"just say NO!" written by Chico on estrip.org

Category: rant

07/31/09 01:32 - 75ºF - ID#49426

just say NO!

How to make the clunker debacle ((e:chico,49418)) worse: throw good money after bad.

(Well, "good" depends on your opinion of government stimulus spending.)

From the Wall Street Journal Online:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) told Democratic lawmakers that a bill to transfer $2 billion in emergency funding from the economic stimulus plan to the program will be voted on Friday, according to a senior Democratic House aide.

The legislation would shift $2 billion from the $787 billion stimulus plan to the clunkers program, which appears to have exhausted its $1 billion in funding after just one week.

While the House, which is set to begin its August recess, will vote on the bill, the Senate is unlikely to do so until next week, according to Sens. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) and Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.). The Senate is in session next week.

No!!!

jason writes at 09:12:04 08/03/09 - Comment #50510: I'd like to see more money invested in public transportation too. I'd like it to also not be a money sink, but I guess that is a different issue. $1B for public transportation is not a lot of money. For the kind of investment advocates are talking about, many times more will be needed. I tend to agree more that I think about it that the government plan is meant to benefit manufacturers.

Tiny, the point IS to have less pollution, but the people who say it doesn't reduce pollution very much have a good point. I was simply offering something to people who want the plan to benefit the poor. Again, this means that the cars would have to be retrofitted. They would be using less resources, pollute less. Their previous owners who can afford a Prius will be happily puttering along. If it is impossible or too expensive to do this then scrap them, I don't care. In this instance the scales are so small, you're not hurting anybody, least of all Exxon.

You know, seeing as how narrow a scope it has to be, and how nobody is happy with this, and because the dollar amount is not good enough for any kind of investment, it's obvious the plan is shit and we shouldn't be putting any more money into it.

This government in power is anything but magic. I'm not on here constantly casting unfair vulgarity on the people in power. They just can't be trusted when it comes to numbers. When the politicians have to invent a statistical category nobody keeps track of to describe what the porkulus is going to do to jobs, and when they say that their health care plan is going to save money and it is found out that it is actually not going to save money, you know, it is just hard to put your faith in what they say to you. I worry more about people willfully living in denial than the politicians, at least you can boot the politicians.

We are all in the same boat, I do know that. For better or worse, politicians do what keeps them elected back home.

jenks writes at 09:47:38 08/01/09 - Comment #50468: don't blame me, I voted for Nader. ;)

jbeatty writes at 10:03:21 07/31/09 - Comment #50463: After looking at some numbers this program is such a crummy disguise. This bill is not meant to help out the environment, the middle class, or the poor. One billion dollars is hardly enough to make a dent into removing vehicles that are "clunkers". One billion dollars is only enough money at the very best best to remove 286,000 clunkers. According to the US bureau of transportation statistics there are roughly 101,000,000 Trucks and SUVs in this country. These are obviously the largest contributors of pollution for personal vehicles. So my question is how is removing a quarter of a percent of gas guzzlers going to do anything to reduce pollution??? It isn't, its meant to bail out car manufacturers, yet again.

I like Jason agree I don't live in a world where public transportation is used daily. This is mostly because it is a hell of a lot more convenient for me not use it. However I do think that now is the time that our government should start shifting our resources to expand it. Because the price of gas is never going down. At what price will it become a necessity for me to use it? I have no idea, but I'm certain I will see the day.

tinypliny writes at 07:21:58 07/31/09 - Comment #50459: Jason, I still don't get this plan at all (or its alternative) so help me understand. This is a plan for the good of the environment, no? Is it not the plan to give incentives to people so they will stop using these oil guzzling cars and buy newer more efficient ones that will use less oil, pollute less and thus, conserve some resources?

If these old inefficient and resource-wasting cars could be "retro-fitted" to tolerable efficiency - why not give out the money for "retro-fitting"? If they want to do something about the transport of the poor:
a) Why not buy new efficient cars for the poor directly and give it to them? Why cycle through a chain of financing the clunker-return and then spending some more to "retro-fit" them and then give them out?

b) Why not invest this $1 billion in public transport, that is definitely more affordable? Is $1bn so less nowadays that it won't even expand the existing public transport networks?

