Public Opinion on military bands

[TUBAD83]

This was a poorly written article--its obvious the writer did not understand how our military bands function HOWEVER a valid point was brought up.

Lets realize that we cannot sustain a trillion dollar military budget year after year--it is time to make some hard decisions now while we still have options. Every part of the military budget should be closely examined without exception.

As a former bandsman who was a supply and admin clerk, I know firsthand how the army goes through money--to say that its wasteful is a gross understatement. Not only is there NO incentive to save money but you are encouraged to overspend in order to get a bigger budget next fiscal year--VERY common practice and I suspect its still in full force today.

As far as the number of bands, lets have some serious honesty here--Does the army need so many "premier and special" bands?? Does the army NEED the Field Band? The Old Guard? The TRADOC band? Do these bands have to be so large? (I have performed major orchestral transcriptions with an ensemble of 45 with great results) Every army division band has a combat mission--they have to be able to "shoot,move, and communicate"--that makes them a more valuable asset. Some garrison bands have to be crosstrained, but I think most do not. Perhaps that should be required of ALL bandsmen regardless of status. You wear the uniform, you LOOK like a soldier, you should be TRAINED as a soldier.

JJ

[Wyvern]

Perhaps that should be required of ALL bandsmen regardless of status. You wear the uniform, you LOOK like a soldier, you should be TRAINED as a soldier.

Such cross training is the norm this side of the pond. British military bandsmen have to do combat tours to Afghanistan just like the rest - even the elite Guards bands.

[BVD Press]

In case anyone is wondering about possible other duties band members perform, it does not mention it in the article below about Gulf cleanup but Jonathan happens to be in the US Coast Guard Band:

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/08/hunt_fo ... _insh.html

I am not sure on the exact number, but about 20% of the band went down to help with the cleanup effort...

Band info:

http://www.uscg.mil/band/

[bort]

Misdoc, the whole time I'm reading your post I'm thinking that ALL of the bands would fall under the DoD budget, right? (correct me if I'm wrong, please!) If so, the DoD budget has (or had better have!) nothing to do with healthcare, stimulus funds, or unemployment benefits. There should be executive-level oversight of the DoD budget and to make sure they aren't reckless... but really they are separate issues on grossly different scales.

I'm sure something will get cut. Maybe budgets. Maybe bands or personnel. And maybe there is even some waste in the band program that *can* be cut. But if it does, I'm sure they will adapt and move on. We're Americans, when things get tough we learn to do more with less, right?

[Eupher6]

Like several posters in this very interesting thread, I made a career making music in the Army and found that grossly inaccurate and misleading article to be infuriating and ridiculous on its face.

I'll speak about the Army, because it's where I spent my time and it's what I know. I'm even somewhat current, even though I retired not quite 16 years ago.

Army bands are HALF the number they were when the inevitable cuts happened after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. There has been so much cutting and chopping going on with the axes and chain saws that they couldn't hear what to cut during Congress' BRAC talks.

The "premier" bands were the focus of the article. While the premier bands enjoy that status for good reason, the rest of the service bands "in the field" and "in the fleet" provide critical missions that are geared toward some very important things that the Soldier serving in Afghanistan and, until recently, Iraq, needed just to keep one foot going in front of the other.

Bands, and performing units of bands, have a function for the commander that no other element can bring to the battlefield short of wine and women -- and we know that both of those are dangerous when mixed.

You'll find very few general/flag officers that scream, "Take away my band! I don't need the damned thing after all!"

Getting back to premier bands, i.e., the Army Band, the Marine Band, the Navy Band, and the Air Force Band, the primary function of these bands is to service Washington D.C. That's their mission. And there's plenty to do. Other premier bands serve their academy or take the music to America (the Field Band). What this kind of work does is to recruit for the services and to instill some of that esprit that most of us who have served in uniform at one time or another have felt.

While bands are not allowed to be used in a political setting, let's not be naive and think that politics aren't part and parcel of the reason bands are used in civilian settings. Bands bring elements of pomp, dignity, and pizzazz to most any setting and all of this is important for the communities at large.

You know what I'm talking about when you play a gig in Podunkville, Arkansas, and pull up the Armed Forces Medley. The announcer requests that those who have served stand when their service "song" is played and you rarely find a dry eye in the place after that piece goes back in the folder.

