A typical venue in China are clubs and ‘KTV’ establishments where groups of men go to drink, play drinking games, sing karaoke, etc. in private rooms. They select individual female drinking/gaming/singing/groping companions from among a group of candidates who are paraded through the room soon after the guests arrive. Many of these go on to additional off-site activities afterward.

There are about 20 of these types of bars in San Francisco, they don’t allow non-Asians, when you get to the door they tell you its a private club I’ve only been in(with a suspicious eye) because Asian clients have taken me. The additional “activities” happen both on and off site.

bullsh!t

My first post addressed this: Should the federal government fund the study? Maybe, maybe not. Is the study without merit? Absolutely not.

No. The argument that the United States should be spending money on it is wholly without merit. If this was us advising the Chinese, perhaps. This is analgous to us going in and advising other nation’s militaries to act in a manner we’d like them to; I think you’d see that in a different light. The only way we should be spending a dime of public money on Chinese hookers is if it’s through the CIA and they are feeding us good intel.

Again, this was already approved before Obama. And I’m not sure what your specific objection is to this particular study. (The reasons I’ve seen so far have been originalism, protectionism, and the giggles.) You want to put America-first provisions on federal funds? Fine. But don’t expect to save money that way. This study would cost far more in the U.S. than in China, just as demanding that conference trips be booked on U.S. airlines means that sharing research findings costs more.”

Here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter if the decision was made yesterday or 100 years ago; the current administration has the authority to withhold funds. Also, your obscene argument that such a study would cost more to perform in the US (outsourcing research?) is without merit, because the benefits derived from the study, if there were any, would he had by US citizens and/or legal residents by reduced HIV/AIDS rates in this country. That would be covered under “general welfare” and while still questionable would have far more metit then the US government participating in outreach programs to study and modify the behaviors of citizens in foreign nations.

Of course, with 120 Chinese men for every 100 Chinese women, the FSW’s probably have lots of clients who can’t find “it” for free–data are easier to obtain!

The point is not the merit of the study but if we should be spending taxpayer dollars on it.

My first post addressed this: Should the federal government fund the study? Maybe, maybe not. Is the study without merit? Absolutely not.

When budgets are tight things need to get cut, but liberals never find anything to cut

Again, this was already approved before Obama. And I’m not sure what your specific objection is to this particular study. (The reasons I’ve seen so far have been originalism, protectionism, and the giggles.) You want to put America-first provisions on federal funds? Fine. But don’t expect to save money that way. This study would cost far more in the U.S. than in China, just as demanding that conference trips be booked on U.S. airlines means that sharing research findings costs more.

This is like the Pentagon’s “$600 toilet seats.” It makes a great headline, but that’s all it makes. Going after small potatoes based on value as a headline only — rather than the actual issue and cost-benefit analysis — shows that you’re not serious about the problem. If this is what the Republicans plan to seize on, then the 2010 election — which should be an easy win after Obama’s overreach — might not go so well for them.