Your Tax Dollars Hard at Work

[1OldGI]

How fortunate we are in the US to have principal driven leadership in our government that will spare no expense in representing our best interests

http://860wgul.townhall.com/blog/g/1f38d9f8-e954-49c8-9b97-2328e19a0a3d

After all one can never underestimate the value of a sober Chinese prostitute

 

[ssilcox]

Wow - that's rediculous.

 

[Dustinl]

I heard this on the Mike Reagan Show. Wow.


DL

 

[Johnny Dale]

Unbelievable! A shame that they spend our money on the most insane things.

 

[slcsteve]

Here we go.......

 

[Tom C]

This grant was made last November, FWIW.

 

[mk-ultra]

This grant was made last November, FWIW.

Thank you for pointing this out.

 

[Black Adder]

Here we go.......

Yup!

Don

 

[cricky101]

I've heard that politicalforum.com is always looking for more threads.

 

[dark_isz]

I've heard that politicalforum.com is always looking for more threads.

+1

I wonder if there are any other forums dedicated to discussing politics?

 

[castlecraver]

It really hurts me when people bring stuff like this up.

Most of us researchers work off the same government dole that funded this project. And despite what you might think, most of us choose projects not based on the goal of identifying problems and solutions, not for financial reasons. And unless you've ever written an NIH grant, sat through institutional review, extramural peer review, etc etc, you have no idea how Sisyphean it is to get any project funded.

*Here's how it works in a nutshell: your representatives approve the NIH budget, which allocates to many different funding agencies, of which NIAA is one. The agencies for the most part determine how many of each grant type they'll fund in any given cycle. They solicit applications. Then they assemble review boards comprised of vetted experts in the relevant fields (from all over the country) who rank the applications on scientific merit. The best grant gets funded, and down the line of priority until the money runs out. For the past couple years we've been at <10&#37; of submitted applications receiving funding across all biomedical fields.

*TL;DR version: A bunch of people with PhDs and no financial conflicts of interest determined this study had strong merit.

But if it weren't for studies like these carried out overseas where diseases are more endemic, we'd have no hope of tackling the spread of HIV, Malaria, etc in Africa. There've been some great studies done on condom use within the African sex trade that've really accellerated our understanding of how cultural conditions contribute to HIV spread and provided insight into how communities might encourage better compliance with preventative measures. But I doubt anyone would have trouble writing an outrage-inducing headline for those studies that might read similarly to the incredibly misleading one linked above.

I'm sorry that you don't think this is a wise use of your tax money. Attacking academia seems to be a popular diversionary tactic amongst some, particularly when ~$2M over several years isn't even a tiny drop in the bucket when put in perspective against some of the other "wasteful" things getting tax dollars right now. I haven't searched for it, but I'd bet dollars to donuts there was probably some researcher out there over the past decade or so focusing his/her studies on avian or swine flu before it made the jump to humans. And at the time I bet there were people who thought it was a wasteful exersise. Maybe I'm drinking the kool-aid, but because I'm intimately familiar with the rigorous difficulties in getting a government grant, I'm usually willing to accept the judgement of people smarter than me outside of my field.

 

[Austin]

It really hurts me when people bring stuff like this up.

Most of us researchers work off the same government dole that funded this project. And despite what you might think, most of us choose projects not based on the goal of identifying problems and solutions, not for financial reasons. And unless you've ever written an NIH grant, sat through institutional review, extramural peer review, etc etc, you have no idea how Sisyphean it is to get any project funded.

*Here's how it works in a nutshell: your representatives approve the NIH budget, which allocates to many different funding agencies, of which NIAA is one. The agencies for the most part determine how many of each grant type they'll fund in any given cycle. They solicit applications. Then they assemble review boards comprised of vetted experts in the relevant fields (from all over the country) who rank the applications on scientific merit. The best grant gets funded, and down the line of priority until the money runs out. For the past couple years we've been at <10% of submitted applications receiving funding across all biomedical fields.

*TL;DR version: A bunch of people with PhDs and no financial conflicts of interest determined this study had strong merit.