Cutting bands beyond their current numbers will negatively impact those who are deployed in harms' way, military recruiting, and chip away at that thing called "Americana". Can it be done? Of course it can -- just like getting a handle on the sheer amount of fraud, waste, and abuse that goes on throughout bureaucracies of all types, right?

No, the fact is, military bands are an easy target. Going after entrenched military contractors selling $600 toilet seats is a far tougher enterprise. Just ask Don Rumsfeld how well he did with that.

Must. Avoid. Any. Further. Statement. About. The. Current. Administration. aaaargh!!

[wooliteeuph]

as a member of the great lakes navy band i obviously have a little bit of a biased view. however, i will say that some of their facts about us as military musicians are a little off. they like to talk about the numbers. well their numbers dont line up. they make it seem like we have about 100 musicians in each band ( 40 piece wind ensemble, 5 member brass/woodwind quintets, 12 piece showband, 8 piece rock band etc). we may have all of these groups but what they fail to mention is that many of us are in multiple groups. i, for example, am the euphonium player in the wind ensemble, parade/ceremonial bands, and i am the trombone player in our showband. they see this as 4 different people but last time i checked, i am only 1.

also, instead of talking about the amount of money spent on military bands (to support all of our fleet bands worldwide, we function on only about a million dollars. sounds like a lot but its not) why not talk about the amount of money saved. all of our functions are free and we manage ourselves. we dont need separate operations officers, admin officers, or supply officers. we do the job on our own. try to get rid of the program and hire union musicians to cover every gig that we could have. nothing against them because i appreciate anyone that plays an instrument well enough to get paid to perform (times are hard so you have to appreciate these guys) but these guys arent going to play for nothing. the tax payers may be paying our salaries, but even more would go out to contracted musicians for every retirement ceremony, every change-of-command ceremony, every recruiting tour, every parade, etc.

simply put, the government does not SPEND money on us, they SAVE money with us.

just my 2.5 cents

[BVD Press]

And another article on the CG Band in the Gulf:

http://photos.al.com/mobile-press-regis ... e_oil.html

[Tubadork]

Hey,
ok, so the article isn't great. But here goes:

I was a member of the Army Ground Forces Band in Atlanta from 2001-2004 and the 8th Army Band in Seoul from 2004-2005 and here are some of the issues that I have. I'm addressing specifically the bands that are not special bands, because those were the ones that I served in.

1. At the Army Ground Forces Band (AGFB) I have seen the number of performances go way down. I have also seen the quality of musician drop, not everyone, just some of the seniors leaders. The reason for the was a policy shift at the School of Music. When My now ex girlfriend told me these ideas I was in horror. One of the shifts made was that in order to pass the ANCOC course (Army Non- Commisioned Officer Course, you take this to get E7 SFC) you need to play at a 3.0 level. The level needed to play at one of the MACOM (Major Command) bands (Ft. Monroe, Ft. McPhearson {home of the AGFB} and Heidleberg} You needed to play a 3.0. I know that sounds horribly confusing, but let me do my best to clear it up.

These MACOM bands are promoted as being the best quality outside of the special bands. Many of the musicians I served with in these bands had Masters degrees from conservatories and were great players. There were also people that had been in the Army and worked hard to improve and came up the through the ranks. I have great respect for both camps. Here is where things get murky, the Army will always want to show improvement on paper for anything and often times they will weight scores based on what you need. When I did my audition out of the school after basic, I saw some of my raw scores and then said hang on, if I got that and that, it should add up to much more than the score. The adjudicator got very nervous shuffled the papers away from me and politely told me to leave. I found out later that I was scored lower because according to them, they do not give that score out to new soldiers.

So now you have soldiers attending ANCOC and they have to get this score. The people who are scoring them in many cases have served with them, know them personally and no one wants their buddy to fail the course, because chances are you carer is over at that point, no promotions for you unless you fix it. So they are inflating scores in my humble opinion, which is bringing down the quality of the MACOM bands.

The second issue that I have with what is happening at the school is that they are basing grades in the course for performances based on entertainment value. So if you go up and play the living snot out of the 3 Furies and you sit down, sorry no go. But if you play when the saints go marching in on sousa and shake you butt and get more than half of the notes right, You're awesome! It was a conscious shift that was handed down from the commander of the Army element at the school to the cadre at the school.

