Did Mark Twain Say, 'In the Beginning of a Change, the Patriot Is a Scarce Man'?
Mark Twain (1835-1910), the author of "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer," remains one of the most celebrated American writers and humorists. He is certainly among the most quotable authors of all time, not to mention one of the most misquoted. For whatever reason, people like to attribute jokes and aphorisms to Twain that he never said or wrote. Mark Twain In early 2023 we were alerted to a meme that was circulating with a quote attributed to Twain on the subject of patriotism. It had been greeted with some skepticism online, in part because some people pointed out that the year given for the quote, 1935, was 34 years after Twain's death. When we investigated, however, we found that the quote itself is properly attributed to him, and 1935 was the date it was first published.  The passage is an excerpt from a section titled "Maxims in the Rough" from "Mark Twain's Notebook," a collection first published in 1935 by Harper & Brothers. Here is the full paragraph, plus the the three that immediately followed it, for context: Maxims in the Rough Mark Twain's Notebook In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice  and always has been. In any civic crisis of a great and dangerous sort the common herd is not privately anxious about the rights and wrongs of the matter, it is only anxious to be on the winning side. In the North, before the War, the man who opposed slavery was despised and ostracized, and insulted. By the "Patriots." Then, by and by, the "Patriots" went over to his side, and thenceforth his attitude became patriotism. There are two kinds of patriotism  monarchical patriotism and republican patriotism. In the one case the government and the kind may rightfully furnish you their notions of patriotism; in the other, neither the government nor the entire nation is privileged to dictate to any individual what the form of his patriotism shall be. The Gospel of the Monarchical Patriotism is: "The King can do no wrong." We have adopted it with all its servility, with an unimportant change in the wording: "Out country, right or wrong!" We have thrown away the most valuable asset we have  the individual right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he by himself) believes them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about the grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.  Source: Twain, Mark. "Mark Twain's Notebook." London, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1935. https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/ItalTravLit/id/22396. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023.
Claim:  The "real McCoy" refers to a type of automatic oiler invented by a black man.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2000] Railroading was vital to the development of our economy and culture in the 19th century.  An example: the real McCoy refers to McCoys automated oilier and not his many imitators that where not nearly as good.  [Collected via e-mail, April 2005] Curiously, an invention left off [a list of black inventors] is perhaps the most distinctive of its kind, the McCoy Automatic Lubricator (US Pat #129,843).  Elijah McCoy invented an entirely new class of machinery improvement, being the very first time a railroad locomotive could be continuously lubricated while in motion.  Variations were used on virtually every steam locomotive built since.  The McCoy device was so popular that a number of inferior knockoffs appeared on the market - leading master mechanics of the railroads to specify the genuine article - the "Real McCoy." Origins:  While most folks instinctively grasp the meaning of the phrase "the real McCoy" (the genuine article, as opposed to an imitation), no one has the definitive answer as to where that peculiar expression came from. There are a number of competing theories as to who or what was "the real McCoy":  Elijah McCoy, inventor of a device that lubricated the moving parts of a railway locomotive, or his invention itself.  Someone from the Hatfield-McCoy family feud of the 1880s.   Products of the Nelson McCoy Pottery company in Ohio.  Booze supplied by Prohibition-era rum-runner named Bill McCoy, whose product was said to always be of the highest quality.  Joseph G. McCoy, the cattleman who laid out the Chisholm Trail.   A Pennsylvania wildcatter of the name of McCoy who diverted nitroglycerin from job sites to safecrackers, who in turn dubbed the explosives he supplied "the real McCoy" (to distinguish them from the homemade less reliable concoctions they sometimes used).  Mrs. McCoy of a 19th century Irish ballad wherein she thrashes her husband, thereby proving herself "the real McCoy."  The products of a British pharmaceutical company that were much in demand by addicts in the U.S. after passage of the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914, with the appellation spreading to any commercially produced drug product (to differentiate it from blackmarket drugs of dubious origin).  Arising from rivalry among branches of the Mackay clan in Scotland as to which was the most valid, with the name of one clan's leader (Reay Mackay) over time morphing into "real McCoy."  A corruption of "the real Macao," slang for pure heroin, the best of which supposedly came from Macao.  A corruption of "the real McKay," a slogan used to advertise the products of whisky distillers A & M McKay of Glasgow.  American welterweight champion Norman Selby, known as Kid McCoy. The saying's recorded history is murky, but while there is no indisputable origin for the term, one theory (which actually combines two of the above elements) does stand far above the rest. While the earliest verified print sighting of "the real McCoy" dates to 1908, the first surfacing of the phrase it likely stemmed from was noted in 1856: "A drappie o' the real McKay," referring to a brand of whisky produced in Scotland. Said brand of hooch subsequently came to be advertised under the slogan "the real McKay" in 1870, thereby exposing an even greater number of Scots to its existence. Over time, other sightings into which misspellings had crept were noted:   1865: The ceremony being concluded, Bacchus was worshipped to a most satisfactory extent - the supply of "the real MacKay" being unlimited - capital in quality, and accompanied with tempting viands.  1908: I took a good-size snort out of that big bottle [of furniture polish] in the middle.... Have you none of the clear McCoy handy around the house? (The item being described as "McCoy" in this sighting was whisky.)  1934: There's something very attractive about the real McKie when you meet it. These two points (misspellings creeping in plus the first McCoy sighting being about whisky) somewhat work to support the theory that the Scottish advertising slogan "the real McKay" became a tad garbled as it crossed the ocean into the U.S.   Yet however it got there, once it had arrived in the new land, it subsequently came to be associated with a boxer of some fame, thereby greatly increasing its spread. Norman Selby, better known  Norman Selby as Kid McCoy, was the American welterweight champion in 1896. As he gained weight, he moved up into the middleweight class, and during his career fought many notable heavyweights. Selby's life outside the ring was every bit as interesting as it was within it: he was married eight times (thrice to the same woman), served a nine-year prison sentence for the murder of a married lover, and ended his life by his own hand.  