Did a UC Berkeley Instructor Say Rural Americans Are 'Bad People'?
In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries from readers about the accuracy of reports that a doctoral student and philosophy instructor at the University of California Berkeley had provoked outrage, especially among right-leaning observers, by remarking that people in rural America were "bad people who have made bad life decisions." On Nov. 12, Fox News published an article with the headline "UC Berkeley Instructor Calls Rural Americans 'Bad People' Who Deserve 'Uncomfortable' Lives," which reported that: reported A UC Berkeley graduate student and instructor took to Twitter to shame "rural Americans" and those who aren't "pro-city." Jackson Kernion, who has reportedly taught at least 11 philosophy courses at the California university, made the comments last Wednesday. "I unironically embrace the bashing of rural Americans," Kernion wrote in a now-deleted tweet. "They, as a group, are bad people who have made bad life decisions ... and we should shame people who aren't pro-city." Kernion started going after rural citizens, saying they should have higher health care, pay more in taxes and be forced to live an "uncomfortable" life for rejecting "efficient" city life, Campus Reform reported. Similar articles were also published by the right-leaning websites Breitbart, PJ Media, and Campus Reform. Breitbart PJ Media Campus Reform Kernion did indeed attract the ire of many online commentators with a series of tweets on Nov. 5, in which he outlined, apparently in earnest, his views about the sustainability of living in rural America, and the character of those who chose to do so. Kernion's Twitter account is no longer available, but many of the key tweets in question were archived and can be viewed here. here He wrote: "The need for affordable rural healthcare" = "The need for people who decide to live in rural America to be subsidized by those who choose a more efficient way of life." Rural healthcare should be expensive! And that expense should be borne by those who choose rural America! Same goes for rural broadband. And gas taxes. It should be uncomfortable to live in rural America. It should be uncomfortable to not move. None of the replies I'm getting even *try* to address the central point I'm making: that we shouldn't make rural life *artificially* cheaper. That's how you know I'm right. When another user responded to Kernion with a point about health care in rural America, Kernion replied: "I'm generally in favor of crushing rural America through market mechanisms ..."   Another user asked ironically, "Is this your campaign slogan?" Kernion responded by declaring: responded "I unironically embrace the bashing of rural Americans. They, as a group, are bad people who have made bad life decisions. Some, I assume, are good people. But this nostalgia for some imagined pastoral way of life is stupid and we should shame people who aren't pro-city."   Kernion certainly made the remarks attributed to him in various subsequent news reports. Although those news reports typically did not provide the full context of his Twitter thread and exchanges with other users, the reports did not substantively distort the meaning or sense of what Kernion wrote. There was arguably a hint of irony to his remarks. For example, he wrote (of rural Americans) "some, I assume, are good people"  an apparent nod to Donald Trump's infamous description of Mexican people at his 2015 presidential campaign launch. description In a later tweet, Kernion reflected on the heavy backlash against his comments, writing "what I thought would read as cheeky hyperbole did *not* read as such ..." which suggests there may have been an element of humorous exaggeration behind what he wrote about rural Americans. tweet However, these factors are counterbalanced by the obvious fact that Kernion stipulated "I unironically embrace the bashing of rural Americans," and that he later articulated a measure of earnest contrition, writing, "Pretty sure I did a bad tweet here. Gonna delete it. I'll want to reflect on it more later, but my tone is way crasser and meaner than I like to think I am." writing,  In an email, Kernion told Snopes "There's both a substantive aspect to my original tweets and a semi-humorous aspect to my original tweets...but I'm not sure I want to go down the rabbit hole of doing a line-by-line annotation of what I was thinking/wanting to communicate." He added that his tweets had, until Nov. 5, typically reached only a small audience whom he "expected to understand" what he was trying to convey. When the thread he published on that day was exposed to a much wider audience, Kernion said, "they read into it attitudes that I do not hold." He reiterated that he had retracted and deleted his Twitter thread and would continue to "reflect on it." Parke, Caleb. "UC Berkeley Instructor Calls Rural Americans 'Bad People' Who Deserve 'Uncomfortable' Lives."  Fox News. 12 November 2019. Ciccotta, Tom. "UC Berkeley Instructor: Rural Americans Are 'Bad People.'"  Breitbart. 10 November 2019. Fox, Megan. "Rural Americans Are 'Bad People' Who Deserve to Be Shamed, Says Berkeley Instructor."  PJ Media. 13 November 2019. Ryan, Celine. "Berkeley 'Instructor': 'Rural Americans' Are 'Bad People.'"  Campus Reform. 8 November 2019. The Washington Post. "Full Text: Donald Trump Announces a Presidential Bid."  16 June 2015.
