Since the stimulus package was passed, Ohios lost over 100,000 more jobs.
PolitiFact has rapped Rob Portman for certain claims made during his U.S. Senate campaign. Weve credited Portman, too, for truthful statements. Thats the nature of the Truth-O-Meter: We play it as it lays.Which brings us to Portmanslatest television ad.In the 30-second spot, Portman points to out-of-control federal spending, dangerous deficits and an economic stimulus plan that he says isnt working. Since the $800 billion stimulus passed, Ohios lost over 100,000 more jobs, Portman says in the commercial.The claim about the stimulus program not working has been batted about repeatedly. The White House said when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February 2009, that unemployment would peak at 8 percent. Yet it is now 9.6 percent nationally, and 10.7 percent in Ohio.A number of economists say that even more jobs would have been lost were it not for the government spending to stimulate the economy. TheCongressional Budget Offices last quarterly evaluationsaid the stimulus increased national employment by 1.4 million to 3.3 million jobs. There have been mistakes, missteps and gaffes documented in the spending programs, however, and Portman and other Republicans say the spending was poorly focused. This central question will be for historians and economists in the future to settle.Were merely taking note of Portmans claim because of this: He uses a lower number -- 100,000 jobs lost in Ohio since the stimulus passed -- than he used previously. When he put the figure at 150,000 in June,the Truth-O-Meter ruled it Half True-- because only 127,900 jobs had actually been lost, judging by the most widely accepted measure.That was based on Bureau of Labor Statistics figures through May, the most current at the time. The numbers come from surveys of employers and are adjusted as the data becomes more complete. Using updated data, BLS now shows the post-stimulus job losses in Ohio came to 130,000 for the period Portman claimed in his earlier statement..But now its October and Portman is using a lower figure when he speaks. As he said in his newest ad, and repeated during an Oct. 8 debate at the City Club of Cleveland, since the stimulus bill passed, Ohios lost over 100,000 more jobs.Yet heres the thing: Portmans rhetoric might actually be too cautious now. As measured by the latest BLS figures, which go through August and are preliminary, Ohio has 149,200 fewer jobs now than when the stimulus passed. Thats exquisitely close to 150,000.What happened?The state steadily lost jobs through 2009 but the numbers started improving early in the year, continuing through May. The summer saw a retraction, however, reducing Ohios employment count by a total of 19,200 jobs during June, July and August.So Portman was accurate and then some with his recent, more cautious statement. The Half True ruling nevertheless stands for his June claim, because PolitiFact doesnt believe in fortune-telling and Portmans numbers were in fact off when he made that statement.But we give credit where credit is due. So the Truth-O-Meter takes a turn to the right and rules on Portmans newest claim: True. Comment on this item.
When U.S. House SpeakerPaul Ryanmet with Milwaukee Journal Sentinel staff on Sept. 1, 2017, an editor mentionedmajor tax cutsadopted under Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1981. At first, Ryan joked around. The music was bad in those days, and the tax laws were as well, he replied, chuckling. So, I think -- Im not a big 80s music guy; Im more of a 70s guy. But the 47-year-old Janesville Republican quickly got serious. Arguing that U.S. taxes are stopping U.S.-based multinational corporations from bringing giant sums of money to America,he stated: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. Ryan has made essentially the same claim a number of times, including onMilwaukee television,on CNBC,on Twitterand to theNew York Times. So, do U.S. tax laws essentially prevent $3 trillion being held overseas from being brought to this country? Keep the wordrepatriatein mind. Taxing foreign earnings The object of Ryans criticism is the U.S. corporate tax rate. At 35 percent, as we reported in aDonald Trumpfact check during the 2016 presidential campaign, it isamong the highestin the world -- though its worth noting that, after deductions, companies typically pay an effective rate that can be much lower. (Trump, by the way, pledged during the presidential campaign to reduce the rate to 15 percent. That promise has been rated asIn the Workson PolitiFact NationalsTrump-O-Meter.) As for the focus of Ryans claim, hes talking about U.S.-based multinational corporations. More specifically, the foreign-earned profits of those companies.Heres an exampleof how the taxation works: If the company earns income in a country with a 20 percent corporate tax rate, it would pay that 20 percent tax immediately to that country. If that money is then repatriated -- that is, brought back to the companys U.S. headquarters -- the company would pay an additional 15 percent to the U.S. government. (In other words, the U.S. tax rate of 35 percent minus the 20 percent already paid to the foreign country.) So, as long as the profits stay parked overseas, there is no U.S. tax on it. Now to the specifics of Ryans claim. The $3 trillion figure To back up Ryans statement, his office cited an April 2017CNBC news articlethat said American companies are holding about $2.6 trillion in overseas earnings, and the figure has been growing. Thats thelatest estimateby Congress nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, for 2015, although an estimate done in July 2017 for PolitiFact National put the figureat $2.8 trillion. So, Ryans claim of about $3 trillion is reasonable. Its worth noting that the figure has been rising. In fact, considering only the Russell 1000 index of large companies, the amount of parked cash overseas has more than doubled since 2008, as shown in a July 2017 report by the Massachusetts research firm Audit Analytics: Year Amount of foreign-earned profits by U.S.