Can't We Work Through This Rationally?

I've had it with all of this talk about whether or not people who are gay should be allowed to openly serve in the military. Do you want to know why this topic now only serves to irritate and annoy me whenever it is brought up? It's because no one is using any factual basis for their opinions at all and the whole debate is solely based on what people feel would be best.

I'm not going to pretend that I know what would be best in this situation. Do I think it would be great if folks who were gay were allowed to serve in the military openly? Sure, but only under one condition. That condition being that it won't lessen the chances of success for any given task and/or mission that the troops are on. Now, you might be asking yourself, "How could it possibly be a detriment for folks who are openly gay to serve in the military?" To which I would answer, "I don't know." But that's what my answer would be. Other people, those who are running their lives based solely on what they feel, might answer, "It's a ridiculous policy! It should immediately cease and desist! Gays should be out and about in the military because it's the right thing!" OK, OK. Hold on a minute there, cowboy.

I don't know anything about the military other than they keep me and my country safe. Oh, and I also know that they can kick some serious ass. That's what I want my military to be. If the safety of myself and my country means that those who are gay cannot serve openly in the military, then so be it. However, if that is, in fact, the case, I'd like it to be backed up by some sort of facts based on some sort of comprehensive study which is conducted by folks who know what they're dealing with military-wise.

Is that so much to ask? Look, that's all I want. I want some sort of factual basis which determines it to be perfectly OK to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and that the result isn't a compromised military. That's all. Do you think that devising policy based upon how you feel instead of based upon some sort of facts or investigation is really the way to go? I can't imagine that it is. Yet, if you'll look around at a lot of the fiscal problems that many states and the entire country are in the throes of, you'll start seeing a trend in the number of "feel good" programs that require a great deal of money. Are they necessary programs? Are they effective programs? Are they being implemented correctly? Who knows? All a lot of folks know is that it makes them feel good that those sort of programs are in place. And it's caused me to lose my WTL (will to live) on occasion.

Just wait for the study, folks. If you're so confident (even though you have no basis to base your confidence on) that it's just fine for gays to serve openly in the military, then what is the harm in waiting for this huge, comprehensive study that the Pentagon is conducting to wrap up? Seriously, do you really want to risk the safety of the troops that protect you just because you're all thumbs up for diversity? I can't imagine that people would, but yet, they do.

I'm going to need a prescription for some Xanax soon. I'm just saying

Thank You, Captain Obvious

Where do I sign up to get a job that studies the completely obvious? I know that such jobs exist. In fact, I'm positive of it after reading in Psychology Today that a one Nicolas Guéguen did a study "...on the likelihood of a female hitchhiker being picked up, by either a male or female driver, as a function of her breast size." Sooooo...let me get this straight. He wanted to know if a hitchhiking woman had larger breasts, would it increase the chances that she would be offered a ride? Really? There needs to be a study for this? Can't we all just agree on some things without the study?

The author of the article at Psychology Today is a one Gad Saad (pronounce that however you'd like). Mr. Saad muses about Mr. Guéguen that he "...could not help but notice that he possesses a talent for conducting naturalistic experiments about issues that many people have wondered about and yet few (if any) have tested." Really? Do you really think that many people have wondered whether or not chicks with large hoots get preferential treatment? Or do you think that many people already know that chicks with large hoots get preferential treatment? Can't we just agree that some things don't need to be proven, that they're just intrinsically known and we're all good with that?

The guy, Mr. Guéguen actually did a little test where "...an average looking female confederate" with either A cup, B cup or C cup sized breasticles "...stood at the side of a road and actually hitch hiked (i.e., put out her thumb as cars whizzed by)". Someone counted how many guys and how many girls drove by and also counted how many guys and how many girls stopped to pick this chick up. (They make of point of telling us that the "female confederate" did not actually get in any of the cars. I wish that would have made a point of telling us why she is called the "female confederate" instead.)