Claim:  Milk sold at Wal-Mart contains rBST, a dangerous growth hormone.  Status:  Multiple:  Some milk vended by retailers comes from rBST-treated cows:  True.  As of March 2008, Wal-Mart's "Great Value" milk no longer contains rBST:  True.  Milk produced by rBST-treated cows has been proved dangerous for ordinary human consumption:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2007] Health Warning - rBST in Great Value[Walmart] Milk I just received this from my sister-in-law in Gainesville and I wanted to let you all know, especially if you have daughters or granddaughters. Please read this and pass along to as many people.... Mitzi Lyons, her husband is Kyle, live here in Gainesville, TX. Their daughter, for THREE years has incurred menstrual problems (bleeding every day) for three years and within the last year she started producing milk. They have performed every test, every surgery, put her on birth control and the last straw was fixing to be a hysterectomy in January. BUT, Mitzi's dad started research on the internet of his granddaughter's problem and found out about rBST in milk (injecting cows with hormones so they will produce more milk). Walmart Great Value milk is the kind that the Lyons family has always drunk. 3 months ago, they pulled Marissa off of Great Value Milk and she quit bleeding and lactating. Borden milk does not have rBST in it. Her doctor's in Houston are going to write a medical journal discovery on her, because FDA says that rBST is safe. Mitzi asked me to please share this with everyone I could think of to hopefully save someone the pain and suffering that Marissa has endured. Mitzi knows this was an answered prayer. I have pulled my family from Walmart Great Value Milk and bought Borden and Borden has a label on their milk that says rBST not used on their cows. Please pass this on...... Origins:  rBST, or recombinant bovine somatotropin, is an artificial growth hormone injected into dairy cows approximately every two weeks to boost milk production. It is the synthetic  version of BST (bovine somatotropin), a naturally-occurring hormone in cattle. Cows treated with rBST go from producing over 70 pounds of milk per day to somewhat less than 90, a significant increase in output. The use of rBST is controversial. On the plus side, it elevates milk production and boosts farm income. On the downside, it can increase udder infections in cows (thereby necessitating greater use of antibiotics), and some say it may increase cancer risk in milk drinkers.  The cancer claims have not been proved. Those who say there is a risk point to a connection between rBST injections and elevation of another hormone in cows, IGF-1. In humans, too much IGF-1 is linked with increased rates of colon, breast, and prostate cancer. Use of rBST is banned in Canada, but not because of any potential ill effect it might have on humans; its use was proscribed because of its harmful effects on cows (udder irritation). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says rBST is safe for consumers and that milk from rBST-treated cows is no different from milk from non-treated cows: FDA Before the 1993 approval of rbST, FDA determined that the recombinant, or genetically engineered form of bST is virtually identical to a cow's natural somatotropin, a hormone produced in the pituitary gland that stimulates the production of milk. During that rbST approval process, FDA concluded that there is no significant difference between milk from treated and untreated cows. For that reason, FDA also concluded it does not have the authority to require special labeling for milk and dairy products from rbST-treated cows, and that producers have no basis for claiming that milk from cows not treated with rbST is safer than milk from rbST-treated cows. Assurances notwithstanding, recent years have seen a grassroots consumers movement away from products reliant upon antibiotics or growth hormones. Shoppers are increasingly seeking out "rBST- (or rBGH-)free" milk in lieu of the hormone-assisted sort. But it comes at a price  this type of milk is far more expensive. While a half-gallon of 2% milk (Lucerne) goes for $1.99, its non-rBST equivalent (Sunmilk) goes for $3.89, and organic 2% milk (Horizon and Stremicks Heritage) for $4.19.  