-based companies kept overseas 2008 $1.09 trillion 2009 $1.19 trillion 2010 $1.36 trillion 2011 $1.63 trillion 2012 $1.89 trillion 2013 $2.12 trillion 2014 $2.3 trillion 2015 $2.43 trillion 2016 $2.62 trillion Trapped and basically cant come back Ryan asserts that the money is trapped overseas and basically cant come back because of U.S. tax laws To be sure, a substantial amount of foreign profitsare repatriated each year. But Ryan didnt invent the term trapped cash. In fact, academicsfor yearshavereferred to itas a commonly used term to describe the growing amount of cash held by U.S. multinationals overseas to avoid, or at least defer, paying the 35 percent U.S. tax rate. Ryans claim is also backed bySeptember 2017 paperpublished by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan organization in Massachusetts. The paper found a dramatic increase in U.S. corporations holding onto cash; that the cash is concentrated in foreign subsidiaries of multinational corporations; and that it is explained by low foreign tax rates. News articlesalso havereported on the phenomenon. In August 2016,Apple CEO Tim Cook saidof his companys profits parked offshore: Were not going to bring it back until theres a fair rate. Theres no debate about it. Apple is second to Microsoft in the amount of cash parked overseas, according to Audit Analytics. And as the San Jose Mercury Newsreported in May 2017, the tax is such a deterrent that even though Apple was sitting on $240 billion in overseas cash, it has continued to borrow money. The reason: The borrowing cost Apple 4 percent or less, far below the 35 percent tax that would be paid for repatriating the overseas cash. One more point before we close: The companies would like to repatriate the money because bringing it back to the parent company enables them to do things such as paying dividends, doing stock buybacks and investing in U.S. operations. Several academic experts told us that some of the overseas money, while not repatriated directly back to the companies U.S. headquarters, is invested in U.S. securities. That doesnt trigger the 35 percent tax. Our rating Ryan says: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. To avoid a 35 percent U.S. tax, U.S.-based multinational companies have opted not to repatriate roughly $3 trillion of their foreign profits, a figure that is growing. That is, they dont bring the money back to their U.S. headquarters, where it can be used for things such as dividend payments or investments in their domestic operations. But the overseas profits arent literally trapped and indeed some foreign-earned profits are repatriated, though they are subject to the 35 percent tax. Ryans statement is accurate but needs additional information, our definition of Mostly True. On 9 September 2018, the web site Your Daily News published an article headlined "Danny Trejo The Famous Native American Actor Dies at age 74":  Curiously, however, the article text provided no details about the time or manner of Trejo's alleged passing, nor even mentioned Trejo's death -- it simply provided a summary of the actor's life and career: Danny Trejo was born Dan Trejo in Echo Park, Los Angeles, to Alice (Rivera) and Dan Trejo, a construction worker with his intimidating, tattooed, muscle-bound appearance, character actor Danny Trejo has formed a successful career as the all-purpose hard case over his curious and enduring cinematic career. Beating the odds of repeat offender syndrome after being released from prison, Trejo has risen through the ranks to find himself in high demand as an actor, and has even expanded his talents to include a producer credit to his resum. That lack of information is not surprising, because the article was a hoax -- Danny Trejo is not dead and is still actively posting on social media: Rest in peace Burt Reynolds. You were an icon and one of my heroes. -DT pic.twitter.com/0fKZhaKpuH pic.twitter.com/0fKZhaKpuH  Danny Trejo (@officialDannyT) September 6, 2018 September 6, 2018  The only source reporting Trejo's death in September 2018 was Your Daily News, a site which had only been active a very short time and as of this writing was no longer reachable. Your Daily News Moreover, Trejo himself has previously been the subject of celebrity death hoax rumors (which he has personally disclaimed): Trejo DANNY TREJO IS NOT DEAD  Danny Trejo (@officialDannyT) November 8, 2016 November 8, 2016 Since roughly 2015, a spurious quote attributed to Adolf Hitler about replacing science with Christianity has been making the rounds on social media. We found examples on both Twitter and Facebook. Adolf Hitler Twitter Facebook The precise statement is, "To conquer a nation first replace science with Christianity."  (@Dixie202021/Twitter) We have rated this quote Misattributed, because there is no evidence the Nazi dictator ever said such a thing, or anything resembling it. Although Nazi Germany boasted some topnotch scientists, some of whose talents were recruited by the military for the war effort, Hitler reportedly showed little personal interest in, and even less working knowledge of, the sciences. Nazi Germany reportedly It's relevant to note, as well, that Hitler is known to have made at least one very positive statement about Christianity,"We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity. Our movement is Christian." There is little reason to conclude that he meant those words, however, given that Hitler's regime persecuted Christians who refused to toe the Nazi line. one very positive statement In any case, we found no published instances of the statement about replacing science with Christianity predating 2015, when it first surfaced on the internet, yet another indication that it is apocryphal. Snopes previously fact-checked another alleged Hitler quote that begins with the identical phrase: "To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens." We determined it was not an exact quote, though it can be described as a rough paraphrase of a lengthier statement he did make. To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens The present example, "To conquer a nation, first replace science with Christianity," is nowhere to be found in published literature and appears to be a fabricated variant of the "disarm its citizens" quote. Liles, Jordan. "Did Adolf Hitler Say 'Our Movement Is Christian'?" Snopes, 3 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-our-movement-is-christian/. Macrakis, Kristie. "Harnessing Science for Hitler." Nature, vol. 425, no. 6960, Oct. 2003, pp. 76667. www.nature.com, https://doi.org/10.1038/425766a. Mikkelson, David. "Did Hitler Say 'To Conquer a Nation, You Must First Disarm Its Citizens'?" Snopes, 10 Jan. 2013, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/to-conquer-a-nation/. Republican Senate candidate George Allen recently accused Democratic opponent Tim Kaine of being a tax hiker, even on people of modest means.During a July 21 debate in Hot Springs, Allen criticized Kaine for actually proposing tax increases that would be hitting people earning as little as $17,000 a year.We checked to see if Kaine, who was governor from 2006 to 2010, really did try to raise taxes on people at that income level.The Allen campaign, in awebsite post, backed Allens statement by citing news articles about a proposal Kaine unveiled in December 2009 as part of his farewell biennial budget proposal for 2010-2012. Kaine called for adding a 1 percent income tax surcharge and giving all proceeds to localities in return for them scrapping the car tax they levy on personal vehicles.Legislators in 1998 adopted a five-year plan to phase out the personal property tax on most cars and reimburse localities for their lost revenues. But the program was more expensive than anticipated and legislators eventually capped the state reimbursement at $950 million a year. The remaining share is paid by vehicle owners.Ending the car tax would mean the state wouldnt have to provide the annual $950 million payment to localities, Kaine said in aspeechto the General Assemblys money committees. Kaine wanted to use the savings to help balance the states recession-wracked budget.News articles from the time said Kaines policy would raise the maximum state income tax rate from 5.75 percent to 6.75 percent. That maximum rate applies to all taxable income above $17,000 after deductions and exemptions are taken into account.The state charges gradually higher income tax rates up to that level. Virginia puts a 2 percent levy on the first $3,000 of taxable income, 3 percent of the next $2,000, 5 percent on the next $12,000 and then 5.75 percent on all taxable income above $17,000.Thebilladvancing Kaines proposal did not say the added tax would only be levied on taxable income of $17,000 or more. The added 1 percent surtax would have pertained to all income levels, according to Joel Davison, a spokesman for the Virginia Department of Finance.Virginia does not require individuals with a state adjusted income below $11,950 and married couples with a state adjusted income below $23,900 to pay state income taxes. So they wouldnt have been affected by the tax increase.Kaines proposal was killed by the General Assembly.It should be noted that some people earning $17,000 would have benefitted from Kaines plan if their savings from the elimination of the car tax outstripped their increased income tax. There are no estimates of the number of Virginians who would fallen into this category, but we suspect it would be a small group. Heres why:For starters, we can eliminate those who didnt own cars.Now, lets consider those who did own vehicles. A single filer with no children earning $17,000 would have a taxable income of $13,070 after taking the standard deduction and exemption. A 1 percent income tax increase for that person would come to almost $131 a year.The car levy paid by that person would depend on where he or she lived because each locality sets it own tax rate based on the assessed value of the vehicle. In Richmond, a person wouldnt pay a $131 levy unless they had a car worth about $9,000. In rural Henry County, a vehicle would have to be valued at about $17,500 to merit a $131 tax.Our rulingAllen said that Kaine proposed a tax increase that would have affected people earning as little as $17,000 a year. Not everyone at that level would have paid more under Kaines plan, but its a safe bet that large number of them would have seen their overall tax bill rise.We rate Allens statement True. The claim that McDonalds is the worlds largest purchaser of cow eyeballs shares roots with many other beware of fast food legends. In this particular case, the sentiment is of the huge fast food corporations only care about profits, so theyll put anything they can (legally) get away with in their food to save money variety.Snopes came across the below-displayed message online in 1999: legends A few weeks ago I was watching Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher on TV and one of the guests made a remark in a quite serious voice that the Billion dollar fast food chain McDonalds, is the largest purchaser of cow