San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, October 24, 2014

Paul Krugman Is An Economic Idiot

Paul Krugman is professor of economics at Princeton University.  He is also a regular columnist for the New York Times.  He is also a Nobel Prize winner in Economics.  Oh, did I mention, he is also an economic idiot?  He is.  Allow me to explain.
Krugman is a Keynesian.  That is, he is a follower of the economic (if you can call them that) theories of John Maynard Keynes, a pedophile (with a penchant for young boys as Gary North likes to say) and British economist famous for his state fawning economic recommendations.  Keynes, and Krugman, never met a government intervention into the economy they don't like.  That is why, in our state worshiping society, Krugman is enormously popular and influential among career politicians and life long bureaucrats.  He is the toast of the town whenever career politicians and bureaucrats are present.  But that is not my point today.  Today I shall prove that the Nobel prize holding Paul Krugman is nothing more than an economic idiot.
As a Keynesian Krugman is committed to the idea that the business cycle, that steady progression of economy-wide boom and bust cycles, is the creation of the free market that must be regulated by government monetary and fiscal policy.  That is his first mistake.  Economy-wide periods of expansion and contraction came into existence only because of the presence of government interference with the free market.  It is true that in a free market isolated pockets of the economy can go through boom and bust cycles.  Indeed, that is a good thing as the process of creative destruction delivers more and better goods and services to the consumers.  But the presence of an economy-wide expansion or contraction, also known as a recession or depression, is only understandable and explainable as a direct result of government policies intervening into the free market.  
The two most favored economic policies advanced by Krugman and his fellow Keynesians are government spending and inflation.  Krugman believes that the recession of 2008 is still a serious threat to the economic health of this country and is calling for even more government spending and inflation.  He believes that the Fed has not created enough counterfeit money and is constantly writing that more "easing" is required to restore a robust period of economic growth.  The presupposition underlying the amazingly stupid policy recommendations that spew forth from him is that economic growth comes from spending.  When consumers are saving money they are spending less. When consumers spend less, according to Krugman, the economy stagnates.  When the economy stagnates it is crucial that the government step in and inflate and spend.  All Keynesians can be identified by the fact that they cling to the belief that spending, both by consumers and the government, is the source of economic growth.
It does not take an economic genius to recognize the stupidity of that assertion.  You do not need a Nobel prize in economics to see how wrong that belief is.  How do things go for a profit seeking business if, year after year, the company has expenses that are greater than revenues?  I think we all realize that a business will go out of business if it does not show a profit over time.  In Krugman's magical universe it should be the case that a profit seeking business could simply spend more in order to survive.  Can you think of a more ridiculous idea than that?  Anyone who has ever been in a business situation like that knows what I am writing about.
How about in the family?  Maybe Krugman's thesis will work there.  How has it gone for your family when you consistently spend more than you make?  Does that behavior cause your net worth to go up?  According to Krugman all families in this country should be able to spend themselves to prosperity and a multimillion dollar level net worth.  You don't have to go out and earn more.  You don't have to work two jobs.  You don't grow rich by earning more, you grow rich by spending more.  So charge up the credit cards and borrow some funds from your bank.  You will be rich beyond your dreams before you know it.  Yet, isn't it strange that we have no examples of families constantly spending more than they earn that end well?  The bankruptcy courts are filled with families that have pursued Krugman's economic policies.
When it comes to government the situation does not change, despite the protestations of Krugman and his ilk.  Government spending in excess of revenues and covering those debts with funny money does not create economic growth.  If it were true that governments could create economic growth simply by spending and creating money to cover the deficit then all of the governments of the world should be pursuing that policy with a vengeance.  There is no reason why, if a little inflation and spending is a good thing, a humongous amount of inflation and spending should not be a good thing.  And, amazingly enough, Krugman believes what I just wrote.  Despite creating over a trillion dollars of funny money in the last couple of years Krugman is calling upon the government to create trillions more.
On October 12th Krugman penned an article entitled How Righteousness Killed The World Economy.  The central thesis of his article is that antiquated ideas about debt and spending, derived from the old Calvinistic work ethic of savings and investment, have brought about a situation in which the economy of the world is being held back from the growth rates it could attain if only we would all follow the dictates of Nobel prize winners like Paul Krugman.