We encountered this e-mail purporting to detail a teen's reaction to the rBST in the milk she drank in March 2007. While there is reason to believe the young woman depicted in the tale exists and that the description of her travails is at least somewhat accurate, that's a far cry from saying her drinking of rBST-enhanced milk caused her medical woes. There have been rumors that rBST causes premature puberty in children, but as yet there's nothing credible to hang them upon.  Indeed, arguing against such an outcome is the type of hormone itself: Somatotropins (growth hormones) are not the same as gonadotropins (sexual development hormones), and they don't cross functions, especially when applied to different species. The e-mailed alert includes an exhortation to swear off milk from Wal-Mart in favor of that from Borden. That advice is a bit simplistic, because just about any large retailer that vends milk will generally offer both rBST and non-rBST kinds for sale. Those concerned about avoiding rBST should read labels, looking for words like "organic," "hormone free," and "rBST free." (Consumers should also assume if that they don't see one of those phrases, the product they're considering buying does contain rBST.) On 21 March 2008, Wal-Mart announced that its "Great Value" milk would no longer be sourced from rBST-enhanced cows. Barbara "milk dud" Mikkelson Additional information:       bST Fact Sheet   (Cornell University)   Last updated:  23 March 2008    Sources:   Pollack, Andrew.  "Which Cows Do You Trust?"   The New York Times.  7 October 2006  (p. C1).     Raine, George.  "Got rbST in Your Milk?"   The San Francisco Chronicle.  25 March 2007  (p. D1).     Reuters.  "Hormone-Free Milk Sales Stir Heated Debate."   Los Angeles Times.  19 January 2007  (p. C6). During the build-up to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, President Donald Trump was often criticized for his inability to articulate any goals that he expected or hoped to accomplish during a second term in office if he were reelected.  criticized A quote meme from late August 2020 reflected that criticism, putatively quoting the president as saying nothing concrete about his plans for the next four years other than that he would continue doing what he was already doing and would have "other things on [his] plate":  This meme accurately reproduced a statement from Trump, although the meme's presenting it without any context made it sound like the statement was the only thing the president said about his plans for the next for years, which was not the case. On Aug. 26, The New York Times conducted a 40-minute interview with Trump over the telephone, covering his past three-plus years in office and the upcoming election. The Times' resulting article noted that the president had "strained lately to define what his second-term agenda would be" and quoted him as uttering the words reproduced in the above meme, but it also referenced Trump's offering "a list of what he has done and would continue to do," so the president did in fact provide some specifics about what he had, and wanted to, accomplish: article Beyond more of the same, [Trump] has strained lately to define what his second-term agenda would be. Asked at various points, even by friendly interviewers on Fox News, he has offered meandering answers. His fellow Republicans seem no more certain. They therefore dispensed with a party platform altogether, opting instead for a simple resolution of loyalty to the president. In the interview, Mr. Trump rattled off a list of what he has done and would continue to do, like increasing military spending, cutting taxes, eliminating regulations, reinforcing the border and appointing conservative judges. But so I think, I think it would be, I think it would be very, very, I think wed have a very, very solid, we would continue what were doing, wed solidify what weve done, and we have other things on our plate that we want to get done, he said. Baker, Peter.  "Instead of Evolving as President, Trump Has Bent the Job to His Will."