Now, this may shock you to learn that more men stopped to pick up the chick with bigger breasts. This is summarized in Mr. Saad's article as "If a woman has large breasts, men are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior." You think?! Are you freaking kidding me? How about next time, instead of sending some chick out on the side of the road and having her thumb rides, what say you just ask guys what they would do? "Excuse me, sir? If you saw this woman hitchhiking (show picture of voluptuous female, preferably Pam Anderson because, well, who doesn't like Pam Anderson?), would you give her a ride?" Then give the man a tissue to wipe the drool coming out of his mouth. Repeat as needed. (I realize that "as needed" makes it sound as if it is necessary to ask someone else to see if this is, in fact, an actual phenomenon. You and I both know that it's not. You and I both think that this study was about as stupid as it can get in the first place. Then again, some guy managed to figure out how to study how women's breasts cause different reactions in society. OK, that guy might be a genius, but this study certainly is not.)

And just in case you were wondering, here is the picture that Psychology Today included along with their article. You know, just in case you were unfamiliar with the concept of a fairly attractive, large breasted woman. Behold!

Good Lord....

Quails, Cocaine and Sex

Our tax dollars are hard at work, aren't they? Don't we have faith and confidence in the government to use our money wisely? To use our money in a productive fashion? To use our money to study how cocaine enhances the sex drive of the Japanese quail? Wait. What now?

Correct. According to something called CNS NEWS, "The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $181,406 this year to a researcher at the University of Kentucky to study how cocaine enhances the sex drive of Japanese quail." Um, how...how much? One hundred and eighty one grand? To give coke to birds? Are you dry shaving me? Whose idea was this? Were they on the aforementioned cocaine at the time that this idea cropped up? WTH?

According to the article, there have been previous studies done on just this sort of thing. So if you're upset about your tax money being used to give cocaine to Asian aviary creatures, it's not the first time that it has happened, so just calm down. It's not like it's new or anything. Now, the other studies did end up showing that "...prior repeated exposure to cocaine enhances sexual motivation and behavior.” Why, yes. Yes it does. Do these researchers never go to the movies? People on cocaine like to fornicate like crazed bunnies.

It also says that "The goal of the proposed experiments is to utilize an animal model whose sexual behavior system has been well-studied, Japanese quail.” Uh, couldn't you just study the sexual behavior system of a frat boy or something? A lonely businessman? Porn stars? I find it difficult to believe that the Japanese quail is a good representation of humans. Have you seen a quail lately? Unless you're an FLDS woman, there does not seem to be a lot of similarities.

When asked how something like this could be justified, a one Don Rabolvsky who is a NIH spokeshole explained that "...the research has value because many cases of HIV/AIDS are spread through drug-related sexual behavior." Uh-huh. Sooooo...where do the birds come in? That's hard to say. He continued with "Human behavior accounts for almost 40 percent of the risk associated with preventable premature deaths in the United States,” Rabolvsky said in an e-mail. “Health-injuring behaviors such as smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and drug abuse, as well as inactivity and poor diet are known to contribute to many common diseases and adverse health conditions.” That doesn't really seem to address the cocaine or the bird sex very much, though.

I looked on the webpage of the researcher, a one Dr. Chana Atkins. Here is just a portion of what was listed under "Research" and "Goals": " ...in humans, there appears to be some relationship between drug taking behavior and risky sexual behavior". Appears to be? Appears to be?! Look, this person is a doctor, so I'm assuming that they went to college. But how could one go to college and not KNOW that drug taking behavior is DIRECTLY linked to risky sexual behavior?! APPEARS?! Good Lord, man. Of course there's a relationship between the two. When was the last time you got laid, anyway?

And here's my favorite part of this inexplicable study. "Japanese quail are “ideal” animals to use....because the “birds readily engage in reproductive behavior in the laboratory.” You know, birds aren't the only creature that will readily engage in reproductive behavior. And it certainly doesn't have to be in just a laboratory! I'll readily engage in reproductive behavior right now! You don't need no stinkin' quails!

I am left with more questions than I am answers with this one. But I did find out why they're using the Japanese quail. One word: Variety. That's right. They were just trying to shake things up a little bit in the ol' lab there, as the website reads: "...quail provide a convenient and interesting alternative to standard laboratory rats and pigeons.” I can think of a heck of a lot more animals that would have been more interesting than freaking quail. Elephants, perhaps. Maybe the narwhal. What about a bald eagle? (There have to be ways around all of that protected species stuff, right?) Ever consider kangaroos? Walk around the zoo sometime and see how many people are clamoring to see the quail exhibit and then tell me that this was a good choice.