Fox Nation falsely claims "Obama Spending $400K to Studying Drinking and Sex Habits of Gays in Argentina"
SUMMARY: A Fox Nation headline falsely claimed: "Obama Spending $400K to Studying Drinking and Sex Habits of Gays in Argentina." In fact, the article to which the Fox Nation headline links states that the study began in September 2008, and according to the National Institute of Health, much of the project's funding was allocated before Obama took office.
A May 4 headline on FoxNation.com -- Fox News' purportedly bias-free website -- falsely claimed: "Obama Spending $400K to Studying Drinking and Sex Habits of Gays in Argentina." Fox Nation linked to a May 4 CNSNews.com article with the headline, "Feds Will Spend $400,000 to Study Drinking and Sex Habits of Homosexuals in Argentina." However, the CNSNews.com article states that the "study began on Sept. 30, 2008, and runs through Aug. 31, 2010. It already has cost taxpayers $198,776." In other words, according to CNSNews.com, the project began under the Bush administration, not the Obama administration. Moreover, according to the National Institute of Health (NIH), the $198,776 already allocated to the project was provided during fiscal year 2008, which ended on September 30, 2008 -- before Obama was president.
The May 4 CNSNews.com article states:
The study began on Sept. 30, 2008, and runs through Aug. 31, 2010. It already has cost taxpayers $198,776. By the time the project ends, it will have cost $403,902, according to NIH.
The grant, awarded to the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was provided by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), the division of NIH that studies the effects of alcohol and alcoholism.
The study's primary focus is to determine the relationship among drinking, bars frequented by homosexuals, and risky sexual behavior to see if certain bars in Argentina might be good targets for HIV-prevention campaigns.
"Targeting public venues in Buenos Aires where men meet, alcohol is consumed, and sexual behavior occurs, the goal of this two-year exploratory study is to understand the various factors that contribute to the creation of a high-risk sexual space," the study's abstract explains.
"To that end, the study seeks to describe the relative contribution of physical characteristics of the place, patron characteristics, type and level of alcohol consumption, and social dynamics that are at play and potentiate each other to result in sexual risk behavior."
Columbia University's New York State Psychiatric Institute lists the above language in its overview of a grant titled "HIV-Prevention Intervention Targets in High-risk Alcohol Venues in Argentina." The Institute lists as its funding source "NIAAA R21," a grant program available under the NIH. It states that the study's grant page was last updated on December 26, 2008.
The grant's title appears on government websites that indicate some funding for the program was given during the Bush administration.
The NIH website lists "All NIH Grants for FY 2008" for the New York State Psychiatric Institute and includes $198,776 -- the amount listed in the CNSNews.com article -- for the grant. From the document:
Similar information also appears on the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services' Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System website.
From the FoxNation.com:
Randy
I think the story tells us what we need to know early. While it is a Bush/co funded/executed action, the story implicates that Obama has no power to stop wasteful spending. I think that is what faux was getting at. There's another $200K to be spent on this wasteful project, but the implication is that Obama will not attempt to stop it. With that implication, then faux is correct to say Obama is funding the project.
Apology accepted. You have my sympathy.
wonder how mark foley is doing these days? or that senator getting busted in the bathroom?
but of course neo cons can claim to be on the "right side" of an issue as long as they don't get caught being hypocrites
Mark Foley was a Representative, not a Senator. And I think he would have been busted in the boys' room, not the bathroom.
fixed noise apologizing? giving a retraction? admitting they lied?
what world are you living in. lol
It shouldn't take $400K to figure this one out. Mixing booze and homosexuals in a place that allows sex...darn right it should be a target for HIV-prevention campaigns.
For chrissake, have these pointy headed intellectuals lost their cotton pickin minds...or maybe they're just grant farming for the money.
I'll give you a clue: The only problem that can be solved by mocking it would be the prevalence of conservatives posting on websites that are above their intellectual pay grade.
They answered their own question in the abstract. They already have enough info to determine that an HIV-prevention campaign would be beneficial...without spending $400K...or plumbing the depths of minutiae...or taking 2 years to figure it out.
It's a common practice for grant farmers to apply for money to study a subject...when they already have the answer...and this is a prime example and a complete waste of money by both administrations.
Tell me, does it feel good to knwo EVERYTHING? I would think that having sufficient knowledge on everything under the sun to be a huge burden.
Fact is: You can basically dismiss ANY study this way. But ssomeone obviously thought there was something there, and I doubt that either Bush or Obama ever saw this particular, specific item personally. There was grant moeny to go out, and this was chosen over other, ostensibly less qualified studies. If it wasn't this, it would likely just be something else that you, and the rest of intellectually disinterested would mock anyway.
Homosexuals gathering where they serve booze and allow sex is where the $400K should have been spent on implementing the HIV-prevention program...not on studying the obvious.
This study is nothing more than 2 years worth of boondoggle.
Action, my boy, action...that's what is required to slow down the spread of this deadly disease...not providing a home for nerdy academics.
(Just to be clear I'm not defendignt he study; Rather I'm attacking the automatice impulse to mock it (or any other) by those who are not doing the reasearch or have not read beyond the abstract.)
Of course we wouldn't.
Don't try to make this one issue into a conservative vs. liberal stance on research...I am not opposed to research. But I am opposed to silly research projects...like this one...where the answer to the question is obvious.
My response to this research was not automatic...mocking yes...but not automatic. And sociologists don't annoy me...except when promoting such silliness as this.
We already know that male homosexuals are the biggest contributing factor to spreading AIDS. We need to support action to enlighten them and improve that behavior...not more studies.
And the legitimacy of this study isn't the issue being discussed by MMfA anyway!!!!! But I bet you already knew that, and you were trying to distract us from teh real subject. You know, where FoxNation smears Obama for something he didn't do?
Products trade. Trade product. Sick, to use taxpayer money to fund a lifestyle. I am talking about anything, not part of service to America.