It is not known how he came by his "Kid McCoy" sobriquet. (Another nickname attached to him was "The Corkscrew Kid," in reference to his signature "corkscrew" punch.) But however he came by the McCoy handle, he did fight under it.  An apocryphal tale ties Norman Selby to the origin of  "the real McCoy." By its lights, he encountered a drunk in a bar who was skeptical of his claims to be the great fighter Kid McCoy. The boxer settled all doubt with one punch that flattened the sot. Upon regaining his feet, the now thoroughly convinced lush loudly announced to all present that the one who'd decked him was "the real McCoy."  Similarly, another legend states that McCoy had so many imitators that he eventually had to bill himself as Kid "The Real" McCoy. No reason exists to believe either tale; they appear more fanciful lore than anything else. However, the boxer's fame likely contributed to the popularity of the expression, as potentially did the fame of another pugilist who bore the actual surname: Al McCoy, middleweight title holder from 1914 to 1917.  That's the long way around to this most likely of explanations of the origin of "the real McCoy": a Scottish whisky slogan came to the U.S., with its "McKay" becoming "McCoy" in the process, with the saying subsequently further popularized through confusion between a popular boxer of the day (Kid McCoy) and the saying (the real McCoy). Of the many other potential origins for the phrase, while some contain elements that are rooted in history (there was a black inventor by name of Elijah McCoy who did invent a revolutionary device that allowed for the oiling of machines while in operation, and there was a famous cattle baron of the name of Joseph G. McCoy), most are not. If addicts ever referred to heroin as "the real Macao," we've yet to encounter an instance of it. Likewise, there's little reason to suppose that a Pennsylvania wildcatter named McCoy was selling nitroglycerin swiped from job sites to safecrackers.  Nelson McCoy Pottery wasn't founded until 1910 which, given the 1908 "real McCoy" sighting, puts it out of the running. 1910 Of the three less credible purported explanations that involve real people, although there was a famous cattle baron called Joseph G. McCoy, it's unlikely he was confused with anyone else, thereby requiring him to self-identify as "the real McCoy." Joseph G. McCoy Likewise, while the oiler invented by Elijah McCoy amounted to a startling development in its time, it does not appear to have been competing with copycats, thereby leaving buyers clamoring for "the real McCoy." Also, it was a specialized piece of equipment, which means its pool of potential purchasers was very small. It is therefore not believable that widespread consumer insistence upon having the McCoy oiler and no other created the phrase. Elijah McCoy Similarly, while there was a Prohibition-era rum runner named Bill McCoy, even if the booze he had been vending had been of the highest quality, he could not have been the McCoy celebrated in the saying, given that the line has been documented back to 1908, whereas Prohibition did not begin in the U.S. until 1920. Bill McCoy For the saying to not only have taken root but survived for more than a century, it had to have caught the public's imagination in its infancy rather than been merely a catchphrase within a small specialized area. A phrase first recorded as used in reference to whisky in 1856 then enshrined as a particular brand of firewater's official slogan in 1870 fits the bill in ways the other proffered explanations do not, especially if it were given a further boost via being confused with the nickname of a well-known boxer in its new homeland.  Barbara "boxer rebellion" Mikkelson Last updated:  19 February 2011   Rawson, Hugh.  Devious Derivations.   New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1994.  ISBN 0-517-88128-4  (pp. 173-175).   The Compact Oxford English Dictionary.  Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.  ISBN 0-19-861258-3. Newsbrokeon May 27, 2015 that an agreement was close on how to pay for a new $500 million arena for the Milwaukee Bucks, the basketball team that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar once led to glory. Some details of the proposed arrangement between the Bucks and state and local government officials were new. But the overallcost sharing was, more or less, what hadlong beenexpected: The Bucks owners would pay half and taxpayers would pay half. According to Tim Sheehy, president of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, such a split would be good for taxpayers. Here is whathe saidApril 10, 2015 on Here and Now, a Wisconsin Public Television show: If this comes out close to a 50-50 partnership, it will be much better -- in terms of the portion of the public financing -- than most of the other arena projects done around the country. In other words, Sheehy, who supports the new arena, is saying that taxpayers picking up half the tab for a new Milwaukee arena is relatively low, compared to how much taxpayers have contributed toward arenas for other National Basketball Association teams. The parties set a self-imposeddeadlineof May 29, 2015 to try and finalize the financing deal, which would have to be approved, likely within the next few weeks, as part of the 2015-17 state budget. So, lets take a look. The Bucks and their arenas The Bucksjoined the NBA in the 1968-69 season. Led byAbdul-Jabbarand another future Hall of Famer, Oscar Robertson, they won their only league championship in the 1970-71 season. That,according tothe team, meant the Bucks went further, faster, than any expansion team in the history of major professional sports. In recent years, however, the Bucks have struggled, and that is one reason there has been a drive to build a new arena. The teams current home -- the $90 millionBMO Harris Bradley Center, which was built through a donation by the late Milwaukee philanthropist Jane Bradley Pettit -- opened in 1988. The 18,600-seat arena is thethird-oldestand the third-smallest in the 30-team NBA. Momentum for a new arena picked up in April 2014, when the Bucks longtime owner, former U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl of Milwaukee,announcedhe was selling the team to New York hedge-fund investors Marc Lasry and Wesley Edens. Kohl and the new owners pledged to contribute $250 million toward a new arena. Coming up with the other $250 million has been the sticking point,leading to months of negotiations involvingGov. Scott Walker, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele. There is time pressure in that the NBA has said a new arena must be built by the fall of 2017, or Milwaukee would risk losing the team to another market. Other arena deals To see how other NBA arenas have been financed, we turned to two sources: The 2012 edition of Financing Economic Development in the 21st Century,  a textbook that includesa chapteron financing professional sports facilities. And a database,last updatedin August 2014, that is maintained by Marquette University Law Schools National Sports Law Institute. Weve listed the 15 NBA arenas -- comprising half the arenas in the league -- that have been built since 1999. We went back to 1999 because a wave of NBA arenas -- seven of them -- went up that year. As well see, there is some disagreement between the figures provided by the textbook and by Marquette. Holy Cross College sports economistVictor Matheson, who wrote the sports facilities chapter in the textbook, told us thats not surprising because there are different ways to define a public contribution and because stadium financing deals