Is This Man's Name Really Peter Griffin?
A directory photo (perhaps a school yearbook) of a man supposedly named "Peter Griffin" bears a strong resemblance to another Peter Griffin, the "big, boisterous lovable oaf" featured in the Fox animated TV series, Family Guy. Family Guy  However, the same photograph previously appeared on the internet with a legend identifying its subject as Justin Blair Spaeth.  Justin Blair Spaeth is a real person (who bears a physical similarity to the Peter Griffin character but does not share his name), as evidenced by these snapshots of a Back Stage Blue (the thespian troupe of Notre Dame High School) production of "West Side Story." these snapshots Back Stage Blue The altered image has been shared on websites and social media since at least 2005, including in Twitter ads that lead to listicles and slideshows, such as this one:   Spaeth's image with the words "Peter Griffin" is included in the tweet as clickbait, as it does not even appear in the long list on the advertised website.
In late 2020 and early 2021, multiple Snopes readers asked us to examine the accuracy of a viral Facebook meme that claimed a Chinese company was set to purchase General Electric for a sum of $5.4 billion. The post, published by Hal Downing on Dec. 23, 2020, read: read General Electric is being sold to a Chinese company for 5.4 billion dollars. Americans are you concerned yet???     The warning "Americans, are you concerned yet?" appears to be a reference to the imminent inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden in January 2021, and a slew of baseless conspiracy theories that allege sinister connections between Biden and China. conspiracy theories Several other Facebook posts by Downing demonstrate a belief that: "Democrats are owned by China"; that Biden's elevation to office will represent a moment of calamity for the United States; and that Democrats committed treason by "colluding" with China by deploying millions of fraudulent, Chinese-made ballots in order to secure Biden's victory. owned calamity colluding In reality, we found no record of any announcement, or reliable news report, of a deal to sell General Electric (GE) to any Chinese company in 2021. Rather, the figure of "5.4 billion dollars" refers to the sale of GE's appliances division to the China-based company Haier. That sale was announced in January 2016 and completed in the summer of 2016  before that year's U.S. presidential election took place, and long before Biden had even announced his intention to run for president four years later. announced completed That sequence of events fatally undermines the broader suggestion that Biden's presidency will "open the floodgates" for aggressive Chinese involvement in the American economy, as part of an underlying, sinister relationship between Biden and the Communist Chinese regime.  Furthermore, the Chinese company in question bought one of GE's divisions, not the entire entity  an additional, highly significant inaccuracy in the widely shared meme. In April 2020, Facebook posts circulating online offered coupons supposedly good for two free large pizzas from the Domino's pizza chain:  Users who clicked on the offer were taken to an external website where they were instructed to answer survey questions in order to receive their coupons:  After completing the questionnaire, however, users were then required to click a button to share the "offer" with their Facebook friends before they could retrieve their coupons. Those who complied by spamming their friends were then allowed to click a "Receive the Coupon" button, but there was no actual coupon to receive. Like innumerable other "free merchandise" offers on Facebook, this offer was another variation of a common scam. other free merchandise offers Facebook We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers On 18 January 2017, web site GotNews posted an article reporting that U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who is perhaps most famous for participating in the Civil Rights Movement at the side of Martin Luther King, Jr., didn't pay property taxes on a $1 million townhouse located in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, D.C.: article Trump-hating Democratic Georgia congressman John Lewis didnt pay property taxes on his nearly $1 million fancy Washington, D.C. townhouse on Capitol Hill, despite being in Congress for decades, where the salary for a Representative starts at $174,000 per year. Lewis was in the news recently for saying he doesnt see President-elect Donald J. Trump as a legitimate president because of the #RussianHackers Democratic conspiracy theory. The article displayed a table showing annual property tax payments for the home in question and a legal notice from 2010 alerting Lewis of a court action against him (the case was later dismissed). It's unclear how this table supposedly documents that Lewis "didnt pay property taxes on his nearly $1 million fancy Washington, D.C. townhouse," given that it lists tax payments due on the property for each of the last several years and shows nothing owing other than the most recent payment (for the last half of 2016):  Moreover, a different view from the same D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue web site shows that the taxes on Lewis' property have indeed been collected, as due, for each of the last several years:  We contacted Lewis's spokeswoman, Brenda Jones, who told us that he bought the home years before property values soared, that he still owns it, and