The Myth that Google Searches are Biased Against "Conservatives"

What do you do when those with an education who are not detached from objective reality, who reject your Bronze Age religious beliefs, overt racism and overall embrace of ignorance, find your party and its agenda repugnant?  Blame your unpopularity on the news media which - excluding Fox News and right wing outlets that are the actual purveyors of fake news - are accused of reporting fake news and also blame the Internet search engines for being biased against "conservatives."  Truth be told, the majority of the nation's population are not buying what the GOP, white supremacists, and Christian extremists are peddling and, as a result, no one should be shocked that the search engines follow the majority's interests and outlook, framed in part by Internet searchers' search questions. Yet, one hears ad nausea from the right that they are victims and subject to discrimination, if not persecution, merely because ultimately the majority of Americans find the so-called conservative agenda anathema to their sense of morality and decency.  A column in the Washington Post looks at the deliberate and disingenuous claims of anti-conservative bias.  Here are column highlights: 

[O]n Tuesday, Republicans in the [GOP controlled] House summoned the company’s [Google] chief executive, Sundar Pichai, to Washington so he could answer the burning question of whether its search results are biased against conservatives:

In an unusual move, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy kicked off the hearing — despite not sitting on the committee — by cautioning the tech mogul against letting political bias color its services. The lawmaker, who’s been a leading voice among the prominent Republicans accusing top tech firms in Silicon Valley of censoring conservative speech, said he hoped Pichai could reassure the committee that “any political bias within Google’s workforce does not creep into its search products.”

Every public congressional hearing is a performance, and McCarthy was signaling something important by coming to this one to make this claim. He was applying an old technique to a new phantom problem, a technique sometimes referred to as “working the refs.” It has worked effectively for conservatives for decades in their confrontations with the news media, so why not try to use it against Internet companies, too?

It's pretty simple. Conservatives make unceasing, angry accusations of liberal bias, no matter what the content of news (or Google searches) actually is. . . . . the accusation never changes.

It serves two functions, which are best understood on the news media side. First, constantly attacking reporters for having liberal bias makes them bend over backward to show that they’re being objective, often by treating Democrats harshly.

The second target of the “liberal bias” attack is conservatives themselves. By convincing them that everything they read in the newspaper or see on the network news is a lie concocted by liberals to distort their view of the world, you not only drive them toward conservative media alternatives but also make them far more susceptible to your own propaganda. So when, say, the New York Times publishes an exhaustively documented investigation showing that Donald Trump and his family committed an absolutely epic degree of tax fraud worth hundreds of millions of dollars, it doesn’t penetrate the conservative bubble. Most rank-and-file conservatives won’t hear about it, and the ones who do will dismiss it out of hand, because it comes from the liberal media and therefore must be bogus.

Attacking Google (or Facebook or Twitter or any other Internet company) for supposed liberal bias serves the same two functions. For “evidence,” conservatives look to analyses such as this one from PJ Media, which shows that Google searches on things such as the president are more likely to produce results from supposedly liberal news organizations such as CNN or The Post than they are to feature sources such as the Daily Caller or World Net Daily. How could there possibly be any other explanation than liberal bias?

You might think that you'd have to be some kind of paranoid halfwit to actually believe that Google's search algorithm is intentionally built to make the right look bad, but some people do believe it. . . . .

Even if this kind of attack isn’t going to get Google to change its search algorithm, the second function of the charge is still being served. More than ever before, in the Trump era the right needs rank-and-file conservatives to distrust any information they receive from non-conservative sources, so they’ll believe whatever outlandish thing the president tells them. It’s also important to keep the GOP base feeling aggrieved and resentful, like they are society’s only true victims.

Even if on a personal basis most of the people who work for Google are indeed liberal, its broader goals — such as maximizing profits and avoiding antitrust regulation — usually aren’t. But that won’t stop conservatives from insisting that the company’s search results are biased against them. It’s a strategy that has yielded far too much to ever abandon.