arent always transparent. Based on the two sources we checked, at least eight of the 15 NBA arenas built since 1999 were financed with more than 50 percent taxpayer support. Indeed, although there is some variation in the figures in the two sources, seven of the eight arenas were built with at least 82 percent public money (the total cost figures are according to the textbook). Arenas built with more than 50% public money NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the texbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Orlando 2010 $480 million 90% 87.5% Charlotte 2005 $265 million 100% 100% Memphis 2004 $250 million 100% 83% Houston 2003 $235 million 82% 100% San Antonio 2002 $186 million 85% 84% Oklahoma City 2002 $89 million 100% 100% Miami 1999 $213 million 100% 59% New Orleans 1999 $114 million 100% 100%  Conversely, the textbook and Marquette agree that only four of the arenas were built with taxpayer contributions of 50 percent or less. Arenas built with 50% or less public money NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the textbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Dallas 2001 $420 million 50% 30% Toronto 1999 $265 million 0% 0% Denver 1999 $160 million 22% 3% Los Angeles 1999 $375 million 16% 19%  There was not agreement between the between the two sources on the public portion paid for arenas in Brooklyn, Indianapolis and Atlanta: NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the texbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Indianapolis 1999 $183 million 100% 43% Atlanta 1999 $214 million 29% 91% Brooklyn 2010 $637 million 24% N/A  Our rating Sheehy said a 50-50 public-private split for paying for a new Milwaukee Bucks arena would be much better in terms of the portion of the public financing than most of the other arena projects done around the country. Of the 15 NBA arenas -- comprising half the cities in the league -- built since 1999, at least eight were built with more than 50 percent of the money coming from taxpayers. Seven of those eight were built with at least 82 percent public money. We rate his statement True. A persistent rumor in the summer of 2021 was that somewhere buried in United States President Joe Biden's Build Back Better plan was a hidden tax that was about to make driving much more expensive. In September, for example, the following messages were posted on social media claiming that Biden was implementing a new mileage tax:   A screenshot from a broadcast on the conservative news channel Newsmax was also circulated on social media:   Biden's Build Back Better plan does not impose a new mileage tax. These rumors appear to be based on a misinterpretation of a section of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that is currently (as of October 1, 2021) making its way through Congress. The infrastructure bill does not impose a mileage tax. Rather, this bill proposes a "national motor vehicle per-mile user fee" pilot program to study the impacts of a mileage tax.  Build Back Better plan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act In other words, this bill will does not implement a new mileage tax. This bill provides funding to study the impact of such a tax. A mileage tax may or may not be implemented after this voluntary pilot program concludes in 2026. Andy Winkler, director of infrastructure projects at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told The Associated Press: It is not a tax, it is not on everybody and it is voluntary." The Associated Press One of the purposes of this pilot program to explore alternative revenue streams to fund surface transportation programs. At the moment, the Highway Trust Fund is largely funded by taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel purchases. With the rise of electric vehicles, cars with better miles per gallon, and decreased personal travel during the COVID-19 pandemic, revenue from the gas tax has declined.  Highway Trust Fund revenue gas tax has declined One solution to this funding problem is to raise taxes on gasoline purchases. The state of Missouri, for example, just increased the state's gas tax for the first time since the 1990s. Another option would be to shift the burden of funds from the amount of gas a person uses to a person's actual mileage. Back in March 2021, Transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg said:  for the first time since the 1990s Transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg said: If we believe in that user-pays principlethe idea that how we pay for roads is based on how much you drivethe gas tax used to be the obvious way to do it. Its not anymore. A so-called VMT tax or mileage tax, whatever you want to call it, could be a way to do it. While proponents of a mileage tax argue that it's a fair tax, as it will tax people based on how much they use the roads, opponents have argued that this tax could impact people in rural areas more as they typically have to drive longer distances. Others have also raised privacy concerns, questioning how a person's mileage use would be calculated. opponents have argued For the moment, the Biden administration is not implementing a new mileage tax. However, the infrastructure bill does include a pilot program to study the impacts of a mileage tax.  Boesen, Ulrik. Gas Tax Revenue to Decline as Traffic Drops 38 Percent. Tax Foundation, 31 Mar. 2020, https://taxfoundation.org/gas-tax-revenue-decline-as-traffic-drops/. Fact Check: Infrastructure Bill Wouldnt Impose driving Tax of 8 Cents per Mile. Usatoday, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/30/fact-check-no-driving-tax-8-cents-mile-infrastructure-bill/5928257001/. Accessed 1 Oct. 2021. Franck, Thomas. Vehicle Mileage Tax Could Be on the Table in Infrastructure Talks, Buttigieg Says. CNBC, 26 Mar. 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/26/buttigieg-says-white-house-is-weighing-mileage-levy-to-fund-infrastructure.html. Friedman, Zack. Infrastructure Package Includes Vehicle Mileage Tax Program. Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2021/08/11/infrastructure-package-includes-vehicle-mileage-tax-program/. Accessed 1 Oct. 2021. Its Been 28 Years Since We Last Raised the Gas Tax, and Its Purchasing Power Has Eroded. https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/03/its-been-28-years-since-we-last-raised-the-gas-tax-and-its-purchasing-power-has-eroded. Accessed 1 Oct. 2021. Mileage Tax Study, Not Actual Mileage Tax, Proposed in Infrastructure Bill. AP NEWS, 29 Sept. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-907285011746. Missouris First Gas Tax Increase since the 1990s Goes into Effect Friday. FOX 2, 30 Sept. 2021, https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/missouris-first-gas-tax-increase-since-the-1990s-goes-into-effect-friday/. Status of the Highway Trust Fund | Federal Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/. Accessed 1 Oct. 2021. The Build Back Better Agenda. The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/. Accessed 1 Oct. 2021. The Gas Tax Was Already Broken. The Pandemic Could End It. Smart Cities Dive, https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/the-gas-tax-was-already-broken-the-pandemic-could-end-it/587653/. Accessed 1 Oct. 2021. Reaction was swift and strong after Republican Gov. Scott Walker said the curbs he enacted on the collective-bargaining power of public-employee unions were philosophically in line with principles espoused by President Franklin Roosevelt, the liberal Democratic icon. Walker drew the comparison ina July 29, 2013 speechat theGovernmental Research Association policy conferencehosted by Milwaukees Public Policy Forum. The governor, whose Act 10 law wiped away most subjects of bargaining for most public unions and shifted more pension and health-care costs to workers,arguedthe changes helped balance government budgets and made merit more important than teacher seniority in schools. We think it has a dynamic impact going forward on how we perform, and that is putting power in the hands of the people duly elected at the state and at the local level,  Walker said. Its why -- some people are surprised to know this -- the position I pushed is not unlike the principle that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not exactly a conservative, pushed as well when it came to public sector collective bargaining, Walker added. He felt that there wasn't a need -- and others like him, (former New York Mayor Fiorello) LaGuardia and others -- felt there wasnt a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people. We are the people. Did Roosevelt -- the patron of the post-Depression boost in organizing by industrial unions in the private sector -- really take the position that when it came to federal government employees, there wasnt a need to have collective bargaining? Before we check Walkers claim, lets stipulate the obvious: There are dramatic differences between Walker and the architect of the New Deal, from their approaches to governing in times of economic distress to their views on the proper size and role of the state. In the labor realm, when it came to private-sector unions whose cause he championed, FDR called collective bargaining a fundamental individual right. Walker, meanwhile, has not ruled out signing right to work limits on private-sector unions, though hes not pushing it now. Thats one reason the comparison so riled Democrats and union leaders. FDR brought us out of the Great Depression with strong investment in workers and jobs programs that worked, Wisconsin State AFL-CIO leader Phil Neuenfeldt said. Scott Walker is drowning in a jobs deficit and to compare himself to FDR is laughably delusional. But Walker in his speech made a claim on a very specific historical point: FDRs views on collective bargaining for public employees. And that is the claim we are examining. Where Roosevelt stood Compared to the mountain of evidence on FDRs sympathetic stance on protections and rights for private laborers, the historical record on his attitude toward public-sector unions is less than a few inches high. Walker cites an on-point and oft-quoted FDR letter that conservatives frequently highlight when arguing for limits on unions in the government sector. That letter, we found, dominates scholarly debate over Roosevelts views on this issue. And its easy to see why: The presidentsAug. 16, 1937 correspondencewith Luther C. Steward,  the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, is bluntly worded -- to say the least. Roosevelt was responding to an invitation to attend the organizations 20th jubilee convention. In the letter, FDR says groups such as NFFE naturally organize to present their views to supervisors. Government workers, he observed, want fair pay, safe working conditions and review of grievances just like private-industry workers. Organizations of government employees have a logical place in Government affairs, he wrote. But Roosevelt then shifted gears, emphasizing that meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. Then, the most-famous line and the one directly on point to Walkers comment: All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service, he wrote. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. Roosevelt didnt stop there. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations, he wrote. When Walker claimed FDR said the government is the people, he had Roosevelts next line in mind. The employer, Roosevelts letter added, is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Roosevelt concluded with a strong stance against strikes by unions representing government workers, noting that NFFEs bylaws rejected strikes. The letter, the FDRPresidential Library sitepoints out, was released publicly by the Roosevelt White House and became the administration's official position on collective bargaining and federal government employees. Roosevelt had previously laid out his views on public-sector unions at aJuly 9, 1937 news conference. His statements there add more weight to Walkers claim. A reporter directly asked Roosevelt whether he favored government employees joining unions to the extent of collective bargaining with the government. Roosevelts response made clear he thought managers should listen to worker concerns, whether raised by union representatives or not. Federal workers are free to join any union they want, he said. But he recalled that in 1913, when he was Navy assistant secretary, he told a union official the Navy would not enter into a contract with the union because it had no discretion under federal law. The pay is fixed by Congress and the workmen are represented by the members of Congress in the fixing of Government pay, Roosevelt said. His thinking then still applied, Roosevelt told the reporters in 1937. At the end of news conference, Roosevelt was asked, after making the point that Congress sets compensation: In other words, you would not have the representatives of the majority as the sole bargaining agents? Roosevelt: Not in the government, because there is no collective contract. It is a very different case. There isnt any bargaining, in other words, with the government, therefore the question does not arise. Taken together, the letter and news conference remarks positioned Roosevelt as deeply skeptical of the need and wisdom of collective bargaining power for unions in the federal system. When he wrote that the unique circumstances would make it impossible for government officials to make a binding deal on behalf of the government, that didnt leave a lot of ambiguity. Same with the phrase insurmountable limitations. What the scholars say Perhaps because of the strong wording of his views, the 1937 letter remains -- nearly 75 years later -- the best piece of evidence on this topic. Even scholars and union officials who chafe at Walker linking himself to FDR have acknowledged the letters significance. Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike, public-sector labor scholar Joseph McCartintold Salon.comshortly after Walkers dramatic action in 2011. And the current head of the National Federation of Federal Employees says Roosevelts words meant he believed that there should be no right to federal bargaining over wages and benefits. The union chief,William Dougan, told us Roosevelt feared that dealing with multiple unions could lead to pay disparities. To be sure, Roosevelts views were in part a product of his time. At the time, government unions had no collective bargaining rights, and it was not uncommon for elected officials to stand against union bargaining rights for government employees. Even in the private-sector, labor rights were still developing, their constitutionality still under debate in the courts. The notion of expanding those powers to the government sector had not yet taken hold -- and it would not under FDR. It wasnt until 1962 that President John F. Kennedysexecutive orderallowed bargaining, and then just over working conditions. Federal unions still cannot bargain over pay and benefits. Still, there are prominent scholarly voices who think Roosevelts 1937 letter has been misinterpreted, at least in part. One such voice is McCartin, theGeorgetown