Your tax dollars at work: Government spends $3.6 million to study dope-smoking, menstruating monkeys

by editor on June 12, 2011

Pardon us. We’re a bit embarrassed. We saw that headline and immediately assumed it had something to do with Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. But, no, we were wrong.

debbie-wasserman-schultz

Much to our surprise, the story about the dope smoking, menstruating monkeys had nothing to do with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

CNS News has the latest installment of “Let’s Piss Away Your Money On The Stupidest Crap Imaginable”:

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), a division of the federal government’s National Institutes of Health (NIH), has spent $3,634,807 over the past decade funding research that involves getting monkeys to smoke and drink drugs such as PCP, methamphetamine (METH), heroin, and cocaine and then studying their behavior, including during different phases of the female monkeys’ menstrual cycles.

The study also uses “interventions” as “treatment models” for monkeys who have been taught to use drugs.

Precursor research on drug-using monkeys, also funded by NIDA, discovered that after smoking cocaine monkeys exhibited “dilated pupils and slightly agitated, hyperactive behavior”—which helped researchers conclude that the “physiological effects” of cocaine on monkeys “were similar to those reported in studies of human subjects.”

Monkeys and members of Congress are reportedly lining up to volunteer for the next phase of the experiment.

Source: CNS News

Leave a Reply

84 Comments on "Your tax dollars at work: Government spends $3.6 million to study dope-smoking, menstruating monkeys"

Notify of

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 15, 2011 5:58 am

Well, Barb, broken clocks, twice a day and all that.

Seriously, when a person has wasted my time so badly arguing in bad faith, I just don’t waste my time with anything they have to say anymore.

Occasionally, I see a response that hints at a decent posting by her, but the post usually turns out to be a bit too SSDD for me. Reading her posts is like having to be the proofreader for the million monkeys with their million typewriters. Any sense you can make of her posting is most likely the reflection of your perspective on her unintelligible babblings, and has nothing to do with her taking a turn for the sane.

********************
Translation: “Unless she agrees with or applauds my views, who needs her? And I’m still carrying a grudge because she didn’t obey my instructions on posting style.”

CO2Insanity
Admin
June 13, 2011 3:13 pm

I think they should experiment on Oblivia. Trouble is no one would have the time to record all her ranting and raving.

Homersdad
Member
Homersdad
June 13, 2011 1:05 pm

The real study should be to find the answer to the question of why animals are smarter than humans when it comes to really important matters. Don’t know of any other animal on earth that would intentionally put something in his/her body that: 1) was cooked up out of ingredients that would peel paint off the wall in nasty ass conditions 2) would destroy your life 3) could possibly (highly likely) cause you to die.

My basset hound (Homer) is by far smarter than such idiots. Dogs rule!

brm
Member
brm
June 13, 2011 2:53 pm

“My basset hound (Homer) is by far smarter than such idiots. Dogs rule!”

Yes, I see your point. But Homer also licks his ass, so I suppose we shouldn’t be overly enthused, hmmm?

Or at the very least, don’t kiss him on the mouth.

LOL!

Homersdad
Member
Homersdad
June 15, 2011 4:01 am

Yes Homer does do that but what can I say? One day I caught him watching a commercial on TV about recycling and next thing you know he starts licking his ass. I guess without hands its the best he could come up with to do his part. His heart is in the right place….even though his tongue may not be.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 13, 2011 2:20 pm

The real study should be to find the answer to the question of why animals are smarter than humans when it comes to really important matters. Don’t know of any other animal on earth that would intentionally put something in his/her body that: 1) was cooked up out of ingredients that would peel paint off the wall in nasty ass conditions 2) would destroy your life 3) could possibly (highly likely) cause you to die.

My basset hound (Homer) is by far smarter than such idiots. Dogs rule!

********************
I don’t doubt it in the least. But, all the same, I’d keep him away from puddles of antifreeze.

Homersdad
Member
Homersdad
June 15, 2011 10:40 am

Not to worry. Homer came in thru the doggy door the other day and said “Hey dad, did you know your radiator was leaking”. Told you he was smart.

perlcat
Member
June 15, 2011 12:09 pm

like my dog that fetched me a connecting rod from a D8 Cat — made me mad — I *told* him I wanted the rod from the D7. I have no patience for showoffs, even if his black labrador ass *was* 6″ up in the air, walking on front two legs.