I don't have an ideological chip on my shoulder. I am just trying to figure out what this new government policies are and explain them to myself and puzzled folks at home. I see the point you are making about the inescapable place of cars and the oil industry in this country.

I am not really that nÃ¤ive or falsely optimistic enough to believe that the stimulus fairy will set everything right overnight. But I do wonder about this magic government in power and about its promised change in policies. I am sure you know how much the world's economies depend on the US domestic economy and the oil markets. One false move here drives up costs enormously back home. You are not alone on this planet, you know? :)

jason writes at 07:00:49 07/31/09 - Comment #50458: "Isn't the whole point of this (ill-conceived) idea to take those gas guzzlers OFF the roads because they are
a) gas guzzlers
b) polluting"

Yes. Dr. Niman's article, and Chico's posts, express disappointment that the plan does nothing for the poor. It is unrealistic to expect that every move the government makes can benefit the poor, but here they make a good point concerning taking an opportunity to do something for the poor when it is in front of us.

I wouldn't go along with an idea to give them $4500 for a car they can't afford, so if we can clean up the guzzlers somewhat and allow poor people to use them, they can more easily get a job farther away from home, travel to and from college, and more easily manage day care. If the cars work, and they can be retrofitted to be cleaner, it makes perfect sense. People need cars here to get things done for better or worse. I'm open to an alternate idea that isn't "help them buy a Prius" or "give them a bus token".

"Why on earth would you give them to be driven on roads again"

Because I don't live in a world where everyone crams into trains to get to where they're going, and neither do you, Tiny. Cars are here, and will continue to be here for some time. I don't have an ideological chip on my shoulder that makes me bristle at the thought of someone driving. I don't care if cars use gas or oil companies make money. We can use these vehicles to help people take better opportunities for themselves. Screw the watermelons.

tinypliny writes at 04:35:31 07/31/09 - Comment #50449: Okay, hopefully this will be my last comment on this. If this $2bn also makes its way into the clunker program somehow (and you never know the fathoms of stupidity politicians are capable of), won't it run out in 2 more weeks?

Then what? Borrow a trillion more from China to buy back all the nasty unresearched greedy little vehicles of doom using debt money??

tinypliny writes at 04:30:47 07/31/09 - Comment #50448: Seriously, is this the best both parties could come up with?? This is even worse than bigoted little Indian politicians and their puny evil agendas. Seems like all of them are desperately lacking any brains whatsoever.

tinypliny writes at 04:27:42 07/31/09 - Comment #50447: That plan makes even LESS sense. Isn't the whole point of this (ill-conceived) idea to take those gas guzzlers OFF the roads because they are
a) gas guzzlers
b) polluting

Why on earth would you give them to be driven on roads again - so that the oil companies can continue making money out of them from "poor people" instead of the original owners? Nice thinking. :/

jason writes at 03:38:42 07/31/09 - Comment #50446: I read something today that made me nearly fall out of my chair, Chico. A conservative saying, hey, Liberals enjoy redistributing, why not give away these clunkers to poor people? Of course, there are holes in the idea such as, well how are these poor people who can't afford cars going to afford gas or insurance? New brakes down the road? Who will pay?

Anyway I thought that was interesting. I would be alright with poor people getting a car as long as they were responsible for it completely on their own after they get it. If the watermelons want to retrofit a guzzler, all the better.

tinypliny writes at 01:46:47 07/31/09 - Comment #50445: I say TAKE the $1bn back!

tinypliny writes at 01:45:52 07/31/09 - Comment #50444: What the hell are they thinking? Are they thinking at all??? This is beyond ridiculous to the point of being idiotic! Is the government made of selfish idiots now? Exit war mongering, Enter idiocy. :/

Permalink: just_say_NO_.html
Words: 151

Category: rant

07/30/09 04:15 - 78ºF - ID#49418

A Real Clunker

Mike Niman writes in this week's Artvoice about the cash for clunkers program and manages to capture some of my complaints about it (while also using a deeply flawed extended example from Cuba...).