  The New York Times.  27 August 2020. We stop for red lights and go on green lights almost by instinct, so deeply steeped into us are our traffic rules. Just as we rarely give thought to the possibility of meeting a car traveling the wrong way on a one-way street, so too do we rarely pause to wonder where our traffic laws came from or who invented the crosswalk. Meet William Phelps Eno (1858-1945), an innovator who long ago earned the sobriquet "the Father of Traffic Safety."  William Phelps Eno Born in New York City, this forward-thinking man observed the massive traffic jams of his era and from those observations formulated solutions that carried over from the days of horses and carriages into the automotive age. In 1900 he penned the treatise "Reform in Our Street Traffic Urgently Needed," which immediately established him as a traffic safety expert, a mantle he was to wholeheartedly embrace.   In 1903 he developed the world's first city traffic code (for New York City) and the first traffic plans for New York City, London, and Paris.     It was William Phelps Eno who invented stop signs and who envisioned one-way streets, taxi stands, traffic circles, and pedestrian safety islands. He wrote the first manual of police traffic regulations, and it was he who designed the circular traffic pattern that courses around the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. stop signs In 1921 he established the Eno Transportation Foundation, a non-profit study center located in Washington, D.C.  The Foundation is dedicated to improving all modes of transportation  ground, air, and water.  Eno was always a great fan of horseback riding but did not place all that much faith in the automobile, thinking it but a fad. He never learned to drive, and when events in his life necessitated car travel, he relied on a chauffeur.  William Phelps Eno's penchant for peculiarity outlived him. In 1996 his old home in Westport, Connecticut, came under the steady assault of determined bargain hunters who misunderstood the "bargain" they so intently pursued. Eno's 32-room mansion and the land it stood on had been sold for $1.5 million, but the buyer wanted the choice waterfront land for the purpose of subdividing it, not for the 119-year-old building that stood upon it. The old manse was to be razed to make way for new housing. Rather than see old building torn down, the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation stepped in and offered it for $1 to anyone who would cart William Phelps Eno's home away and give it a good home elsewhere. The costs of barging the mansion to a new site and restoring it were estimated at $500,000 and $1.7 million, respectively. The Today Show helped publicize the scheme, but unfortunately people heard only what they wanted to hear: that they could have a mansion for $1. Everything about the land not coming with it and the building having to be carted away and set up elsewhere went in one ear and out the other. The property was overrun by folks determined to look it over, and they showed up at all hours of day and night, often necessitating calls to the police to have them removed. The previous owner (who was living in its carriage house) was driven to distraction by the never-ending stream of phone calls and letters pleading for the house. "Keep Out" signs had to be posted, and the road leading to the mansion had to be chained off to keep dollar-waving people out. Meanwhile, the Trust's office was also fielding hundreds of calls and letters, some coming from those who thought this was a lottery, and one from a gal who thought the mansion was a prize offered for an essay-writing contest. Even utter chaos eventually dies down. Hundreds upon hundreds of inquiries later, no one really wanted the house. It was ultimately demolished in July 1997. Meyers, Kendra.   Will a Mansion Find a Home Before All the Doorknobs Are Gone?
  The New York Times.   4 February 1996   (13CN; p. 2).
 Wallace, Irving.   Significa.
  New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1983   (pp. 22-23). In late March 2020, amid the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, scams abounded on the internet. One such scam reported that consumers could get a $100 coupon during the pandemic for use at Starbucks cafes by simply clicking on a link. Here is a screenshot of a Twitter post promoting the bogus offer:     Although the links shared with the posts no longer appear to work, we are rating this offer a "Scam" because no evidence exists that the coupon was real. The web address for the "coupon," for example, was not from an official Starbucks website. We asked Starbucks to confirm the offer was a scam but didn't receive a response in time for publication. However, the "offer" being made echoes similar coupon scams that promise "free" or discounted goods from well-known brands if users click on a site  collecting people's private information in the process  but then don't deliver on the promise. As we have reported in the past on such scams: reported 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: general tips On 13 February2016, the web site Newslo published an articleclaiming that Alabama congressmanRobert Aderholt proposed the introduction of "hunger tests" before food stamps were issued to potential recipients: A top Republican wants the federal government to spend half a billion dollars so states can make people on food stamps pass drug tests. Legislation Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) proposes would cut Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program spending by $1.2 billion, then plow $600 million into grants for states to carry out drug testing