I sometimes listen to Radio 2 Morning on CBC in the morning commute. It’s the most entertaining radio show I have ever heard, both musically and in prose. The songs are pure, simple, subtle, and sincere, both musically and lyrically, not overly sugary, forced, or over-the-top as I find some American music to be.
Prose is frequently entertaining. Yesterday, radio host Tom Allen told about a scientific study, conducted by English scientists from the prestigious University of Oxford, which cost British taxpayers 300,000 pounds. The study aimed to ascertain whether ducks preferred water in troughs, ponds, or rain. The study pointed out that ducks preferred rain.
Many farmers in England, as you might imagine, have a difficult time with so much British taxpayer money being appropriated for such a silly purpose. English farmers have known, colloquially, that ducks love the rain, for hundreds of years. They did not need 300,000 pounds to tell them this. They are understandably frustrated.
This is a silly story which brings up some important questions which are never discussed, but which should be:
Is it just to appropriate taxpayer money for scientific research? Where in the U.S. Constitution is such explicity justified? Did our Founding Fathers support such spending? Why do taxpayers not have a say in where their money goes and how it gets spent?