His column is titled, "Landfilling old gas-guzzlers for new gas-guzzlers isn't green-it's a subsidy" -- and it's worth readingin its entirety. Here are some excerpts:

Let's be honest and get one simple fact straight. The Obama administration's "Cash for Clunkers" program is a $1 billion subsidy to the auto industry. We can debate whether or not that's a good thing and how it will or won't help pull us out of our economic morass. But let's not make believe this is about protecting the environment.

...

Putting more people in busses and subways, not crushing 16-miles-per-gallon clunkers and replacing them with 18-miles-per-gallon clunkers, is the real green solution. In this light, the billion dollars that the Obama administration plans to spend subsidizing the purchase of personal automobiles is a billion dollars not spent on mass transportation infrastructure or operations.

The Cash for Clunkers program also really doesn't address the smog issue, since you can only trade in a vehicle that is 25 years old or newer. Hence, all the clunkers will already be equipped with catalytic converters and will be relatively clean. The oldest of these cars, whose pollution control systems have already failed, will stay on the road, since their poorer owners will not be able to afford new cars, even with the cash incentive. If smog was the issue, some of the clunker cash could have been better spent as grants to repair anti-pollution systems on cars whose owners could not otherwise maintain them.

And my personal favorite rant that I've been going on for weeks now:

... the Cash for Clunkers program... rewards past irresponsible, and dare we say, anti-social behavior. If you bought a gas-guzzling SUV, say, 10 years ago, when it didn't take an Einstein to figure out the environmental footprint of such a pig, you now get up to $4,500 dollars as an unearned reward.

The more selfish you were back then, and hence, the lower the miles-per-gallon rating on your clunker, the more selfish you can be today, with your new clunker only having to best your old clunker's lousy fuel efficiency by two to five miles per gallon. Hence you can trade in your used 16-miles-per-gallon vehicle for a new 18-miles-per-gallon SUV and get $3,500, or best your old pickup by two miles per gallon for a $4,500 windfall. If, by comparison, you shopped responsibly 10 years ago and bought, say, a 35-miles-per-gallon Ford Focus, and you now want to trade up to a 50-miles-per-gallon car, there's nothing here for you, since the program only buys cars getting less than 18 miles per gallon-and that new car will cost a few grand more due to all the clunker cash flowing into the new car market.

Finally, why the program discriminates against the poor:

This program only benefits those who can afford a new car. And it hurts those who can't, since the crushing of hundreds of thousands of perfectly good used cars will tighten the bottom end of the used car market, causing prices to rise. Hence, the oldest and dirtiest cars will have to stay on the road a bit longer since their owners can't afford to replace their 20-year-old car with a 10-year-old model.

The influx of all this clunker cash into the new car market will also cause prices to rise as the market heats up with more new car buyers. Hence, where automakers were offering deep discounts to lure consumers into showrooms, they now can simply advertise that they'll give you $4,500 of the government's money for your junker-and ditch the deep discounts. In this scenario, the Cash for Clunkers program becomes a direct subsidy to automakers who can now sell cars at higher prices to newly cash-rich buyers. Again, if you never bought a gas-guzzler in the first place, this gravy train ain't for you, and all you get is higher new car prices.

Cars are like anything else. Throwing away usable things so you can replace them with new "green" products isn't green. It's just a way for you to feel good about being a consumer at a time when the world can no longer afford consumerism. Only now, the government will pay you to consume, and bless your new gas-guzzler with a green aura.

Amen, brother.