eyeballs. Now Ive hear about Burger King using camel meat and stuff, but this one was new to me. And the fact that Mcdonalds doesnt have an email address to contact them nor a toll free number doesnt give me much reassurance on the matter. Similar expressions of this anxiety have resulted in widespread tales about McDonalds making hamburgers fromworm meat, usingchicken feathersin their shakes, and even purchasing food supplies from a company named 100% Beef so that they can put any old dreck in their burgers while still legitimately advertising that they use 100% Beef products. worm meat chicken feathers We dont know what the going rate for cow eyeballs is, but we suspect that  just like worms  theyre too expensive to be practical as an alternative to real beef for a restaurant chain looking to save on their food costs. Youd think theyd be dirt cheap, because after all,who the heck would wantcow eyeballs? They actuallydohave other uses, however  many schools purchase them for students to dissect in biology labs, for example.  Whatever the market price of cow eyeballs, the idea of using them as filler in beef (or even in place of beef) just isnt practical. The wholesale price of beef for companies who purchase as much of it as McDonalds does is already very low, and the amount of eyeball meat available per cow is miniscule compared to the amount of real beef produced per animal. McDonalds If you really have your doubts about this one, check out theingredientlists on the McDonalds website. All of their hamburgers are made from 100% beef patties; furthermore, they define beef patty as being 100% pure USDA inspected beef; no additives, no fillers, no extenders. This means exactly what it says. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA)grades beef, it gradesbeef; it doesnt allow beef marketers to use the word as if it merely meant cow parts. ingredient USDA Some versions of this rumor posit that the cow eyes are used only as hamburger filler, or to make beef patties stick together better, or as tenderizer, or as thickener in milk shakes. Still, one has to wonder what the (presumably more expensive) alternative to cow eyeballs is, and what all the other fast food chains who cant get cow eyes (because McDonalds has cornered the market) use instead, and why competitors products dont cost significantly more (or are noticeably inferior) as a result. If you really dont want to eat at McDonalds, its not hard to come up with a few legitimate reasons not to. The lack of beef in their beef isnt one of them, though. dont want to eat at McDonalds This post was updated to meet Snopes' current formatting standards on Oct. 13, 2022. On 3 December 2018, the Facebook page Pictures in History posted what appeared to be a prescription written by Elvis Presleys doctor, George Nichopoulos, the day before the singer died at his Graceland estate in Memphis on 16 August 1977: posted   Several clear indicators show this document to be a forgery. First, the ZIP code 34108 does not correspond to Memphis, Tennessee, but rather to part of Naples. The forger transposed a couple of digits, as the correct ZIP code for the Memphis address is 38104. Naples correct Second, we find it unlikely that a doctor would spell his own name incorrectly. Presley's controversial personal physician (colloquially referred to as "Dr. Nick" even after he lost his medical license in 1995) was Dr. George Nichopoulos, not George Nichopolous. Even if Dr. Nick had accidentally misspelled his name in this one instance, though, it's still the case that the handwriting on the prescription in no way matches Nichopoulos actual signature. Below is his real signature as it appeared on a loan agreement between Presley and Nichopoulos signed in 1975 and the signature on the forged prescription for comparison: loan agreement  Real     Not real  That being said, the forged document does speak to some historical realities. The faux prescription lists a variety of drugs that were frequently prescribed for Presley while he was a patient of Nichopoulos. Dilaudid (hydromorphone) and Percodan (oxycodone/aspirin) are both narcotic painkillers, Amytal (amobarbital) and Quaalude (methaqualone) are sedative drugs that Presley used to sleep, and Dexedrine (dextroamphetamine) and Biphetamine (amphetamine salts) are both stimulants similar to Adderall. Dr. Nichopoulos prescribed them all: prescribed Between 1975 and 1977, he had prescribed 19,000 doses of drugs. In the first eight months of 1977 alone, he had written 199 prescriptions totaling more than 10,000 doses of sedatives, amphetamines and narcotics: all in Elvis's name. Nichopoulos was blamed for the singers death and branded a Dr. Feelgood in the media. In September 1981 he faced trial on 14 counts of overprescribing uppers, downers, and painkillers to Presley, entertainer Jerry Lee Lewis, himself, and eight others: September 1981 The two counts of the indictment dealing with Presley allege Nichopoulos "unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously" prescribed for the entertainer "certain quantities" of the synthetic narcotic, Dilaudid; the painkillers Percodan and Demerol; the sedatives Quaalude and Parest; the barbiturate Amytal; the stimulants Dexedrine and Biphetamine; and the appetite suppressant Ionamine from May 17, 1976, to Aug. 16, 1977 -- the day Presley died at the age of 42. Nichopoulos was acquitted on all counts in November 1981, but in 1995 the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners permanently suspended his medical license, stating that he had been overprescribing to numerous patients for years. acquitted 1995 Nichopoulos died on 24 February 2016 at the age of 88. died EssentialElvis.com.  "Loan Agreement for the Nichopoulos' Home."