2. The organization is having some serious issues that may never get resolved. The highest ranking member of the band field is a full bird Colonel. The band falls under a larger organization (I can't remember which one) and they have a 2 star general. Which means, band always loses. The band mission will be set by people who are not musicians. Very sad. Until the band has a general of their own, they will always get kicked around. Other posters have noted that, bandsmen have a secondary mission, which is correct. In Atlanta and Korea, if the time arose we were to suppliment the MP's. What I do not understand is that in the time of peace, infantry soldiers do not become cooks, so why would we have to change and wouldn't there be a need for music in a combat zone? Google why over the shoulder instruments point backwards. the band is also self sufficent, which is ok, but once again, if you have people who specialize in operations, why have a bandsman do it? It seems like the doctor who does all of his own filing, typing etc..

3. Budget- this one is a big one. In Korea, where I was the head of the sound shop, had the supply guy at the end of the year say to me "We need to spend $100,000 in sound equipment." I gave him a list even though we already had WAY more than we could ever need and or use, by the end of the day that money was spent so that we would not lose that funding next year. they also bought for me, the whole line of G&W tuba mouthpieces and a Monette mouthpiece because I had put it on a wish list and there they were. I now had about $1,100 in mouthpieces for my own use. All bands are also required to have a full line of instruments so you do not need to own your own. What other professional musical job do you know of where they buy you your instrument? (except maybe the CSO)

I had heard that the band in Japan had money left over for tubas to be replace and they got a handmade Baer ($25,000) and a Yamayork ($35,000), but I can't say for sure. What I do know for sure is that every active duty band has TONS of instruments. The last time I checked (about 2 years ago now) when I talked to the acting 1st SGT (MSG Leon Baker) he said that they played 2 concerts a year with the Concert band and that most other groups were not working as well. So we have these organizations, funded by taxpayer money, with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment that they are simply not using becuase they are not getting out there and playing. It's very sad.

Now that being said, if the bands had a clear objective they could do amazing things. Here is what I think should happen:
The band should have a few different missions:
1. To keep the morale of the troops, especially combat troops high. In the Army you have a large number of african americans and latinos, so there should be a group that provides some sort of urban entertainment (rap, r&b) etc. and a salsa band. The bands already have rock bands and I think that should continue and that should cover most of the tastes for your average soldier. These musicians should be recruited to do only those jobs. Right now we have rock bands, but they are staffed by people who take classical auditions. For example my ex (SFC Terrina Anderson) had a masters in clarinet performance from Michigan and had never sung before in any other setting besides church choir. She was brave enough to volunteer to sing with the rock band. She did an OK job, but is not someone who is well versed in that style.

2. To recruit troops into the ranks, see above

3. To give culture to the organization. While I was in the always told us that the Army was just like it's own little society and every society needs culture, so emphasis should be returned to the concert band and bands should play a regular concert season, just like a local symphony. This will also serve to recruit better musicians as a whole. The dumbing down of army music has to stop for it to survive.

4. To entertain the public (and maybe this should be first), the bands need to get out there and now, they aren't. When the field band or the Marine band comes to Atlanta they play to a packed house, there is a need for what they do and just like the New York Phil might go on a tour, but the local symphony still survives, the local army band should continue to provide a great classical concert to the public. The jazz bands in the army can also fill this role. It's ok to play serious music, the audience will respect you more, you don't have to water it down. I have a friend (SSG Major Bailey) who recently left the Jazz Ambassadors just for that reason, the commander there made they play music that was more accessible (ie he dumbed it way down). That's not to say that there isn't room for a Dirty Dozen style brass band in the Army, but it does mean that it's part of what they do. It always sickened me when commander would say "no one wants to hear concert band or classical".

To do this,
The Army will need to improve quality. Quality in recruitment, and maintain that through honest scores given by people outside the organization (civilians) so there is no helping your buddy out.

The bands will have to play more concerts and possibly tour. To do so they may have to give up some secondary duties.

The will have to more carefully select Officers who are the commanders and the conductors to find people who are committed to the vision and are musically trained to make it a reality.