Sorry if this offends. I don't begrudge anyone who has decided to take advantage of the program. At the same time, I don't have to like the program itself.

chico writes at 01:28:56 07/31/09 - Comment #50443: I know! I can't believe they've run out of money already. But it's not really a moot point, since the government is considering using stimulus money to keep the program going (see next post)...

hodown writes at 10:28:01 07/31/09 - Comment #50436: If the plan works or doesn't is pointless now. The program was suspensed today because the 1 Billion that Obmam funded it with has now run out!

jbeatty writes at 10:13:25 07/30/09 - Comment #50424: Wow, I had no idea how the program actually worked. Sounds like a really stupid plan. I have pretty much had it with the government pumping money into defunct industries. I say let them fail. Start investing public funds into solutions and not another band-aid program so shitty companies can keep operating. I really cannot stand politicians anymore. I'm tired of how they spend our money.

jason writes at 05:01:46 07/30/09 - Comment #50419: What is mind boggling to me about the plan is that it doesn't take a good opportunity to use incentives to promote the "desired" behavior. I would be for a program that only gave money towards a more fuel efficient car. I think people would take it. That's what I thought would happen. That it isn't is a huge disappointment.

Other than that, I don't have too many kind things to say about Niman or his sentiments so I'll be charitable and stop after this: People who purchase legal, legitimate and safe transportation aren't selfish or anti-social. That kind of hyperbole is a staple. Precious.

It seems to me, bottom line, the program was poorly planned and implemented. I want my $1B back, don't you?

tinypliny writes at 04:39:43 07/30/09 - Comment #50418: This is such an atrocious plan. Where is Obama's shiny new science advisor "scientist"???! Is he dozing in senility under his table? COME ON! Who funds even more car buying and declares its a green plan??

The Obama golden and wise image is just taking hit upon hit. (And the opposition is in its self-dug ditch anyway) So basically, this reaffirms that all politicians are scum of the earth - whether they be Obama or Bush. They don't really care about the poor or mass transit because its actually the oil companies and the shoddy car industry (owned by the oil companies) that run this country.

Permalink: A_Real_Clunker.html
Words: 770

07/23/09 10:35 - 69ºF - ID#49365

grrr...stupid weather, stupid Buffalo Pl

Am angry that Buffalo Place canceled the Neko Case with Jason Lytle Thursday in the Square tonight! Naturally there was no rain or thunderstorms between 5:30 and 9:00 pm, precisely when the concert should have gone on. Periods of sunshine, even... so disappointing.

In other, better news, Social Distortion at Town Ballroom on Sunday 4 October. Mike Ness = good stuff.

metalpeter writes at 10:07:11 07/25/09 - Comment #50285: Well to say you where a Jerk is a bit of a stretch I saw you but wasn't sure if it was you, hey it has been some time and clean shaven vs. Full beard through me a bit, by the time I thought then thought to say anything it was to late. But that brings up another point What is your view on people preaching on that corner? Also I was a little bit annoyed since they came over and tried to hand out there little books. Hey if I want them I'll come find you on the corner with that huge sign and the guy playing music don't push your stuff on me when I'm waiting on a bus. I'm glad you are blogging again and I hope you keep it up. Hey maybe I'll see you around someplace.

lauren writes at 10:53:36 07/24/09 - Comment #50282: thanks for the info...sounds perfect except for the whole November thing. We have already told our neighbor she can have our place starting September, so that's when we are going to need a place. Thanks anyway though!

chico writes at 09:14:02 07/24/09 - Comment #50278: hey (e:metalpeter) and (e:lauren), thanks for your shout-outs...alive and well and still in Allentown. 'peter, yeah it was me, I thought I spotted you there by the bus stop but we were in a hurry and I was kind of a jerk for passing you by and not saying hello. Sorry about that, man. (e:Lauren), I see you from afar on Elmwood every once in a while hope everything's OK by you and (e:Felly). Hope to see you both and the rest of the crew sometime soon. Cheers!

metalpeter writes at 07:41:50 07/24/09 - Comment #50275: I thought I saw you at the Italian Fest but not sure if it was you or not. Glad to see you are posting again. I'm surprised they canceled but I guess with loud music you might not see thunder and lighting till it was to late.

lauren writes at 11:06:31 07/24/09 - Comment #50265: you're alive! was actually thinking about you the other day and wondered where you had gone off to...

Permalink: grrr_stupid_weather_stupid_Buffalo_Pl.html
Words: 57

Category: music

03/23/09 04:54 - 34ºF - ID#48166

War Child, plus four

In keeping with (e:MrMike,48125) I'm wondering about influential records -- not necessarily autobiographical, but what are you listening to these days? Like, what are your current top 5 records/CDs?