that he is not behind on his taxes: He pays property taxes annually, just as all homeowners in DC do, and his taxes are paid and up to date. Any report that he avoids paying taxes grasps at straws and is a desperate and unnecessary attempt to tarnish his credibility, instead of debating the substance of issues he has raised. Neither the home in question, nor any properties under Lewis' name, appearedon a database search of properties seized and placed on sale for failure to pay property taxes. database A second item of alleged proof offered by GotNews.com was a 2010 "notice of pendency of action," a legal notice ofcourt actions relating to real property. The document appears to be a notice of a foreclosure hearing. That case, however, was dismissed on 11 February 2011: notice  According to current public records available as of 19 January 2017, Lewis still owns the property, confirming that the case was dropped. It was purchased in 1988 (for an unknown price) and is currently valued at $865,790. An explanation offered by Lewis's office states that in 2010 he nearly lost his home to foreclosure but was able to stop the process: explanation Rep. Lewiss Washington, DC property was purchased decades ago for a fraction of its current value today. As most Washingtonians and any real property expert know, property values in the city have risen exponentially in the last 10 to15 years. Rep. Lewis is delighted that he made a wise investment years ago, and that his propertys value has skyrocketed. He also realizes he likely could not afford to purchase his own home were he seeking to buy it today. In 2010, he was subjected to attempts to foreclose upon his home, like many Americans during that period. He is fortunate that he was able to stop that process, though many Americans, including many hundreds of his constituents, were not as successful. His property taxes are paid and currently up to date. GotNews.  "Trump-Hating Democratic @RepJohnLewis DIDNT PAY TAXES On His Nearly $1 Million Fancy DC Townhouse."
18 January 2017. Seipel, Brooke."Rep. John Lewis: Trump Isn't a 'Legitimate President.'"
The Hill.13 January 2017. Wootson, Cleve R. "In Feud With John Lewis, Donald Trump Attacked 'One of the Most Respected People in America.'"
The Washington Post.15 January 2017. At an Associated Press meeting Jan. 19, 2011, about the state's upcoming legislative session, Florida Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services Adam Putnam was asked about an idea floated by Gov. Rick Scott to merge two state departments: Citrus and Agriculture.Putnam wasn't sweet on the idea.All the money the Department of Citrus has is paid for by the citrus growers, Putnam said. You don't save dollars by eliminating the Department of Citrus.Government departments usually are funded, at least in part, with taxpayer dollars. So we wondered, is that not the case with the Department of Citrus? Is the entire department's budget paid for by the growers?Putnam spokesman Sterling Ivey explained via e-mail on Feb. 1: Although it's a state agency, the FDOC is unique in that its operations are not funded through the state's general tax revenue fund. Florida's citrus industry pays its own way in the form of an excise tax placed on each box of citrus that moves through commercial channels.The department is well-known in the citrus-growing areas of Central Florida, but less so in other parts of the state. So Ivey sent us some background from the department'swebsite.It was established in 1935 by legislative approval of the Florida Citrus Code. It's not affiliated with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The 12-member Florida Citrus Commission, appointed by the governor, sets the annual tax rate that growers pay. The department regulates every aspect of the industry, including research, production, fertilizing, maturity standards, harvesting, licensing, transportation, labeling, packing and processing.Ivey also sent us a link to thedepartment's 2010-11 budget.We contacted Comptroller Debra Funkhouser, who has been with the department for 16 years, and she broke down the budget. The total is about $58 million this year. About 85 percent comes from the box tax, 9 percent from the federal government, and the remainder from interest and carryover dollars, she said in an interview Feb. 2. That breakdown does not fluctuate much, and the department has been funded that way for decades, Funkhouser said.Approximately 57 employees work for the department now, and none of its expenses -- including overhead and salaries  are paid from state tax dollars, Funkhouser said. She did confirm that the department has received only $10 million from state general revenues in its 76-year history, a one-time occurrence after crops were devastated by hurricanes in 2004-05.The box tax is assessed to growers, collected by the processors and remitted to the citrus department, she said. The tax for oranges, for example, is currently 25 cents for a 90-pound box.Does that mean the box tax is passed on to customers buying citrus?I would have to say there is a correlation, just like the cost of farmers' fertilizer, just like the cost of harvesting that fruit. It's not a direct association, she said.An article in theLakeland Ledgeron Jan. 18, 2011, described a meeting about a month earlier between Ken Keck, the citrus department's executive director, and two officials from Scott's budget office. Keck said the officials discussed possible changes that included a merger with the Agriculture Department or another marketing