual is judged by race." The group was led by J.A. Parker, a black and head of the Lincoln Institute, a conservative think tank that deals with black issues. Its unpublished report was sent to the then-president-elect last month. Following Reagan's inauguration, the chairmanship of the EEOC office was vacant until early 1982, when Thomas was tapped to lead the EEOC. Democrats, at the time, were skeptical of Thomas' commitment to alleviating discrimination. These concerns were not helped by a massive decline in cases pursued under Thomas, or by the massive reduction in the EEOC budget under Reagan, as reported in a 1983 article: was tapped skeptical 1983 article In Fiscal Year 1982, there was upwards of 70 percent fewer cases filed in court than in 1981 on behalf of grieved workers. EEOC employees report that, because of a lack of staff and resources, cases often receive perfunctory investigation and in many instances, charges have been dismissed or "no caused" because they would prove too difficult or time-consuming to process. The speech in question, delivered to employees of the EEOC, was a response to these criticisms and an attempt to clarify to his staff what Thomas felt the role of the EEOC should  and should not  be. In his remarks, Thomas cited "the changing nature of discrimination," and heralded inroads his EEOC had made in fighting age and gender discrimination: speech It should not be surprising that many of our most prominent cases involve allegations of age and sex discrimination, many resulting from reductions in force and forced retirement. This does not mean that charges of race, national origin, or religious discrimination are not filed with the EEOC and that the EEOC does not bring suit in such cases. It only means that there is now a special public and judicial sensitivity to cases involving age and women. Importantly, the speech is explicitly critical of the discourse surrounding affirmative action, and the policies Thomas advocated represented, at best, a muted skepticism toward the concepts' then-present use: represented No one in his right mind seriously questions the legal and moral bankruptcy of discrimination. The same unanimity of opinion does not exist for affirmative action. Affirmative action has been and will continue to be a subject of hot debate because mere mention of the term divides interest groups into two warring camps: one hotly in favor and one hotly opposed. [...] In their haste to condemn each other, the camps lose sight of the nature and purpose of equal employment opportunity laws. [...] This divisive debate results in general confusion and misunderstanding about affirmative action which, in turn, tends to undermine the effectiveness and legitimacy of the enforcement of civil rights laws. As the lead agency in the enforcement of federal equal employment opportunity laws, the EEOC cannot stand by and allow confusion about affirmative action to undermine our enforcement efforts. We must attempt to bring out and clarify the issues obscured by this debate. [...] Much of the heated debate and public confusion over affirmative action, in fact, stems from the confusion between flexible goals and inflexible quotas, and the use of these two distinct terms interchangeably. Thomas, in his speech, expressed the view that "too much posturing" had taken place over the debate about affirmative action, but he also affirmed that affirmative action programs had been "critical to minorities and women in this society." The section of the speech paraphrased to claim that Thomas was once amenable to affirmative action followed the above remarks: followed It is my view that too much posturing has taken place on issues such as affirmative action, which are critical to minorities and women in this society. The problems which we face in the area of equal employment opportunity must be solved. For the most part, they must be solved by applying legal principles of paramount importance to me. But for them, God only knows where I would be today. [...] These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second. The reference to the "first 17 years" of his life is an allusion to statements Thomas made in the opening of this speech, when Thomas referenced "the fact that the Chairman of the EEOC spent 17 years of his life (one-half) under strict segregation." This connection, along with the broader context of the speech, makes it clear that "these laws" are those contained in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. opening The 1964 Civil Rights Act ended segregation when Thomas was a few months shy of 17. It also created the "equal employment opportunity laws" at issue under Title VII that provide the EEOC the audience of his speech  with its legal authority. At the end of his speech, during this second allusion to the end of segregation, Thomas warned against the improper use of those laws, even when used with good intention: shy of 17 I abhor any effort to twist, bend, or distort them [legal principles] for any reasons, whether such distortions are said to help or hurt minorities or women. No one should be permitted to turn these laws on their heads just because they have good intentions. These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second. In sum, Thomas did not present anything more than a muted acknowledgement of the EEOC's role in some forms of affirmative action, and the laws or principles he was referring to in remarks that have since gone viral did not concern affirmative action specifically, but the principles contained within the 1964 Civil Rights Act more broadly. 1964 Civil Rights Act That Thomas, who recently ruled against the use of racial quotas in college admissions, would have described affirmative action as "critical to minorities and women in this society" has been painted as an example of Thomas' hypocrisy on affirmative action. The portion of the speech often cited to make this point is mischaracterized, even if that point has validity. Specifically, the 1991 reporting in The New York Times reported, as its primary scoop, that Yale Law School had a 10 percent minority goal the year in which Thomas applied to and was accepted into the program: 1991 reporting Judge Clarence Thomas, who came to prominence as a fierce black critic of racial preference programs, was admitted to Yale Law School under an explicit affirmative action plan with the goal of having blacks and other minority members make up about 10 percent of the entering class, university officials said. Under the program, which was adopted in 1971, the year Judge Thomas applied, blacks and some Hispanic applicants were evaluated differently from whites, the officials said. Nonetheless, they were not admitted unless they met standards devised to predict they could succeed at the highly competitive school. [...] "We did adopt an affirmative action program and it was pretty clearly stated," said Prof. Abraham S. Goldstein, who was dean of the Law School from 1970 to 1975. Thomas has also acknowledged this part of his history, as reported in 1980 by The Washington Post. "The worst experience of his life," he reportedly explained at the time, "was attending college and law school with whites who believed he was there only because of racial quotas for the admission of blacks." as reported Frank Washington, a Yale friend interviewed by Newsweek in 1991, said that Thomas had, in private, "recognized that affirmative action helped to get him into law school, but on the basis of economic deprivation rather than race." interviewed While there are separate arguments to be made of the notion that Thomas' views on affirmative action are hypocritical due to his personal benefit from such programs, removing context from a speech to make it sound like that alleged hypocrisy was more overtly stated is misleading. Because the laws and principles Thomas was referring to were those contained in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and not any specific affirmative action legislation, the claim is False. Bella, Timothy. "The Time Clarence Thomas Said Affirmative Action Was 'Critical' for Society." Washington Post, 1 July 2023. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/06/30/clarence-thomas-affirmative-action/. "Black Conservatives, Center Stage." Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/12/16/black-conservatives-center-stage/c5b44552-ad84-4a40-9b3c-3e88fdfa3589/. Accessed 5 July 2023. Clarence Thomas in 1983: "God Only Knows Where" I Would Be If Not for Affirmative Action - Alternet.Org. https://www.alternet.org/clarence-thomas-1983-affirmative-action/. Accessed 5 July 2023. Current Litigation Trends and Goals at the EEOC - ProQuest. https://www.proquest.com/openview/1a991116c071ffe6a6547f7505c13f63/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1816463. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Eagleton Backs EEOC Nominee With Reluctance." Newspapers.Com, 1 Apr. 1982, https://www.newspapers.com/article/st-louis-post-dispatch-eagleton-backs-e/127670235/. "Federal Agency Reformer Leaves with No Misgivings." Newspapers.Com, 10 Mar. 1981, https://www.newspapers.com/article/arizona-republic-federal-agency-reformer/127564899/. "New EEOC Nomination." Newspapers.Com, 1 Mar. 1982, https://www.newspapers.com/article/athol-daily-news-new-eeoc-nomination/127670013/. "Regan Undermines EEOC Enforcement." Newspapers.Com, 5 Feb. 1983, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-atlanta-voice-regan-undermines-eeoc/127667015/. Rich, Spencer. "Reagan Panel, Citing 'New Racism,' Urges Easing of EEOC Rules." Washington Post, 30 Jan. 1981. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/01/30/reagan-panel-citing-new-racism-urges-easing-of-eeoc-rules/dfd79721-7bbc-4ef0-91a3-ee5425904abe/. "Supreme Court Strikes down Affirmative Action Programs in College Admissions." SCOTUSblog, 29 June 2023, https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-programs-in-college-admissions/. "Timeline of Important EEOC Events." US EEOC, https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/timeline-important-eeoc-events. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." US EEOC, https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964. Accessed 5 July 2023.
In late June 2021, social media users shared a meme misinforming viewers that Walmart and other large businesses were taking customers' point-of-sale charitable donations and writing them off on their taxes. Readers have been asking Snopes about this meme since at least August 2020. The meme addresses a phenomenon called "checkout charity," in which many large businesses ask customers to donate a small amount to a charitable cause upon checkout:   according to What happens to the money you donate at the cash register? This is where you round up your bill to give to a charity designated by the retailer, and the donation amount appears on your receipt. The store serves only as a collection agent for your gift. Assuming the business is following the law, it will not include your donation as part of its business receipts, or income, nor will it claim the charitable gift as an expense. In other words, your gift has zero impact on the stores income taxes. Keep in mind that the store chooses the receiving charity, so make sure it is one you can support. As a customer, the donation will appear on your receipt and you can claim it as a charitable deduction when you file your income tax return. But you probably wont. A whopping nine out of ten customers don't write those donations off, even with a receipt, according to the Tax Policy Center, which estimates only 9% of households claim deductions for charitable donations. according to The Tampa Bay Times reported that the practice is gaining in popularity because both charities and businesses benefit from it: reported "Checkout charity, as it's sometimes called, has become big business for nonprofits and retailers. Charities love it because it raises money from the masses at little cost. Companies love it because it makes them look caring and generous, even if it comes on the backs of customers." On 18 February 2016, the Facebook page "I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists" posted a meme featuring a photograph of Papa John's CEO John Schnatter along with a quote ostensibly uttered by him about not sharing company profits with employees:   Although several web sites, such as AZ Quotes, Sherman's Wilderness, and the Straight Dopemessage board,have attributed this phrase to Schnatter, none of these web sites conclusively documents where or when Schnatter purportedly made this statement. In fact, our attempt to source this quote led us through a never-ending circle of memes; in the end, we found no record in any credible publication linking Schnatter to these words. AZ Quotes Sherman's Wilderness Straight Dope The quote was likely created in an attempt to paraphrase comments the Papa John's CEOmade in 2012, just before the implementation of the Affordable Care Act: comments "Our best estimate is that the Obamacare will cost 11 to 14 cents per pizza, or 15 to 20 cents per order from a corporate basis. "We're not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry. But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare. "If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interest." In November 2012, Schnatter wrote an op-ed piecefor the Huffington Post, maintaining that some of his comments had been taken out of context. piece A law professor running against U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of South Florida says she is in the pocket of big banks and isnt looking out for consumers who get crushed by debt from payday loans. My opponent, after taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks, has voted to prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFTP) from regulating payday loans and addressing racial discrimination in car loans, said Tim Canova on hiswebsite. Canova, a first-time candidate and professor at Nova Southeastern University, is challenging Wasserman Schultz in the August Democratic primary in a Broward/Miami-Dade district. The race has drawn national attention because Wasserman Schultz is the Democratic National Committee chair. Did Canova accurately describe her donations from banks and her votes related to payday loans and car loans? There is some truth to his attack, but each one requires explanation. Donations from Wall Street banks Canovas campaign pointed to donations from banks, securities/investment firms and finance/credit companies to Wasserman Schultzs campaign committee and her political action committee, or PAC. At PolitiFact Floridas request, the Center for Responsive Politics compiled the large individual donations (more than $200) and donations to her PAC starting with her 2006 election. The center found she received $309,020 from commercial banks, which represented about 2 percent of the total; $408,450 from securities/investment firms, and $325,850 from finance/credit companies. Her leadership PAC, Democrats Win Seats, received donations from the Goldman Sachs PAC:$5,000 in 2016and$10,000in 2014. Wasserman Schultz spokesman Sean Bartlett pointed to donations only to her campaign and plucked out what he said were the big bank donations. That totaled $15,400, including $4,000 from Goldman Sachs. But the Center for Responsive Politics shows a longer list of bank donations even if we only examine her campaign committee. It shows$171,303 for commercial bankindustry donations. Payday loan bill Payday loans are small, short-term loans that borrowers promise to repay out of their next paycheck at ahigh rateof interest. It