In this economic climate bandsman should be expected to have their primary instrument and use it. Items like sound equipment should be provided by the army, but not your primary and they should not be buying mouthpieces and reeds and whatnot.

I really hope that things can get cleaned up in the Army, it really makes me sad to see what is happening. I'm sorry if this offends, it is not my intention, my intention is to help and I'm sure by now I'm rambling, so sorry again. I names specific people and dates in this post not to rat anyone out, but to show that I'm not talking about the friend of a friend etc... but that I know these people and have had these conversations with them.

Bill

[TUBAD83]

These MACOM bands are promoted as being the best quality outside of the special bands. Many of the musicians I served with in these bands had Masters degrees from conservatories and were great players. There were also people that had been in the Army and worked hard to improve and came up the through the ranks. I have great respect for both camps. Here is where things get murky, the Army will always want to show improvement on paper for anything and often times they will weight scores based on what you need. When I did my audition out of the school after basic, I saw some of my raw scores and then said hang on, if I got that and that, it should add up to much more than the score. The adjudicator got very nervous shuffled the papers away from me and politely told me to leave. I found out later that I was scored lower because according to them, they do not give that score out to new soldiers.

So now you have soldiers attending ANCOC and they have to get this score. The people who are scoring them in many cases have served with them, know them personally and no one wants their buddy to fail the course, because chances are you carer is over at that point, no promotions for you unless you fix it. So they are inflating scores in my humble opinion, which is bringing down the quality of the MACOM bands.

Let me start by stating I served in 2 division bands (1st Cavalry and 6 Infantry [Light]) by choice and would do it again without hesitation--two of the very finest bands in the army.

For far too long, the army has had this very stratified system of division/post, macom, special, and premier bands and it is a cause of some MAJOR strife in the band field (especially when bandsmen from one of the "upper" bands get transferred to a "lowly" division band--imagine the problems that cause). Case in point, in my last assignment at 6ID, there were several people from Ft Monroe and Heidelberg (MACOM bands) who complained DAILY about not being able to just play and having to go out in the field and train being a (gasp!) SOLDIER.

IMO, the army school of music should do the following:
1) Raise the standard so that every person who graduates the SOM is qualified to perform in ANY US ARMY BAND...period. The only exceptions would be the DC bands.

2) Regular rotations for all bandsmen--no more having people sit in ONE band for 10+ years or having a career of being stationed at only the "nicer" posts. Everyone gets a taste of the REAL ARMY.

3) Every bandsman is to maintain their basic soldier skills REGARDLESS OF STATUS, RANK, OR STATION. There are those who just want to be "civilians in military dress"....they want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities and duties of a soldier. I find that offensive. You are a SOLDIER FIRST--everything else is secondary to that.

I truly believe that the following suggestions will improve quality, morale, retention, and perception of army bands over time.

JJ
SGT US Army 84-91

[Tubadork]

New York Times Article about Army Bands:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/arts/ ... 4army.html" target="_blank

Quote:
In the same spirit, the manual lays out the bands’ missions, which are not to be confused with those of musical ensembles that seek to entertain or enlighten.

and again:
“That 20-year-old really doesn’t want to listen to symphonic-type music,” Colonel Palmatier said.

On the other hand, he noted, an old-fashioned brass quintet still has its advantages. It can jump off a helicopter and set up in a field mess hall without the encumbrances of amplifiers, microphones and speakers.


And here is the future of army bands:
A heavy-metal quartet called the Four Horsemen of the Arockalypse, courtesy of the Third Infantry Division Band (note that it does not say that they are bandsmen)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ciC8A8F ... ure=search" target="_blank

Enjoy,
Bill

[Chuck Jackson]

and again:
“That 20-year-old really doesn’t want to listen to symphonic-type music,” Colonel Palmatier said.

*SHUDDER* Tom Palmatier: the reason I left the Army.


Chuck"Wow, just when you think you have forgotten"Jackson

[jonesbrass]

I love military bands. I love hearing them, I love being able to go to a conference each year where I can hear the best players in the world and have the whole thing paid for by the government. I even think that they provide value to the various services.

That said, anybody complaining about the budget deficit or taking a libertarian view of government's role who supports spending one penny on them is a hypocrite. It is philosophically inconsistent to support spending money on military bands while not supporting the government supporting healthcare for those who can't otherwise afford it. If we should cut back on government spending on unemployment benefits or prescription drugs, we should cut back on this spending.