agency, such as tourism, as well as privatization.Citrus officials argued any proposed Citrus Department reform would not advance Scott's stated agenda of cutting taxes for Florida businesses and residents because none of their taxes go to the department, theLedgersaid. To the extent this is a general-revenue issue, this does zero for the state budget, Keck was quoted in thearticle. It's unclear whether the governor is aware of that.The article noted that the department contributes about $2 million annually to the state's general fund through a service charge levied on every state agency, (Florida Citrus Commissioner Jay) Clark said.We also looked at thesunset review-- routinely done of state departments to determine whether they should be retained, modified or abolished. The Senate Committee on Agriculture was the primary sunset review committee for the 2008 review. The sunset review recommended keeping the citrus department as a free-standing department because a merger would make it inefficient at a time when the citrus industry was facing challenges, including recovering from hurricanes.Putnam claimed: All the money the Department of Citrus has is paid for by the citrus growers. You don't save dollars by eliminating the Department of Citrus. In fact, about 85 percent is paid for by the growers -- of the rest, about 9 percent comes from the federal government. So Putnam is correct that Florida won't save state taxpayer dollars by eliminating the department, but he's missing the context of the additional federal dollars. We rate this statement Mostly True. The conservative group Turning Point USA created a meme that pushes a sophomoric and factually lacking political argument. The meme in question, watermarked with the logo of Turning Point USA's political action committee (Turning Point Action), makes two claims. First, it states that the year 2019 was the first year the United States achieved energy independence since 1957. Second, it argues that "in only ten days" Joe Biden "sent us back 50 years," implying policies enacted in the first 10 days of his administration reversed American energy independence: political action committee   Turning Point Action's graphic, it bears highlighting, makes no reference to the year 2020, despite the fact that President Donald Trump was in office that year. The claim about 2019 being the first year in which the U.S. achieved energy independence since 1957 is true  so long as we understand what the term "energy independence" really means. It means that the U.S. produced more energy than it consumed. Most importantly, from an energy security perspective, energy independence does not mean that the U.S. doesn't import foreign oil or isn't fundamentally reliant on foreign sources of energy. is true In 2019, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. imported 9.1 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of oil from about 90 countries, though at the same time it also exported 8.5 MMb/d of oil to about 190 countries. By email, Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and energy systems analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, explained that "our local production does not meaningfully insulate us from potential future global oil price shocks."  according Zeke Hausfather The energy independence experienced by the U.S. in 2019 was driven by record levels of total fossil fuel exports from the U.S. That record was set as part of a long-term trend dating back to 2006 and 2008, according to the EIA: according Domestic crude oil production has increased since 2008 and natural gas production has increased since 2006. The increases in crude oil production and the easing of restrictions on crude oil exports in December 2015 have contributed to increases in crude oil exports. Increases in natural gas production along with increases in liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity have contributed to increases in natural gas exports in recent years. In 2011, the United States became a net exporter of petroleum products for the first time since at least 1949. In 2017, the United States became a net exporter of natural gas for the first time since the late 1950s. In 2019, U.S. total annual energy exports exceeded total annual energy imports for the first time in 67 years, and the United States became a net total energy exporter.   The Turning Point meme disregards entirely the existence of the year 2020. The omission of 2020 masks not only a decline in U.S. fossil fuel production that occurred, it also conceals a larger truth about U.S. presidents and the global energy market: Neither they nor their policies have a significant effect on the market compared to other global factors. a decline A significant factor in allowing the U.S. to increase its energy exports has been the rising cost of crude oil globally. Technological innovations like fracking and horizontal drilling have, in recent years, allowed the U.S. to exploit fossil fuel reserves that were previously inaccessible, but these technologies add cost. A high-cost, high-demand energy economy  like the one present during the record-setting year of 2019  benefits the U.S. energy sector because it makes American fossil fuel exports financially viable. The flip side is that the viability of U.S. exports depends in large measure on the going rate for a barrel of oil. If the cost is too low, U.S. drilling operations become financially uncompetitive and exports drop off. The year 2020 saw a historic drop in the price of oil. add cost