So, at the risk of starting one of these threads where everyone bashes everyone else's muscial tastes...

I've been listening to (in no particular order):

1. The new Morrissey record, "Years of Refusal" (great show last week too)

2. The most recent Death Cab for Cutie record, "Narrow Stairs"

3. The new Franz Ferdinand CD "Tonight" (unfortunately narrowly missed these guys in London....grr)

4. The Yeah Yeah Yeahs "Fever to Tell"

5. War Child presents "Heroes"

The fifth one is a compilation of songs--all remakes--sold (apparently) to benefit children in war-torn countries. The original artists, who are iconic rock artists, choose a performer or band from "the younger generation" to remake one of their classic songs. Beck does a fantastic version of Dylan's "Brand New Leopardskin Pillbox Hat," Hot Chip does a groovy take on Joy Division's "Transmission," The Hold Steady does their best impersonation of the Boss on "Atlantic City," Franz Ferdinand does a great version of Blondie's "Call Me," TV on the Radio reinterprets Bowie's "Heroes," etc. Lily Allen and Mick Jones's remake of the Clash's "Straight to Hell" has been stuck in my head for two weeks. There's other great stuff on there too (complete list of tracks here:

). Highly recommended!

So, what are you listening to? What are your current Top Five?

Permalink: War_Child_plus_four.html
Words: 257

10/24/08 05:22 - 52ºF - ID#46307

Belated B-day, Belated Post

Hi everyone, long time no talk/post/read, apologies, hope all is well or that you are hanging in there at the very least.

Hi to (e:matthew) -- spotted you at the gym but too late to say hi before you ran off. Ditto to (e:libertad).

Also, a special shout-out to chica who is treating me to a belated birthday dinner tonight -- can't wait, it will be fun. I've never been to DiGiulio's before but I hear good things.

Have a great weekend (e:strip)pers one and all!

Chico

Permalink: Belated_B_day_Belated_Post.html
Words: 92

Category: food

08/27/08 10:12 - 56ºF - ID#45468

jbeatty's Omnivore 100

Thanks (e:jbeatty,45440) for providing this fun time-waster... it's making me hungry...

Incidentally I just read Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma. Great book. As a result of reading it I am really trying hard to buy locally grown, organic foods. Years of buying cheap, industrially produced food makes it awfully hard to pay 50 percent to 300 percent more for the good stuff, but having read the book in its entirety, it's hard to go back to the old way.

My VGT Omnivore's Hundred:

1. Venison
2. Nettle tea
3. Huevos rancheros
4. Steak tartare
5. Crocodile/ Alligator (as jerky)
6. Black pudding
7. Cheese fondue
8. Carp
9. Borscht
10. Baba ghanoush
11. Calamari
12. Pho
13. PB&J sandwich
14. Aloo gobi
15. Hot dog from a street cart
16. Epoisses
17. Black truffle
18. Fruit wine made from something other than grapes
19. Steamed pork buns
20. Pistachio ice cream
21. Heirloom tomatoes
22. Fresh wild berries
23. Foie gras
24. Rice and beans
25. Brawn, or head cheese
26. Raw Scotch Bonnet pepper
27. Dulce de leche
28. Oysters
29. Baklava
30. Bagna cauda
31. Wasabi peas
32. Clam chowder in a sourdough bowl
33. Salted lassi
34. Sauerkraut
35. Root beer float
36. Cognac with a fat cigar
37. Clotted cream tea
38. Vodka jelly/Jell-O
39. Gumbo
40. Oxtail
41. Curried goat
42. Whole insects
43. Phaal
44. Goat's milk
45. Malt whisky from a bottle worth $120 or more
46. Fugu
47. Chicken tikka masala
48. Eel
49. Krispy Kreme original glazed doughnut
50. Sea urchin
51. Prickly pear
52. Umeboshi
53. Abalone
54. Paneer
~~55. McDonald's Big Mac Meal~~
56. Spaetzle
57. Dirty gin martini
58. Beer above 8% ABV
59. Poutine
60. Carob chips
61. S'mores
62. Sweetbreads
63. Kaolin
64. Currywurst
65. Durian
66. Frogs' legs
67. Beignets, churros, elephant ears or funnel cake
68. Haggis
69. Fried plantain
70. Chitterlings, or andouillette (I think-in Korean soup)
71. Gazpacho
72. Caviar and blini
73. Louche absinthe
74. Gjetost, or brunost
75. Roadkill (depends)
76. Baijiu
77. Hostess Fruit Pie
78. Snail
79. Lapsang souchong
80. Bellini
81. Tom yum
82. Eggs Benedict
83. Pocky
84. Tasting menu at a three-Michelin-star restaurant.
85. Kobe beef
86. Hare (if you mean rabbit, yes)
87. Goulash
88. Flowers
89. Horse
90. Criollo chocolate
91. Spam
92. Soft shell crab
93. Rose harissa
94. Catfish
95. Mole poblano
96. Bagel and lox
97. Lobster Thermidor
98. Polenta
99. Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee
100. Snake