Krugman looks at economies all over the world and concludes that they are not booming as he would like them too.  He then asks the rhetorical question, "Why does this keep happening? After all, the events that brought on the Great Recession — the housing bust, the banking crisis — took place a long time ago. Why can’t we escape their legacy?"  The answer to his own question reveals his significant idiocy.  He writes, "The proximate answer lies in a series of policy mistakes: Austerity when economies needed stimulus, paranoia about inflation when the real risk is deflation..."  Yawn.  As is always the case with Keynesians, the answer to every question is for the government to create more counterfeit money and spread it around liberally.  But Krugman does not stop here.  He goes on to ask another question.  He asks why is it that government bureaucrats refuse to open the spigots and let the money flow at levels never seen before in human history?  Here is where it gets interesting.
According to Krugman even career politicians and life long bureaucrats are incapable of pulling the trigger and doing what needs to be done to make the economy grow.  Why?  Because they still suffer from the lingering effects of the puritanical belief that debt is a bad thing that should avoided if possible and paid off quickly after it is assumed.  According to Krugman, since consumer spending creates economic growth and consumers are now trying to pay down their high levels of debt rather than spending their money on goods and services, the net impact upon the economy is that consumers are spending less and the economy is not growing as it should.  The solution to this nonexistent problem?  Universal debt forgiveness!  I am not kidding.  That is what Krugman wants.  Look at several of these quotes from his article:
"What’s striking about the past few years, however, is how little debt relief has actually taken place. Yes, there’s Iceland — but it’s tiny....In major economies, very few debtors have received a break....Why are debtors receiving so little relief? As I said, it’s about righteousness — the sense that any kind of debt forgiveness would involve rewarding bad behavior....So the policy response to a crisis of excessive debt has, in effect, been a demand that debtors pay off their debts in full. What does history say about that strategy? That’s easy: It doesn’t work."
So there you have it.  The economy is not growing as fast as it could because people who loaned money to others stupidly and selfishly expect that money to be paid back.  They are not as enlightened as Krugman so they do not realize that loaning money to others and never expecting it to be paid back is a patriotic thing to do because it is good for the economy.  Krugman wants large scale, government mandated, legally enforced "debt forgiveness."  Student loans haunting you?  The government will abolish them.  Mortgage too high?  The government will reduce it by half.  Your neighbor expects that $50 you loaned him to be paid back?  Call the police and have them inform him that he will never see it.  Why?  Because it is good for the economy for all debt to be forgiven.  That way we all have more money to spend.  And we all know that the more we spend the more we grow.  So go out there and spend and borrow to your heart's content.  It is the right thing to do.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Immoral Persecution Of Smokers Continues At CVS Health

I was reading my Denver Post yesterday when a story in the Business section caught my eye.  It was about CVS Health.  CVS Health is a drug store that fills millions of government approved drug prescriptions every year.  In fact, according to the article, CVS Health is "the nations second largest drug store chain."  You may recall that CVS Health made a big deal a year or so ago about how it was no longer going to sell any tobacco products in its stores.  Good for them.  In a free market a store should be able to sell, or not sell, anything it wants.
The story in the paper informed me that CVS has created a new and coercive "network" for the distribution of drugs.  Under the terms of this system, "the new CVS network will slap an extra co-payment on patients who fill their prescriptions at stores that sell tobacco.  That payment won't apply to prescriptions filled at stores in the tobacco-free network, which would include CVS..."  So let me get this straight.  CVS has made the decision to discriminate against smokers by charging them a premium if they fill their prescriptions at stores that also sell tobacco.  Does this seem outrageous to anyone besides me?
It is rather obvious what CVS is trying to do.  The person who smokes and needs a prescription clearly will make the decision to go to the pharmacy that does not add the surcharge onto his bill.  The net result is that stores that make the free market decision to serve the needs of smokers will find their pharmacy business rapidly declining.  Stores that sell both drugs and tobacco will be punished for that fact and nobody gives a hoot about this immoral act of discrimination.  Where are the people who constantly whine and complain about discrimination?  Why is nobody stepping up to defend smokers?
How can CVS get away with this?  Where are the government regulators that forbid this type of clearly discriminatory behavior?  These drugs are being sold through a bureaucratic system of the federal government.  The FDA has regulatory oversight over the entire process.  How can the FDA allow a two-tiered pricing system for drugs that exists exclusively to persecute people who smoke?  When a bakery owner declined to bake a cake for the wedding ceremony of a militant homosexual couple he was punished by the government and forced to do so against his conscience.  When a photographer declined to take photographs of a wedding ceremony of a militant homosexual couple she was punished by the government and forced to do so against her conscience.  Yet when a smoker is forced to pay a surcharge on a prescription drug simply because the store that is selling him the drug also happens to sell tobacco nobody says a thing.  Nobody cries discrimination!  Nobody from the FDA says there needs to be an investigation into what appears to be an obvious discriminatory practice.