Stupid dog, didn’t even read the tag I had on it.

It was funny, though.

KimmyQueen
Guest
June 13, 2011 7:08 am

If Bush was President this study would be barbaric and the hallmark of evil that is stamped by a conservative led country. However Obama is President and this is a necessary part of medical advancement. It’s all good then… it’s all good.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 13, 2011 7:42 am

If Bush was President this study would be barbaric and the hallmark of evil that is stamped by a conservative led country. However Obama is President and this is a necessary part of medical advancement. It’s all good then… it’s all good.

**********************
1) I have no idea how either Obama OR Bush feel about this study. Do you, or are you just making wild guesses again?

2) Seems to me that Bush could use some extra insight into addictions, as could his loyal water carriers Beck and Limbaugh. All of them seem to be under the impression that addictions will magically disappear, if you just tell them to go away.

3) Would you say it’s a GOOD thing, or a BAD thing, for medical science to gain more knowledge about addictions, and how to treat them?

David Bishop
Member
David Bishop
June 13, 2011 8:34 am

Why do you believe that if something isn’t federally funded, it will never be discovered/achieved/done?

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 13, 2011 8:46 am

Why do you believe that if something isn’t federally funded, it will never be discovered/achieved/done?
***********************
I never made such a statement, David. But, now that you’ve brought it up, private industry tends to put their efforts (and money) into studies that are most likely to result in big profits. And, like it or not, addiction treatment isn’t a lucrative field. Never has been.

In no way does that mean that it isn’t an important issue to address. And that’s why federal funding exists.

David Bishop
Member
David Bishop
June 13, 2011 11:09 am

Because a developed drug that would end someone’s addiction to another drug wouldn’t be profitable? ARE YOU NUTS?

There are currently 13 pharmaceutical firms investing 7+ million (of non-taxpayer money) a year on addiction-relieving pharmaceutical research and development.

So, why does the government need to do it?

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 13, 2011 11:41 am

Because a developed drug that would end someone’s addiction to another drug wouldn’t be profitable? ARE YOU NUTS?
********************
No, I’m not. First of all, I’m not naive enough to think that a magic pill that will “end someone’s addiction” is on the horizon. And, second, such a drug would be profitable only if the people who most needed it could afford to pay for it. Sure, there are wealthy and well insured addicts in this country and elsewhere, but most addicts have financial problems, and many lack insurance. It’s part of the disease, because addicts tend to have trouble hanging on to jobs, or paying bills.

It’s the same with chemical dependency treatment. EVERY hospital wants an MRI scanner and a cath lab, because those procedures are big moneymakers. But few want to spend money or time developing psychiatric or addiction units, because they are NOT big moneymakers.
*************************
There are currently 13 pharmaceutical firms investing 7+ million (of non-taxpayer money) a year on addiction-relieving pharmaceutical research and development.

So, why does the government need to do it?
****************
Because studying the physiology of addiction has a much broader focus than creating new medications, that’s why. And many of the studies involved aren’t likely, all by themselves, to make anyone rich.

brm
Member
brm
June 13, 2011 2:44 pm

“… but most addicts have financial problems, and many lack insurance. It’s part of the disease, because addicts tend to have trouble hanging on to jobs, or paying bills.”

And that’s why the taxpayer has to pay for their medical needs, Olivia. Who would pay for their meds? The same people who are already paying for their meds. The taxpayers.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 13, 2011 7:28 pm

“… but most addicts have financial problems, and many lack insurance. It’s part of the disease, because addicts tend to have trouble hanging on to jobs, or paying bills.”

And that’s why the taxpayer has to pay for their medical needs, Olivia. Who would pay for their meds? The same people who are already paying for their meds. The taxpayers.

**********************
Uninsured people often don’t get medications or treatment that they need, Barb. Particularly drug addicts, because (1) when they’re intoxicated, they’re often less aware of pain or medical disorders; (2) they have trouble following a medication regimen, because half the time they don’t know what day it is or what they’re supposed to be taking; (3) they have poor coping and problem solving skills (it goes with the disease).