programs. Federal law doesnt currently allow states to drug test food stamp recipients, an obstacle that has prevented Republicans in Georgia, Wisconsin and elsewhere from carrying out the policy. Aderholts bill would allow drug tests, but not require them. ...in addition to allowing states to wilfully administer drug tests to food stamp recipients, the controversial bill would also require potential recipients to be tested for actual hunger every time prior to being issued food stamps. Look at whats going on right now, the Alabama Rep. said. The United States budget is hemorrhaging money because of drug addicts who are misusing food stamps to purchase narcotics, but what many people dont realize is the fact that they are only part of the problem. There are many other so-called legitimately poor people who are also receiving food stamps, but are using them to buy things like hot-tubs, motorbikes, finance pool parties and getting their hands on the latest iPhone or MacBook...Thats why, as a way of making sure food stamps actually go to hungry people, I propose we introduce hunger tests prior to issuing the stamps to every potential beneficiary. The logistics of it are still in the works, but from what I can gather, wed be using a benign chemical that would be able to tell whether or not a person is experiencing hunger from their saliva. The chemical would be located on the stamps themselves, and upon licking the stamp, as you would a simple stamp at a post office, we would know straight away if a person is trying to trick us or if they really deserve food. While it's true that Rep. Aderholt introduced a bill on 11 February 2016 in support of requisite drug testing for food stamp recipients, all but the first paragraph quoted above was embellished(asNewsloitself indicated). Articleson the self-styled"hybrid" news site Newslo(as well as sistersites Religionlo and Politicalo) regularly build upon controversial news items with fabricated details that range from subtle to outlandish. bill Newsloand related pagesdisplay an interactive feature allowingreaders to "Show Facts" or "Hide Facts":   However, contentpublished by Newslo, Politicalo,and Religionlodisplays by default in "Hide Facts" mode, ensuring thatmanyvisitors areunaware that fabricated details appearedalongside otherwise accurate news items. In addition to the "Show Facts/Hide Facts" feature, Newslo's disclaimerstates: disclaimer Newslo is the first hybrid News/Satire platform on the web. Readers come to us for a unique brand of entertainment and information that is enhanced by features like our fact-button, which allows readers to find what is fact and what is satire. PreviousNewslo, Religionlo,andPoliticalo articles that proved confusing to social media usersincluded items claiming that Marco Rubiosaid women shouldbe placed in custody if it was suspected they were considering anabortion, that Pat Robertsonsaid gay people should wear specific colors by which heterosexual people couldeasily identify them, that Pastor John Piper decreed bikiniwaxes a sin in the eyes of God, that David Bowie was alive but held hostage by operatives of Satan, and that Ted Cruz believed God would not have allowed Antonin Scalia to die at a time that was potentially not politically expedient. abortion colors waxes David Bowie Antonin Scalia On 28 May 2015, a news-like link began to circulate on Facebook claiming popular actor Channing Tatum came out as gay. The link's headline stated "Channing Tatum comes out as Gay," and the preview text read "Channing Tatum comes out as Gay following a number of rumours":  While the rumor was briefly popular on sites like Twitter and Facebook among Tatum's fans, it was generated by the site Feednewz.com. Feednewz.com is not a news site; rather, its primary purpose is the generation of user-submitted links that appear to be news stories. As with a similar viral hoax involving EastEnders actor Danny Dyer, the Channing Tatum hoax spread atypically far for a FeedNewz.com link due to user interest in the fabricated claim. Danny Dyer Claims like the one about Tatum often spread due to a compelling headline alone. Readers who clicked through to the appended link were greeted with the following image revealing the prank:  Channing Tatum did not reveal any new information about his sexuality, and he remained married to actress Jenna Dewan until they separated in March 2018.  Jenna Dewan New Jersey often ranks high on lists in categories ranging from beach quality to education.Unfortunately, according to Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald, the state tops another list  one with a particularly dubious ranking.New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the nation and not by a little, Greenwald (D-Camden) said in an April 1 interview with Michael Aron on NJTVs On The Record. They are the highest property taxes in the nation, more than double the national average.New Jersey having high property taxes isnt new. But are they more than double the national average? Greenwalds statement is largely on the money, PolitiFact New Jersey found.Lets first explain the source of Greenwalds data and how tax rankings are reviewed.Greenwald got his data from a 2009 list compiled by the business-backed Tax Foundation in Washington, DC. The 2009 data shows that New Jersey ranked number one in three key tax metrics: median property taxes paid on homes; taxes as a percentage of home value; and taxes as a percentage of income.Nick Kasprak, a Tax Foundation analyst and programmer, said taxes as a percentage of home value is the most relevant statistic of the three because it can apply to most people, ranging from those who own condominiums