University history professorwho told Salon that Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike. When we asked McCartin about that interview, he said he had spoken prematurely. He and other historians note that Roosevelt wrote that collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. Historians and union officials have parsed the phrase for decades, debating its meaning, and sometimes disagreeing with each other. The phrase, some say, leaves open the possibility that Roosevelt supported a modified form of collective bargaining, different from what private workers had created. They note that in the letter, Roosevelt directed his opposition most specifically at the right to strike. Dougan, the union official,believes Roosevelt appeared opento bargaining over working conditions. Several scholars emphasize that Roosevelt later praised a union contract negotiated between the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority and unions representing workers for the electric utility created by the federal government in 1933. The TVAs board, appointed by Roosevelt,chose as a matter of policyto recognize the unions and bargain with them. The TVA Act signed by Roosevelt did not direct or discourage such bargaining. TheTVAepisode is the only effective rebuttal offered to the words in FDRs letter, wrote Wilson R. Hart, a longtime labor relations adviser in the federal government who examined Roosevelts thinking on unions. Hart felt that the apparent contradiction between FDRs TVA comments and his 1937 letter strongly suggested that Roosevelt was not denouncing all elements of collective bargaining in the letter. How Walkers action compares Scholars, including McCartin, believe FDRs views might have evolved in favor of public sector bargaining -- and against what Walker did. We wont judge that for this item, but well end with a few observations regarding the two situations, separated by nearly three-quarters of a century. In substance, Walkers move dramatically limited, but did not completely end, collective bargaining by most public employees. His Act 10 allowed the state to cut benefits and try to limit pay increases. He argued that unions had become too powerful and that elected representatives of the people should have more control over taxpayer-funded compensation. Roosevelt said in the 1937 press conference that compensation levels for federal employees should be set by Congress and the president, not through bargaining with unions. So both men -- decades apart -- envisioned a limited role for unions in the public sector. But the differences in context make the two mens views hard to compare. Walker acted after 50 years of collective bargaining between the state and its employees -- in the birthplace of public collective bargaining -- while FDR expressed his views before labor won that toehold into that arena. Our rating Walker said FDR felt there wasnt a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people. The governor relies -- to good effect -- on Roosevelts 1937 letter, which, along with other primary evidence, lays out in striking language FDRs deep reservations about the need for and wisdom of public-sector bargaining. While Roosevelt was open to discussion with represented and unrepresented employees over working conditions, he seemingly had major concerns about a formal, contractual bargaining process. Scholars cite Roosevelts positive comments on the Tennessee Valley Authority labor contracts, and debate certain phraseology in FDR's writings, but its limited evidence compared to the clear impression left by the letter and press conference remarks. Roosevelt saw a logical place for unions in government affairs, but the most compelling evidence suggests he drew the line at collective bargaining with them. We rate Walkers narrow statement True. DidTravis Allen, arguably the most conservative candidate for California governor, donate campaign money to three of the states leading liberal Democrats? Thats the Republican-on-Republican attack levied by John Coxs campaign for governor in arecent TV adthat goes after Allen, an Orange County assemblyman whos positioned himself as a GOP populist. Heres the full text of the ad, which includes three attacks on Allen: Narrator: For Republicans, the race for governor is crystal clear: Theres conservative businessman John Cox, leading the opposition to Jerry Browns Sanctuary State and chairman of the initiative campaign to repeal the gas tax. Then theres career politician Travis Allen. He gave campaign donations to Jerry Brown. Gavin Newsom and Barbara Boxer. And on the floor vote, Allen refused to join Republicans opposing driver licenses for illegal aliens. The conservative choice is clear: John Cox for governor. The ad was paid for by John Cox for Governor 2018. Well examine the other two attacks on Allen in future fact-checks. In this piece, well focus on the claim he donated to top Democrats. Background on GOP rivals Recent polls show growing support for Coxs campaign for governor, less than a week after President Trumpendorsedthe San Diego businessman. A surveyreleased Wednesday nightfrom the Public Policy Institute of California shows Newsom, the states lieutenant governor, leading Cox, 25 percent to 19 percent. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was third, at 15 percent, followed by Allen with 11 percent,  State Treasurer John Chiang at 9 percent and former state schools chief Delaine Eastin with 6 percent. Coxand Allen have sparred at campaign events over who is the most conservative candidate. Theyve both criticized Californias Democratic leadership over the gas tax increase and sanctuary state protections. The top two candidates in the June 5 primary, regardless of party affiliation, will move on to the November runoff. Donating to Democrats? The ad accuses Allen of donating to three of the states top Democrats. The irony, of course, is that Allens run for governor has centered on criticizing those same politicians, particularly Brown and Newsom. We found clear evidence supporting the claim, though Coxs ad ignores the fact that the contributions took place nearly a decade ago, before Allen ran for elected office, and that he also donated to Republicans. Campaign finance records show that in October 2010, Allen donated $1,000 to Jerry Brown for Governor, through Wealth Strategies Group, his wealth management firm in Huntington Beach. In August 2010, Allen gave $100 to Gavin Newsom for Lieutenant Governor. And, in October 2010, he donated $250 to Barbara Boxer for Senate. SOURCE: Campaign finance records from the California Secretary of State'swebsite. Asked about this, a spokeswoman for Allens campaign said in an email that the contributions took place before Travis was an elected official, as a businessman, he purchased tickets to some events. A November 2017 Mercury-Newsarticlesummarized these and additional donations Allen made to Democrats in 2010 and 2011. He told the paper at that time: As a businessman I was invited to some events by friends, and I purchased tickets to these events. Attending these events, however, opened my eyes to the damage the Democrats were doing to California, and brought about my decision to do everything in my power to stop them, including running for public office. Similar claim In April 2016, PolitiFact California ratedMostly Truea similar claim about then Presidential candidate Donald Trump donating to Democrats. Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, at the time Trumps rival for the Republican presidential nomination, claimed Trump has given $12,000 to Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris. Campaign finance data showed the claim was accurate, though we noted Cruz left out that the donations took place long before Trump announced his run for president. The contribution to Jerry Brown took place in 2006, while the donations to the other Democrats took place in 2009, 2011 and 2013. Our ruling In a recentTV ad, John Coxs campaign for governor claimed rival GOP candidate Travis Allen donated to three of Californias top Democrats. Campaign records prove the claim, though the contributions took place a decade ago, before Allen entered politics. The statement is accurate but needs this clarification. We rate it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. On 24 August 2016, the discredited food alarmist known as "Food Babe" posted an image showing the ingredient list on a box of Cheez-It brand snack crackers, along with the claim that the product contains TBHQ, a "toxic synthetic preservative created from butane": discredited Food Babe  Are you buying these? You cant get much more toxic than TBHQ. This synthetic preservative is created from butane (a very toxic gas) and has been linked to vision disturbances, liver enlargement, childhood behavioral problems, and stomach cancer in animal studies. New research coming out of Michigan State University links it to the rise in food allergies, which has prompted more research. Although the FDA allows this in America, this additive is banned for use in food in other countries including Japan, and is on the Center For Science in The Public Interests list as one of the worst additives to be avoided in our food. Please share! #FoodBabeArmy TBHQ, tertiary butylhydroquinone, is a synthetic antioxidant that is commonly used as a food preservative. Although TBHQ does contain a butyl moiety, this does not mean that the preservative is "created from butane" (which is commonly used as lighter fluid). In response to a similar claim made in 2007 about McDonald's Chicken McNuggets, the ScienceBlogs web site explained TBHQ's relationship to butane: ScienceBlogs TBHQ contains a butyl moiety (a tert-butyl moiety, more accurately), but so does butter, which contains esters of the blameless butyrate (when degraded to free butyrate, its the origin of the smell of rancid butter, esterified, as in fresh butter, its not a problem). Butter is not lighter fluid, nor is TBHQ. A butyl group does not butane make. Its worth noting that preservatives might not be entirely benign (you also encounter BHT and BHA, your cereal boxs cardboard is probably impregnated with one of these). However, none of these are lighter fluid by a long shot. While it's true that TBHQ has been banned in Japan, it is not "toxic," as the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority both classify TBHQ as a safe food additive in the small amounts present in foods such as Cheez-It snack crackers. FDA European Food Safety Authority In response to the message posted by "Food Babe," Cheez-It stated on their Facebook page that they have been testing natural alternatives to TBHQ:  While synthetic preservatives may not be the healthiest of options, TBHQ is not "created from butane," it is not "toxic, nor is it been deemed by the FDA to be dangerous to consume in moderate quantities. Claim:  The actor who portrayed Superman on television in the 1950s believed he had acquired the character's super powers and accidentally killed himself by trying to fly.  Status:  False. Origins:  Tinseltown is full of tragic tales (of varying degrees of truthfulness) about beloved actors who, having succumbed to the illusion of their profession,   ultimately became unable to separate their own personalities from those of the characters they portrayed.  None of these stories has a more bizarre ending than the one told about George Reeves, TV's Superman, who allegedly met with an accidental death while attempting to duplicate a feat possible only by someone possessed of his character's super powers. George Reeves (born George Keefer Brewer in 1914) began his Hollywood career in a variety of bit parts in the late 1930s, including a small role in the epic film Gone with the Wind, and worked steadily (if unspectacularly) throughout the 1940s before landing the role that would finally make his name and face a familiar one in American households: Superman.  The popular superhero had been featured in numerous comics, radio shows, and films during the 1940s before he was brought to the small screen in a syndicated television series that began production in 1951 with George Reeves in the title role. The series proved itself popular when it finally reached local stations in 1952, additional episodes were filmed from 1953 to 1957.  Although the show's budget was quite limited, the series was tremendously popular for a program that did not appear on a network's prime time schedule, and George Reeves became the living embodiment of Superman to millions of American children. As plenty of actors have discovered over the years, fame sometimes exacts a high price from those who achieve it.   Despite his being more popular and recognizable than ever, George Reeves became typecast as Superman and was unable to find work when production of The Adventures of Superman series ended in 1957.  Despondent and depressed over his inability to secure other acting roles, the 45-year-old Reeves committed suicide on 16 June 1959, shooting himself in the head in the upstairs bedroom of his Beverly Hills home while a party was in progress in the living room below. (Many claims have been made that depict Reeves' death as a murder rather than a suicide.  He was allegedly quite upbeat at the time of his death about hearing that the Superman series was going to resume production soon and thus had no reason to kill himself.  Rumors also posited that the husband of a woman with whom Reeves had recently broken  off a 10-year affair had hired a hitman to kill the actor.  None of this speculation has any substantive evidence to back it up, however.) Shortly after Reeves' tragic death, the bizarre story that would stigmatize his untimely end even further began to circulate: Reeves, believing he possessed Superman's super powers, died when he jumped out the window of a multi-story building, expecting that he would fly as his superhero character did rather than plummet to the ground.  (Alternate versions of the rumor had Reeves dying after attempting some other demonstration of super strength, such as having bullets or a cannon fired directly at his chest.) Reeves may have been depressed, and he may have been despondent that he was no longer needed for the only role Hollywood seemingly found him suitable for, but he was under no illusion that he was the character he played.  The legend about his unusual manner of death likely began as a combination of  attempts to rationalize his taking of his own life ("He was crazy" providing a more comprehensible explanation for suicide to many than the complex realities do, especially to people familiar only with a victim's public persona and not the details of his private life) and the apocryphal stories of children killing themselves in similar fashion that already been circulating for several years.  (An even more unusual take on this legend had Reeves killing himself because he was despondent over the harm caused to all the kids who had donned Superman capes and jumped from heights, expecting to fly as they had seen Reeves do countless times on the TV show.) We all too often expect our heroes to be larger-than-life in everything, including their deaths.  