historic drop "In 2020, U.S. oil production fell by around 8% relative to 2019," Hausfather told Snopes. "This was primarily due to falling global oil prices making relatively high-cost US shale oil production uncompetitive." The drop in demand, and then price, was not the result of any policy decision; it was the result of a massive global pandemic. In a Feb. 3, 2021, news release, Acting EIA Director Stephen Nalley explained that 'the pandemic triggered an historic energy demand shock that led to ... decreases in energy production, and sometimes volatile commodity prices in 2020.'" news release Indeed, this volatility resulted in times during 2020  a year in which Joe Biden was not president  when the U.S. dipped into consuming more energy that it produced. In July and August 2020, the U.S. was not energy independent, at least on monthly terms. By Turning Point USA's logic, this would mean that two months of Trump "sent us back 50 years" in terms of energy policy. In reality, the actions of any U.S. president cannot affect rapid change in the global energy market, and the effect of any domestic policy changes are dwarfed by global factors outside any one president's control. July and August As previously discussed, the U.S. had already experienced at least a brief period of energy "dependence" before Biden took office. While the most recent month for which we have data  October 2020  indicates the U.S. was producing slightly more energy than it consumed toward the end of Trump's presidency, U.S. oil production has been dropping off and global demand remains depressed. These trends, which predate the Biden administration, are unlikely to change anytime soon. October 2020 It will take a while for the energy sector to get to its new normal, said the EIA's Nalley in February 2021. In its 2021 "Global Outlooks" annual report, the EIA argued that "total U.S. energy consumption will return to 2019 levels by 2029, though that is highly dependent on the pace of U.S. economic recovery." In terms of energy production, "EIA projects that the United States will continue to export more petroleum and other liquids than it imports, but the balance of imports to exports will be highly sensitive to supply, demand, and price factors." said argued The bottom line, according to the Breakthrough Institutes' Hausfather, is that "oil production changes in 2020 and 2021 are driven by larger changes in global demand and oil prices, rather than anything that either the Trump or Biden administration has done." Because the meme correctly states that 2019 was the first year the U.S. achieved energy independence in decades, but because it falsely implies a connection between the Biden administration and post-2019 trends in the global energy market that predate his time in office and are independent of the actions of either Trump or Biden, we rank its claims "false." When the governmentsjobs reportfor May offered a bleak picture of the economy, with employers adding just 69,000 jobs in May, U.S. Rep. Diane Black, R-Gallatin, and other lawmakers expressed their frustrations, often in very partisan terms.The report said the unemployment rate edged up slightly to 8.2 percent, from 8.1 percent in April, and Black issued a press release that among other things said the prospects for unemployed or underemployed Americans finding full-time work are not very good after 40 straight months of unemployment at 8 percent or higher.We know the unemployment has remained stubbornly high, but has it really been at 8 percent or higher for 40 straight months?For the purposes of this ruling, we're only going to look closely at the statistics Black cited and stay out of the political blame game. Suffice to say, its not hard to find Republicans blaming Democratic policies and Democrats blaming Republican obstruction for the inability to move the economy closer to full employment.We called Blacks office and asked them to back up the claim. Her spokeswoman, Allison Huff, pointed us to achartcompiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is the gold standard for unemployment statistics.According to the bureau, the last time unemployment was below 8 percent was in January 2009, when it was 7.8 percent -- it then spiked quickly to 8.3 percent in February of 2009 and to 9.4 percent by May before topping out at 10.0 percent in October of 2009. It dropped gradually from there, and the May report listing unemployment at 8.2 percent marked the 40th consecutive month it has been at 8 percent or higher.As dismal as that may be, its not the record.The rate of unemployment in the United States has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, making the past three years the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported in astudyin February 2012.In the Great Depression era, unemployment topped 15 percent annually for six straight years, from 1931 to 1936, and never fell below 8.7 percent over 12 years, according toestimatesadopted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In four consecutive years, unemployment exceeded 20 percent a year.Our colleagues at PolitiFact National cited those figures when they rated asFalsea claim by Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, who said, We have unemployment that rivals the Great Depression.There is a qualifier, though. The Depression-era unemployment data counted those age 14 and up, not 16 and up (the standard that began in 1948). In addition, monthly unemployment statistics were not kept until 1948 as well. Thus, all statistics during