  Accessed 4 December 2018. Higginbotham, Adam.  "Doctor Feelgood."
  The Guardian.  10 August 2002. Murphy, Pamela.  "Elvis' Doctor Goes on Trial, Charged With Overprescribing Drug."
  United Press International.  26 September 1981. The New York Times.  "Presley's Doctor Acquitted on All Prescription Charges."
  5 November 1981. Grimes, William.  "George C. Nichopoulos, Elviss Last Doctor, Dies at 88."
  United Press International.  26 February 2016. In January 2020, Snopes readers inquired about a meme that had been circulating on Facebook since July 2019:   The meme presented three claims, which we unpack below: The above-displayed meme did not specify a specific state or branch of government, implying all Democrats were responsible for the actions in question; however, the first claim in the meme ("Democrats killed a bill for tuition assistance for children of veterans killed in battle") was similar to one we rated "True" in April 2019 as it pertained to New York state. "True" And regarding that bill, "killed," as the meme stated, is a strong word in this context, given that similar legislation was still listed as in committee and potentially set to take effect April 1, 2020, at the time of this writing. However, its true that in 2019 Democrats in a committee of the state New York Assembly voted to block a bill expanding the state's tuition aid program covering so-called "Gold Star" families, defined as immediate relatives of service members who "lost their lives while engaged in hostilities, as a result of an international terrorist attack, or under certain other circumstances." The bill proposed offering "free tuition" not just to Gold Star families but also to dependent family of service members who died while performing official military duties. listed defined To be clear: The blocked bill proposed expanding the states Military Enhanced Recognition Incentive and Tribute (MERIT) scholarship program to include family members of those killed or disabled in non-combat situations. The MERIT program already provides tuition and other assistance to family members of military personnel killed or disabled while engaged in (or training for) hostilities. MERIT In other words, the children of someone killed in battle, as the meme put it, would seem to qualify for the existing tuition-assistance program. The proposed extension of funding would have also covered family members who were killed or disabled while not in combat. It should be noted for what reason the Democrats stopped the bill. According to Newsday: Newsday Democrats said they did not support the Republican proposal because it was released after legislators passed the states $175 billion budget April 1, [2019], meaning it would have no source of funding even if it were signed into law. Democratic legislators said their college aid proposal would go into effect April 1, 2020, presumably giving lawmakers time to include additional spending for military family scholarships in next years budget. Not wanting to wait, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, announced a plan on April 17, 2019, to immediately grant tuition assistance to family members of all New York service members who were killed while performing any official duties, effectively providing a stop-gap until the new legislation took effect in 2020. announced So while Democrats did indeed block a tuition-assistance bill for families of service members who were killed or disabled outside of combat, this applied only in New York state and tuition assistance remained available to families of service members who were killed or disabled while in service. The second claim ("... THEN APPROVE subsidizing the education and healthcare of Illegal Immigrants") was similar, in part, to one we rated as "Mixture" in February 2019. "Mixture"  As we previously reported, New Yorks DREAM Act (not to be confused with proposed federal legislation of the same name) allows undocumented high school students to qualify for in-state, college-tuition assistance to public universities and community colleges. proposed federal legislation allows Again, this legislation applied only to New York state. It is true that some Medicaid and Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) benefits have been extended, with various conditions and exceptions, to immigrants of varying status in a few states, including New York. conditions and exceptions While the idea of promising health care to "undocumented" immigrants has certainly received support among Democratic presidential candidates leading up to the 2020 election, it is not a nationwide benefit, as the meme may suggest. support Finally, its worth noting that the order of events presented in the meme is misleading, as the New York state DREAM Act was passed before the tuition-assistance bill. Given the kernels of truth presented in this overall oversimplified and misleading presentation, we rate this claim as "Mixture." The New York State Senate.  "Senate Bill S5187."
  Accessed 03 February 2020. National Immigration Law Center.  "Medical Assistance Programs for Immigrants in Various States"
  Accessed 03 February 2020. Campbell, Joe.  New York to Make College Tuition Aid Available to DREAMers.'
  Democrat & Chronicle. 23 January 2019. Military One Source.  "Scholarship Opportunities for Surviving Family Members."
  Accessed 03 February 2020. Evans, Martin C.  "State Senate Dems Tout Bill to Aid Dependents of Fallen Vets Pay for College."