is a controversial industry that targets the poor and is disproportionately located in minority communities. For years, payday loans were unregulated by the federal government, although some states had their own laws. President Barack Obama took a step toward regulating the industry when he signed a bill in 2010 that included the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans have targeted the bureau for years. Enter some Democrats into the fray -- including Wasserman Schultz, who has gotten about $68,000 from payday lenders, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Wasserman Schultz is among Florida lawmakers who have defended Floridas payday law despite the fact that some consumer advocates have bashed it and say it traps the poor in a debt cycle. Wasserman Schultzs position is to give precedence to the state law, her spokesman said. On the federal level, the bureau released anoutline of payday loan rulesin March 2015 and is expected to announce a more complete proposal within the next several months. Congress doesnt have to approve it but can introduce legislation to kill it. All but one member of Floridas congressional delegation (Tom Rooney) signed aletterin April 2015 pushing back against the proposed rules. Instead, they want the bureau to look at Floridas law as a model. That led U.S. Rep. Dennis Ross, a Florida Republican, to file the Consumer Protection and Choice Act,H.R. 4018in November. Half of the 24 cosponsors are from Florida, including Wasserman Schultz, and nine of the cosponsors are Democrats. Canovas website said Wasserman Schultz voted on the bill, but it was only referred to a committee without a vote. (After we pointed that out to Canova senior adviser Richard Bell, the campaign changed the website to say co-sponsored instead of voted.) The bill states that if the bureau determines that a states law meets the federal requirements, then only state law will apply. It would also delay federal regulations for two years, which would allow states to come up with their own laws. More than 200 consumer or civil rights groups -- including the NAACP, National Council of La Raza, Southern Poverty Law Center and the Consumer Federation of America -- wrote aletterto Congress urging them to defeat the bill. They argued that the bill favors an industry-backed Florida law and would hurt consumers. Floridas 2001 payday loan law was a compromise and included protections that were intended to help the poor avoid an endless cycle of debt. But the loans leave consumers stuck on a debt treadmill in Florida, where they have racked up $2.5 billion in fees since 2005, according to the Center for Responsible Lendings Marchreport. In the past year, the average Florida payday loan had an annual rate of 278 percent. Richard Cordray, head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, disputed Ross description of Floridas law as the gold standard during a congressional hearing on March 16. In Florida, these loans are still being made above the 300 percent, and they are being rolled over on average nine times, Cordraysaid. Bartlett argued that Wasserman Schultz has fought against abusive payday lending practices and pointed to her vote on a separate bill in 2015. She voted against HR 766, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act, which opponents argued would have prevented the Justice Department from going after the financial industry. Racial discrimination in car loans Canova also said Wasserman Schultz prevented action to stop racial discrimination for car loans. This part of Canovas attack relates to a2013 bulletinfrom the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which recommended steps for auto lenders to avoid discrimination. The bulletin was intended to provide clarity about existing law. But theHouse of Representativespushed back against the bureau by passing a bill to nullify the bulletin. The bill passed the House 332-96 in November 2015 and hasnt had a vote in the Senate. Wasserman Schultz was one of 88 Democrats who voted in favor of it, while 96 Democrats opposed it. Proponentsof the bill -- including auto dealers -- said the bureaus efforts would increase costs for consumers. Groups that representedminoritieswanted the new guidelines. This legislation in no way prevented the CFPB from addressing racial discrimination in car loans, and the congresswoman does not support that as a policy position, her spokesman said. The bill hasnt been acted on, and discrimination investigations can continue. A few months after the House vote,Toyotaagreed to a $21.9 million settlement to black and Asian buyers. Our ruling Canova says Wasserman Schultz after taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks, has voted to prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from regulating payday loans and addressing racial discrimination in car loans. Her campaign committee and PAC have taken $309,020 from commercial banks since her re-election campaign in 2006 -- about 2 percent of the total. That includes $15,000 in donations from Goldman Sachs to her leadership PAC. The payday loan bill hasnt had a vote in the House yet, although Wasserman Schultz is a co-sponsor. The bill would not prevent the bureau from regulating payday loans entirely, but it would cede power to the states, including Florida, which has its own payday law that some advocates have criticized as weak. She voted for a bill that squashed bureau guidelines that were intended to provide clarity about the law on racial discrimination related to car loans. We rate this claim Mostly True. A popular meme in March 2019 questioned why Bill Clinton had "paid Paula Jones $850K to go away" yet the FBI hadn't raided his lawyer's office. The meme was an obvious reference to two completely unrelated issues separated by decades: a 1994 lawsuit involving Clinton and a search warrant executed by the FBI in April 2018 at the office of President Donald Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen.  In short, the major differences in the cases referenced by the meme  one of which involved an FBI raid on a lawyer's office and the other not  were as follows: Clinton openly paid Jones $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit well after he became president and well after Jones had had a chance to air her allegations to the public, press, and court system, while Trump secretly used an intermediary to pay hush money to porn actress Stormy Daniels just ahead of a presidential election in order to keep her allegations that she had an affair with him from reaching the public and influencing the election results against him. Nothing Clinton did in settling Jones' civil lawsuit was illegal (or even potentially illegal), but Trump's payment of hush money to Daniels through his lawyer was possibly an illegal act on the part of Trump and/or Cohen, hence the raid on the latter's office but not the office of Clinton's lawyer. On 6 May 1994, Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton just days before the statute of limitations would have expired. In her lawsuit, she maintained that on 8 May 1991, she was working the registration desk at Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Third Annual Governor's Quality Management Conference was being held, an event Bill Clinton (then governor of Arkansas) attended to deliver a speech. Jones alleged that an Arkansas state trooper, Danny Ferguson, approached her at the registration desk, told her that Clinton would like to meet with her, and escorted her to a business suite in the hotel where Clinton was staying. lawsuit According to Jones, once she entered Clinton's hotel suite he complimented her on her physical appearance, put his hand on her leg, attempted to kiss her on the neck, asked her if she was married, and finally lowered his trousers to expose