Feds spent $700,000 on a Climate Change Musical

By Michael Musical-TheaterBastasch –

It looks like the National Science Foundation has been handing out grants for some unorthodox research projects, according to House Republicans.

This includes $700,000 in funding for a climate change musical.

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith questioned White House science czar John Holdren in a Thursday hearing over whether or not the National Science Foundation (NSF) should have to justify its use of taxpayer dollars to fund projects. Smith pointed out some examples of questionable projects the NSF has funded.

Read the rest at Daily Caller.

  • Hamin’ X

    To paraphrase an unknown person: A hundred million here and a hundred million there, pretty soon you’ve saved a bunch of money.

  • Rob N. Hood

    The notion of free markets, mechanisms where buyers and sellers can meet to exchange securities or various kinds of goods, in which each participant has access to the same information, is a fallacy. Transparency in trading across global financial markets is a fallacy. Not only are markets rigged by, and for, the biggest players, so is the entire political-financial system.

    The connection between democracy and free markets is interesting though. Democracy is predicated on the idea that every vote counts equally, and in the utopian perspective, the government adopts policies that benefit or adhere to the majority of those votes. In fact, it’s the minority of elite families and private individuals that exercise the most control over America’s policies and actions.

    • So, does any of that have anything to do with global warming?
      About your post, that is a very Marxist view of Capitalism.

      “The notion of free markets, mechanisms where buyers and sellers can meet to exchange securities or various kinds of goods, in which each participant has access to the same information, is a fallacy.” -RNH

      That is a fallacy, but it’s a fallacy concocted by Marxists! It’s called competition! And it is a very important part of Capitalism. If you do something better than, or have better information than your competitors then you will succeed where your competitors fail, and then the consumers get a better product or service.

      And, let me ask you this. Would it be a better system if Govt. controlled the means of production with the people put in charge of it are cronies, and sycophants of whoever the “great leader” is?
      Seems to me that the Elites would still control everything then, doesn’t it?

  • Rob N. Hood

    Yours is a very stale and out-dated idea of what passes as capitalism these days. Na├»ve even. And my post relates to this site in that the elite control politics and politics, at least in this country as in many others, has not taken AGW seriously. Why? Because the fossil fuel industry is run by, and controlled by the elite. Taken a step further, based upon your rudimentary essay above, would we the people be better off if oil extraction and sales were run by our government, the profits of which would be returned to the public coffers, very likely lowering taxes for all for example? Of course it would. Would everything be better if it didn’t have competition as part of the mix? Of course not. There is no socialistic government today run that way (“Marxist”), and actually no communist government is run that way anymore, except for North Korea. And NO ONE thinks they are a utopia or any kind of success at all for that matter. Being stuck into your mindset, as unfortunately many people seem to be, is seriously undermining this country, and will be the cause of its collapse.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.