So it’s not quite accurate to say that the taxpayers are footing the bill for their medical needs. More typically, they’re running to the emergency room when they feel ill or they run out of their drug of choice. (Or when they take an overdose and someone calls 911.) And the hospital makes up for their unpaid bills by overcharging their self-payers, and those with insurance.

brm
Member
brm
June 14, 2011 4:18 am

Olivia, every once in a while, when you stop with the “all you right wingers are alike” crap, you really do make good, valid points.

All your above statements were dead-on.

perlcat
Member
June 15, 2011 5:46 am

Well, Barb, broken clocks, twice a day and all that.

Seriously, when a person has wasted my time so badly arguing in bad faith, I just don’t waste my time with anything they have to say anymore.

Occasionally, I see a response that hints at a decent posting by her, but the post usually turns out to be a bit too SSDD for me. Reading her posts is like having to be the proofreader for the million monkeys with their million typewriters. Any sense you can make of her posting is most likely the reflection of your perspective on her unintelligible babblings, and has nothing to do with her taking a turn for the sane.

KimmyQueen
Guest
June 13, 2011 11:24 am

I would be more trusting of a private company that would rather not get sued than the government coming up with these addiction relieving drugs. It is hard to sue the government when something goes wrong. The government doesn’t need to do this. This is outside of their scope of authority per the constitution.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 13, 2011 11:43 am

I would be more trusting of a private company that would rather not get sued than the government coming up with these addiction relieving drugs. It is hard to sue the government when something goes wrong. The government doesn’t need to do this. This is outside of their scope of authority per the constitution.

*********************
1) What makes you assume that this study is all (and only) about creating an “addiction relieving drug”?

2) Please cite the portion of the Constitution that forbids the government to subsidize research that’s likely to promote the general welfare.

magilla
Guest
magilla
June 13, 2011 4:25 am

The old lady told me that she was going to be participating in a “survey”. When I found out that she would be given all the weed that she could smoke, I was ecstatic, thinking that I would be able to cop a little for myself. Then I found out that it would only be during “that time of the month”. I decided that I was going to “the Club” for the duration. That mixture can be dangerous; Her, twisted on weed, cackling at the top of her lungs, while hurling rocks across the hut at me…NO THANKS

KimmyQueen
Guest
June 12, 2011 1:07 pm

Does PETA know about this? This is the kind of stuff they need to meddle on. I find this appalling besides the obvious misuse of funds, I find it appalling on a humane level. It is utterly disgusting.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 13, 2011 4:37 am

Does PETA know about this? This is the kind of stuff they need to meddle on. I find this appalling besides the obvious misuse of funds, I find it appalling on a humane level. It is utterly disgusting.
*******************
It does sound disgusting, just as a lot of laboratory studies involving animals do. But, disgusting or not, that’s the kind of thing medical science has to do, to learn more about physical and cognitive function, and how to develop better medical and surgical treatments.

I always get annoyed by “that’s outrageous!” style blurbs like this, because they tell only as many details as necessary, to provoke the reaction they want. In this case—-and in most cases like this—–it’s not nearly as dumb or frivolous as they’re trying to make it seem. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of cocaine on the basal ganglia of the brain—the part of the nervous system that seems to deal with reward learning. And learning more about that response could provide some important insight into treating cocaine (and other drug) addiction.

We do all agree that coming up with more effective ways to treat drug addiction would be a GOOD thing, don’t we?

(But I also agree with one point you made here—-I hate the idea of having to use animals in this way, no matter how important the project. I could never work in an animal laboratory.)

sa_rose
Member
sa_rose
June 12, 2011 7:21 pm

Seriously Kimmy, you beat me to it! Addiction is a bitch–who is speaking for these innocent monkeys who are being forced to ingest addictive drugs? What happens to them when the experiment is over? Do they go though withdrawal or are they “sacrificed” (lab speak for killed when no longer needed) after? I am not joking here, though I do appreciate the humor y’all have exhibited. This is not an appropropriate use of funding nor of animals. It is not like they are developing life saving drugs or procedures!

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 13, 2011 4:42 am

Seriously Kimmy, you beat me to it! Addiction is a bitch–who is speaking for these innocent monkeys who are being forced to ingest addictive drugs? What happens to them when the experiment is over?
*********************
Part of the study involved “treating” the addiction, and then examining the monkeys’ brains to see if dopamine receptors (the part of the brain that experiences pleasure, and keeps addicts coming back to their drug of choice) had returned to pre-addiction levels. So they weren’t just turned into drug addicts and abandoned on the streets…..as so many right wingers propose that we do with human drug addicts.

hisham
Guest
hisham
June 13, 2011 9:19 am

As usual Olivia, you point out the obvious and why, exactly, are we funding this type of research in the first place, when there are so many other immediate and pressing needs for the money we waste on this pointless research to begin with?