But if it weren't for studies like these carried out overseas where diseases are more endemic, we'd have no hope of tackling the spread of HIV, Malaria, etc in Africa. There've been some great studies done on condom use within the African sex trade that've really accellerated our understanding of how cultural conditions contribute to HIV spread and provided insight into how communities might encourage better compliance with preventative measures. But I doubt anyone would have trouble writing an outrage-inducing headline for those studies that might read similarly to the incredibly misleading one linked above.

I'm sorry that you don't think this is a wise use of your tax money. Attacking academia seems to be a popular diversionary tactic amongst some, particularly when ~$2M over several years isn't even a tiny drop in the bucket when put in perspective against some of the other "wasteful" things getting tax dollars right now. I haven't searched for it, but I'd bet dollars to donuts there was probably some researcher out there over the past decade or so focusing his/her studies on avian or swine flu before it made the jump to humans. And at the time I bet there were people who thought it was a wasteful exersise. Maybe I'm drinking the kool-aid, but because I'm intimately familiar with the rigorous difficulties in getting a government grant, I'm usually willing to accept the judgement of people smarter than me outside of my field.

Thank you for the clarification Pat. I knew it was not easy to get funding.

 

[Prince]

+1

I wonder if there are any other forums dedicated to discussing politics?

Thanks for helping me on this.

 

[Nils]

It really hurts me when people bring stuff like this up.

Most of us researchers work off the same government dole that funded this project. And despite what you might think, most of us choose projects not based on the goal of identifying problems and solutions, not for financial reasons. And unless you've ever written an NIH grant, sat through institutional review, extramural peer review, etc etc, you have no idea how Sisyphean it is to get any project funded.

*Here's how it works in a nutshell: your representatives approve the NIH budget, which allocates to many different funding agencies, of which NIAA is one. The agencies for the most part determine how many of each grant type they'll fund in any given cycle. They solicit applications. Then they assemble review boards comprised of vetted experts in the relevant fields (from all over the country) who rank the applications on scientific merit. The best grant gets funded, and down the line of priority until the money runs out. For the past couple years we've been at <10% of submitted applications receiving funding across all biomedical fields.

*TL;DR version: A bunch of people with PhDs and no financial conflicts of interest determined this study had strong merit.

But if it weren't for studies like these carried out overseas where diseases are more endemic, we'd have no hope of tackling the spread of HIV, Malaria, etc in Africa. There've been some great studies done on condom use within the African sex trade that've really accellerated our understanding of how cultural conditions contribute to HIV spread and provided insight into how communities might encourage better compliance with preventative measures. But I doubt anyone would have trouble writing an outrage-inducing headline for those studies that might read similarly to the incredibly misleading one linked above.

I'm sorry that you don't think this is a wise use of your tax money. Attacking academia seems to be a popular diversionary tactic amongst some, particularly when ~$2M over several years isn't even a tiny drop in the bucket when put in perspective against some of the other "wasteful" things getting tax dollars right now. I haven't searched for it, but I'd bet dollars to donuts there was probably some researcher out there over the past decade or so focusing his/her studies on avian or swine flu before it made the jump to humans. And at the time I bet there were people who thought it was a wasteful exersise. Maybe I'm drinking the kool-aid, but because I'm intimately familiar with the rigorous difficulties in getting a government grant, I'm usually willing to accept the judgement of people smarter than me outside of my field.

Just as everyone was spoiling to go wasteful-government-bashing, you have to come in and spoil all the fun with a knowledgeable post!

 

[davecmu]

This grant was made last November, FWIW.

Highlighted for the sake of accuracy. If you're going to blame someone for not having "principled leadership," at least put the blame in its proper place.

What I find awesome about this particular example of reporting is that it is from CNSnews, whose parent company, Media Research, started up in order to combat the "liberal bias" in other news outlets, including acts of commission and omission. (All of that is from its website, by the way, which makes it their words and not mine.) Then, when 860AM WGUL reports on the article, it OMITS (see where this is going?) the MAJOR JOURNALISTIC POINT of WHEN (one of the journalist's primary pieces of information, right?) from it's article in order to introduce bias into the piece. Talk about major failure to report accurate news...

