Muzzleblast: This is enough to piss off the pope. But apparently not trapshooters. All the opinionators on this site and none come forward. I guess if you've got a shotgun in your hand and a target in front, you can move through life like a mutt. We shot letters off to everyone this morning. $823,000 is a lifetime of earnings for most people, and they blow it on this crap. Good post. I see Drudge has it on his headline page today. You should have thrown something in about changing a fricking firing pin, or front site or something, and there would have been feedback.
There is evidence to suggest that merely washing well after intercourse (for a male only) may be enough to prevent contracting and transmission of the AIDS virus. Researchers cannot do that type of research here in the States using U.S. citizens as subjects for many reasons, some of them complicated.
I don't know about you, but I'm happy for any kind of research that can be done to prevent the spread of this disease. I have 4 kids age 17 and above. Are you kids safe?
If you read through all of the medical research that is going on, you will find that millions of dollars are being spent to conduct reseach worldwide, much of it funded by U.S. institutions such as N.I.H. And I don't think that you would want this research to stop.
Maybe I am missing something. I was under the impression that Queen Nancy said that this bill was to create JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. How many jobs did we get for $800,000.00? All I see is research and temperay Goverment jobs for our $800B.
Probably just two or three jobs, but you would have to ask the P.I. or look at the grant application to determine the real number. You should be able to request a copy from the NIH library or from the PI himself.
From the NIMH website: "The best source for a copy of a successful grant is the principal investigator. NIH's CRISP database at http://report.nih.gov/crisp.aspx provides abstracts of funded grants, along with a mailing address for the principal investigator. Alternatively, you may request a grant under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Contact NLM grants management staff to initiate a FOIA request. NIH requires that personal salary information and other proprietary information be removed from any grant provided in response to a FOIA request."
Dr. Coate's phone number and email address will be on the grant.
I read this on Drudge this AM, nearly spit my coffee all over the key board.
Didn't know whether to laugh or get pissed off, well, I got pissed off. Jeez maniny.
Just teach the stupid SOB's to sit down and keep their mouth shut and AID's will be over.
For god's sake, teach people to wash there uncircumsised tally waker's, come on we are all mad because we did not think of this angle for a grant and skim the top of the 800K with 350K admistrative fees for ourself.
Make a brochure travel to Africa, get an interpritor, hand out some brochures and get a wash cloth, soap, peel it back wash it off and say job well done. Brochures on how to, say $10,000.00 for 350,0000 2 sided handout (that 90% can not read) made of recycle paper. Rent Rangerovers, say 4 to go around from camp to camp, feel good about your effort (useless as it is), then sit back and count your money.
If the Government is in it then you all know that maybe 10 to 15% of all Grant funding actually goes to research and end results the balance is administrative fees which is about as ambiguous as it gets.
IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!!! PERIOD, it ain't about AID's or AID's prevention, geezzz.
391 shooter, it's really not that simple, and there is a percentage limit to what the P.I. can claim as a portion of his salary on there. I would rather see the money go to cancer research, myself, since I think that it's a more important issue (to me), but NIH has a prescribed portion of it's money going to certain areas of research, AIDS being one of those areas.
Maybe we need to fix the way our university salaries are structured here in the U.S. instead. Most research universities require the P.I. to fund most, if not all, of his salary through grants. Usually, a new professor will get a small amount of start up funding from the university, and when that is gone the researcher is on his own. I'm not sure that is the best method of attracting good professors to tenured positions.
Also, as I've said before, the grant review process is a big "good ole' boys club". Other professiors/researchers in that field are the ones that make the decisions on who gets the funding or not. Maybe you need to talk with the guys that were on the NIH study section for this particular grant, and ask them why they felt that this research was worthy of funding. If you start holding those people responsible, maybe the process will become a little less politicized.
I feel it is that simple, if you know how the game is played and have been trained to manipulate the Grant system, it is. You can hide all kinds of things inside of a grant.
It's like the old expense report story. Guy gets hired, issued a Hard hat, looses hard hat, buys new hard hat, puts on expense report and sends in. Report comes back disallowed, you were issued hard hat it's your responsibity to replace, expense denied.
He sends the next expense report in and at the bottom states, the Hard hat is in there, you find it.
Speaking of Cancer research. Do you really think if a cure was found that it would be made available to the masses?
Think about it, all the current infrastructure to research, care and treat this sckerg would be laid waste resulting in millions and millions of people out of work.
We all see things that allow for slowing and in some cases remission, but, absolute cure becomming available, never happen, the major players in this game will not let this happen in our current situation.
391 shooter, in a former life, I was a research scientist at one of the premier research universities. I know the game well. I'm no longer in it as I chose to change my career path to a more exciting one (to me). Believe me, it is not as you think. But you wouldn't believe me if I told you, anyway. So continue on...
I respect your knowledge, your experience, and your wisdom. I think this issue goes more to the appearance of impropriety than it does to matters of regional medical health funding. This analogy may be faulty, but I'm going to toss it out anyway: you have a $100.00 bill in your desk drawer that you will use to 1.)buy books for your 17 year old rising college freshman, or 2.) pay your bloated tax bill to fund penis cleaning in Africa.
Last night when I read Muzzle's post, I e-mailed the link to about 20 friends and former colleagues. The anger was palpable. In my small world, people seem to be trending toward introversion and circumspection with a concentration on cleaning the house and watering the plants. My friends tell me they are tired and though many no longer have to work, they still contribute to their communities in many ways. Being forced to pay for penis cleaning in Africa just doesn't seem to be an intrinsic part of their view of the American Dream.
Well then, you better start taking a harder look at what the study sections are funding all year long every year, and not just jump on one sensationalized grant. You'll need some background education to be able to make some intelligent judgements, so I suggest y'all start back to college.
Maybe you would rather that the government just choose some of your AIDs-free children and expose THEM to the AIDs virus to see if washing their private parts will prevent them from getting aids. It might work, you know. But do you want to use YOUR kids to find out?
We subsidize farmers to spray shit all over their fields, too. Fortunately, many of us (including me) started as farmers, or have at least grown some grass in our lifetime, and can understand why the government pays for shit spreading.
You make very good points. Sadly, the effect of exposing one sensationalized grant is that it casts a dark shadow on all other good grants. It also becomes the flashing hallmark advertising that all government grants are wasteful and frivolous.
In 1969, because of several events beyond my control, I discovered and embraced the notion that I, as an American, could not successfully police the world. I decided to do what I could to take care of my own. By the time my kids, who are now in their 30s ad 40s, were 10 years old, they knew that the best way to catch gonorrhea was to engage in sexual intercourse with someone who was infected. Lessons like that one were taught and reinforced until they struck out on their own. Refresher courses are still offered.
To the point, I think that there are limits to our international outreach but I will admit freely that I don't know what those limits are. Globalization is not reversible, but the center of the Thomas universe is right here at home.
I don't want my children to die for any reason, much less AIDS, but I am not God and neither are you. Maybe now is a good time to find a grant writer who would write on The Effect of Alcohol on The Incidence of Fatal T-Bone Crashes at Clearly Marked Intersections.
We have agriculture in common, but I wouldn't dare engage you in a conversation about farm subsidies.
I do understand how everyone feels and why, at first glance, they would be angry. The only thing that I am trying to explain here is that it cannot be taken at face value. When conservatives champion this as a talking point, it makes us look ignorant to the liberal professor types, and gives them more fodder to classify us in that backwoods hillbilly category in which they SO LOVE to put us all. There are many other valid issues for which we should be angry, and rightly so...the bailouts, for example.