I’d like to study that

The Daily Sentinel ^ | 3/4/2016 | Greg Walcher

[snarkpup]

A U.S. government that once famously spent $2.6 million to encourage Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly is capable of almost anything. Members of Congress often use these stories about absurd taxpayer-funded studies to make fun of the bureaucracy. Instead of just mocking silly studies, maybe they should put a stop to them.

[jennings2004]

What you mean: “Stop”? Many of them would be volunteering to participate!

[Tax-chick]

Good article.

[Stosh]

For $2.6 million, I’d be happy to personally teach Chinese prostitutes how to drink more responsibly. Heck, I’ll even provide the drinks.

[JimRed]

I’ll be happy to study their failure to stop studying such things. I’ll work from home or other remote locations like beaches or ski resorts (saves them the cost of an office for me), 30 hours a week, 48 weeks a year and only want $100K a year plus the same benefit package the congress has. I’m cheap at the price!

[central_va]

What do Chinese prostitutes call 69?

[Robert DeLong]

Stopping would reduce the size of government and therefore cut into their power. No for them always better to make fun and pretend to be concerned while they double-down on yet another wasteful expenditure of taxpayer money.

[TomServo]

[PIF]

National Institutes of Health (NIH):
$1.5 million to find out why three-fourths of American lesbians are overweight when most gay males are not;
$400,000 to find out why men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk;
$442,000 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam;
$593,000 study to figure out why chimpanzees throw their poop;
$176,000 to determine whether quail are more likely to procreate when high on cocaine;
666,900 for a study on the benefits of watching TV reruns;
$387,000 giving 18 New Zealand White rabbits Swedish massages after exercise, to see if they felt better.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)
$300,000 to encourage Americans to eat caviar produced in Idaho;
$50,000 to help pay for the annual Hawaiian Chocolate Festival;
30,000 to farmers developing a database of farms that host guests for overnight “haycations;”
$700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.

promotional efforts
$505,000 “to promote specialty hair and beauty products for cats and dogs;”
$75,000 grant to promote awareness of Michigan Christmas trees and poinsettias is probably helpful to the local producers;
neon sign museum in Las Vegas ($1.8 million);
magic museum in Marshall, Michigan ($147,000);
Mother’s Day Shrine in Grafton, West Virginia ($123,050).

U.S. Air Force spent $300,000 on a study to find how is life on the Western Slope enhanced by knowing that the first bird on Earth probably had black feathers;

National Science Foundation
$171,000 monkeys like to gamble

government’s burning questions
$331,000) gave hungry spouses voodoo dolls to stab, representing their partners, and concluded that apparently people get irritable when they get hungry;
$500 million to find out why 5-year-old children can’t sit still in kindergarten;
216,000 to study whether or not politicians “gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions;”
$400,000 on a program to train politicians in India how to communicate with their constituents.

[Arm_Bears]

Members of Congress often use these stories about absurd taxpayer-funded studies to make fun of the bureaucracy.

All the while hoping nobody notices that they, the members of Congress, voted to fund this crap.

[wideminded]

Some studies which have been criticized do have genuine scientific or economic benefits. But someone who wants to study prostitutes, gay or otherwise, in a foreign country IMHO most likely just wants their travel and lifestyle to be subsidized by the taxpayer. Why are these grants approved? The people doing the approving must be corrupt themselves.

[snarkpup]

I've always thought that someone in Congress should get a copy of Matthew Lesko's book and produce a bill that would cancel all the programs described in it.

[Tax-chick]

Some studies which have been criticized do have genuine scientific or economic benefits.

That's irrelevant to whether the Federal Government should be in the business of funding them.

[wideminded]

National Institutes of Health (NIH):
$1.5 million to find out why three-fourths of American lesbians are overweight when most gay males are not;

Too much money, but if they really found out a medical reason for this, maybe it would be generally useful to lots of other people. For instance it might identify hormonal differences that cause weight gain or that make it more likely that a girl will grow up to become a lesbian.

[PIF]

magical thinking

[wideminded]

Scientific curiosity is the opposite of magical thinking.

[PIF]

Not in the case of that particular study. About as scientific as climate change.

[tophat9000]

Why does US government have something against drunk Chinese whores?

[tophat9000]

But when you get right down to it

so much of science

claim so much exist

purely from random serendipity

aka atheism

[wideminded]

Do you think that the government should fund NASA? How about basic research in physics, biology, or medicine?