the Great Depression were on an annual basis.Our rulingRep. Black did not go as far as some other Republicans and claim that unemployment is as bad as during the Great Depression. She merely said it has been at 8 percent or higher for 40 straight months. Based upon the governments own data, we rate her statement as True. The Lone Star state is home to its very own state-regulated power grid known as the Texas Interconnection. The question of whether Texas produces its own power is one that the Snopes team has seen time and again. We often see this trend during times of power crisis, as was the case in 2021, when the states power grid failed, or when energy politics and prices are making the headlines. This was the case in June 2022 when U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican representing Texas, tweeted that the impact of President Biden being beholden to the Green New Deal radicals in his party has electricity costs through the roof in Texas. failed June 2022 Green New Deal  Yes, it is true that Texas has its own power grid. The Texas Interconnection (TIS) is one of five alternating current (AC) power grids known in north America as interconnections, according to the U.S. Office of Electricity. TIS spans most of the state and covers all of the electric utilities maintained under the system, each of which is electrically tied together and operates at a synchronized frequency of a 60-hertz average during normal system conditions. U.S. Office of Electricity  Public Domain Texas ownership over its power grid is not necessarily for technical reasons, but more for political ones, reported the Texas Tribune in 2011: namely, to avoid the feds. Power grids that cross state lines are managed by the U.S. Department of Energy, which is responsible for the national energy program, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates the sale and transmission of electricity in interstate commerce. reported But because TIS does not cross state lines, the system can avoid regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is instead managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). Some 26 million Texans and 90% of the electrical load rely on over 52,700 miles of transmission lines contained within the TIS. As a nonprofit, ERCOT is subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Legislature. ERCOT 90% 52,700 miles Public Utility Commission of Texas Its no secret that Texas is rich in energy. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that Texas produces more electricity than any other state, and nearly twice as much as Florida, which comes in at second place. Energy rates are typically determined by a combination of fuel costs, power plant availability, variations in demand, and availability of generation sources, notes the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This cost varies from minute to minute, and in hot climates like Texas, prices are highest in the summer when total demand for air conditioning increases. reports U.S. Energy Information Administration In the Lone Star State, those prices are set by ERCOT. To understand the history of ERCOT, we should also take a quick look back at the U.S. power grid through the 20th century. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Federal Power Act, which gave the Federal Power Commission the power to oversee interstate electricity sales. But Texas wanted to remain out of federal oversight, particularly as its grid did not cross state lines. signed The establishment of TIS can trace its history back to World War II, when 10 independent power grids across the state connected to send excess power to the coast for manufacturing, according to ERCOT. Similarly, utility companies across the nation began to tie themselves together to be more productive, organized, and responsive both in the event of an emergency and to more efficiently manufacture and export goods to troops overseas. ERCOT tie themselves together Following a blackout on Nov. 9, 1965, when 30 million people in the Northeastern U.S. lost power, legislators created the National Electric Reliability Council, now known as the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). Five years later, ERCOT was founded to manage the Texas grid in accordance with national standards but still out of the way of federal fingers. (For more ERCOT history, see this explainer published by NBC Austin affiliate KXAN.) founded this explainer We should also note that the Texas power supply is neither totally independent nor does it cover the entire state. El Paso is on its own grid, as are parts of northeastern and southeastern Texas. In 2011 following rolling blackouts, Texas also imported some power from Mexico, as well as two ties to the Eastern U.S. grid.) imported Sources Archive.Ph. https://archive.ph/oiee1. Accessed 7 June 2022. Cohn, Julie. When the Grid Was the Grid: The History of North Americas Brief Coast-to-Coast Interconnected Machine [Scanning Our Past]. Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 107, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 23243. IEEE Xplore, https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2018.2880938. DG - Distributed Generation. https://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/electric/business/dg/dg.aspx. Accessed 7 June 2022. Does Biden Support the Green New Deal? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Electric Reliability Council of Texas. https://www.ercot.com/. Accessed 7 June 2022. ERCOT Organization Backgrounder. https://www.ercot.com/news/mediakit/backgrounder#:~:text=Founded%20in%201970%2C%20ERCOT%20is,grid%20serving%20most%20of%20Texas. Accessed 7 June 2022. EXPLAINER: Why the Power Grid Failed in Texas and Beyond. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/ap/2021/02/17/why-the-power-grid-failed-in-texas-and-beyond/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Galbraith, Kate. Texplainer: Why Does Texas Have Its Own Power Grid? The Texas Tribune, 8 Feb. 2011, https://www.texastribune.org/2011/02/08/texplainer-why-does-texas-have-its-own-power-grid/. Helman, Christopher. Rolling Blackouts Force Texas To Import Power From Mexico. Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/02/03/rolling-blackouts-force-texas-to-import-power-from-mexico/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Learn More About Interconnections. Energy.Gov, https://www.energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/transmission-planning/recovery-act-0. Accessed 7 June 2022. OAKTrust Home. https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Prices and Factors Affecting Prices - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php#:~:text=Changes%20in%20prices%20generally%20reflect,to%20meet%20the%20increased%20demand. Accessed 7 June 2022. The History of ERCOT: How Texas Became the Only State with Its Own Power Grid. KXAN Austin, 24 Feb. 2021, https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/the-history-of-ercot-how-texas-became-the-only-state-with-its-own-power-grid/. Have West Virginia exports been on fire recently? A tweet by the West Virginia Republican Party suggests so. In an April 2tweet, the state party said, West Virginias exports increased for the second year in a row in 2018, reaching $8.1 billion. Additionally, West Virginias export growth rate was 14.2%, nearly double the national average of 7.6%. West Virginias exports increased for the second year in a row in 2018, reaching $8.1 billion. Additionally, West Virginias export growth rate was 14.2%, nearly double the national average of 7.6%.https://t.co/PW0hpM1e8z Did West Virginia really outpace the national average of export growth rates? The tweet linked to a March 17articlein WVNews. In turn, the article cites a March 15news releaseby the West Virginia Department of Commerce that reported data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Caitlin Ashley-Lizarraga, an international trade specialist at the West Virginia Department of Commerce, pointed us to detailed Census Bureau data collected by a private-sector subscription database, theGlobal Trade Atlas. The table shows that West Virginia did indeed export $8.1 billion to the rest of the world in 2018, and that represented a 14.2% increase over the export total for 2017. The increase for the nation as a whole was a little over half that -- 7.6%. We were able to replicate this data using the Census Bureaus ownUSA Trade Onlinedata portal. While the export growth in West Virginia was strong between 2017 and 2018, its worth noting that this expansion came from a small base. In fact, West Virginia ranks thirteenth from the bottom in total exports for 2018. The states ranking below West Virginia are Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. The West Virginia Republican Party tweeted, West Virginias exports increased for the second year in a row in 2018, reaching $8.1 billion. Additionally, West Virginias export growth rate was 14.2%, nearly double the national average of 7.6%. The data, which we verified with a U.S. Census Bureau database, supports what the tweet said. We rate the statement True. The fate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh hung in the balance in early October 2018 as the Senate Judiciary Committee awaited the results of an FBI investigation into allegations that he had committed a sexual assault some 30 years before -- allegations that Kavanaugh angrily denied in his Senate testimony. The Senate was already sharply divided along party lines on the urgency of pushing ahead with the confirmation, with Democrats demanding a full and unimpeded investigation into the charges and Republicans accusing the Democrats resorting to delaying tactics and attempting to destroy Kavanaugh's reputation. Public opinion was divided as well, with 45 percent of Americans saying they believed Kavanaugh's accuser (Professor Christine Blasey Ford) and 33 percent saying they believed Kavanaugh in an opinion poll taken four days after their testimonies. poll This clash of opinions played out on social media as uncivil debates raged in which each faction claimed the moral high ground and accused the other of lies and hypocrisy. A meme shared on 1 October took aim at Kavanaugh by calling out a GoFundMe account supposedly established in his and his family's name:   The implication, of course, is that as a presumably wealthy and privileged member of the Washington elite, Judge Kavanaugh doesn't need a fundraising account. Other social media users made the same point: Yes, a gofundme page has raised over $100,000 for poor Brett Kavanaugh. Thats right, some people think he needs money even though he has a job, government body guards, and will either soon be a Supreme Court justice, or he will get a six figures book deal. pic.twitter.com/WWRwV4Coco pic.twitter.com/WWRwV4Coco  Alex Morash (@AlexMorash) September 29, 2018 September 29, 2018  Why are people giving money to SUPER WEALTHY #Kavanaugh & #DrChristineBlaseyFord ??? Both are RICH, should be GIVING MONEY, NOT GETTING!!! RT @thehill: GoFundMe campaign for