When the facts don't meet our expectations, we manufacture them.  George Reeves may not have died a hero, but many of us have been led to believe that he died trying to be one, however misguided that attempt may have been. Last updated:  8 August 2007    Sources:   Kashner, Sam.  Hollywood Kryptonite.   New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996.  ISBN 0-312-14616-7. Hollywood Kryptonite    Mitchell, Sean.  "TV Confidential."   TV Guide.  25 July 1998  (p. 12).     Brooks, Tim and Earle Marsh.  Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows.   New York: Ballantine Books, 1999.  ISBN 0-345-42923-0  (pp. 18-19). Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows We can't all be famous, but many people who aren't have tried the next best thing: associating themselves with someone famous.  Others, denied the opportunity even to hobnob with anyone of renown, have taken the process a step further and manufactured such associations themselves.  A particularly prevalent genre of "brush with fame" legends involves those who claim to have had chance encounters with notable personages during their formative years, contributing something  an idea, a suggestion, or maybe just a helping hand  that had a lasting impact and aided those later-famous people in becoming successful in some artistic, scientific, or political endeavor.  After all, the early lives of people who later become famous are often not well documented, making it difficult to dispute a claimant's tale of a chance encounter way back when. Not surprisingly, Walt Disney is the subject of several such legends, in this case one having to do with the site of his birth and the origin of his given name. In 1982, the Robinson Argus newspaper, based in Robinson, Illinois, published a local resident's recollection of the putative circumstances surrounding Walt's birth: So many great people were born in Robinson! And, now we must add Walt Disney to the list. The Argus is indebted to Doris Davis and Ada York for the surprising information that the famous Walt Disney actually was born in Robinson. On Friday, February 12, Ada gave the following information to Doris Davis, who in turn brought it to the Argus on Monday of this week. This is February 12, 1982, at Cotillion Ridge, and this is Ada talking to Doris Davis: "In 1925-26 I worked for Mr. George Walter on West Plum Street. This was a time when Walt Disney was coming into great popularity. He told me that several people knew that Walt Disney was born in Robinson and I asked him how he developed the knowledge and he said that he owned the brick yard at the time and they were migrating through Robinson back to Chicago and ran out of money while in this town. Mr. Walter gave him a job and he got a room over what is now the Rembrandt Studio and their baby was due at any time. When the baby was born, it was a boy and they named him Walter for Mr. Walter who had been so kind to them and gave Mr. Disney work to enable him to support his wife and baby son." Doris: "Later, you heard an interview?" Ada: "Yes! Edward R. Murrow interviewed Walt Disney and he asked him where he was born. Walt Disney said, 'Well the record shows that I was born in Chicago, but actually I was born in a little town 200 miles south  Robinson!' So that sort of tied the ends together!" It's a charming story, but the logical holes in its premise and timeline are legion:  Every significant piece of Disney biography states that Walt was born in an upstairs bedroom of his parents' house in Chicago.  If Walt had publicly stated, to a news reporter as prominent as Edward R. Murrow, that he was actually born somewhere else, how is it that  fact has somehow eluded every Disney biographer to the point that none of them so much as mention it?  And if Walt both knew and publicly proclaimed that he was really born in Robinson, why did he nonetheless maintain in his autobiography (published under his daughter's name) that he was indeed born in Chicago?  Walt Disney's parents could not have been "migrating back to Chicago" just before his birth in 1901, as they had been living in Chicago continuously ever since 1889.  Even if Elias Disney, Walt's father, had some reason to travel away from Chicago in late 1901, it is extremely unlikely (given the rigors of travel in those days) that he would have taken a heavily-pregnant wife along with him except under the most exigent of circumstances (and there is no record of any such circumstances affecting the Disney family in 1901).  The account quoted above states that a brickyard owner in Robinson gave Elias Disney work immediately after Walt's birth "to enable him to support his wife and baby son."  By the time Walt came along, the Disneys already had three children  who was taking care of them?  Surely Mr. and Mrs. Disney had not left their three young sons behind somewhere to fend for themselves, so why does this recollection fail to mention anyone but Walt?  Why in the world would the Disneys, who already had a permanent home in Chicago (in a house built by Elias himself), have been traipsing around the countryside with three children in tow and Mrs. Disney about to give birth to a fourth?  (Again, there is no record of the Disneys having left their three eldest children in someone else's care for an extended period of time just before Walt's birth.)  The statement that Walt Disney was "coming into great popularity" in 1925-26 (a claim made to explain why the narrator clearly remembered a story she'd been told over fifty years earlier  obviously she wouldn't have found the tale so memorable if Walt Disney wasn't already famous when she heard it) is a bit off the mark: the debut of the character who made the name 'Disney' a household word, Mickey Mouse, was still several years in the future, and even Disney's first successful animated character, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, would not first appear until late 1927.  Disney had moderate success in the mid-1920s with his Alice in Cartoonland series (short silent films which mixed live action and animation), but he was hardly a nationally-known figure in 1926.  (As a point of comparison, we note that although Disney began working in Los Angeles in early 1923, his name appeared in the pages of the Los Angeles Times but once prior to 1929.) Oswald the Lucky Rabbit Alice in Cartoonland  Wherever Walt may have been born (and no matter what the circumstances of his birth), his given name was demonstrably not the result of a spur-of-the-moment decision by his parents to honor someone who had aided them at the time of Walt's birth in 1901.  As the following birth record demonstrates, the Disneys had already selected "Walter" as a name for one of their sons as far back as 1890:  Walt Disney, of course, was not born until 1901  this certificate, which documents a birth on 30 December 1890, records the arrival of one of Walt's older brothers, Raymond Arnold Disney.  Evidently Mr. and Mrs. Disney considered naming one of their earlier children "Walter" to the extent that that name was listed on the birth certificate, but they later changed their minds and named him "Raymond" instead.  The important point, however, is that this certificate documents the Disneys had the name "Walter" in mind for one of their sons a full eleven years before Walt was born. So, we leave off where we began, by noting that people sometimes manufacture their own brushes with greatness, as was evidently the case here. To mangle a familiar phrase: "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some fabricate greatness out of whole cloth." Cooper, Jacob.  "Comics Mean Hard Labor."