Wow! I'm just short of the halfway point. I'm looking at this as a glass half-full, though -- so many exciting things left to try!

Couldn't help but notice that there's no Ethiopian/Eritrean food on the list... if you're using these lists for inspiration, try a stewed meat flavored with berbere. Beg wat (lamb or goat) is particularly savory and delicious; mesir wat (lentils) is a good vegetarian option.

Also, no fine (traditional) wine on the list!

Permalink: jbeatty_s_Omnivore_100.html
Words: 417

08/21/08 03:00 - 81ºF - ID#45396

update on the car situation

UPDATE: Regarding my '92 Dodge Spirit ("Chuck"): I was very tempted by (e:metalpeter) 's advice (i.e., enter the Dodge in the America's Fair demolition derby...see comments below) but went with a more boring option, sort of a variation on (e:mrmike) 's advice. Instead of trying to get money for it, I donated the car to the National Kidney Foundation's Kidney Cars program:

I am now officially sans auto! Carbon footprint: reduced a little bit more. And no worries about on-street parking this winter!

Of course the downside is that I'm now officially a ride-moocher. But hey, I sortakinda already was one anyway.

Chuck, I salute you! And thank you for your nearly seven years of faithful service. I'm sorry that tree fell on you during the October Storm of 2006. I hope your new owners, whomever they may be, will give you the tune-up and repairs you deserve. Or tear you up for parts...I suppose it doesn't hurt.

Permalink: update_on_the_car_situation.html
Words: 170

08/08/08 09:53 - 62ºF - ID#45274

update, and good "beater" car for $100

Hey friends,

Long time no post... have had the busiest craziest summer in terms of work, plus the typical trying-to-take-advantage-of-good-weather-whenever-possible types of shenanigans in and around Buffalo. Highlights: Spiritiualized at Town Ballroom (utterly fantastic), Sam Roberts Band at ArtPark, Babik and Latin jazz at Bidwell, and getting caught in the downpour at Taste of Buffalo, plus a long weekend in Niagara Falls Ontario. Good stuff.

In other news: after some soul searching, I have decided: I am letting go of my car. I'm sure I'll regret this sometime in January, but I live close enough (2 blocks) from the NFTA rail station to make this work on a daily basis, and my gf has a car, so groceries and occasional trips to Hertel, Amherst, etc. remain fairly easy. The trouble is, it's been a good car to me, and I hate to see it go.