Why are there no expressions of moral outrage at what CVS Health has done? Why, on the contrary, is CVS Health being praised by lovers of government for what they have done?  The answer to that question is simple.  CVS is persecuting smokers and tobacco companies and in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika smokers and tobacco companies have no civil rights.  You can do anything you want to do to smokers and the government will not only refuse to stop you, it will encourage you in your immoral persecution.  When it comes to civil persecution, smokers are fair game.
This past summer the City of Golden (Colorado) made the decision to create a new rule that prohibits smoking on one of its golf courses.  The golf course is Fossil Trace.  It is a nice golf course.  I have played it several times, although it is a bit pricey for my budget.  Apparently some superior human being who works for the government was at the golf course one day and detected the aroma of tobacco smoke in the air.  Flying into a fit of hysteria this bureaucrat ran screaming about complaining that her lungs were being polluted and she was likely to die from complications due to second hand smoke.  Although the amount of smoke she might have inhaled had to be measured in parts per trillion, she got her way.  Smoking is now illegal at Fossil Trace golf course.
I could go on with more and more examples of how smokers are being persecuted.  The City of Boulder (Colorado) has enacted new rules that essentially make smoking illegal everywhere in the city.  Even the back alleys, where smokers would congregate on cold winter mornings for a cigarette, have been declared smoke free zones, under punishment of law for violation.
We live in a democracy.  That means the majority always wins.  In the old days, when we were a constitutional republic, it was understood that it was the job of government to defend the rights of the minority.  Not so anymore.  We live in a democracy where the majority always wins.  If you are not a member of the majority you are in big trouble because you have no civil rights.  Smokers are now considerably less than the majority of people who live in this sad land.  As a result they no longer have any civil rights.  Persecute them at will.  There is no way they can stop you.  Yell at them in public if you wish, there are no hate speech rules to protect them.  Push them around and physically force them out of your presence if it suits you.  There are  no hate crime statues to protect them.  I suggest we all band together and force them to wear black arm bands with the word 'Smoker' clearly stenciled on it.  That way we can persecute them even when they are not practicing their offensive habit.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Words You Are Forbidden To Use With A Welshman

Last week a Denver Broncos football player called another football player from the opposing team a nigger.  Yes, I use the word nigger.  I don't see much point in writing n***** in its place.  When you read n***** you say nigger to yourself so why bother with all of the ***s?  Plus, I don't consider the use of the word nigger to be a sin, as so many do today.
Terrence Knighton is a lineman for the Broncos.  His nickname is "Pot Roast" because of his enormous size.  He is black.  The Broncos were playing the NY Jets a little over a week ago and things got a bit chippy down on the field.  A report in the Denver Post said that, "Knighton admitted to using the racial slur after the Broncos scored a touchdown late in the second quarter." Apparently Knighton was upset that one of the Jets players had taken a cheap shot at Von Miller, a Denver star player.  So when the opportunity presented itself to call the opposing team a name, he took advantage of it.  According to Knighton, "When we scored I let them hear about it.  It wasn't aggressive or insulting.  It was just trash talk.  And the ref threw the flag on me.  I wish I didn't say it but at the time I meant what I said."  The person Knighton referred to as a nigger is black.
The response of the NFL front office was swift and heavy.  Recognize this is the same NFL front office that had suspended a player for just two games, with no financial penalty, for the offense of knocking his fiance unconscious in a hotel elevator, then dragging her down the hallway by her hair.  Knighton's punishment was a fine of $11,025.  $11,025!  Are you kidding me?  For uttering a single word?  What have we become?  A man can beat up his wife and receive a slap on the wrist but the mere utterance of the word nigger will cost you eleven grand.  Talk about mistaken priorities.
The story gets even more interesting.  As Knighton was discussing his use of the word nigger he turned to a teammate who has a cubicle next to him in the locker room and who happens to be white and said that if he (the teammate) had called him a nigger it would be a "term of endearment."  So, how and when would the use of the term nigger be offensive to Knighton?  He answered that question as well.  He said, "A guy who works on Wall Street can't walk by and say it to me.  That would get under my skin."  So let me get this straight.  Directing the word nigger at a black man is not considered to be offensive unless the person using the word works on "Wall Street?"  I think we all realize that Knighton was referring to people who are involved in the business of the creation of capital.  So, according to Knighton, everyone, regardless of race, is free to call a black man a nigger unless he is a capitalist.  Then he is forbidden to do so.  My, things have become much more complicated than I have realized.