 Los Angeles Times.  13 April 1930  (p. B11). Eliot, Marc.  Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince.
  New York: Birch Lane Press, 1993.  ISBN 1-55972-174-X. Miller, Diane Disney.  The Story of Walt Disney.
  New York: Dell, 1957. Mosley, Leonard.  Disney's World.
  New York: Stein and Day, 1985  (pp. 16-21). Thomas, Bob.  Walt Disney: An American Original.
  New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976.  ISBN 0-7868-6027-8  (p. 24). Thomas, Bob.  Building a Company: Roy O. Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire.
  New York: Hyperion, 1998.  ISBN 0-7868-6200-9  (pp. 1-16). Los Angeles Times.  "Actors Mix with Cartoons."
  6 July 1924  (p. B31). Los Angeles Times.  "Maclean Provides Screen Fun."
  28 September 1929  (p. A9). The Robinson Argus.  "Many Great People Born in Robinson  Even Walt Disney."
  25 February 1982. On 27 February 2016, the World News Daily Report web site published an article positing that a retired postman had fathered more than 1,300 illegitimate children: An 87-year-old former postman has been proven to have fathered over 1,300 illegitimate children after a private investigator hired by a Tennessee family discovered the shocking truth. Contraception wasnt very popular in those days, he told local reporters in his defense. I have nothing to be ashamed of. The 60s were the good old days and I did a great Johnny Cash impression which played out real good with the ladies, he explained. Some even thought I was Johnny Cash for real, he recalls laughingly. I dont know if they really believed it or if they were trying to convince themselves, but who was I to say no to a quickie? he acknowledged. There was no truth to thisstory, which originated with World News Daily Report (WNDR), a fake news site that does not publish factual stories (as noted in their disclaimer): WNDR assumes however all responsibility for thesatiricalnature of its articles and for the fictional nature oftheir content. All characters appearing in the articlesin this website  even those based on real people  areentirely fictionalandany resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purelya miracle. In addition to the disclaimer, thefake news story about a postman's fathering 1,300 illegitimate children was given away as fiction because it featured two unrelated images that were lifted (like all of WNDR's photographs) from other sites:   The first image, which purportedly depicts the prolific postman, actually shows a 97-year-old World War II veteran. The second image, which supposedly captures the reporter who uncovered the story, is actually picture of David Stockman, the budget director during the Reagan administration. shows picture When it comes to taxing businesses, the United States is leading the world, according to Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joe Kyrillos.As he looks to unseat Democratic incumbent Robert Menendez this November, Kyrillos has refused to sign an anti-tax pledge, but maintained in an Aug. 20 interview on WOR-AM that hes looking to lower tax rates.We've got the highest corporate tax rate in the world, in the world, said Kyrillos, a state senator representing Monmouth County. So, Im about reducing tax rates.As far as the corporate tax rates on the books, Kyrillos claim is on the money. However, when you factor in various tax breaks, the rate actually paid by U.S. businesses has been among the highest in the world, but not in first place, studies show.For this fact-check, were focusing on two different types of corporate tax rates: statutory and effective rates.To back up Kyrillos claim, a spokeswoman pointed to the top statutory corporate tax rate of 39.2 percent in the United States. That figure represents a combination of federal, state and local tax rates imposed by law before any tax breaks.Once Japan reduced its combined corporate tax rate in April, the U.S. rate became the highest among industrialized nations, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, a pro-business group.So, Kyrillos claim about a first-place finish is on target in terms of statutory rates.But the United States does not necessarily lead the world when you consider the effective tax rates paid by U.S. businesses. Due to various tax breaks, those rates are typically lower than the top statutory rate.In a September 2011 report, the Tax Foundation summarized the findings of the latest 13 studies of effective corporate tax rates across the world. Due to different methodologies, those studies determined U.S. effective tax rates ranging from 23 percent to 34.9 percent, according to the report.The United States did not rank first in any of those studies, but in 10 of them, U.S. effective rates ranked among the top five highest for the countries analyzed, the report states. However, the effective rate in Japan will likely drop, possibly moving the United States to the top spot in future studies.Apart from that Tax Foundation report, its worth noting that a separate analysis found thirty Fortune 500 companies, including General Electric, didnt pay any federal corporate income taxes over the 2008-2010 period. That study was done by the left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice along with the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.So, whats the better measure -- statutory or effective rates?According to Tax Foundation president Scott Hodge, statutory rates make for better comparisons. Effective rates are unpredictable and vary across different industries, but the statutory rates are fixed, Hodge told us. (The effective tax rate) will differ from industry to industry and business to business, whereas the list price is what it is and everyone starts at that point, Hodge said.But Joseph Rosenberg, a research associate at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, argued that effective tax rates provide the best measure of comparison for overall tax burdens. Aparna Mathur, an economist with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, added in an e-mail that both are equally valid measures of looking at the burden of the corporate income tax.Our rulingIn a radio interview, Kyrillos claimed, We've got the highest corporate tax rate in the world.Its accurate that, at 39.2 percent, the United States has the highest statutory corporate tax rate among industrialized nations. But with various tax breaks, U.S. effective corporate tax rates range anywhere from 23 percent to 34.9 percent, studies show.Those effective tax rates may not land in first place, but theyre still among the highest in the world.We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com.