At least one person here alluded to the government bailouts as an example of wasteful government spending that should be eliminated before cutting any funding for these bands. Most of the bailouts (started under the last administration, and with more spent on them under that administration) were actually necessary from a macro economic perspective. Yes, some were poorly managed or conceived, although the current administration fixed some of those problems, but without them current economic conditions would be much worse. Of course the current economic problems were primarily created by policies of an administration that were specifically designed to widen the gap between the haves and have nots. The stimulus plan was also another necessary evil without which even more jobs would have been lost and the economy would have collapsed in a worse way than it already has. The primary reasons for our current economic woes were tax cuts for the wealthy for which there was no economic policy reason and an administration that was hell bent on deregulating and privatizing everything, resulting in a total lack of controls. Anybody who believes in the policies of that administration must believe that military band budgets should be cut to be consistent in their beliefs.

I believe that the benefits of military bands are worth the money being spent, that government does have a legitimate role in our society, and in economic theories that I have studied as I completed my Ph.D. in business.

This is the post of the year.
Keansian economics, calling others hypocrites for believing what they believe, and failing to understand the various points of view included within the libertarian philosophy.
US Army V Corps Band 1993-1996
Resident-Libertarian-Austrian School of Economics-Hypocrite

[Tubadork]

and again:
“That 20-year-old really doesn’t want to listen to symphonic-type music,” Colonel Palmatier said.

*SHUDDER* Tom Palmatier: the reason I left the Army.


Chuck"Wow, just when you think you have forgotten"Jackson

The reason I left the Army was the other Sith Lord, his apprentice, Major French. French was run off while I was still in, but just knowing that people like that could control my life was enough for me.

I heard what Palmatier did in Germany and The guy from the Jazz Ambassadors that I talked about in my earlier post left because of Palmatier and BTW he was the driving force behind ALL of the issues that I see with the bands.

Hope it works out for the best, the band program was around before him and will continue on after him,
Bill

[TUBAD83]

and again:
“That 20-year-old really doesn’t want to listen to symphonic-type music,” Colonel Palmatier said.

*SHUDDER* Tom Palmatier: the reason I left the Army.


Chuck"Wow, just when you think you have forgotten"Jackson

I remember him when he was Captain Palmatier--even then he was a arrogant, self-centered, condescending *** who was openly contemptuous of bands in the field and 25+ years has only made him WORSE. He is another example of how you CAN get ahead without the benefit of actually having TALENT by kissing up and sucking up (trust me I would use much stronger language if I could) long enough to get what you want.

Lets hope the band field survives and this moron retires SOON.

JJ

[Bandsman79]

I can only speak on this subject from a British point of view (as that is where I live and work as a military musician). Furthermore, I only really know about the way the Army does things...

Just to dispel some misapprehensions on how we (in the Army) operate:

There are 22 bands in the British Army and a handful in the other 2 services (RAF and RM). There are 8 "State" bands in the Army - the 5 Foot Guards, 2 mounted and the Royal Artillery band. These are the bands that you will see doing Public Duties at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.

Contrary to what has been posted, there is a Parachute Regiment band and there is a "Light troops" band (called the Rifles).

Some of us do march with BBbs, but it is rare.

We have about 800 musicians but this will no doubt change in the cuts that are bound to happen in the next few months.

We are all trained soldiers and a relatively large portion have deployed in an operational role at some point in our careers.

The point made about small bands under the Regimental system is absolutely true. Some bands would go out in a 4x4 block (sometimes with gaps!!). I've seen a photo of the Royal Regiment of Wales band with 12 people there.

The major cuts were in 1994 when the Corps of Army Music was formed.

The main training camp for RAF musicians is, I believe, still Uxbridge. The amalgamation of musical training has been talked about for at least the 13 years that I've been in, and makes a lot of sense. The subject of different marching signals is irrelevant as different bands within the Army use different mace drill and people cope. Different ceremonial drill is something that can and would be addressed during basic training.

Have I forgotten anything? If so, just ask!!

[imperialbari]

Sorry about getting some of the quite thorough British army regimental reforms wrong. And glad that there still is a Light infantry/Rifles band even if I never would want to march at that speed.

