The Court finds Regnerus's testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 "study" was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it "essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society" and which "was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study." See Pls.' Motion in limine to Exclude Testimony of Mark Regnerus, Ex. 9. In the funder's view, "the future of the institution of marriage at this moment is very uncertain" and "proper research" was needed to counter the many studies showing no differences in child outcomes. Id. The funder also stated that "this is a project where time is of the essence." Id. Time was of the essence at the time of the funder's comments in April 2011, and when Dr. Regnerus published the NFSS in 2012, because decisions such as Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), and Windsor v. United States, 833 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), were threatening the funder's concept of "the institution of marriage."

While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged. Additionally, the NFSS is flawed on its face, as it purported to study "a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18-39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements" (emphasis added), but in fact it did not study this at all, as Regnerus equated being raised by a same-sex couple with having ever lived with a parent who had a "romantic relationship with someone of the same sex" for any length of time. Whatever Regnerus may have found in this "study," he certainly cannot purport to have undertaken a scholarly research effort to compare the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples with those of children raised by heterosexual couples. It is no wonder that the NFSS has been widely and severely criticized by other scholars, and that Regnerus's own sociology department at the University of Texas has distanced itself from the NFSS in particular and Dr. Regnerus's views in general and reaffirmed the aforementioned APA position statement. [pp. 13-14]

In other words, Regnerus' work was made to order, and didn't actually study what it asserted it was studying. Those are two of the biggest sins in academia, and Friedman labeled them as such with all the legal sarcasm he could muster. link

but Hillary's little halfway comparison of Putin to Hitler further cements my belief that she is a loose cannon. She said it, then said she didn't say it, but everyone knows what she said.

This is the one who neglected her duty as a Senator and, against the wishes of a significant, informed and vocal segment of the NY electorate, voted for W. to have the authority to bum-rush us into the war in Iraq. This, I believed then, and believe now, with an eye to her projected run in 2008.

She put her ambition above the welfare of the little people she was meant to serve. She did it back then, and she'll do it again.

So - no vote for H.R.C. from little ol' me.

I'm waiting for someone with whom I can identify.

The father thought it was a strange coincidence. A few
months later the father put the girl to bed and listened to her prayers, which went like this: "God bless Mommy, God Bless daddy and good-bye grandma." The next day the grandmother died. Oh my god, thought the father, this kid is in contact with the other side. Several weeks later when the girl was going to bed the dad heard her say, "God bless Mommy and good-bye daddy."

He practically went into shock. He couldn't sleep all
night and got up at the crack of dawn to go to his office. He was nervous as a cat all day, had lunch sent in and watched the clock. He figured if he could get by until midnight he would be okay.  Finally midnight arrived, he breathed a sigh of relief and went home.

When he got home his wife said "I've never seen you
work so late, what's the matter?" He said "I don't want to talk
about it, I've just spent the worst day of my life."

Even as Texas Republicans insist they've never been more committed to courting the state's booming Hispanic population, they can claim just one Hispanic candidate for statewide office -- and he's a Bush, more famous for sharing a name with two former presidents than for having a mother originally from Mexico.

In fact, Bush, the photogenic nominee for land commissioner, stands out on a Republican statewide slate that otherwise consists of all white men. And many of those candidates have run as hard as they can to the right during the primary, talking of militarizing the Texas-Mexico border, scrapping a popular law offering lower tuition for immigrant children and even decrying an "illegal invasion" of immigrants.

Such sentiments may alienate Hispanics amid a demographic shift that could eventually transform politics in fiercely conservative Texas the way similar trends have in Colorado, Nevada and many points beyond. Hispanics account for nearly 40 percent of Texas' population and is forecast to be a majority around 2030.

v. 309
v. 308

According to Virginia Klan Imperial Wizard, Frank Ancona, the KKK is neither racist nor hateful, and is instead a, "non-violent Christian organization."
Imperial Wizard Ancona told a local news agency on Thursday that the Klan is a "Christian organization" that doesn't hate people based on race. Reality's insistence otherwise was the result of a "few rogue Klansmen." To further prove their point that they're a non-violent, non-racist organization, they've been tossing fliers into the yards of people in the dead of night that include an email address, a phone number, and two websites that claim the KKK is non-violent and not, "the enem[y] of the colored or mongrel races."

But comparing oneself to LBJ is a mixed bag.....and she did it.  

I don't think the Left is ready to embrace LBJ even today.

I appreciate your defense of Hillary but directing your excessive hostility toward me is misplaced.

What unnamed others?  lentinel began this discussion of suggesting Hillary was too reckless for his/her tastes....

You will accomplish nothing if you do not see the bigger picture.  You follow the slightest little thing in knee jerk fashion. This has always been your weakness in making coherent arguments--missing the broader point.  And here you attack me, someone who supports your candidate.  How misplaced is that?

True, I do not have the emotional commitment to Hillary that you and jb apparently do.   But I think she will be a strong candidate and should be President.  On the domestic side, she should be very good.

On the use of military force, I am assuming that she would not make a mistake of invading Iraq or bombing Iran--or overreacting to the Russian takeover of Crimea.

No other reason.   All the talk of turnout and this and that is just excuse making.