to those in McMansions.Its a good way of comparing apples to apples across the states, Kasprak said of the metric, adding that the Tax Foundations numbers are estimates and come from the U.S. Census Bureaus American Community Survey.So how long has New Jersey worn the highest property taxes banner?That depends on the metric. We found that New Jersey property taxes have topped the rest of the nations at least back to 2004 when looking at median property taxes paid on homes and taxes paid as a percentage of income.When looking at all three Tax Foundation metrics for years 2004 through 2009, New Jerseys median property taxes paid on homes was more than triple the national average; more than double the national average for taxes paid as a percentage of income; and at least one and-a-half times the national average for taxes paid as a percentage of home value.Brigid Callahan Harrison, a professor of political science and law at Montclair State University, said comparing states by property taxes alone is disingenuous because states fund certain needs differently. For example, some states use property taxes to fund education, others do not.In reality, we need to look in total at the entire tax burden, Harrison said. The implication is that New Jerseyans pay the highest taxes in the country, right? Thats what people think. What Im saying is that New Jersey pays a very high tax burden. What we need to do is look at the total tax burden: gas tax, sales tax, security, user fees, certainly property taxes and sales taxes as well.Jon Bramnick, leader of the Assembly Republicans, agreed property taxes are high but credited a slowing of their growth to Gov. Chris Christies implementation of a 2-percent property tax cap, changing arbitration procedures for police and firefighters, and other measures.We obviously have to have mergers, shared services and consolidations across New Jersey, Bramnick said, adding that a bipartisan effort is key. These are the factors that you have to have to continue down that road. If you do, you will see a slowing of property taxes.Our rulingGreenwald said in a TV interview that New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the nation, more than double the national average. He was referring to 2009 statistics from the Tax Foundation. Statistics from 2004 through 2008 show the state leads the nation in two of three key metrics, according to the Tax Foundation. New Jersey led in all three metrics in 2009. Greenwalds overall point is clear: when it comes to property taxes, New Jersey is king. We rate this statement True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. After the 14 June 2017 shooting of Republican congressman Steve Scalise, a purported Vox infographic circulated on social media contrasting deaths of Republican lawmakers against deaths related to healthcare legislation. Twitter account @DudeSlater (purporting to be Vox's editor-in-chief) was (presumably) the first to share the graphic (which can be seen here in full): @DudeSlater first graphic here   However, the origin of the "Vox infographic" was unclear, and we were unable to locate a legitimate branded graphic on which it was based. We contacted Vox Media for more information about the image. A spokesperson confirmed to us that the claim is false and the image was not created by the outlet: This person's Twitter bio falsely claims he is the editor in chief of Vox. He is not an employee of Vox or Vox Media and does not in any way represent the Vox brand. The infographic he posted was not created or published by Vox. We have alerted Twitter executives to this issue, and are working with them to have this false information removed immediately. On 10 December 2015, the web site YourNewsWire.com published a video purportedly showing film acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick, who helmed such groundbreaking films as Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, confessing to having helped NASA fake the Apollo program moon landings: published A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick's death in which Kubrick admits that the NASA moon landings were faked. Filmmaker T. Patrick Murray interviewed Kubrick three days before his death in March 1999. He was forced to sign an 88-page NDA to keep the contents of the interview a secret for 15 years. Below is a transcript from the interview with Stanley Kubrick, in which the 2001 Space Odyssey Director admits on camera that, "the moon landings ALL were faked, and that I was the person who filmed it." In the interview, the alleged Stanley Kubrick figures confesses that: Kubrick: I perpetrated a huge fraud on the American public, which I am now about to detail, involving the United States government and NASA, that the moon landings were faked, that the moon landings ALL were faked , and that I was the person who filmed it. Murray: Ok. (laughs) What are you talking ... You're serious. Ok. Kubrick: I'm serious. Dead serious. Yes, it was fake. Murray: Why are you telling the world? Why does the world need to know that the moon landings aren't real and you faked them? Kubrick: I consider them to be my masterpiece. Murray: And you can' t take credit, or even talk about ... Kubrick: Well, I am now ... Murray: So, you can't talk to Roger Ebert about it. Does that frustrate you? Why did they have to fake it? Why would they have to do that? Kubrick: Because it is impossible to get there ... 