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 13, 2011 10:21 am

As usual Olivia, you point out the obvious and why, exactly, are we funding this type of research in the first place, when there are so many other immediate and pressing needs for the money we waste on this pointless research to begin with?

*******************
There’s no bigger waste than human lives, Hisham. Even if you’re too self-centered to care about that, you might at least consider the huge cost to society (that would be you and me, pal) if we just ignore the problem of drug addiction.

Have Barb explain it to you. Just a few days ago, she said: “I want to give them the skills and support to become independent and enjoy all the riches that come from being a clear-thinking, self-determining human being.”

The best way to make that happen is to learn as much as we possibly can about addiction, and use that knowledge to combat the problem as effectively (and cost-effectively) as possible.

(And, contrary to popular right wing thinking, ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away.)

brm
Member
brm
June 13, 2011 1:57 pm

“Have Barb explain it to you. Just a few days ago, she said: “I want to give them the skills and support to become independent and enjoy all the riches that come from being a clear-thinking, self-determining human being.”

Olivia, I meant the ADDICTS NOT THE MONKEYS.

Geez.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 13, 2011 2:18 pm

“Have Barb explain it to you. Just a few days ago, she said: “I want to give them the skills and support to become independent and enjoy all the riches that come from being a clear-thinking, self-determining human being.”

Olivia, I meant the ADDICTS NOT THE MONKEYS.

*****************
Very funny, Barb. 😛

brm
Member
brm
June 14, 2011 3:36 am

“Very funny, Barb”

Thank you.

KimmyQueen
Guest
June 13, 2011 3:25 am

Exactly. What is the point? There is no point. You can study addictive behaviors and the effects on drugs on organs and during menstruation on human beings (hopefully they are provided with the opportunity to stop) or even human cadavers who died after extended drug use. There is no point to do this to innocent animals who will either be killed or suffer diseases after the study is over. There is nothing redeeming about this at all. In fact this money could have been used instead to HELP those who are in trouble with addiction, in order to help them stop and reintegrate them into society.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 13, 2011 2:16 pm

Exactly. What is the point? There is no point. You can study addictive behaviors and the effects on drugs on organs and during menstruation on human beings (hopefully they are provided with the opportunity to stop) or even human cadavers who died after extended drug use. There is no point to do this to innocent animals who will either be killed or suffer diseases after the study is over. There is nothing redeeming about this at all. In fact this money could have been used instead to HELP those who are in trouble with addiction, in order to help them stop and reintegrate them into society.

*************************
Cocaine addicts are notoriously hard to rehabilitate, Kimmy. We need to find out why. Otherwise, we’re just—what’s that term you righties love to use?—“throwing money at the problem.”

Most modern medical and surgical technology required years of animal experimentation before it could be tested on humans. I agree that it’s unpleasant to think about animals being subjected to such testing, but that’s often the only way to predict whether there’s a chance that a new procedure or drug will work on people.

hisham
Guest
hisham
June 12, 2011 10:23 pm

Of course it’s not Deb, but then who do you think is always in front of the receiving line for gubmint cheese when it’s being handed out at our expense?

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 13, 2011 2:22 pm

Of course it’s not Deb, but then who do you think is always in front of the receiving line for gubmint cheese when it’s being handed out at our expense?

********************
Rhesus monkeys are standing in line for government handouts? The nerve of them!

perlcat
Member
June 12, 2011 6:38 pm

There is one thing that PETA truly doesn’t care about. Animals. They love their lefty causes, but Rover and Tabby generally get thrown under the bus (or snuffed) whenever they are inconvenient.

brm
Member
brm
June 13, 2011 4:04 am

“There is one thing that PETA truly doesn’t care about. Animals. ”

PETA’s Virginia “shelter” has a 90-98% kill rate. They were throwing the carcasses of the dead pets into neighboring dumpsters, but were caught doing it so now they probably just use a regular Hefty bag and place Fluffy and Fido on the curb.

They have a radical vegan agenda and don’t even try to hide it (much) anymore.