I don't care what you believe politically, it's either sloppy journalism (which discredits the source) or intentional omission (which discredits the source), either of which makes it hypocritical to CNSnews' mission.

And yes, I read all news this same way, and I teach my college classes to do so, as well. By the end of their 15 weeks with me, they're as mad about modern news reporting as I am.

Can we please stop this kind of half-truth bull from getting repeated? Jesus, we're all grown ups - check your source material before you put it out. Otherwise, you look like a complete idiot.

In this case, GI, I assume you're just blindly following someone else's lead. This is a mistake, but an understandable one if you've never considered that ALL news sources have some kind of ulterior motive in reporting the news. I hope this case will help you become a more critical consumer of the information.

If you want to know WHO owns the particular reporting agency for any piece of news, I recommend Wikipedia. It's easy to see who ultimately owns the news. From there, it's a very simple jump to begin taking reasonable guesses at what type of thing they'll benefit from reporting, and what will hurt them if it gets out. Let's all remember that EVERY news agency needs to make money (yes, even Media Research, which has to keep its base happy to continue to get donations) to stay alive.

 

[sparkchaser]

Thought provoking post, davecmu.

 

[Muirtach]

Highlighted for the sake of accuracy. If you're going to blame someone for not having "principled leadership," at least put the blame in its proper place.

What I find awesome about this particular example of reporting is that it is from CNSnews, whose parent company, Media Research, started up in order to combat the "liberal bias" in other news outlets, including acts of commission and omission. (All of that is from its website, by the way, which makes it their words and not mine.) Then, when 860AM WGUL reports on the article, it OMITS (see where this is going?) the MAJOR JOURNALISTIC POINT of WHEN (one of the journalist's primary pieces of information, right?) from it's article in order to introduce bias into the piece. Talk about major failure to report accurate news...

I don't care what you believe politically, it's either sloppy journalism (which discredits the source) or intentional omission (which discredits the source), either of which makes it hypocritical to CNSnews' mission.

And yes, I read all news this same way, and I teach my college classes to do so, as well. By the end of their 15 weeks with me, they're as mad about modern news reporting as I am.

Can we please stop this kind of half-truth bull from getting repeated? Jesus, we're all grown ups - check your source material before you put it out. Otherwise, you look like a complete idiot.

In this case, GI, I assume you're just blindly following someone else's lead. This is a mistake, but an understandable one if you've never considered that ALL news sources have some kind of ulterior motive in reporting the news. I hope this case will help you become a more critical consumer of the information.

If you want to know WHO owns the particular reporting agency for any piece of news, I recommend Wikipedia. It's easy to see who ultimately owns the news. From there, it's a very simple jump to begin taking reasonable guesses at what type of thing they'll benefit from reporting, and what will hurt them if it gets out. Let's all remember that EVERY news agency needs to make money (yes, even Media Research, which has to keep its base happy to continue to get donations) to stay alive.

And my friends wonder why I refuse to take another TV news position. 9 years since the last one and my soul still feels tarnished.

 

[cricky101]

Every time I read/watch/hear stories like that I have to tell myself something a friend told me a while back: Truth isn't measured in how many times an e-mail is forwarded or Google hit counts.

 

[Brodirt]

I find the bias in the media deplorable as well.

What is worse is the refusal for media members to admit it. While one side will point to the other and cry foul...Fox to CNBC, CNBC to Fox for example, they refuse to apply the same scrutiny to themselves.

As I always say, if one side is doing it, you can be sure the other is too!

It is time that we take a long, hard, honest look at the concept of freedom of the press in the US. While I am for more debate and more disemmination of the news at all times, when editorial commentary is innoculated by the Constitution you validate and empower those editors' desire to make the news rather than to report it.

Remember, the news media is the only industry that produces a product that is immune from products liability. Too many people have had to ask the question "where do I go to get my reputation back."

 

[adonnellyr]

As far as we know, your Canadian brothers to the North haven't sent any money over into that yet, thank God (not that we have any anyway). Maybe we can send some peace keepers in...