Kavanaugh raises over $500,000 https://t.co/yfEYSQ1KhW pic.twitter.com/ogImymWxg0 #Kavanaugh #DrChristineBlaseyFord @thehill https://t.co/yfEYSQ1KhW pic.twitter.com/ogImymWxg0  Trixy Wh (@trixywh) October 4, 2018 October 4, 2018  Whether or not it addressed an actual financial need on his part (press reports suggest that Kavanaugh, though by no means poor, is less well off as several current members of the Supreme Court), a number of Kavanaugh supporters did launch GoFundMe accounts in his name in late September and early October. The most successful of these had raised more than $600,000 by 5 October. It was opened by John Hawkins of North Carolina, who runs a partisan news and opinion website called Right Wing News. reports successful John Hawkins Right Wing News In an introductory note on the GoFundMe page, Hawkins explained the thinking behind it as follows: Like many decent people from both parties, I have been disgusted by the unsubstantiated 36 year old smears aimed at Brett Kavanaugh. We live in a country where innocent until proven guilty is supposed to mean something; yet Brett Kavanaugh's reputation is being dragged through the mud while his family is facing non-stop death threats. This is a horrible way to treat a good man who has dedicated his life to public service. So many unethical people are giving unprovable 36 year old accusations the same weight as 6 FBI background checks, hundreds of hours of hearings and testimony under oath. It is disgraceful. What I'd like to do is raise money for Brett Kavanaugh's family to use for security or however they see fit. All of the money collected will go to Brett Kavanaugh's family or alternately, if they refuse to accept it, to a charity of their choice. I have already reached out to a contact who should be able to put me in touch with Brett Kavanaugh's family. If he can't do it, I have plenty of other contacts who should be able to make it happen. I will update this page after I have talked with his family. I hope you will show your support for a good man who has been treated very, very badly. Hawkins posted updates chronicling his efforts to get in touch with the Kavanaugh family to discuss disbursing the funds. After many unsuccessful attempts he finally spoke to one of the judge's staffers, who told him that although the family is aware of the GoFundMe account and "extremely appreciative" of the donations, it would be a while before they could address the question of whether or not Kavanaugh, as a political appointee, can accept the money. On 30 October, Hawkins posted an update which included an "official statement" from Kavanaugh's representatives saying he would not accept the funds: "Justice Kavanaugh did not authorize the use of his name to raise funds in connection with the GoFundMe campaign. He was not able to do so for judicial ethics reasons. Judicial ethics rules caution judges against permitting the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising purposes. Justice Kavanaugh will not accept any proceeds from the campaign, nor will he direct that any proceeds from the campaign be provided to any third party. Although he appreciates the sentiment, Justice Kavanaugh requests that you discontinue the use of his name for any fund-raising purpose." GoFundMe accounts were also started for Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. The most successful of those had accumulated more than $540,000 in donations as of 5 October. A note from Ford posted on the GoFundMe page expressed her appreciation to all those contributing: accumulated I feel like all of you who have made a contribution are on this journey with me, which is very heartening. And some journey it has been and continues to be. We have already had to move four times, our movements are limited even with security, and the threats are ongoing. Thanks to you, I am able to feel safe, my family can be together, and my children can continue to go to school. On 21 November, Ford announced the closure of the GoFundMe account, pledging to donate any unused funds to trauma survivors: The funds you have sent through GoFundMe have been a godsend. Your donations have allowed us to take reasonable steps to protect ourselves against frightening threats, including physical protection and security for me and my family, and to enhance the security for our home. We used your generous contributions to pay for a security service, which began on September 19 and has recently begun to taper off; a home security system; housing and security costs incurred in Washington DC, and local housing for part of the time we have been displaced. Part of the time we have been able to stay with our security team in a residence generously loaned to us. With immense gratitude, I am closing this account to further contributions. All funds unused after completion of security expenditures will be donated to organizations that support trauma survivors. I am currently researching organizations where the funds can best be used. We will use this space to let you know when that process is complete. Adams, Becket.  "Kavanaugh Declines $600,000 Raised in His Defense."
 Washington Examiner.  31 October 2018. Albrecht, Leslie.  "Brett Kavanaugh's GoFundMe Page Raises $603,770, Surpassing $540,000 Raised for Christine Blasey Ford."
  Market Watch.  5 October 2018. Bekiempis, Victoria.  "Christine Blasey Ford to Give Donations to Charity for Trauma Survivors."
 The Guardian.  27 November 2018. Goldstein, Steve.  "Brett Kavanaugh May Become the 'Poorest' Supreme Court Justice."