his erect penis and asked Jones to "kiss it." When Jones rebuffed Clinton's advances, she said, he told her to "keep this between ourselves" and suggested that, in her words, he "could damage her in her job and even jeopardize her employment." Jones did not publicly discuss the incident until The American Spectator referenced it in a January 1994 article, apparently based on information provided by Trooper Ferguson: The American Spectator account asserts that a woman by the name of "Paula" told an unnamed trooper (obviously Defendant Ferguson), who had escorted "Paula" to Clinton's hotel room, that "she was available to be Clinton's regular girlfriend if he so desired," thus implying a consummated and satisfying sexual encounter with Clinton, as well as a willingness to continue a sexual relationship with him. These assertions are untrue. The American Spectator account also asserted that the troopers' 'official' duties included facilitating Clinton's cheating on his wife ... Since Jones ("Paula") was one of the women preyed upon by Clinton and his troopers, including by Defendant Ferguson, in the manner described above, those who read this magazine account could conclude falsely that Jones ("Paula") had a sexual relationship and affair with Clinton. Jones' reputation within her community was thus seriously damaged. Several months later, Jones filed her lawsuit against Clinton and Ferguson, seeking a total of $750,000 in compensation for damages and attorneys' fees on counts of sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The issue of whether Jones could sue a sitting president went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who upheld an appellate court decision that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society," and allowed Jones' case to proceed. However, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the lawsuit on 1 April 1998, holding that "the governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault," that "plaintiff's allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law," that "plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury," and that "there are no genuine issues for trial in this case." dismissed When it came to light a few months later that Clinton had lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during proceedings in Jones' lawsuit, Jones filed an appeal to reverse the dismissal and have her claims reinstated. On 13 November 1998, Clinton settled the matter by offering to pay Jones $850,000 in exchange for her agreement to drop her appeal, without admitting to or apologizing for the conduct alleged by Jones. appeal Porn actress Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Clifford) said she first met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada in July 2006. The two engaged in sex in Trump's hotel room, she claimed, and continued an "intimate relationship" into the following year. Daniels discussed her relationship with Trump in a 2011 interview for In Touch magazine, but the interview was not published at that time, reportedly because Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue over it when the magazine reached out to ask for comment. threatened In January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's personal attorney, Cohen, had arranged to pay Daniels $130,000 just weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election in exchange for her signing a nondisclosure agreement related to her alleged 2006 affair with Trump. reported The following month, Cohen confirmed that $130,000 had been paid to Daniels, but he maintained that he had used his personal funds for the payment, and that "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly." On 5 April 2018, Trump denied to reporters that he knew about the payment to Daniels. When pressed about why the payment had been made, Trump replied, "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen" and asserted he didn't know where the $130,000 had come from. Four days later, acting on a warrant from federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District obtained in part on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller's office, FBI agents seized a variety of material from Cohen's New York City office, home, and hotel room, including documents related to Cohen's payment to Daniels and to Karen McDougal, another woman who had alleged an affair with Trump. denied A month later, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of Trump's legal team, said that Trump had personally repaid Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Daniels, and that the reimbursement had been "funneled through a law firm." The following day, Trump contradicted his earlier claim that he didn't know about the payment by acknowledging that he had repaid Cohen, but he asserted the money "had nothing to do with the campaign." Rudy Giuliani contradicted In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges, including five counts of tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a financial institution, one count of being a "willful cause" of an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution, the latter two stemming from the "hush money" payments made to Daniels and McDougal. Prosecutors held that the payments made by Cohen violated federal campaign finance laws because they were meant to benefit the campaign but did not come from campaign contributions and were not reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The payments therefore constituted illegal in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign that violated laws limiting such donations to $2,700 and requiring their disclosure to the FEC. Whether Trump himself could be charged with engaging in a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws for his involvement in the hush money payments is still a matter of legal debate, but the issue took a dramatic turn in February 2019 when Cohen revealed before Congress that he was paid reimbursement for the hush money directly from Trump's personal bank account after Trump became president. legal debate revealed "Cohen's public testimony directly implicates Trump in serious campaign finance violations," former FECGeneral Counsel Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post. "Assuming Cohen is telling the truth about the purpose of the checks, the checks are documentary evidence supporting the allegation that Trump had Cohen pay Daniels $135,000 in hush money and then reimbursed Cohen." Washington Post All in all, events proved the FBI had good reason to raid Cohen's office, as they gathered evidence of multiple federal crimes (beyond just campaign finance violations) to which Cohen pleaded guilty. Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones was a settlement of a civil lawsuit that did not involve any criminal matter or criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was of no legitimate interest to law enforcement. The only commonality between the two cases was that they involved payments by politicians to women, but for very different reasons and circumstances. federal crimes Dowd, Katie.  "Are These the Checks Donald Trump Gave Michael Cohen for the Stormy Daniels Payment?"   San Francisco Chronicle.  27 February 2019. Goodman, Ryan and Andy Wright.  "Mueller's Roadmap: Major Takeaways from Cohen and Manafort Filings."   Just Security.  December 8, 2018 Rupar, Aaron.  "What's illegal About Trump's Hush Payments to Women, Briefly Explained."   Vox.  12 December 2018. Kelly, Matthew.  "In-Kind Contributions Are Boring ... Until Stormy Daniels Gets Involved."   OpenSecrets.org.  3 April 2018. Lord, Debbie.  "Michael Cohen Plea Deal: How Were Campaign Finance Laws Broken?"   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  22 August 2018. Associated Press.  "A Timeline of Key Moments in Trump-Stormy Daniels Saga."   4 May 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "A Timeline of Trumpworld's Changing Story on Stormy Daniels."   Vox.  4 May 2018. Samuels, Brett.  "Timeline: Trump, Cohen, Stormy Daniels and $130,000."   The Hill.  4 May 2018. Theobald, Bill.  "Why Hush Money Michael Cohen Paid Stormy Daniels Was an Illegal Campaign Donation."   USA Today.  14 December 2018. Kirby, Jen and Andrew Prokop.  "Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty to 8 Federal Crimes."   Vox.  21 August 2018. Stewart, Emily and Dylan Matthews.  "The Michael Cohen-Stormy Daniels Subplot, Explained."   Vox.  27 February 2019. Chalfant, Morgan.  "Prosecutors Submit Redacted Cohen Raid Documents Under Seal, Teeing Up Public Release."   The Hill.  28 February 2019. Reuters.  "Trump Says He Did Not Know About $130,000 Payment to Stormy Daniels."   5 April 2018. In late December 2020, a misleading online advertisement appeared to announce that Monica Lewinsky was dead and that her net worth stunned her family. It read: "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family At Age 47. Monica Lewinsky Leaves Behind A Net Worth That Will Boggle Your Mind." appeared   However, this was not true. She is alive, and despite what the ad claimed, there was no indication in the resulting story that her net worth shocked her family. The ad was sponsored by the Therapy Joker website and was hosted on the Yahoo! Gemini advertising service. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a 430-page story with the headline: "The Biggest Hollywood Celebrities & Their Incredible Net Worth  Can You Guess Who Has The Biggest Bank Account?" Lewinsky's net worth appeared on page 417. This meant that readers had to click "Next Page" 417 times to reach the page for Lewinsky: page 417 Monica Lewinsky: Activist and TV Personality - $500,000 Monica Samille Lewinsky is a lady of many skills. This popular American television personality is also a successful fashion designer, activist, and a former intern at the White House. The papparazi constantly followed her and she was a regular face in the media during her time at the White House. However, she made up her mind to leave all that behind and went on to pursue a different career. Besides that, she has also authored the book, Monica: Her Story which added to her fame. The London School of Economics and Political Science alumni [sic] is now 47 years old and is a popular television personality. She took a lavish apartment on rent and had quite a luxurious lifestyle. Her fleet of cars includes a Mini Cooper and a Cadillac. We hope she has a professional financial advisor is coming to her aid as far as her banking is concerned. Currently, the media personality, activist, and fashion designer has retained her fame and we hope Lewinsky does the same for the money shes accumulated over the years. The page mentioned nothing about Lewinsky's purported death, nor did it present any information about her family being stunned by her net worth. The misleading advertisement and exceptionally lengthy article reflect a strategy known in the advertising world as "arbitrage." The Therapy Joker website's goal was to make more money from ads displayed on each of the 430 pages than it cost to lure readers with the initial "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family" ad in the first place. The business and technology blog Margins defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." Margins also referred to it as "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." defined Lewinsky was a White House intern in the mid-1990s who became famous after her affair with former U.S. President Bill Clinton became a public scandal. In December 1998, Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the Senate did not vote to convict and remove him from office. He served the remainder of his second term in the White House. impeached We previously covered similar misleading net worth stories for Sean Connery, Jaleel White, Richard Gere, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, and Alex Trebek. Sean Connery Jaleel White Richard Gere Chuck Norris Clint Eastwood Alex Trebek Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us A viral alert proliferating on Facebook since February 2018 warns users to avoid clicking on links that promote entertainment apps or web sites offering them a glimpse of what they might look like as a bald person or as a member of the opposite sex. This is the full text of the alert, according to which these apps are controlled by "extreme hackers" out to invade your privacy: WARNING FACEBOOK There is a website link traveling around Facebook at an extraordinary rate which allows you "to see what you would look like as the opposite sex" and also one that lets you see what you look like "as a bald person". DO NOT enter these links, they are controlled by extreme hackers who are now gaining control of people's personal information and selling it on the black market. As soon as you have clicked share to Facebook it gives these hackers instant access to your own personal details and puts your family and friends personal details at risk. PLEASE SHARE TO MAKE YOUR FRIENDS AWARE As is typical of such alerts, certain features of actual Facebook apps that access personal information in users' profiles have been misconstrued as illegal and the security threat they pose is exaggerated. A number of apps of this kind are constantly promoted on Facebook. This example poses the question, "What would you look like as a bald person?":   Clicking on the link opens an external web page that instructs the user to log in with Facebook to see the results:   This disclaimer appears in fine print at the bottom of the page: This app uses data and contents only if they are publicly available or with the consent of the users. We kindly ask you to use the app only, if other users will not be affected adversely. *Only users who have reached the age of 16 may use this free function. You agree that your picture will be transmitted to the provider FaceApp (St. Petersburg, RU) for the sole purpose of its editing and will be deleted afterwards (data protection and objection notice). Users who log in are then presented with a dialogue box informing them that certain information (typically their Facebook profile data, photos, and e-mail address) will automatically be shared with the web site if they continue (although this particular one doesn't, some apps also request permission to post on the user's Facebook page). If they choose to continue, users are then presented with a selection of photos from their Facebook page and invited to choose one for the demonstration. The app displays the chosen photo side-by-side with an altered version depicting the subject without hair, and invites the user to like the app. It is all relatively harmless, but Facebook users should take seriously all notifications to the effect that they by using the app they are granting the company that provided it access to some of their personal data. We also advise reading the Terms of Service and Privacy notifications provided by such apps (usually via links somewhere on the associated web page) for a detailed description of what you're agreeing to. By granting access to your e-mail address, for example, you're agreeing to receive marketing e-mails and/or newsletters from that company. These pages are also where you would be notified if the company plans on sharing your data with third parties. Terms of Service Privacy Facebook provides this general overview of what types of information games and apps are allowed to collect when you install them: provides Keep in mind when you install an app, you give it permission to access your public profile, which includes your name, profile pictures, username, user