RKae
Member
RKae
June 12, 2011 4:15 pm

Well, PETA’s on the left, and they don’t consider drug use (forced or otherwise) to be torture. In fact, they see intoxication as a preferred state of being.

When the left has had their way with America, everyone will be so doped up that we’ll have to conduct experiments to figure out this rare and curious thing called “sobriety.”

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 13, 2011 7:17 pm

Well, PETA’s on the left, and they don’t consider drug use (forced or otherwise) to be torture. In fact, they see intoxication as a preferred state of being.

When the left has had their way with America, everyone will be so doped up that we’ll have to conduct experiments to figure out this rare and curious thing called “sobriety.”

********************
Odd, then, that two of the right’s favorite pundits are self-admitted drug addicts (who, of course, miraculously beat their addictions with little or no effort).

No, RKae, substance abuse is an equal-opportunity pastime. In fact, I’ve noticed that several posters here like to brag about getting intoxicated. Nice try, though. 😉

KimmyQueen
Guest
June 13, 2011 3:15 am

When everyone is toasted they will be easier to control.

Ruben
Member
Ruben
June 12, 2011 3:22 pm

Did PETA know about this? Who do you think supplied the drugs?

PsychoDad
Guest
PsychoDad
June 12, 2011 10:45 am

Say, anyone see Olivia lately?

sa_rose
Member
sa_rose
June 12, 2011 7:44 pm

She who shall not be named is probably at work. Or maybe somewhere harrassing others. I could use a break!

perlcat
Member
June 13, 2011 7:09 pm

Is this a special type of work, where you spend your time applying for government grants to your local branch of recently renamed acorn for posting onto internet blogs?

RKae
Member
RKae
June 12, 2011 11:18 am

She’s here in my laboratory, menstruating and smoking crack.

Elrond Hubbard
Member
Elrond Hubbard
June 12, 2011 10:19 am

I understand that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz traded in her menstrual cycle for a Honda.

hisham
Guest
hisham
June 12, 2011 10:20 pm

That’s f***ing funny LOLOLOLLMFAO :-)

RKae
Member
RKae
June 12, 2011 9:41 am

Good God! We’ve already studied the effects of drugs on monkeys!

The experiment was called “the music industry!”

And all it cost us was a few decades of crappy music.

Ruben
Member
Ruben
June 12, 2011 3:21 pm

The Monkees were a huge influence on The Beatles.

RKae
Member
RKae
June 12, 2011 4:28 pm

Two points for spelling “Monkees” right! (Or wrong, as the case may be.)

Totally threadjacking here, but I never got why the Monkees got the crap kicked out of them for using studio musicians. Everyone did that in the ’60s. Who’s playing the cello on “Eleanor Rigby”? Ringo? Now we know that it was Clapton’s guitar that was gently weeping for the Beatles a couple of times, but that’s “cool trivia” instead of a scandal. I just got some old Donovan CDs that have extensive liner notes, and they don’t even know who’s playing stuff half the time. They’d just bring a guy in, pay him 20 quid to play a clarinet, then send him home. There’s actually an argument about whether or not Jimmy Page is playing on “Hurdy Gurdy Man.” No one can recall – even the musicians themselves!

I just think the Monkees got spanked (pun intended) for something everyone did. Damned unsporting!

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 13, 2011 4:19 am

Totally threadjacking here, but I never got why the Monkees got the crap kicked out of them for using studio musicians. Everyone did that in the ’60s.
*****************
I don’t recall them getting the crap kicked out of them, but I do recall a lot of their viewers complaining because they didn’t play their own instruments. (I was one of them.) Not because there’s anything bad about using studio musicians, but because they were pretending to play instruments on the show, and that seemed terribly phony to their fans. Kids take that sort of thing seriously.

I also remember that, eventually, the show’s producers gave in, and let them play as well as sing (no doubt with some studio musicians supplementing the sound). Probably realized they’d sell a lot more record albums and concert tickets that way, even if the sound was less polished.

brm
Member
brm
June 13, 2011 2:08 pm

“I don’t recall them getting the crap kicked out of them, but I do recall a lot of their viewers complaining because they didn’t play their own instruments. (I was one of them.) ”

Wow Olivia. I’m surprised that you were so well-versed and savvy about the music business since you were only … six years old??

