Posts Tagged ‘funding’

An environmental watchdog group [Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)] that is defending a suspended government biologist who claims polar bears are drowning has blasted the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed scientific integrity rules, saying they will make it easier for scientists to be punished for misconduct.

Can you imagine the chaos if scientists who knowingly publish fraudulent data were suddenly punishable for misconduct?  Why, the push for carbon dioxide emission reductions would drop overnight.  Al Gore would have to find a new scaremongering job somewhere.   Public hangings of global warming deniers would drop off dramatically.


Good gravy.  When trying to implode buildings the purported goal is to bring down the building.

Now, you blow your wad and the building is still standing.

Two of its 230-foot smoke stacks collapsed to the ground — and the building dropped 18 feet and teetered back and forth — but it never fell, said Jennifer Gregor, operations manager and marketing coordinator for Engineered Products.

Do you:

A)  Waltz in, inspect it all, and carefully plant more ANFO in strategic locations?

B)  Walk away in disgust, saying “Kwitcherbitchin’, it’s going to fall on it’s own eventually, anyway”?

C)  Open another bottle of Johnny Walker?


I know this sort of thing has been claimed before but I do have hopes that it (or any of them) come to pass.  The idea of being able to wipe out leukemia so easily is so cool.

It’s a good example of where government does not have to be the source – an idea that has merit will be funded.

With results for the three  patients published Wednesday simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine and Science Translational Medicine, money for further studies — not just in this one type of leukemia, but in other cancers — will likely pour in from both the government and drug companies.


More later, I’m sure.

Read Full Post »

Ok, here is Another Rant About Our Taxes.

In the art world, money flows freely from public funds without your knowledge.  Picture states A-E.  Each state has a varying number of people that pay taxes.  Of those taxes, they go to a person or multiple people who are artists or very close to them who dole out the money.  Often their values are radically different from the taxpayers.  That money then goes to still other artists in each state (blue) who get it without the knowledge of the people in other states (unless they are art lovers themselves).

Taxing for Art - Now

Now, lets look at the “local” model, as it should be.  Note how the people really responded to the art in question.

Taxing for Art - Should Be

See the difference?  TAX money to those artists can ONLY come from within the state they live.  Now those other people in their state are the ones scrutinizing those funds and their uses.  It could be from tax money but it could also be free market.

In State A, only one person thought that was a worthwhile use of their money – maybe, and there is some accountability, shown by the question mark.

In State B, several people felt the same way.

In State C, people found that the artist in question was a pervert/pedophile and he was treated as he should have been, a pariah.

In State D, there was one person that was cautiously supportive but others didn’t care for the art and chose not to support it.

In State E, lots of people bought art directly with varying degrees of value placed on the works of art.


Most of us don’t care about art enough to want our taxes going to pay for something we don’t even consider art.

Why should a select group decide that art is vitally important and then run the whole show?

My values run more towards fiscal responsibility, not handouts to those who could not survive if their art was rated on it’s own merits.

Art won’t die if federal funds dry up, there will just be a whole lot less really crappy art.

As a parting shot, here are some of the funded arts in that link above…

  • $400,000 for an exhibition “exploring the importance of plants as a source of inspiration for noted American poet Emily Dickinson” [You. Must. Be.  Joking.]
  • $350,000 to explore the “cultural significance of the circus poster”  [Over a quarter million dollars to answer a question that has no answer?]
  • $725,000 to produce a two-hour documentary on the history of American whaling.  [I can look that up in the library, thanks.  Three quarters of a million dollars to make a video of a lot of old photographs.  Yeaaaaaaahhhhh.  Right.]
  • $130,000 for 16 professors to study the “truth and meaning” of life according to Aristotle [Mental masturbation.]
  • $50,000 to build a computer model of an ancient city in Pakistan complete with “animated and interactive ‘inhabitants'” [I. Don’t. Care.]

Read Full Post »