That said, anyone need a "beater"? There's nothing pretty about the car... it's a 1992 Dodge Spirit, sort of a grandpa car. Well, actually, it is a grandpa car -- it's a two-owner car (my grandfather and me) with just under 100,000 original miles. It's light blue and has a relatively clean interior. It needs a little work but nothing overly dramatic. Here's the skinny:

The Good

low miles for old car
4 cylinder with no known motor trouble
automatic transmission
good tires
reliable battery
mechanic once said, "the only thing that'll stop this car from running is a tree"
front wheel drive, good in the snow
no serious accidents, ever; clean title
"The Dude Abides" bumper sticker

The Bad

clunking right front end, needs repair (prob tie rod) immediately
needs tune-up to bring gas mileage to where it should be
trunk leaks a little

The Ugly

grandpa car -- see pictures below
some peeling paint
small dents in trunk lid and beat-up front driver's side fender (but all lights are intact and work, last I checked)
"The Dude Abides" bumper sticker

I'm looking to sell it for $100. I believe that after repairs it will still be a little less than what Edmunds would suggest is fair market value for the car. Obviously this is NOT a luxury car or something that will improve your social status in Buffalo. But if you need a set of four wheels, four seats, and an internal combustion engine to propel you around town, you're all set.

If interested, let me know ASAP by email.
NOTE: I am not interested in fixing the car to sell, I just want someone to take it as-is. I've got too much going on at work to spend the time fixing the car.

Here's a photo off the internet of another 92 Spirit, same color and styling, with representative wear-and-tear:

If you want to see the real thing, it's parked on upper North Pearl just north of Allen Street.

Here's a front-angle shot of a slightly cleaner 92 Spirit, same color and styling:

Permalink: update_and_good_quot_beater_quot_car_for_100.html
Words: 491

Category: science/lgbt

06/17/08 12:42 - 58ºF - ID#44689

Gay Men, Straight Women: Similar Brains

Interesting article in the Washington Post about some brain-imaging research. Don't know whether the study is any good, methodologically, but if there is a neurophysical similarity between gay men and straight women and between lesbian women and straight men, then... well, I don't know what exactly, but it's food for thought.

MRI and PET scan studies are showing remarkable similarities between the brains of gay men and straight women, and between those of lesbians and straight men. For example, the brains of straight men and of gay women share certain common features: both are slightly asymmetric, with the right hemisphere larger than the left, ... [while] the brains of gay men and straight women are both symmetrical.

Similar trends emerged when scientists tracked connectivity in the amygdala, the region of the brain involved in emotional learning and in activating the fight-or-flight response. They noted strong similarities between gay men and straight women, and lesbians and straight men.

rainbow brain image courtesy of stianrasmussen.com

lauren writes at 11:38:52 06/18/08 - Comment #36195: I was big into evolutionary psychology for awhile...alot of it makes so much sense that it is hard to deny but some (and by some I mean most) feminists tend to think that it is too much nature and not enough nurture theoretically speaking...but then there are gay/lesbian/trans folks (some of whom are feminist) who argue that they were born that way (which for the most part I agree with) which seems to contradict. The problem for me is that can be a dangerous when gotten in the hands of the wrong people... I wonder how this study would account for "masculine" gay men and "feminine" gay women??

fellyconnelly writes at 07:23:07 06/18/08 - Comment #36187: well this makes sense on many levels... as in why lesbians and straight men have less of a tendancy to dress impeccably than gay men/straight women...
(i speak mostly of myself)

metalpeter writes at 07:25:22 06/17/08 - Comment #36177: That is a very interesting article and you should read the entire thing. There are two things I'm wondering how did they know that everyone who says they are heterosexual really are and the same for the lesbians. My second question is what about people who are bisexual, bi-curious, or maybe a little bit of everything. For example there are girls who say they are stright but will get drunk and make out with a female at a bar or do the college experimenting thing but would never say they like girls and why don't I know any of those girls, HA. In any event very interesting.

museumchick writes at 06:55:23 06/17/08 - Comment #36175: I wonder how that research would apply to people who identify as bisexual? Or transsexual? Interesting...

drew writes at 01:59:47 06/17/08 - Comment #36165: Does the research shed any light into the, um, baseness of male sexual desire? What I am meaning to say is that I didn't think that the average lesbian was as into T and A as the average straight guy. They like "relationship."

Permalink: Gay_Men_Straight_Women_Similar_Brains.html
Words: 170

Category: chores

06/11/08 10:51 - 69ºF - ID#44623

Drinking...

...an ice-cold brewski out of a brown paper bag really takes the edge off of fighting for dryers at the laundromat.