When Derek Wolfe (the white teammate next door) was asked if he would ever call Knighton a nigger he responded by saying, "As a white male I always believed I didn't earn the right to say that word, because I didn't live through years and years of oppression."  It is unclear how many years and years of oppression Knighton has lived through but apparently it is enough to qualify him to use the word nigger.
If we are going to speak about generations of oppression however, we must speak about the Welsh.  As I have written previously, the Welsh have been racially and culturally oppressed by the Vikings, the Norsemen, the Gauls, the Angles, the Saxons, the Scots, the Irish and the Britons.  If there is any group that knows something about oppression it is the Welsh.  Quite naturally then we have developed an entire system of language that includes words you may or may not use depending upon the social conditions present at the time the word is used.  In the interests of fair play and full disclosure I would like to introduce you to the most important words you are forbidden to use with a Welshman.
  • "Cracker."  In the Socialist Democracy of Amerika it is a regular occurrence for black people to refer to white people as crackers.  White people never complain about it because they believe they do not have enough slaves in their personal ancestries to justify the complaint.  The Welsh have no such sensitivity.  Because of their long and sordid history of oppression, nobody may refer to a Welshman as a cracker.  This includes people of all races, ethnicity, income, place of employment, beliefs about various economic theories and social history. The only exception to this rule is if the Welshman being addressed actually works in a cracker factory.  As of the last census, only 32.6 Welshmen were actually employed in cracker factories.
  • "Apple."  Do you know what an apple is?  An apple is a Welshman who is red on the outside and white on the inside.  It is a term used among Welshman to describe those among us who have sold out to the Scots, Irish and Brits.  Apples adopt patterns of speech and behavior consistent with those hated ethnic groups.  When a Welshman informs you he is going to "have a spot of tea" or "go on a wild binge of drinking" you know he is pretending to be a Brit or an Irishman.  When a Welshman stares at you blankly you know he is mimicking the behavior of the Scots.  Those folks are known as apples.  Only Welshman can call other Welshman apples.  Use of the term apple by anyone else is highly offensive to all Welshman.  So please, when you go into the orchard to harvest your fruits this year please refer to them as "tasty ovaries" rather than apples.  And if you must write about them, please spell it as a****.
  • "Oreo."  Lots of Welsh people work in coal mines.  It is a part of our national history.  When working in a coal mine it is quite common to become covered in soot. When covered with soot one can often appear somewhat blackened on the surface of the skin and clothing.  People who work in coal mines and who emerge at the end of their shifts with sooty clothing are frequently called oreos.  However, not just anyone can refer to a Welsh coal miner as an oreo.  To be qualified to call a Welsh coal miner an oreo you must have a net worth less than 50,000 dollars (at the proper exchange rate for that day).  Furthermore, anyone who works in a cookie factory, regardless of net worth, is forbidden from using the word oreo.  It just gets too confusing for them if they are permitted to use that word.
  • "Welsher (alternatively, Welcher)."  I think we all know about this horribly offensive term.  To be a welsher is to be one who goes back on his solemn promises.  A welsher gives his word to a fellow human being with no intention of keeping it.  Because of a long history of oppression and false information about the Welsh race, people (Brits, Irish and Scots mostly) created the term as a way to put the Welsh people down and keep them subjugated.  Welsher is a universally forbidden word.  It must never be spelled out.  It must never be spoken.  There is only one exception to the rule.  In the Welsh rugby league the players are permitted to use the term in regards to each other provided both the person using the term and the person hearing the term do not work for a bank.
  • "Dirty, Rotten Liar."  Actually, this term, or phrase,  is not forbidden.  Given the indisputable fact that it is the phrase that most accurately describes all of the Welsh people it has been determined that anyone may use it at any time.  The only exception to this general rule is that the phrase may never be used for someone who is a cracker, apple, oreo or welsher. 

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

The DNA Is In....The Mad Welshman Is Welsh

A little over a month ago my extended family decided to do some background checking.  By background I mean ancestry.  I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about the project because I am better off being unaware of my jaded history.  Learning about the rogues gallery that makes up my ancestral lineage did not sound like a particularly enjoyable activity.  I also suspected that a part of the motivation for doing so might be an attempt on their part to cut me out of the family if they could only prove that I have the DNA of the mailman who used to deliver the mail to our home when I was a child.  I could see very little good that would come out of a DNA test and a lot of potentially bad things that could be the result of giving my DNA to a laboratory.