  Newsday.  15 April 2019. On 10 December 2015, the web site YourNewsWire.com published a video purportedly showing film acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick, who helmed such groundbreaking films as Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, confessing to having helped NASA fake the Apollo program moon landings: published A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick's death in which Kubrick admits that the NASA moon landings were faked. Filmmaker T. Patrick Murray interviewed Kubrick three days before his death in March 1999. He was forced to sign an 88-page NDA to keep the contents of the interview a secret for 15 years. Below is a transcript from the interview with Stanley Kubrick, in which the 2001 Space Odyssey Director admits on camera that, "the moon landings ALL were faked, and that I was the person who filmed it." In the interview, the alleged Stanley Kubrick figures confesses that: Kubrick: I perpetrated a huge fraud on the American public, which I am now about to detail, involving the United States government and NASA, that the moon landings were faked, that the moon landings ALL were faked , and that I was the person who filmed it. Murray: Ok. (laughs) What are you talking ... You're serious. Ok. Kubrick: I'm serious. Dead serious. Yes, it was fake. Murray: Why are you telling the world? Why does the world need to know that the moon landings aren't real and you faked them? Kubrick: I consider them to be my masterpiece. Murray: And you can' t take credit, or even talk about ... Kubrick: Well, I am now ... Murray: So, you can't talk to Roger Ebert about it. Does that frustrate you? Why did they have to fake it? Why would they have to do that? Kubrick: Because it is impossible to get there ... 2001 was very ambitious, but that's not to say that faking the moon landing was not ambitious. But I learned things from making 2001, and that's why I got this gig in the first place. Murray: That makes sense Kubrick: Well, it was easy for me, because I didn't think a whole lot about the morality of it. But I didn't. And I could see that Neil [Armstrong] was, he was bothered by it. This video has been circulating online since at least August 2015 and is one of several clips purportedly showing Kubrick talking about his alleged involvement in faking the U.S. moon landings. While there are various edits of this infamous (and fake) interview circulating on YouTube, the videos all originated with a new film from T. Patrick Murray titled Shooting Kubrick. film Murray claimed on the Shooting Kubrick web site that he was granted unprecedented access to interview the director in May 1999, which would have been quite an impressive feat since Kubrick had passed away two months earlier:Although the date could be a simple typographical error, that was not the only questionable aspect of the interview. The man being interviewed simply doesn't look or sound like Stanley Kubrick when compared to a video of the real Kubrick accepting the D.W. Griffith Award in 1997:  Furthermore, unedited versions of the interview contain hints that the "Stanley Kubrick" in the video is an actor. In a since-deleted clip, the interviewer called his subject "Tom" and instructed him on how to tell the next part of his story: "You don't say he said anything. You say what he says. Tom, I'm giving you directions. You don't have to imitate him (Richard Nixon). You're not reporting it. You're repeating it ... We're doing exposition here. That's how we're going to sneak it in." A spokesman for Kubrick's widow also proclaimed that "[t]he interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray the whole story is made up, fraudulent and untrue." T. Patrick Murray has not admitted that his interview with Stanley Kubrick is a hoax, but he certainly is banking the mystery's driving interest in his project: Divorce can be anything from an amicable parting of spouses who realize their partnership just isn't working, to a vicious, protracted fight between two embittered people determined to wreak as much physical, emotional, and economic damage on the other as possible.  Unfortunately, the end of singer Marvin Gaye's first marriage came closer to the latter than the former. Marvin Gaye's Divorce In 1962, a 22-year-old Marvin Gaye wed Anna Ruby Gordy, a woman seventeen years his senior and the sister of Motown Record Corporation founder Berry Gordy, Jr. (a marriage, some cynics suggested, calculated to further the fledgling career of Gaye, who recorded for Motown).  By the time Anna filed for divorce thirteen years later, the couple had been separated for over two years, and each had accused the other of infidelities.  (Marvin's infidelity was hardly a matter of debate, as he was living with a teenage girl seventeen years his junior who was pregnant with his child.  Moreover, the son Marvin and Anna Gaye had claimed as their own was actually a child Marvin Gaye had fathered by his wife's fifteen-year-old niece.)  The divorce proceedings dragged out over two years as Marvin continually failed to show up for court dates, refused to pay court-ordered support for Anna and their son, and claimed his expenses exceeded his income even as he continued to spend money recklessly, purchasing luxury automobiles, boats, and beachfront properties.  By the time Marvin's day of financial reckoning arrived, he had little cash and was well in arrears for a large amount of back taxes, so his attorney worked out a settlement under which Anna would be paid off from the royalties earned by Gaye's next album.    Here, My Dear That next album turned out to be Here, My Dear, a harrowing "concept album of divorce" which chronicled the turmoil of Anna and Marvin's relationship.  