Boy Erased: Conversion Therapy Needs to be Banned

With hatred exploding across America as demonstrated last week by attacks on blacks, pipe bomb assassination attempts and the horrible synagogue mass shooting - fanned in large part by the Trump/Republican rhetoric - it is important to challenge the lies used to justify discrimination and bigotry against others.  In the case of anti-LGBT bigotry, we are witnessing efforts by the Trump/Pence regime to erase the very existence of transgender citizens through a definition change.  We are also witnessing the Trump/Pence regime arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that employers should be free to discriminate against and freely fire LGBT employees.  One of the justifications grasped upon by proponents of discrimination is the discredited myth that gays can "change" their sexual orientation.  On Friday, a new movie, "Boy Erased" hits the screens starring Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe that takes apart this myth and the "conversion therapy" behind it that embodies psychological and sometimes physical abuse that causes so much harm to LGBT youth in particular.  A piece in Salon looks at this must see movie.  And yes, I am passionate in my opposition to misnamed "conversion therapy."  One of my ex-boyfriends and others I have known were horribly damaged by it emotionally.  Here are article highlights:

One of the most intense, suspenseful films of the year isn't a thriller. It's something scarier — a true story. Based on Garrad Conley's riveting memoir of his teenage experience in a program for gay conversion therapy, "Boy Erased" is often exactly as harrowing as you'd expect from the director of the 2015 thriller "The Gift."

But "Boy Erased," starring Lucas Hedges, Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe, is also very much a redemptive tale of the power of unconditional love. While Edgerton acknowledges that many conversion programs have "really just preyed on children, out and out abuse," he explains that "We wanted to render the film in the same way Garrard had, with an empathetic point of view." He explains, "There's a really positive message there in Garrard's parents. I thought his story was worth telling because [they] acknowledged in their own different ways that it doesn't work; that it was a mistake. They sent him there because they loved him.

Conley was sent to Love In Action, which has changed its name and discontinued its teen "Refuge" program in 2007. Despite its negative reputation, only fourteen US states currently ban conversion therapy for minors. But for evidence of how toxic the practice still is, consider Edgerson's experience with John Smid, the man his character in the film is based on. "He was kind of a distant consultant on the film if we needed information," says Edgerton. "He's now turned his back on conversion therapy. He's spoken out. He's been outspoken online. He still has faith in his life, and he's open and out as a gay man. You don't just have to abandon God if you want to lead a life of living with or being married to somebody of the same sex. John represents that now, and he also represents one of the people who speaking out against therapy." 

Edgerton notes, "The thing about John that's interesting to me is that he, deep down, knew that the therapy wasn't working. He also acknowledged to me that in his 25 years, of starting as a client… he was making it up as he went along, and knowing all the while it wasn't even working for himself. I found it interesting to play. It's also important to acknowledge that you have people calling themselves therapists and doctors who really don't have the right or the qualification to do that. And that's one of the keys to what I think is very shammy about it."

When I read Garrard's book, it just really emotionally grabbed me, and I found myself thinking about it daily. I started doing things on a regular daily basis towards pushing the idea of turning it into a movie — meeting Garrard, meeting with survivors of conversion therapy. Because for all of the despair you go through, or characters go through; for all the chaos and confusion; ultimately that story — his story — has a positive outcome." And, as it raises awareness of the continuing practice of conversion therapy, he says he hopes Garrard Conley's story also has "the potential to help other people in a positive way."

With its depiction of "therapy" techniques designed to make boys behave in a more "manly" manner, "Boy Erased" reveals the painful toll that macho culture takes on boys and men. . . . Edgerton says, "I think one of the myths about masculinity is that you're not allowed to show your sensitivity. It's a big problem, the stereotype of the silent father that doesn't express his emotions. As a young man, I saw strength as silence and stoicism and only speaking when it was necessary, not talking about emotion. And that weakness was the opposite. Weakness was being open about having an essay of words to describe what was going on for you internally. I realized at too late an age that those definitions should be flipped; that strength should be expression, and that weakness should be limiting one's expression." He adds, "I think that Garrard's mother is that strength. She is somebody who was able to tune in internally to what was going on with her; get in touch with her instincts. She said, 'I'm no longer going to be pushed around by the masculine ideas in my neighborhood, under my roof, or in the community.' She faces this wall of judgment and her own kind of persecution. But her weapon is love, and her weapon is expression of truth." Edgerton adds, "It kind of goes to show you that sensitivity — whether it lives in a man or a woman — I think is strength."