To make matters worse, I have claimed Welsh ancestry primarily based upon my own personal research into the four immediate surnames in my own background.  In other words, I took the surnames of my two sets of grandparents and attempted to figure out where they came from.  One of them was definitely Welsh.  One of them could be Welsh or Scottish.  The remaining two could be either Welsh or German, depending upon how the name was spelled.  Given the fact that my parents informed me that I was mostly German and partly Welsh I was less than enthusiastic to have that point proven by my DNA.  Nevertheless, I spit into the beaker and sent it off to Ancestry.com.
All of the other DNA tests sent in by the various members of the family came back quite quickly.  They had fun discovering just how many different ethnic groups constituted each of their own particular DNA profiles.  One person, who had claimed American Indian blood for years, had to back down and drop that claim in light of irrefutable DNA evidence.  For some reason, that none of us could figure out, the testing of my DNA dragged on and on.  Finally, almost a month later than everyone else, my DNA profile was posted to the website.  In fact, it happened just this morning.  What I saw caused me to heave a sigh of relief.
There are many people who have doubted and attacked my Welshness.  They say that I just made it up.  They say that I just claim to be Welsh because being Welsh is universally known as simply the greatest thing in the universe. That, of course, was partially true.  In fact, it could have been wholly true.  Just like the Welsh I am a magnificent liar.  Maybe I did simply make all of it up.  Still I continued with the lie and told them I had to be at least 50% Welsh.  My detractors would scoff and walk away.  I have gone into print in this very blog asserting that I am a Welsh-American with more Welsh blood in me than most African-Americans have African blood in them.  I have hand written the phrase "Welsh-American" on my census form and informed the government how offended I was that they did not have a category for my ethnicity.  I have considered joining the Welsh-American club.  I eat Welsh rabbit and encourage others to do so.  But still people kept on saying that I just made all of this up to be able to call my blog the Mad Welshman and derive all of the huge psychological benefits associated with being a member of the Welsh race. 
Well doubt no more!  The DNA data is in and the Mad Welshman is 85% Welsh.  There can be no doubt.  Surprisingly in light of the fact my parents told me I was mostly German, there is not an ounce of German blood in my body.  I don't have anything against the Germans.  I don't hold them responsible for Hitler and I really like frankfurters and sauerkraut but I just did not want to be of Germanic origin.
The second biggest contributor to my ethnicity, coming in at a whopping 5%, is northwest Russian.  Now that came as a surprise.  But the more I think about it the more I realize it shouldn't.  I really like Tchaikovsky.  I also like the ballet and I can dance like nobody's business, although I don't attempt the Cossack dance anymore.  The last time I tried to dance like a Cossack I ended up in traction being force fed Vodka by a woman named Olga.  It was not a pleasant experience.
Perhaps the biggest ethnic shock I suffered this morning was the discovery that I am 3% Jewish.  Now that came out of left field.   My wife picked up on that quickly.  She informed me that since I am 3% Jewish I am going to miss the Rapture when it occurs.  I will be forced to stay on the earth with the rest of the Jews during the seven year period known as the Great Tribulation.  I had really hoped to avoid that seven years and now it looks like I might have to try and live through it.  Well, at least I have been forewarned.  And I will have my 85% Welsh cunning to help me survive. 

Monday, October 20, 2014

Queer Happenings At The NIH

The National Institutes of Health has suddenly come into the public eye due to the current hysteria over the ebola virus.  In the never ending politicization of everything that happens in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika some career politicians have attempted to get reelected by decrying the budget cuts that have been forced upon the NIH in recent years.  NIH Director Francis Collins had this to say about his alleged reduction in funding, “Frankly, if we had not gone through our 10-year slide in research support, we probably would have had a vaccine in time for this that would’ve gone through clinical trials and would have been ready.” All of this got me to wondering....what exactly does the NIH do?
First, let's take a look at the taxpayer dollars being sent to the NIH.  According to this report, total NIH funding twenty years ago was 11.0 billion dollars.  By 2010 that figure had grown to 27.1 billion dollars.  Ten years ago, when the bureau reportedly began its "10-year slide in research support", the agency received $27.9 billion.  The 2014 budget is $31.3 billion.  That does not look like much of a slide to me.  If the budget of the bureau is adjusted for inflation over the last twenty years it is the case that the amount of money being allocated to it today is somewhat lower than it was ten years ago but still much higher than it was twenty years ago.  Despite the protestations of Director Collins, underfunding does not seem to be a problem.  So what are your tax dollars being spent on?  Here is where it gets interesting.