The record's symbolism was hardly subtle: Featuring songs with titles such as "You Can Leave, But It's Going to Cost You," the album bore an inner sleeve which depicted a Monopoly-like board game emblazoned with the word JUDGMENT, across which a male hand passed a broken record to a female hand.  On the man's side of the board were only a piano and some recording equipment, while the female's side of the board included money, a house, a Mercedes, and a diamond ring:  Although Marvin and Anna's divorce settlement was indeed tied to the royalties generated by Here, My Dear, the common legend surrounding the record -- that Marvin Gaye was ordered by a judge to hand over all his royalties from the album to Anna, and that Marvin was in a position to spitefully deprive Anna of those royalties by intentionally recording an album so bad it would not sell -- is largely untrue.  Debunking the Legend First off, the payment-through-royalties scheme was a settlement worked out through mutual agreement, not one devised and mandated by a judge.  Second, rarely does a competent attorney accept (or a responsible judge impose) a dissolution of partnership settlement under which the amount of compensation received by one party is completely dependent upon a future endeavor of the other party, precisely because such a settlement could allow one side to cheat the other by deliberately underperforming.  (A similar legend about producer Phil Spector is based on this premise.) Phil Spector The circumstances in Marvin Gaye's case were that he agreed to pay Anna a total of $600,000, the first $307,000 coming from the advance against royalties he was guaranteed for his next album, and the remaining $293,000 to be paid out of any royalties earned beyond the advance.  But Anna would lose nothing if Gaye's next record sold poorly, because the agreement specified that if the album failed to earn $293,000 within two years, Gaye was obligated to pay Anna the difference himself, and thus he had nothing to gain by tanking the sessions and purposely turning out substandard product.  In fact, Gaye was in a position to lose a great deal by deliberately turning out a substandard effort, both because he was entitled to keep any royalties earned after the first $600,000 and because he stood to earn additional monies through publishing rights (rather than record sales) that were not payable to Anna. It is true that Gaye initially considered giving the album less than his best effort, but he soon found that he was incapable of recording with anything less than a complete commitment to his art, and if he had any intent to "get" his ex-wife, it was through the album's lyrics and not its sales: At first, I figured I'd just do a quickie record  nothing heavy, nothing even good.  Why should I break my neck when Anna was going to wind up with the money anyway?  But the more I lived with the notion, the more it fascinated me. Besides, I owed the public my best effort. I'll give her my next album but it'll be something she won't want to play and it'll be something she won't want the world to hear because I'm gonna tell the truth. Critical Reception Although the album was not a smashing commercial success, it was admired in many quarters for its artistic qualities: Despite Marvin's efforts, Here, My Dear was a commercial failure, not because it lacked ideas and sophisticated music, but, perhaps, because it possessed them in abundance. I think Here, My Dear was simply too sophisticated, too boldly honest, too remarkably insightful  and too close to the emotional quick to succeed commercially. On "I Met a Little Girl," Gaye appeals to his past: musically, through sweet fifties harmonies, and personally as he narrates meeting Anna, falling in love with her, and the relationship's demise. On "When Did You Stop Loving Me, When Did I Stop Loving You," which appears again as an instrumental and a reprise, Marvin uses a Latin-tinged mellow groove to probe for more than six minutes the philosophical question of love's origin and its end, both passing imperceptibly into existence, and into each other, as Marvin's multiple falsettos lash at the song's rhythms, and Anna: "You said bad things and you lied." On "Anger," Marvin mounts a funky shuffle of percussion and bass to declare the defining vices of a fundamental human passion: "Anger ... can make you old ... can make you sick ... destroys your soul." The songs cross every genre  "Anna's Song" is a rhythmically complex patterning of soul-jazz that conjures Coltrane's ballads, while "Funky Space Reincarnation" is disco-funk that dreams of a raceless musical universe. And "Here, My Dear" is a poignant doo-wop love fugue transposed to detail Marvin's sorrowful joys and sad nostalgia in the aftermath of their breakup. Anna Gaye didn't take lightly some of the revelations Marvin expressed through his music on Here, My Dear (especially accusations that she was preventing him from seeing their son and that she had lied to God by breaking their marriage vows), and upon its release she told People magazine that she was considering filing a $5 million invasion of privacy lawsuit, although nothing ever came of her threat.  Critical reaction to Here, My Dear was mixed.  As Gaye biographer Steve Turner wrote, "Reviewers didn't seem to know whether the double album was a huge joke at the expense of Anna Gaye and Motown, or a work of genius."  The record was not a hit, failing to sell well enough to even recoup the advance against royalties paid by Motown, so Marvin Gaye (who was by then officially bankrupt) was obligated to begin making monthly payments to Anna to cover the shortfall.  However, Gaye was killed in 1984 still owing Anna the additional $293,000 due her, and monies earned by his estate after his death went to paying off the IRS rather than benefiting his ex-wives and children -- thereby proving the maxim about life's only two certainties.   Dyson, Michael Eric.  Mercy, Mercy Me: The Art, Loves & Demons of Marvin Gaye.