Be assured that I WILL see this movie this weekend if it is showing in this area.

Conservatives' Disgusting Attacks on the Parkland Students

I find it very revealing to watch the behavior of so-called conservatives as they attack the student activists from Parkland, Florida as they work to spearhead pressure for the enactment of common sense gun control laws.   Much like the Christofascist who disseminate deliberate lies against LGBT individuals, we are now seeing fabricated photos and sound bites attacking Parkland students, especially Emma Gonzales and David Hogg.  The subtitle of a piece in The Guardian described the phenomenon well:

This is a fight between a young, diverse, feminist generation against an old, white, male minority desperate to hang on to power. 

Yes, there is a strong racial component to the attacks on the Parkland students given that many have argued that  America's insane gun laws are really about maintaining white power, and white male power in particular.   A column in the Washington Post looks at the false and immoral attacks as does the piece in The Guardian referenced above.  First highlights from the Post column which notes that the usual haters on the right are furious that their usual tactics of personal destruction against their opponents are not having their usual effectiveness:

As an entirely new movement for gun reform is being driven by a group of smart, passionate and media-savvy Florida teenagers who survived one of America’s frequent mass shootings, many on the right are more than a little put out. The problem, as conservatives see it, is that the mainstream media have given these young people more attention and more credulous coverage than they deserve

But what really ticks conservatives off is that they themselves are feeling constrained from criticizing the Parkland students, because they are worried they will be criticized for attacking such sympathetic spokespeople. Not that some aren’t trying. Just in the last couple of days, we have seen two genuinely fake news stories about Parkland students go viral on the right, one in which involved a doctored photo of a student supposedly tearing up a copy of the Constitution, and another which falsely alleged that one of the students wasn’t on campus on the day of the shooting and had been lying about it. But even in the nonloony corners, the Parkland students are making people frustrated. Head over to the National Review’s website today, and you can find a bunch of articles about guns.  . . . . [one] the magazine’s editor Rich Lowry, is entitled “The Teenage Demagogues.” Lowry, after listing what he sees as rhetorical excesses from some of the students, gets to the heart of the matter: Maybe all of this can be written off as the work of overenthusiastic, under informed 17-year-olds. But the student activists aren’t acting alone. They are promoted and praised by adults who should know better. Since the kids serve a useful purpose in promoting gun control, though, it is practically forbidden in much of the media to dissent from anything they say.

“It is practically forbidden in much of the media to dissent from anything they say,” Lowry says, claiming for the right the status of noble victims, brutally silenced by a system that forbids them to speak their opinions out loud.

But is that true? Tell me: What opinion on the subject of guns has been declared verboten in the current American debate, never to pass the lips of a conservative lest he be banished from the media forever? The idea that we should be arming teachers, or the ludicrously false claim that more guns leads to less crime, or the belief that military-style rifles are awesome, or the notion that we have no gun problem that can’t be solved by bringing more guns into more places? Which of the policy changes advocated by the Parkland students — a ban on those military-style weapons, raising the age to purchase a rifle from 18 to 21, expanded background checks — may no one “dissent” from? Because I hear conservatives making all of these arguments on TV, on the radio, and online every single day.

Here’s the real difficulty the Parkland students present. It’s not that they’re passionate and surprisingly articulate for their age, though they are. It’s not that they’ve widened the conversation on guns by refusing to accept things the adults have taken as given for years, such as the idea that the NRA is simply too powerful to bother opposing, though they have. It’s that they’re too sympathetic. And when a spokesperson is sympathetic, when you attack them personally, you look like a jerk.

[W]hat conservatives are really mad about is that the tactic of demonizing those they disagree with — which is so common in contemporary political rhetoric  . . . .  has, in this case, been taken away from them.

You can say the Parkland kids are wrong, but calling them names, trying to dig into their personal lives to find something embarrassing, encouraging your audience to not simply think they’re mistaken but to hate them with all the venomous fire they can muster — that’s what some on the right wish they could do, but can’t, at least without looking like soulless ghouls. 

The piece in The Guardian gets to the underlying motives of those on the right.  Here are excerpts:

We know that the gun debate is a culture war. But Haider and her sign reminded me that it’s more than an abstract debate over ideology or constitutional principles. It’s a fight between a young, diverse, feminist generation representing an emerging majority and an old, white, male minority desperate to hang on to power. And guns are their security blanket of choice. Just 3% of Americans own half of the guns in America. And that 3% isn’t just anyone. According to a Harvard study flagged by Scientific American this month, the person most likely to stockpile guns in this country is an older, white man from a rural conservative area. And an alarming body of research shows that they’re motivated by racial anxiety and a fear of emasculation. A 2017 Baylor University study, for example, found that men’s attachment to guns often stemmed from economic woes and fear of losing traditional “breadwinner” status. The researchers wrote that “engaging in fantasies about being an NRA ‘good guy’ who uses his gun to protect his family and community from the ‘bad guys’ was one way for men to reclaim that threatened masculinity.” And in 2015, researchers from the University of Chicago reported that racial resentment was a strong predictor of opposition to gun control; and that the more racist respondents were, the more steadfast that opposition was. There’s a long history of white male support for gun rights being connected to anger and fear over gains for women and people of color. That’s part of the reason that many of the most irate responses to recent young activists have skewed racist or misogynist. But while issues of race and gender confound and alarm those on the right, young activists are doing nuanced thinking to bolster their work on gun violence. This generation is calling out the hypocrisy of conservatives who abhor government interference unless it’s over women’s bodies, talking about how arming teachers would endanger students of color, and recognizing how white students are getting the support that young Black Lives Matter activists never did. The new America is made up of communication-savvy, digital natives. They’re not cowed easily, and they see through the arguments that may have stumped their forebears. . . . . A lot of us adults watching the march and the walkout felt hope for the first time in a long time, and not just because of the incredible signs. We saw a generation who is succeeding where we failed, an emerging new force that thinks differently and who is willing to take the power they democratically deserve.

Nothing frightens the far right more than smart, media savvy non-whites and whites who do not feel threatened by the skin color of others. and who embrace modernity rather than tribalism and Bronze Age beliefs. 

March for Our Lives - Republicans Are Not Getting the Message

UPDATED:  Per The Hill, this batshitery from Rick Santorum:

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) suggested that students should take CPR classes and take steps to prepare for active shooter situations instead of holding protests calling for new gun laws.

By some estimates, the turn out for yesterday's "March for Our Lives" in Washington, D.C., was the largest protest march ever in the city's history (the crowd's certainly dwarfed the turn out for Der Trumpenführer's low attendance inauguration).  And that doesn't count those who turned out at sister marches in other major cities.  Having been a teen in the 1960's and college student in the early 1970's I identify with the idealism of the Parkland students and those they have inspired.  Things can change if enough pressure is applied, especially at the ballot box.  My generation saw the Vietnam War ended and Nixon removed from the White House. This new generation of youth have that advantage of the Internet and social media that allows them to organize and apply pressure in ways my generation only dreamed of.  What's interesting is watching the reactions of those most in the pocket of the gun lobby.  Most Republicans have remained silent and others have attacked the student activists.  The NRA increased its ad buys 600% since the Parkland massacre as noted by the Chicago Tribune:

Within four days, though, the NRA had returned in force, increasing its advertising aggressively on Facebook, and spending so widely and indiscriminately that its ads on YouTube showed up on videos for school-age kids. According to a previously unpublished review by Pathmatics, a company that scrapes data from online ads, the NRA spent more than six times as much on digital ads after the Parkland shooting than it did in the weeks before it. Its average daily spending in the 24 days before Parkland was $11,300, according to Pathmatics. In the 24 days after its silent period, that average jumped to $47,300.

