Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama Wasted Tax Dollars on “Gaydar” Research

This falls in to the “WTF?” category.

“This administration simply can’t be taken seriously when it talks about debt and deficit reduction when it chooses to spend money researching ‘gaydar’,” said Christopher R. Barron, Co-Founder and Chief Strategist for GOProud – a national organization of gay and straight Americans seeking to promote freedom by supporting freemarkets, limited government, and a respect for individual rights. GOProud is also the only national gay organization to endorse Mitt Romney.

The National Science Foundation spent $30,000 supporting the “gaydar” study conducted by the University of Washington and Cornell University. “At a time when families – gay and straight – are being asked to tighten their belts and make tough decisions about spending because of the disastrous Obama economy it is an absolute insult to hear that federal tax dollars were spent ‘researching’ whether or not you can guess someone’s sexual orientation just by looking at them,” continued Barron.

This study was uncovered as part of the Wastebook 2012, which was released this morning by U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). The Wastebook lists 100 wasteful spending projects totaling more than $18 billion.

For crying out loud… Anderson Cooper can just act as a gaydar proxy for the Obama Administration. He does so well being their bitch on every other issue.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

12 Comments

  1. Curious, don’t we want to know?

    Comment by anon322531 — October 17, 2012 @ 5:07 pm - October 17, 2012

  2. Really? This ridiculous!

    Comment by Linda Strickland — October 17, 2012 @ 5:43 pm - October 17, 2012

  3. Seriously? $30,000 dollars? Do you think that this study proposition came across the President’s desk and he personally decided that it was a good idea? Or do you think the folks at the NSF decided out to split up the money to the various proposals? NSF’s budget was 6.8 billion last year in a variety of fields including Geosciences, Physical Sciences, Computer Engineering, and Cyberinfrastructure (among other things). This is barely a drop in the bucket. Was the study justified? Maybe, maybe not. There might be implications for discrimination laws. But I trust the NSF to decide what’s appropriate to spend research money on much more than I do GOProud.

    Just for comparison purposes, the military’s budget for 2010 was $683.7 billion, over 100x more. I suspect that it would be much easier to find $30,000 in there to cut.

    Comment by Alan — October 17, 2012 @ 7:55 pm - October 17, 2012

  4. Alan,

    I an unable to locate in my copy of the constitution the government being empowered to discover ‘gaydar’.

    However the military is clearly in the document.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 17, 2012 @ 7:59 pm - October 17, 2012

  5. Where in the constitution does it say that government can’t spend money on research? Or are we going down the literalist path, where just about every department (Education, Energy, etc) in existence is illegal? The argument was that this was wasteful, not unconstitutional.

    Comment by Alan — October 17, 2012 @ 8:09 pm - October 17, 2012

  6. Because, Alan, the government is having to take money away from its clearly-defined constitutional responsibilities to pay for this wasteful “research” instead.

    Furthermore, of course Obama is responsible; after all, Obama insists that Romney is personally responsible for every single decision made at Bain before, during AND after his tenure.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 17, 2012 @ 8:27 pm - October 17, 2012

  7. NDT, my point is that if you’re truly concerned about wasteful spending, I don’t think focusing on $30,000 for a study is going to get you all that far. There are far, far bigger fish to fry. Like, for example, reducing Medicare costs by $716 billion over 10 years. Because yeah, Republicans have been *so* supportive of that.

    Cute dig at Obama and Bain, but ultimately irrelevant to the discussion. (And let’s be honest – If this study had come across his study and he personally approved or declined it, folks on the right would be screaming that he’s not focusing on jobs and the economy)

    Comment by Alan — October 17, 2012 @ 8:42 pm - October 17, 2012

  8. Gee… that $300K might have paid for a few more security measures at Benghazi. But, I guess Alan thinks “gaydar” research is just as important.

    It’s not as if it’s *his* money being wasted.

    Comment by V the K — October 17, 2012 @ 9:03 pm - October 17, 2012

  9. I thought SnObama already came equipped with said gaydar.

    I mean, where there’s smoke etc. etc. etc.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 17, 2012 @ 9:54 pm - October 17, 2012

  10. NDT, my point is that if you’re truly concerned about wasteful spending, I don’t think focusing on $30,000 for a study is going to get you all that far.

    It’ll get you $30,000 farther towards eliminating waste than you were in the first place.

    And that leads us to this point:

    There are far, far bigger fish to fry. Like, for example, reducing Medicare costs by $716 billion over 10 years. Because yeah, Republicans have been *so* supportive of that.

    Let’s see, Alan; even though you admit it’s a total waste and a relative pittance, you won’t eliminate $30k of spending on useless research.

    If you won’t even put forward the minimal amount of effort to stop 30 grand from being wasted, there is no chance that you’re going to touch $716 billion. None.

    Cute dig at Obama and Bain, but ultimately irrelevant to the discussion.

    Perfectly relevant. If Obama wants to play CEO, he can be held to the same standards that he tries to hold everyone else.

    And the fact that he screams and cries and snivels — and his supporters insist that he shouldn’t be — tells you all that you need to know about his utter hypocrisy and inability to meet that which he demands of others.

    (And let’s be honest – If this study had come across his study and he personally approved or declined it, folks on the right would be screaming that he’s not focusing on jobs and the economy)

    Comment by Alan — October 17, 2012 @ 8:42 pm – October 17, 2012

    “If” is a hypothetical. The simple fact of the matter is that, by his own standards, he is responsible for an utterly-wasteful decision.

    You can try to minimize it all you want, but all you’re doing is demonstrating that you and your fellow Obama supporters are not really serious when you talk about reducing spending.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 18, 2012 @ 1:42 am - October 18, 2012

  11. Alan, please see limited and enumerated. Also see the 10th amendment.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 18, 2012 @ 7:54 am - October 18, 2012

  12. I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate for a bit here.
    I suspect the $30K was given by the NSF to fund some graduate student’s research project for an advanced degree. As you may know, a Ph.D. is awarded for “an original contribution to human knowledge”. This means millions of graduate students are scurrying around trying to find some experiment or investigation that hasn’t been done before. Maybe a graduate student will come across a question whose answer changes the universe, but more likely it will be relative trivia.

    And the research has to be something that can be done in a reasonable amount of time, so the student can get that doctorate and get out into the world.

    It seems to me, the chances of a grad student doing world-shaking, fundamental research are pretty low. But does that mean we stop funding it? If we fund research at all, that is?

    Maybe the government should not be funding the NSF at all. Or fund it at the state level. Maybe it’s time researchers looked at a new model. (I saw a link to a Kickstarter proposal to do research on a space elevator. It wound up making some 20-30 times the initial requested amount. If you can’t get 3000 people to kick in $10 to study “gaydar”, maybe it can wait.) (But then again, some of the most silly sounding projects have a way of being very important. Take mold infesting your bacterial cultures, for example.)

    Frankly, if the government must fund research at public universities, maybe it should block grant the money to each university and let the administrators decide what to fund.

    Comment by Karl Lembke — October 23, 2012 @ 9:56 pm - October 23, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.