ID (account number), networks and any info you choose to make publicly available. You also give the app other info to personalize your experience, including your friends list, gender, age range and locale. other info In short, the companies that offer apps like these aren't typically "hackers" (much less "extreme hackers," which sounds exciting, but we're not sure how one goes from being a mere hacker to an extreme one), nor do they sell your private data on the "black market." However, when you use such apps you do grant them access to personal information in your Facebook profile, which may also be shared with third parties. The moral of the story is: Use Facebook apps cautiously, but don't buy into fear-mongering warnings about them. An image purportedly showing a newspaper clipping featuring a story about a gay baboon raping several men near an African village regularly gets shared on social media: shared media   This is not a genuine news story, but a verbatim copy of a satirical article that was first published in April 2017 on the South Africa Morning Post web site: South Africa Morning Post Men at a village in the North West are leaving in fear over a big male baboon that likes to grope and bonk human males. The baboon is said to have attacked more than six men in the past week and whats baffling the villagers is the fact that the baboon only attacks guys and does not hurt its victims but rather performs sexual acts on top of the terrified victim and leaves. One victim, George Chiune said he was coming from the local shebeen when the baboon attacked him and pinned him down. I thought it wanted to kill me but realized it was after my bum,, George said.Five men were admitted to hospital yesterday after experiencing acute anal pains and fatigue. Doctors confirmed the men have anal cancer. The baboon, which has been nicknamed Somizi travels alone and this, according to animal behaviour specialist is a strange occurrence because baboons are known to ravel in troops. One specialist, Lizzie McKenzie said the baboon might be an outcast and chased away from its troop. That is why it is travelling alone but as to the reason its attacking only males, it beats me. I have never seen that behaviour in my 20 years in this field, she said. When journalists visited the village, all male school kids were said to be wearing dresses as a preventative measure until the baboon has been dealt with. A cached version of the page shows that this article was filed under the "satire" tag. Furthermore, the description on the web site's Facebook page states that the South Africa Morning Post publishes "Satire, Entertainment, Rumours and Bizarre stories from South Africa, and sometimes around the world." version page The person behind the Morning Post also mentioned the "gay baboon" article in an interview with the Mail & Guardian Africa. The unidentified writer used the homophobic text as an example of the fake news stories he publishes in order to fund his purportedly genuine journalistic efforts: Mail & Guardian Africa Advertising cant fund his journalism either. His real news site attracts just a fraction of the audience of his fake news sites and, therefore, a fraction of the income. There arent that many people interested in politics. I can earn a few hundred dollars a month from my news site, it performs so badly. But stuff about gay baboons, stuff about pastors saying they went to heaven, that goes viral, he says. It is still unclear whether this fake news story was ever picked up by a genuine newspaper. The text at the bottom of the story states that it was "printed by Hassan Mohiuddin at City Press, Talpur Road, Kara(...)" which appears to refer to a newspaper located on Talpur Road in Karachi, Pakistan. However, we could not locate a publisher or publication called "City Press" in Pakistan or an editor named Hassan Mohiuddin. Finally, we feel it is our responsibility to clear the pictured baboon's name. Although we are unsure who took the photograph, the earliest iteration we could find was posted to the web site Iloho.com by "oliviam" in August 2009 and shows a baboon relaxing in  not terrorizing  Cape Point, South Africa. The photograph was entitled "Baboon Beauty Queen": Iloho.com   Allison, Simon.   "The Zimbabwean Journalist Using Fake News to Fund Real News."
  Mail and Guardian Africa.  15 April 2017. South Africa Morning Post.  "Gay Baboon Terrorises African Village, Rapes 5 Men."
  15 April 2017. InJanuary 2016, a photograph purportedly showing musicians David Bowie and Motrhead frontman Lemmy together at a party started circulating online. The photograph was originally posted to the image sharing web site Imgur on 11 January 2016, along with a caption that referenced the deaths of both musicians. Lemmy passed away on 28 December 2015, and Bowie passed a short time later on 10 January 2016: Imgur Bowie Bowie and Lemmy are about to start the most rocking, stellar band ever.Rock In Peace you legends. The photograph went viral as fans of Motorhead and David Bowie mourned the loss ofthe two rock legends. Unfortunately, the above-displayed image is fake. The fake imageof David Bowie and Lemmy isa combination of two photographs: A 1972photoof Lemmy and an unidentified girlfriend, and another image of David Bowie and singer Claudia Lennear: photo     It's possible that David Bowie and Lemmy Kilmister met at some point during their careers, but the above-displayed photo is not proof of such a meeting. Is workforce participation lower in West Virginia than in any state? Thats what West Virginia University president Gordon Gee wrote in a recentop-ed. Gees Jan. 14 column in the State Journal newspaper was titled, An effective education system is key to West Virginias future. In the column, Gee wrote, As I often point out, our state does not have a job problem. It has a skills problem that leaves many high-paying jobs unfilled. We have the nations lowest workforce participation rate, which hovers around 50 percent, when the national average is about 63 percent. Is this claim accurate? We took a closer look. Economists say the most appropriate statistic in this case is the civilian labor force participation rate, which is calculated on a regular basis by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thestatistictakes the number of people who are employed, adds it to the number of unemployed people who are looking for work, and divides the sum by the total population that is at least 16 years of age, not serving on active duty in the military, and not institutionalized in a facility such as a prison or a long-term-care home. The most recentdataavailable from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from December 2018, showed that West Virginia had a civilian labor force participation rate of 53.9 percent. The figure didnt deviate much throughout 2018, ranging from 53.7 percent to 54 percent depending on the month. The past five years also looked similar to 2018. The average workforce participation rate in 2018 was 53.9 percent. In 2017 it was 53.3 percent, in 2016 it was 53.1 percent, in 2015 it was 52.8 percent, and in 2014 it was 53.1 percent. He would have been a little closer using a similar, but distinct, statistic known as the employment-population ratio. This statistic takes the number of employed people and divides it by the same overall population used in the civilian labor force participation rate. In West Virginia, that was 51.2 percent in December 2018, and was close to that during 2018. So for this part of his statement, Gee was close, and he did say around 50 percent, which gives him some wiggle room. West Virginia did indeed have the lowest civilian labor force participation rate in the nation in December 2018. The next-closest state was Mississippi, with 55.8 percent. And the pattern was much the same