castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

When you see outrageous pork spending then post it here.

You don't need every bit of the article for this as long as you include links and references to go with your summary.

[JuntaJoe]

Ok, since when is it worth millions of dollars to see if Suzi likes to switch hit? :roll:


Federal sex survey finds more women experimenting with bisexuality

September 16, 2005 2:12 AM EDT

CHICAGO - More American women - particularly those in their late teens and 20s - are experimenting with bisexuality or at least feel more comfortable reporting same-sex encounters, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The survey, released Thursday by the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, found that 11.5 percent of women, ages 18 to 44, said they've had at least one sexual experience with another women in their lifetimes, compared with about 4 percent of women, ages 18 to 59, who said the same in a comparable survey a decade earlier.

For women in their late teens..............


Yada, yada......the report goes on for ages to glorify the details of the heroic government research

---

On the Net:

Federal survey results: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/ad/361-370/ad362.htm

---

Martha Irvine is a national writer specializing in coverage of people in their 20s and younger. She can be reached at mirvine(at)ap.org
Copyright 2005 Associated Press.

[Georgie]

Most unusual indeed. But really, you shouldn't be surprised. How do the twosome do that?

[Eddy]

Hey, this is important research.

*applies for a federal grant to watch Girls Gone Wild*

[CooJoe]

I want to a a goverment researcher.

[JuntaJoe]

I want to be a government.


One nation, under Joe, with liberty and justice for me.........and a few select hotties. 8)

[DrJoshuaFalken]

According to the above study. This generation is made up of about 50% bisexuals.

Hmm, makes me proud of humanity.

[JuntaJoe]

Ok, enough about the study subject. It was some fun and games, but while I expect the thread will generate some black comedy, it is really about pork spending. Did the CDC really need sexual preference data so bad that they run an expensive survey about a fairly small demographic? Look, hospitals, universities, and clinics study this kind of subject material all the time, so why can't the government simply buy copies of that data?

Ok, let's show me some more pork!

[Georgie]

Oui, oui monsier!

C'est....


Clutch, bang, gagle...let go of my throa...

[JuntaJoe]

Senators Tom Coburn and Barak Obama have sponsored a bill that would create a website that listed the recipients of all federal funding.

You and everyone else would see where all the money goes.......including the pork.

But the Senate has funky rules that allow a member to secretly block voting on legistlation for a period of time.

And we have a senator out there who doesn't want you to see where the money goes.

Read about it here:

http://porkbusters.org/secrethold.php


And the Federal Times had this to say as well:

Transparency bill subjected to secrecy

A bill to promote government transparency faces an uncertain future because of a far-from-transparent hold placed upon it in the Senate. An unknown number of senators have blocked legislation to create a public, searchable Web site of all federal grants and contracts. Senate rules permit any senator to anonymously block consideration of a bill on the floor, effectively killing the measure. “Hopefully the person or persons blocking it will realize it’s important to promote transparency and not secrecy in government,” said John Hart, spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., the bill’s sponsor.

Supporters of the measure had hoped to bring it to the Senate floor before lawmakers left Washington for the August recess. Hart noted that the bill has a bipartisan list of prominent co-sponsors including: Senate President Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and possible presidential hopefuls Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. The bill was approved July 27 by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The House approved a similar measure in June, but its version of the database would include information only on grants. Hart said sponsors in the Senate are working with House members to iron out this difference. He said they’re optimistic an agreement will be reached soon. Dave Marin, spokesman for the House bill’s sponsor, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., said a grants database would be a good start. “The reality is that providing useful data on grants to the general public is something that the federal government should have been doing for some time, and delaying public access to this data by tying it to contracts will only serve those wishing to keep the public in the dark,” he said.

If the measure is approved, the Office of Management and Budget would likely tap one or more agencies to set up the system. OMB spokeswoman Andrea Wuebker said the administration has long supported making federal grant and contract data publicly accessible. “OMB’s goal is to ensure this information can be easily searched at a single location online, and we support these efforts to make government resources work more effectively for our taxpayers,” she said.

Copyright 2006 Federal Times

[TriBeCa]

Wow, it strikes me as pretty un-democratic to allow senators to anonymously block bills from consideration. I had no idea, but then again I'm not American. I'm sure that isn't possible in the Canadian senate...though then again our senate is appointed, which is at least as un-democratic.

But yes, that would be a great bill.

Although I'm quite concerned by the comment, "...delaying public access to this data by tying it to contracts will only serve those wishing to keep the public in the dark." This reads to me as a particularly insidious form of political communications strategy. Note that it implies without actually stating that government contracts would necessarily be kept out of the public eye, while at the same time aligning the speaker with a freedom of information stance, by saying that it is wrong to attach grant data, which of course the public should have access too (I'm amazed they don't...I'm quite certain that all Canadian grant funding is published...then again the Department of Defense isn't a major funding agency in Canada), to contract data.

[JuntaJoe]

It wouldn't be hard for them to address national security concerns if they simply marked certain budget items as classified once approved by a vetting panel.

[FrankyG888]

This is a rough chart from www.federalbudget.com that shows where some of the money that we spend is going.

I am unsure how this file upload is going to work, but what the heck. I will try just about anything once. :)

[JuntaJoe]

As usual, welfare is costing us more than jet fighters even after 5 years of war. :roll:

[crispybacon]

You know, we could combine the two...declare war on welfare!
________
New Jersey Marijuana Dispensary

[TriBeCa]

poor little NSF :(

[s_stabeler]

remember that the scale is in 100's of BILLIONS of dollars. i'd esitmate the NSF is gettign at lest 2 billion, if not more.

[Maus]

*snort* If you're really frugal, 2 billion is barely enough to fund maybe 1000 Phase-1 proposals each year, or a couple hundred Phase-2 proposals. Not exactly a hard-charging effort to keep the U.S. on top of the science game.

Quote: As usual, welfare is costing us more than jet fighters even after 5 years of war.

No, welfare counts as military spending under DOD's "Future-Assets Meatwall-Replacement Initiative". 8)

[s_stabeler]

face it, america has long sicne been overtaken in science. have you noticed that very few discoveries recently have come from the USA government-funded labs?

[Maus]

No, I haven't noticed, but I'd be interested to see what your investigation has turned up. Please list the most recent fundamental scientific discoveries and their place of origin, then finish with a brief comparison of the historical track records of U.S. govt-funded labs versus the international govt-funded labs, with particular emphasis on the relative decline of U.S. research output. :wink: