IMG_1037Every now and then you read a story about massive waste of funds by the US Government. Some of these funds are frivolously squandered on senseless studies. Shocking, I know.

For example: Two students from the University of Washington were given a $1.3 million grant from the National Science Foundation to investigate how a foam koozie keeps a can of cold beer cool on a hot day. I’m not kidding. The findings were published in Physics Today if you want to fact check.

The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits. The findings proved that rabbits hop slower after the massage. OK, don’t fact check that one, I made it up but the government funded study was real.

The list goes on. You can use your favorite search engine and plug in “Wasteful Government Spending Studies” and find your own.

As much as that appalls me, I was thinking maybe I can get a piece of that action. Let me test a couple theories that are “study worthy.”

I have this theory about French Impressionism art. You know, painters like Edgar Degas, Claude Monet, Edouard Manet, Mony Mony, Tommy James and other famous artists of the genre who captured images without detail but with bold colors, with a feeling rather than an accurate depiction.

Frankly, sometimes they just looked blurry to me.

My theory is that these images were not necessarily painted as such by intent, but that these artists were simply near-sighted and the paintings were exactly what they saw without the benefit of eyeglasses. (Except of course, Tommy James. His piece called Crimson and Clover was blurry because everything in the 1960’s was blurry.)

To test the rudiments of my theory, I went to the local pond, looked at the landscape and everything was clear. Then, I took off my glasses and sure enough, the water lilies and bridges were somewhat shadowy and indistinct.

So, the theory is, the impressionist artists simply did not have appropriate eye glasses and what was once thought to be impressionism was what they actually saw and painted.

All I would need is two months or so on the French Riviera with access to water and boats and the occasional lily or bridge, a little flash money and I could perfect the theory.

Another theory I’d like to test is if time really does goes faster after one is “over the hill” age wise. The hypothesis is, once one has reached the apex of the hill, time seems to roll forward and gather steam as one rolls down the hill, thereby proving that time indeed passes faster once one is over the hill.

My final theory was inspired by my daughters’ recent trip to Colorado. Apparently, on one of their hikes they found actual physical evidence that a bear really does shit in the woods. Of course to conclusively validate that age old premise, it would require two to three months of observation in the Rocky Mountains with a secluded cabin on the foothills as a base.

But I’m sure our government could afford that. It would be cheaper than 1.3 million on a koozie study. All it would take is some Crystal Blue Persuasion from Tommy James the famous impressionist artist.