The Washington Free Beacon has uncovered $40 million of wasteful NIH spending that could have been used for research on an ebola vaccination.  The full story is here.  Here are just a few of the ways the NIH has been spending the money the IRS has removed from your pocket and given to it:
  •  One five year study that started in 2011 is designed to discover why the majority of lesbians are obese.  So far $2.87 million dollars has been spent, with $670,000 spent in 2014 and more to come in 2015, to try and figure out why lesbians eat too much food.  Apparently 75% of self-professing lesbians are officially classified as being obese by the federal government.  Of course the feds consider obesity to be a disease and not a choice.  So it makes perfect sense for them to spend millions of taxpayer dollars trying to help poor, fat lesbians.  I hope they find a biological cause for their disease so they can all get inoculations and become the thin perverts they want to be.  Of course they could have sent me $20 and I would have told them why lesbians are fat.  They eat to assuage their guilty consciences as they desperately attempt to suppress the truth about themselves, namely, that homosexual behavior is sinful.
  • The NIH has spent $106,000 on a study that follows 16 schizophrenic Canadian homosexuals around Toronto to see how they "experience the community."  Why SDA tax dollars should be spent on Canadian citizens is not explained.  Why SDA tax dollars should be spent on heterophoboic Canadians is not detailed.  Why the community experiences of crazed Canadian homosexuals should be the business of SDA taxpayers is never  elucidated.  They could have sent me $20 and I could explain everything to them.  These 16 Canadians are schizophrenic because they are suppressing the truth about themselves in unrighteousness.  God has already told us, in Romans 1, that homosexuals are being subjected to punishment for their refusal to acknowledge God as God.  Constantly going around denying that God exists and has a moral claim on their lives, a moral claim which informs them that homosexuality is a sin worthy of death, is enough to make anyone schizophrenic.
  • The National Institutes of Health has also spent  more than $460,000 to determine why gay men get syphilis in the country of Peru.  How strange that my tax dollars should be spent trying to figure out how homosexual men living in Peru become infected with syphilis.  Why is that any of my business?  They could have sent me $20 and I could have written a one paragraph report, mostly quoting Romans 1, that would answer their question.  Almost a half a million taxpayer dollars could have been saved.  Homosexual men become infected with syphilis because they practice immoral sex with each other.  It is God's revealed will that they receive punishment in their bodies because of their immoral behavior.  Only in the SDA could the federal government spend almost a half million dollars on a simple question and still be in search of the correct answer.
  • With absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that it might be the case, the NIH has now spent $718,000 to try and discover if lesbians suffer from Postpartum Depression more than heterosexual women.  The reason the study was commissioned in the first place was because the NIH had discovered that lesbians are more prone to depression than non-lesbians.  Since lesbians tend to be depressed all the time, why not see if they are even more depressed after giving birth?  That makes perfect sense to a militant homosexual bureaucrat looking for some way to spend tax payer dollars and increase his funding.  They could have sent me $20 for a full and complete report on lesbian depression.  Lesbians, both those who have given birth and those who have not, are depressed because they are suppressing the truth about their behavior.  They know they are sinning and they are desperately trying to suppress that truth.  That would depress anyone.
  • The NIH has also spent $2.3 million of your tax payments to study the smoking habits of homosexuals.  Why homosexuals should be singled out is not described.  They also spent millions of dollars studying the smoking habits of Indians, post-menopausal women and bums.  Ostensibly the goal of this colossal waste of money was to help these poor minority groups stop smoking.  I don't believe they have reached their goal.  These folks continue to smoke.  Maybe they are smoking for a reason.  Maybe they are smoking because they enjoy it.  Maybe they like the buzz nicotine creates.  In the case of the homosexuals, maybe smoking helps them to suppress their feelings of depression as they consider and attempt to suppress their thoughts about the immorality of their behavior.  
  • Perhaps my favorite grant of all was the $2.4 million dollars given to Danny Resnic, a militant homosexual from Los Angeles, to design "origami condoms" to increase the pleasure of homosexual sex and reduce the incidence of HIV infection.  Can you think of a better way for an SDA health bureau to spend $2.4 million?  I sure can't.
Not all of the spending at the NIH is in support of militant homosexual causes.  There is plenty of waste to go around.  Still, I find that much of the money that could have been spent on ebola research is being used on some pretty queer projects.