I was playing with my Barbie when I was six. You were investigating the morality and ethical implications of using unnamed studio musicians.

You were very mature for your age.

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 14, 2011 6:01 pm

“I don’t recall them getting the crap kicked out of them, but I do recall a lot of their viewers complaining because they didn’t play their own instruments. (I was one of them.) ”

Wow Olivia. I’m surprised that you were so well-versed and savvy about the music business since you were only … six years old??
*******************
No, I was 13. Apparently you made the assumption that I’m exactly your age, but I’m not sure why.
*******************
I was playing with my Barbie when I was six. You were investigating the morality and ethical implications of using unnamed studio musicians.

You were very mature for your age.
*******************
You’re reading way too much into my comment, Barb. I was a 13 year old fan of the group (as were most 13 year old girls at the time), and I didn’t like to see them pretending to play instruments on TV, when it was actually a bunch of studio musicians playing.

It wasn’t about “morality and ethical implications” in the least. It was simply that I thought it was phony to pretend to be playing instruments when they weren’t. What’s more, at least two members of the group felt the same way, and were quite outspoken about it at the time.

I simply can’t imagine why you’d find any of this hard to believe, or insinuate that I’m playing fast and loose with the truth……

brm
Member
brm
June 14, 2011 6:16 pm

You had previously mentioned that you were a child a half century ago, so I figured we were close in age. Turns out you’re much older. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I just have a hard time believing that a 13-year-old would even know what a studio musician was.

And if you had been as in love with Davey Jones as much as I was, you wouldn’t have cared!

But I was always such a softie for a tambourine playin’ man. This probably explains my dismal record in matters of the heart. :(

Olivia
Member
Olivia
June 15, 2011 6:05 am

You had previously mentioned that you were a child a half century ago, so I figured we were close in age. Turns out you’re much older. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I just have a hard time believing that a 13-year-old would even know what a studio musician was.
********************
At the time, EVERY 13 year old fan of the Monkees knew about studio musicians, because this was a huge issue in all the teen fan magazines.
*****************
And if you had been as in love with Davey Jones as much as I was, you wouldn’t have cared!

But I was always such a softie for a tambourine playin’ man. This probably explains my dismal record in matters of the heart.

********************
Well, I never much cared whether he was playing his own instruments. There’s only so much scope for virtuosity in tambourines and maracas, and besides, I (like you, probably) was too busy admiring him to care about what he was playing or not playing. But I would certainly have been upset if they’d had him lip syncing to someone else’s voice. 😉

perlcat
Member
June 12, 2011 6:34 pm

Well, they were designed as a product for a TV show, rather than musicians who came up with a product that wound up on TV. People felt it was crass manipulation of gullible young people for ratings/money.

It probably was, but they weren’t really that bad of a band, and there was some real talent there. Compare them to the new manufactured musicians like Britney and whatnot, and they seem rather innocent and naive.

RKae
Member
RKae
June 12, 2011 8:02 pm

I think most people would be stunned to find out just how many of their favorite bands were assembled by corporate interests.

Funny thing: Just yesterday, I was reading the liner notes on a Robert Fripp album, and the last line was “the music industry is based on exploitation and theft.”

Sounds almost as bad as the publishing industry. (That’s where my horror stories come from.)

KimmyQueen
Guest
June 13, 2011 3:14 am

It didn’t even have to be live bands. They did the same in cartoons. A good example is Jem created specifically to sell dolls. Create a market for the product right before the product comes out.

perlcat
Member
June 13, 2011 7:05 pm

You don’t mean “Jemm, Son of Saturn”, do you?

Didn’t think so.

Ruben
Member
Ruben
June 12, 2011 8:22 pm

The Monkees paved the way for The Brady Kids.

RKae
Member
RKae
June 12, 2011 9:12 pm

OK, that’s a fair condemnation.

KimmyQueen
Guest
June 12, 2011 1:15 pm

LOLOLOLOL that was funny!

Paden
Member
Paden
June 12, 2011 8:28 am

Abusing and torturing animals is disgusting. Makes me sick.
I have no problem killing my dinner but terrorizing them is unacceptable.
Those assholes should be water-boarded.

hisham
Guest
hisham
June 12, 2011 8:31 am

Paden, waterboarding is nearly uncomfortable enough!