2001 was very ambitious, but that's not to say that faking the moon landing was not ambitious. But I learned things from making 2001, and that's why I got this gig in the first place. Murray: That makes sense Kubrick: Well, it was easy for me, because I didn't think a whole lot about the morality of it. But I didn't. And I could see that Neil [Armstrong] was, he was bothered by it. This video has been circulating online since at least August 2015 and is one of several clips purportedly showing Kubrick talking about his alleged involvement in faking the U.S. moon landings. While there are various edits of this infamous (and fake) interview circulating on YouTube, the videos all originated with a new film from T. Patrick Murray titled Shooting Kubrick. film Murray claimed on the Shooting Kubrick web site that he was granted unprecedented access to interview the director in May 1999, which would have been quite an impressive feat since Kubrick had passed away two months earlier:Although the date could be a simple typographical error, that was not the only questionable aspect of the interview. The man being interviewed simply doesn't look or sound like Stanley Kubrick when compared to a video of the real Kubrick accepting the D.W. Griffith Award in 1997:  Furthermore, unedited versions of the interview contain hints that the "Stanley Kubrick" in the video is an actor. In a since-deleted clip, the interviewer called his subject "Tom" and instructed him on how to tell the next part of his story: "You don't say he said anything. You say what he says. Tom, I'm giving you directions. You don't have to imitate him (Richard Nixon). You're not reporting it. You're repeating it ... We're doing exposition here. That's how we're going to sneak it in." A spokesman for Kubrick's widow also proclaimed that "[t]he interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray the whole story is made up, fraudulent and untrue." T. Patrick Murray has not admitted that his interview with Stanley Kubrick is a hoax, but he certainly is banking the mystery's driving interest in his project: New Jersey doesnt just need a lot of federal aid to rebuild a coastline ravaged by Hurricane Sandy, the state also deserves it, according to Gov. Chris Christie.NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams asked Christie recently if its fair for people who have no interests in the Jersey Shore to ask, Why the money? Why the effort, if this is the new normal?Well, listen, it's fair to ask it but I have the answer, Christie said during the Oct. 30 interview. The answer is that for New Jersey, which gives so much to this country -- by the way, 50th in return of our federal tax dollars. So New Jerseyans send more than any other state in America in federal taxes, getting back less. When that's done and you see that our state is a state that needs this to contribute to our economy and also to the soul and the vibrancy of our state, I think we have very good answers and arguments to make. And you count on one thing: you're looking at the guy who is going to make those arguments.With Christie building part of his case for federal assistance around the states return on federal tax dollars, PolitiFact New Jersey wondered whether his premise is true.Add Donor State to the list of New Jerseys monikers.Depending on the year -- and whether adjustments are made to federal data -- New Jersey ranks at or near the bottom nationwide in this category.The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group, tracked how much the federal government collected through taxes and returned through expenditures to states every year from 1981 to 2005.The Washington, D.C.-based foundation calculated the federal tax burden -- a measurement meant to account for taxes that are assessed in one state, but impact taxpayers elsewhere -- to conduct its analysis.In 17 of those 25 years, New Jersey came in last place, receiving 70 cents or less for every dollar it sent to the federal government.In 2005 -- the most recent year analyzed by the Tax Foundation -- the federal government gave New Jersey 61 cents for every dollar it took. That was the smallest return of any state.But that was seven years ago. Though the Tax Foundation hasnt updated its findings, other studies show New Jersey still ranks near the bottom.The Northeast-Midwest Institute, a research organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes 18 states in the region, released a May 2011 report on federal spending and taxation patterns that focused on New Jersey.New Jersey ranked 48th in the nation. Only Minnesota and Delaware received smaller returns on their federal tax dollars in 2009, according to the report, which relied on raw, unadjusted data.PolitiFact New Jerseys analysis of federal data from 2010 also put New Jersey in 48th place. So even the raw data put New Jersey near the bottom in this category.But Colleen Cain, a senior policy analyst with the Northeast-Midwest Institute who prepared the 2011 report, said in an e-mail, that the news behind this is not all bad.In the report, Cain attributes the low ranking to New Jerseys relatively high income levels and greater-than-average business income tax contribution, coupled with a relatively low need for federal aid.It does, however, underscore the importance of states like New Jersey in supporting the fiscal health of the nation generally.Our rulingChristie said that New Jersey is 50th in return of our federal tax dollars.The Tax Foundations analysis of 2005 data, which was adjusted to reflect each states overall federal tax burden, ranked New Jersey 50th in the nation in this category.The state received 61 cents for every dollar it sent to Washington, D.C. that year.Though that research is outdated, more recent analysis of raw data shows New Jersey still ranks near the bottom.On the Truth-O-Meter, Christies statement registers as Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com.