  Market Watch.  14 July 2018. [29 November 2018]: Added information about the closure and disposition of the largest GoFundMe accounts in Kavanaugh and Ford's names. Rep. Bob Gibbs is a big proponent of water transportation.As chair of the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment (part of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure) he recently held a hearing on the soundness of the countrys inland waterway system, which includes the Ohio River.Gibbs, a Republican from Holmes County, finds the system lacking. Deferred maintenance resulting from budget constraints on the U.S. Corps of Engineers increases the likelihood of a calamity befalling the system, he said at the April 18 hearing.If improvements arent made, it could doom the countrys inland water system, he said, and that would be a costly bit of negligence because water transportation is a vital cog in our economy.Water transportation is the most fuel efficient, least polluting, safest, and least expensive means of moving cargo,  he said.Thats a pretty definitive statement. PolitiFact Ohio decided to check it out.First of all, Gibbs was referring to inland waterways and their barge traffic that runs north and south along major navigable rivers, such as the Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio.River barges usually carry large volumes of low-value commodities, such as grain and coal. They compete to varying degrees with railroads and trucks, but more often than not they work in tandem. Ninety percent of all barge traffic depends on a connection with either rail or truck, said Chris Dager, research economist at the University of Tennessee.Trillions of dollars of freight moves each year over the countrys transportation network, which includes 4 million miles of highways and roads, 140,000 miles of rail and 25,000 of commercially navigable waterways.The problem with a blanket statement that any form of transportation is the cheapest or safest is that it can vary depending on the circumstances.A commodities broker shipping corn from Iowa to New Orleans, for example, would send it by barge down the Mississippi, not by rail or truck. It will take longer to ship  the down river speed is about 9 mph  but cost far less. But if time is of the essence, or if a river with loading terminals isnt handy, rail or truck may be the only feasible options.Over-the-road delivery has a cost advantage at times because a trucker can drop off a load hundreds of miles away and usually find something to haul back on his return trip. Thats known as back-hauling and while it occurs usually 90 percent of the time with long-haul trucks, the rate is only 45 to 50 percent for barges, said Larry Bray, a research economist at University of Tennessee.Railroads, on the other hand, usually return with empty cars, except for containers and boxcars.And some areas of a river are more efficient than others. On the lower Mississippi River, barges move along unimpeded, but on the upper reaches they move more slowly because of multiple dams and locks.And when it comes to delays, some rail and highway locations are legendary for their congestion.With all that in mind, lets consider some numbers.As of 2010, a river barge could transport an average of 640 tons of cargo per mile on a gallon of diesel, Dager said, thanks to recent improvements that include barges with deeper drafts and computer systems that provide up-to-the-minute profiles of a river bottom.Railroads have made their own improvements, including larger railcars, better engines, and improved business modeling. They can now carry an average of 490 ton-miles of cargo per gallon of diesel, according to Dager.Trucks are the least fuel efficient, with an average of 75-to-150 ton-miles per gallon of diesel, depending on how far they travel.In addition, some social costs arent passed along to the consumer that need to be acknowledged. These include government subsidies for infrastructure (something trucks benefit from greatly, waterborne vessels to a much less extent, and railroads the least), congestion, and the effects on health and safety.Those costs in the aggregate are highest for trucks, followed by rail and then water transportation, according to a 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office called Surface Freight Transportation: A Comparison of the costs of Road, Rail, and Waterways Freight Shipments That Are Not Passed on to Consumers.And then theres this statement from Mitchell Moss, director of the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York Universitys Wagner Graduate School of Public Service: Water transportation is one of the most economical ways to move cargo, especially bulk cargo.While there are comparative advantages to each mode of transportation, Moss said, on average water is the least expensive and most fuel efficient.So, it appears that Gibbs was correct when he said water transportation is the most fuel efficient way to move cargo, as well as the least expensive. He also said water transportation was the cleanest and safest way to move cargo. Those specific factors also are addressed in the GAO report.The report states that trucks generate 238 pounds of particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less per million ton-miles of freight delivered. That compares to 36 pounds for rail locomotives and 23 pounds for waterborne vessels.Trucks also generate more than 6,000 pounds tons of nitrogen oxide per million ton-miles, compared with nearly 1,350 pounds for locomotives and about 938 pounds for waterborne vessels.And when it comes to greenhouse gases, barges spew forth the least amount.Finally, water transportation accounts for fewer accidents and injuries per ton-mile of delivered freight than trucks and rail, according to the GAO.Gibbs said that water transportation is the cheapest, safest, cleanest and most fuel efficient way to move cargo. Clearly, its the most fuel efficient on average. Its also safer and cleaner.As for the expense, because barge traffic is so dependent on rail and trucking, those two modes of transportation could have an impact. But that said, the experts we talked to were persuasive that on average, water transportation is least expensive.On the Truth-O-Meter, Gibbs statement rates True.