DeanH
Member
DeanH
June 12, 2011 9:27 am

Waterboarding should only be allowed if you really trust your friends who are about to do it to you. Kinda j/k. It is way safer than bungee jumping and skydiving, even SCUBA is more dangerous. Waterboarding is not likely to result in any physical harm, but the psycho aspects, well that’s another story. So avoid being waterboarded by strangers and people that don’t like you because you’ll probably find it very disconcerting and it could fuel nightmares for the rest of your natchel life.

nellie718
Member
nellie718
June 12, 2011 7:28 am

Shame on you, Ihatethemedia, for insulting dope-smoking, menstruating monkeys by comparing them to Kinky Wasserman Schultz. (by the way, credit goes to Mike Church for the hilarious nickname)

trackback

[…] monkeys into humans, or something. And it has something to do with the menstrual cycle. Probably started with a bunch of men […]

Navyvet
Member
Navyvet
June 12, 2011 7:07 am

Are any of these monkeys running for public office in 2012?? They may be a better choice.

Buck O'Fama
Guest
Buck O'Fama
June 12, 2011 6:01 am

The monkeys were subsequently offered jobs running the new hi-speed rail trains.

hisham
Guest
hisham
June 12, 2011 4:07 am

OMG, this ugly, drug addicted woman is an idiot and this dope-smoking, menstruating monkey study is just the kind of thing that proglodytes would waste our money on, but I sort of think that the libtards in lab coats just wanted addess to gubmint dope!

If you’re pissed off at this I have an article here that isn’t related to monkey menstruation, but it is related to monkey business, at the highest levels of our government and I thought you might want to get even more pissed, so here it is:

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/china-wants-to-construct-a-50-square-mile-self-sustaining-city-south-of-boise-idaho

If this really pisses you off, write you congressmen and women about it!

Anniee451
Member
June 12, 2011 1:23 pm

I am SO using “proglodytes” from now on! Nice one!

hisham
Guest
hisham
June 12, 2011 10:25 pm

You are so welcome, I just kind of pulled that out of my, out of my, um, er, out of that place where the sun don’t shine!

Plainsman
Member
Plainsman
June 12, 2011 5:57 am

This definitely “really pisses me off”!!!!

Will send my reps and senators the link today.

hisham
Guest
hisham
June 12, 2011 5:16 am

Sorry mispelled access as addess…oooops!

Bruce
Guest
Bruce
June 12, 2011 3:20 am

NIDA probably screwed up the test anyway. They probably tested only male monkeys. Now, they’ll need to request an additional $4.6 million to do the tests over.

RockingHorseGuy
Member
June 12, 2011 9:41 am

Only after a 2.7 million dollar study to find out why the male monkeys didn’t menstruate.

perlcat
Member
June 12, 2011 2:53 pm

You forgot to add “while being oppressed by the capitalist system”.

RockingHorseGuy
Member
June 13, 2011 12:18 pm

“Oh for heaven’s sake, Rocky, the male monkeys didn’t menstruate because they were doing drugs! DUH.”

Easy for YOU to say. But I’d rather be paid 2.7 million dollars to find that out.

brm
Member
brm
June 12, 2011 2:53 pm

“Only after a 2.7 million dollar study to find out why the male monkeys didn’t menstruate.”

Oh for heaven’s sake, Rocky, the male monkeys didn’t menstruate because they were doing drugs! DUH.

/snork

Bruce
Guest
Bruce
June 12, 2011 10:31 am

I never thought of that.

I bow to your power of creative funding!!

LA Sunset
Member
June 12, 2011 3:10 am

//Much to our surprise, the story about the dope smoking, menstruating monkeys had nothing to do with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz//

Form that pic of her, you sure could have fooled me. But now that I thing about it, she’s pretty much menstruating all month these days.

Sailingbum
Member
Sailingbum
June 12, 2011 3:24 am

In this particular picture, she just found out that she is closely related to the lovable ed schultz at pmsnbc and not Sergeant Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes..

Redbone1
Guest
Redbone1
June 12, 2011 2:38 am

Hell I could have told them 35 years ago how the monkeys would have re-acted, but they didn’nt ask.

whiskeyriver
Guest
whiskeyriver
June 12, 2011 8:37 am

True, but would have they paid us instead of the
gooberment “researchers” back then?

wpDiscuz