  New York: Basic Civitas Books, 2004.  ISBN 0-465-01769-X.

 Mercy, Mercy Me: The Art, Loves & Demons of Marvin Gaye Ritz, David.  Divided Soul: The Life of Marvin Gaye.
  New York: Da Capo Press, 1985.  ISBN 0-306-80443-2.

 Divided Soul: The Life of Marvin Gaye Turner, Steve.  Trouble Man: The Life and Death of Marvin Gaye.
  New York: HarperCollins, 1998.  ISBN 0-06-019821-4. Trouble Man: The Life and Death of Marvin Gaye In mid-March 2018, readers began to ask whether it was true that Toys R Us locations had stopped accepting gift cards as a form of payment as of 11 March 2018: is it true toy retailer, Toys R Us is no longer accepting gift cards after 3/11/18? Many linked to a 10 March 2018 Scotsman.com article about a similar situation, but it focused on Toys R Us locations specifically in the United Kingdom: article Toys R Us have said on their website: Gift cards and vouchers will be honoured until Sunday, 11 March [2018]. There are no refunds for cash value on any gift cards. But customers are encouraged to redeem such vouchers as soon as possible as stores may be subject to closure without notice. News about UK-based locations proved confusing to some readers, and the gift card announcement coincided with matters related to Toys R Us' fiscal solvency in the United States. A post shared to shopping site SlickDeals in March 2018 posited that those in possession of Toys R Us gift cards ought to use them sooner rather than later: locations posited Multiple reports are out there that TRU is going into liquidation bankruptcy next week. If you have gift cards, they'll be trash the moment they announce, most likely. Use those cards this weekend if you don't want them to be worthless. Hold onto receipts if they manage to avoid liquidation, you can just return the items if you didn't have anything much you wanted right now. If not, at least you got something for your paper. Also remember to check your rewards total and use those points/certificates as well! The post referenced a 9 March 2018 CNNMoney article about the closure of UK-based Toys R Us locations, and the state of the retailer's finances in the United States.  article On 13 March 2018, CNBC cited reports of a liquidation plan in progress: cited Toys R Us, the iconic U.S. retailer, is in the process of drafting the court motion for its liquidation plan, a source familiar with the situation told CNBC on [13 March 2018]. The retailer could file as soon as the end of [14 March 2018], making the motion official. It will then begin to wind down the storied toy retailer, after more than half a century in business. A liquidation will most likely result in the closing of all of Toys R Us' 800 stores in the U.S. As of midday on 14 March 2018 the web site ToysRUs.com still accepted gift cards as payment, and the site offered customers the option of purchasing physical or virtual versions at checkout: purchasing   Although articles speculated that Toys R Us gift cards might soon become worthless in the United States, and UK outlets have stopped accepting them, no definitive information about their future is yet available. speculated In response to our inquiry, a representative for Toys R Us replied: Thanks for asking! Please know that we are not going out of business, but we are making changes to the number of stores we have. In the meantime, our stores are operating as usual and you can also continue to shop online at https://www.toysrus.com and https://www.babiesrus.com. Additionally, our customer registry, credit, warranty and loyalty programs will continue as normal. We will also continue to sell and accept gift cards as always. On 15 March 2018, a representative for Toys R Us said the chain planned to honor gift cards for a 30-day period. However, the Better Business Bureau advised consumers to use the cards "sooner rather than later."  said Bomey, Nathan.  "Toys 'R' Us Gift Cards Are Good For The Next 30 Days."
  USA Today.  15 March 2018. Goldman, David.  "Toys 'R' Us To Close All Of Its UK Stores."
  CNNMoney.  14 March 2018. Hirsch, Lauren.  "Toys R Us Prepares Plan To Liquidate Its Business."
  CNBC.  13 March 2018. Jackson, Russell.  "Toys R Us Gift Cards No Longer Being Accepted In Stores."
  The Scotsman.  10 March 2018, LaMonica, Paul.  "Toys 'R' Us Could Go Out Of Business. That's Bad News For Lego And Barbie."
  CNNMoney.  9 March 2018, Peterson, Hayley.  "Toys R Us Gift Cards Could Be Useless In A Matter Of Weeks."
  Business Insider.  13 March 2018, ToysRUs.com.  "Gift Cards."
  Accessed 14 March 2018. Updated 15 March 2018, 9:46 A.M.: Added a statement from a Toys R Us representative. Updated 16 March 2018, 1:39 P.M.: Added confirmation of 30-day expiry made by company representative.