Here an older video from the Horse Guards parade ground placed between Buckingham Palace and Downing Street (roughly). That parade hardly would be possible today, as the band is made up of at least 3 regimental/battalion bands, where apparently only one is left now (the speak-over is annoying, but in between the music is left alone):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJY4ykPqF84

The extensive use of bugles has some similarities to French military bands.

Around 1980 the British military bands had 5000 musicians.

Klaus

[dwerden]

Here is the post I added to my own form earlier today in response. Thought I would share it here, too. One thing not in the post below is the bands' role in military spending. Why do we have national defense? To protect our lives and way of life, I assume. As mentioned earlier in this thread, band music IS part of our culture and way of life. Starting from our very founding, it continued through U.S. Marine Band director John Philip Sousa around the turn of the last century and Air Force band director in WWII, Glenn Miller.And it continues today with countless free concerts, recordings, and broadcasts, not to mention the various educational outreach efforts by the different bands.

I wonder what Pincus feels his role is as a columnist? I don't read that paper, so I don't know. Is he just one of the random commentators that you find everywhere (like Andy Rooney without the big eyebrows)?

I would guess Pincus is all for the government programs that help poor people in one way or another. Does he know how many public performance these bands give every year without charging admission? It's a wonderful opportunity for even a large family to hear excellent quality music without spending $20+ per ticket.

But one could argue back and forth about the value of these groups, as one could with any government program. How much do you suppose we spend each year so members of Congress can run an American flag up the official flagpole so they can send it to some voter or other? My understanding is that these flags are running up and down the flagpole as fast as possible all day long to meet the requests. Is it a bad thing to give flags to U.S. citizens? Is it either more or less good if a Congress member is sending it to help get votes?

President Obama, in a very recent backyard Q&A session, made light of budget earmarks (i.e. "pork"), saying they were only 1% of the budget. I seriously question that low figure, but let's accept it for a minute. What was the total of the two stimulus bills in recent years? Wasn't it about 1.5 trillion? So just in those two bills, by the President's figures, we had pork of about 15 billion - that's billion with a "B" - dollars. Just in two bills. How about looking at that before the military bands?

Or an even better way is to look at what the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to spend money on. This would be the same Constitution that I swore an oath to support and defend as does every member of Congress, the President, etc. The military is an authorized area of expenditure. But how would our Founding Fathers have looked at spending on military bands? The Marine Band was officially formed and funded in 1790, around the same time the Constitution was ratified. Then let's look at President Jefferson, who was NOT a fan of letting the federal government go beyond their authorized scope. Jefferson was the man who first requested the Marine band to play for inaugurations, which started the tradition. Jefferson even had the Marine Band play for the church services that were at the time held in the U.S. Congress' chambers. It seems as though he believed that military music was a valid federal expenditure.

In comparing the federal money spent on military bands, and the following actual stimulus bill projects, where would Jefferson stand?

- $30 million for a spring training baseball complex for the Arizona Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies.

- $11 million for Microsoft to build a bridge connecting its two headquarter campuses in Redmond, Wash., which are separated by a highway.

- $800,000 for the John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, Pa., serving about 20 passengers per day, to build a backup runway.

- $219,000 for Syracuse University to study the sex lives of freshmen women.

- $2.3 million for the U.S. Forest Service to rear large numbers of arthropods, including the Asian longhorned beetle, the nun moth and the woolly adelgid.

- $3.4 million for a 13-foot tunnel for turtles and other wildlife attempting to cross U.S. 27 in Lake Jackson, Fla.

- $2.5 million in stimulus checks sent to the deceased.

- $6 million for a snow-making facility in Duluth, Minn.

- $173,834 to weatherize eight pickup trucks in Madison County, Ill.

- $20,000 for a fish sperm freezer at the Gavins Point National Fish Hatchery in South Dakota.

- $380,000 to spay and neuter pets in Wichita, Kan.

- $300 apiece in federal stimulus money for thousands of signs at road construction sites across the country announcing that the projects are funded by stimulus money.

- $356,000 for Indiana University to study childhood comprehension of foreign accents compared with native speech.

(Thanks to the Washington Examiner for those figures)

[Biggs]

- $219,000 for Syracuse University to study the sex lives of freshmen women.

Hell, I woulda done it for half that.