for the rest of 2018. In fact, West Virginia has remained in the lowest spot since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics began reporting the series on a consistent basis in 1976, said Brian Lego, research assistant professor at West Virginia Universitys Bureau of Business and Economic Research. Thenational civilian labor force participation ratewas 63.1 percent in December 2018, after rising from a low of 62.7 percent earlier in the year. So Gee is on target with his statement that the national rate was about 63 percent. Lego said there are a range of factors that explain the states weak performance. The big picture reasons are related to human capital deficiencies such as lack of skills needed for jobs available, he said. He also cited poor health, drug abuse, and a large number of elderly residents in West Virginia. Gee said, We have the nations lowest workforce participation rate, which hovers around 50 percent, when the national average is about 63 percent. He was very close on all three elements of the statement, and he gave himself some breathing room by using the words around and about. We rate his statement True. Claim:  Petition addresses environmental issues associated with the Pascua-Lama mining operation in Chile. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Dear friends who care about our earth, Judge for yourself if you want to take action. In the Valle de San Felix, the purest water in Chile runsfrom 2 rivers, fed by 2 glaciers. Water is a most precious resource, and wars will be fought for it. Indigenous farmers use the water, there is no unemployment, and they provide the second largest source of income for the area. Under the glaciers has been found a huge deposit of gold, silver and other minerals. To get at these, it would be necessary to break, to destroy the glaciers - something never conceived of in the history of the world - and to make 2 huge holes, each as big as a whole mountain, one for extraction and one for the mine's rubbish tip. The project is called PASCUA LAMA. The company is called Barrick Gold. The operation is planned by amulti-national company, one of whose members is George Bush Senior (what a surprise eh?). The ChileanGovernment has approved the project to start this year, 2006. The only reason it hasn't started yet is because the farmers have got a temporary stay of execution. If they destroy the glaciers, they will not just destroy the source of specially pure water, but they will permanently contaminate the 2 rivers so they will never again be fit for human or animal consumption because of the use of cyanide and sulfuric acid in the extraction process. Every last gram of gold will go abroad to the multinational company and not one will be left with the people whose land it is. They will only be left with the poisoned water and the resulting illnesses. The farmers have been fighting a long time for their land, but have been forbidden to make a TV appeal by a ban from the Ministry of the Interior. Their only hope now of putting brakes on this project is to get helpfrom international justice. The world must know what is happening in Chile. The only place to start changing the world is from here. We ask you to circulate this message amongst your friends in the following way. Please copy this text,paste it into a new email adding your signature and send it to everyone in your address book. Please willthe 100th person to receive and sign the petition send it to noapascualama@yahoo.ca to be forwarded to the Chilean government. No to Pascua Lama Open-cast mine in the Andean Cordillera on the Chilean-Argentine frontier. We ask the Chilean Government not to authorize the Pascua Lama project to protect the whole of 3glaciers, the purity of the water of the San Felix Valley and El Transito, the quality of theagricultural land of the region of Atacama, the quality of life of the Diaguita people and of the whole population of the region. Origins:   The Pascua-Lama project is an effort being undertaken by the Barrick Gold Corporation to mine rich gold and silver fields in the mountainous region along the border between Chile and Argentina.  Environmental concerns associated with the project, particularly the potential destruction or relocation of glaciers that sit atop a portion of the gold fields, have led to a number of protests and petitions entreating the Chilean government to intervene and stop or modify the Pascua-Lama mining plan.   So, the above-quoted petition is "True" in the broad sense that it addresses a real issue, but, not surprisingly, the two sides (environmentalists and Barrick) make substantially different claims about what the environmental and social effects of the Pascua-Lama project will be. Pascua-Lama Barrick Gold Corporation The controversial plan was described thusly by The Santiago Times in March 2005:  Canadian international mining company Barrick Gold has plans to relocate three glaciers in the mountain range between Argentina and Chile to gain access to 17.6 million oz. of rich gold and silver deposits. Chilean farmers and residents of the surrounding Huasco Valley are strongly opposed to the proposal of transferring the ice masses. The glaciers' tributaries are used for irrigation by the farmers, and their removal would threaten the ecological balance and agricultural production of the fertile river valley. Barrick hopes to transfer 300,000 cubic meters of ice with a 20-hectare surface area from the glaciers that surround the deposits. To mitigate ecological impact and prevent ice from melting, Barrick hopes to transfer the three glaciers, Toro I, Toro II and Esperanza, to an area with similar surface characteristics and elevation by merging the three into a larger glacier, Guanaco, located several kilometers south with a surface area of over 200 hectares. The proposal is part of the "Pascua Lama" mining treaty, signed by Chile and Argentina in August 2004 after four years of discussion. Citizens of the Huasco Valley and Region III are taking a stand against the multibillion-dollar foreign company. Last week an environmental group, Valley Defense, organized a demonstration against the project, where close to 200 farmers, community leaders and neighbors marched in protest. "We don't want to live in an area contaminated by the fault of foreign economic interests," they said. Ral Montenegro, Argentine biologist and Alternative Nobel Prize (formally Right Livelihood Award) winner agrees with the farmers. "The issue is serious in that the project would put pressure on two important river basins which serve as the principle water supply for communities within a semi-arid environment," Montenegro said. In a letter earlier this year to President Ricardo Lagos, agricultural and community associations of the Huasco Valley voiced their concerns about the mining initiative, insisting that it threatens the ecosystem, agriculture and water quality of the valley, which not only sacrifices agricultural exports and trade agreements, but human health as well. "If almost 24 hectares of glacier have been exploited solely for the project 's experiments, imagine how much could be destroyed in the end," said Fransisco Bou, leader for the Huasco Valley agriculturists. Other environmental concerns involve potential contamination from the chemicals to be used in the mining operation: "Pascua Lama will use sodium cyanide, arsenic, and produce toxic byproducts. The rivers El Estrecho, San Flix and El Trnsito together with Santa Juana dam are liable to be polluted by Pascua Lama. These dangerous poisons will be handled at the sources of the rivers and could damage water supplies to farms," said Csar Padilla of the Latin American Observatory for Environmental Conflicts. A December 2005 statement from Barrick downplayed the expressed concerns: statement Vincent Borg, vice president of corporate communications at Barrick in Canada, said 'glacier experts' had defined the icefields in question as 'ice reservoirs or icefields'.  "Regardless of what the experts call them, Barrick is committed to their preservation and conservation. We will move only 5 acres of ice and it is a straightforward procedure that has been proven in the past to conserve the ice. The ice in question only affects about 3-4% of the ice in the Valley so it is not an amount that some sensationalists would like to make it appear," he said.  On the issue of use of toxic chemicals such as cyanide he said, "Cyanide is used worldwide and can be safely used in many industrial applications. Mining comprises only 13% of cyanide use." Opponents contend that Barrick's planned procedures to move ice from the glaciers is not nearly as straightforward and safe as the company asserts they are: The lack of relevant technical expertise in removing glaciers implies an irreversible environmental impact. What is certain is that the three affected glaciers would suffer an environmental impact. Nevertheless, there is no certainty whatsoever of what the impact would be on glaciers or permafrost (frozen rock or soil) from the road network and the associated stabilization measures that generally involves the use of salts.  With respect to the measures and actions that will be implemented for handling glaciers there are the following concerns:  The "clearing" of ice or "pieces of glacier" will be done by bulldozer and front-end loader until the entire rock bed is uncovered. In this case, any mechanical action on the glacier will cause heat transfer, which will raise the temperature of the ice, and which in turn would be exacerbated by the high local insolation. Despite the fact that diurnal temperatures are low, the radiative balance includes more than caloric energy. There are no measurements of radiative energy but the albedo differences between ice and rock mean that the absorption of energy is greater in rock, which would expose the glacier even more.  This also the case for controlled blasting and pushing the glaciers by the afore-mentioned means until their final disposition. In the case of blasting, this could elevate the temperature to thresholds of melting and evaporation which would further encourage destruction of the glacier. Barrick has published a Pascua-Lama Fact Sheet that counters many of the statements made in the circulated e-mail message: Pascua-Lama Fact Sheet Misleading Assertions and Facts The chain letter makes some very misleading characterizations and inaccurate statements. Here are a few examples: Statement: "water in Chile runs from 2 rivers, fed by 2 glaciers."Fact:   The Huasco Valley has more than 50 different glaciers and ice fields. The three smaller glaciers or ice fields that are adjacent to the orebody comprise only 0.3% of the potential water resources in the Valley if they were to be destroyed, which was never to be the case.  Statement: "there is no unemployment ..."Fact: Contrary to this statement, unemployment levels in Region III are among the highest in Chile  the most recent statistics according to the Chilean Statistics Agency reveal rates in the valley in question to be approximately 18%. The mayors representing the four municipalities and most of the community leaders in the Huasco Valley have vocally expressed their support of Pascua-Lama indicating that they believe Barrick will conduct an environmentally responsible project and the generation of economic benefits are needed for the long term sustainable development of the region. As an illustration of the lack of employment opportunities, Barrick has received over 50,000 applications for jobs. Chileans in the Region III and Argentineans from San Juan are looking for meaningful employment opportunities and the ability to support their families. Human beings deserve the opportunity to make a decent livelihood.   Statement:  "Under the glaciers has been found a huge deposit of gold ... it would be necessary to break, to destroy the glaciers"Fact:  Contrary to the fundamental premise of the email chain letter, the orebody is NOT under glaciers. This is simply not the case: 95% of the orebody is NOT under glaciers/ice fields. Protection of the remaining 5% is a key condition of the Chilean authorities approval of the project.  Statement:  "The operation is planned by a multi-national company, one of whose members is George Bush, Sr."Fact: Mr. Bush served in an honorary capacity as an advisor to Barrick's International Advisory Board for two years in the mid 1990's. Mr. Bush was neither a director nor officer of the Company.  Statement: "If they destroy the glaciers, they will not just destroy the source of especially pure water, but they will permanently contaminate the 2 rivers"Fact:  To underline its confidence in its operations and commitment to responsible mining practices, Barrick has committed that should the water quality change, it would immediately stop the project. In addition to the multiple barriers of protection built into the design, the Company has a comprehensive water quality monitoring and management program, which will include 30 automated points from which data will be readily available in real time for authorities and the public. This program will be subject to regular independent verification. The expanded number of monitoring points is a direct result of community consultation and dialogue with stakeholders.  Statement:   "Every last gram of gold will go abroad ... and not one will be left with the people"Fact:  There will be substantial economic benefits that include 5,500 direct jobs during construction, 1,660 jobs during the two decades of operation, and the indirect job creation and tax revenues generated that will flow back to the communities. In addition, there will be substantial investment in infrastructure, the development of hundreds of local suppliers of goods and services and the implementation of sustainable development programs.   Statement:  "The farmers ... have been forbidden to make a TV appeal by a ban from the Ministry of the Interior"Fact:  The Water Users Cooperative, representing 2,000 farmers of the Huasco Valley, is fully supportive of the project. Chile is a democratic country and the media play an important role in the public discussion of the community concerns and interests. There has already been an extensive and open discussion of issues including the participation of farmers. <!--Although the text of the petition states that former U.S. president George Bush is a (board) member of the Barrick Gold Corporation, this does not appear to be the case.  George H. W. Bush (who served as President of the United States of America from 1989-1993 and is the father of the current U.S. president, George W. Bush) was Honorary Chairman of Barrick's International Advisory Board from 1995 to 1999.  He is not now listed as a member of the corporation's Board of Directors. Board of Directors -->From a practical standpoint, the petition reproduced at the head of this page is not now valid in that the e-mail address supplied is no longer collecting or forwarding copies.  The Pascua Lama project remains an issue of ongoing concern, however, and interested parties can find updated information on the subject (and a list of government and business officials to contact) at the Mining Watch Canada web site. Mining Watch Canada Additional information:     Pascua-Lama Fact Sheet  (Barrick Gold Corporation)        Campaign Against Barrick Gold's Pascua Lama Project  (MiningWatch Canada)    Last updated:  3 June 2006    Sources:   Frank, Jade.   "Farmers Protest Mining Project in Chile's Region III."   The Santiago Times.  31 March 2005.    Jimena, Jaquelina.   "Vast Chilean Gold Mine Meets Opposition."   Decanter.com.  2 December 2005.