Disgustingly, NRATV has mocked the students and shown, in my view, the growing depravity and moral bankruptcy of "conservatives" in general.  This from the Washington Post:

The latest attack came from Colion Noir, a host on NRATV who took to the airwaves on the eve of the Parkland teens-led March on Washington, telling them: “No one would know your names” if a student gunman hadn’t stormed into their school and killed three staff members and 14 students. . . . . Colion Noir is a pseudonym for Collins Iyare Idehen Jr., a lawyer and gun rights activist from Houston who has nearly 650,000 subscribers on YouTube.

Fox News, it typical form, has lied and mislead its gullible viewers on the positions of the activist students and, as noted before, helped spread the false meme that they were hired actors.  Anything rather than face the reality that people are fed up with what falsely styled "conservatives" and Republicans are doing to the country. 

I sincerely hope that Millennials and those attaining voting age in time for the 2018 midterm elections will take the message of the Parkland activists and register to vote and get out to the polls and take out their anger on pro-gun candidates.  Here's a look at that message: 

During today’s March For Our Lives rally in Washington, D.C., one of the Parkland students who has become an outspoken advocate for gun control spoke. And he used the speech to warn pro-gun politicians that the voters are coming for them.

Cameron Kasky began his address by telling the hundreds of thousands gathered “welcome to the revolution.” Stating that he’s been asked if he believes that “any change is going to come” following the tragic Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting, he told the crowd to “look around” because “we are the change.”

“We must educate ourselves and start conversations that keep our country moving forward, and we will,” Kasky exclaimed to cheers. “We hereby promise to fix the broken system we’ve been forced into and create a better world for the generations to come. Don’t worry, we’ve got this.”

Kasky went on to state that the people of the country now “see past the lies” and the “corrupt aren’t controlling our story.”

“Politicians either represent the people or get out,” the young student declared. “The people demand a law banning the sale of assault weapons. The people demand that we prohibit the sale of high capacity magazines. The people demand universal background checks. Stand for us or beware. The voters are coming.”

After listing off the names of the victims of the Parkland shooting, Kasky noted that the march isn’t the “climax of this movement — it is the beginning.”

Let us hope this is truly a beginning of real change and the beginning of the end of Trump - who remained silent about the march - and today's GOP.

The Right, Not the Left, are the Real Haters.

In the wake of the shooting in Alexandria, Virginia, much effort has been expended by the far right to blame liberals and progressives as being haters and fostering an atmosphere where the targeting of Congressional Republicans was the natural outcome.  This effort, like so much else spewing from the right is a lie.  Yes, the shooter seemingly opposed the GOP's agenda, but he clearly seemed to have mental issues and a very troubled history.  Had he been a right winger, the same pundits and Republican apologists would have been listing all the reasons why the shooter was disturbed and argued ad nausea that their extremist agenda had nothing to do with his motivations.  A piece in Moyer.com looks at those really responsible for the hatred overtaking the political discourse and it is not those on the left.  Here are excerpts:

Many commentators are suggesting that both right and left are equally to blame for all the polarization between them. They’re wrong. The reason for all the bitterness between left and right is entirely the right’s fault. Right-wingers who suggest otherwise are self-deluded — and usually projecting.

Exhibit A: Newt Gingrich. On June 18, Gingrich capped off a week in which he once again blamed the left for a mass shooting by suggesting on ABC’s This Week that the Russiagate investigation is “baloney” because there is no evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians. When anchor Martha Raddatz suggested that an investigation is needed to reach this conclusion in the first place, Gingrich responded with the non-sequitur that Bill Clinton, John Podesta’s brother and the “Iranian deal” should be investigated.

And when Raddatz questioned Gingrich’s false statement earlier in the week that the president cannot in principle commit obstruction and reminded him that he himself tried impeaching President Clinton for this crime, Gingrich dodged with the same non-sequitur: “[T]here’s no evidence” that Trump committed obstruction.

What Gingrich exhibited in just this one interview is a problem that is rampant throughout not only the Trump administration but also the modern Republican Party: bad reasoning. Like the rest of them, Gingrich is marvelously inept at persuading. His points don’t even qualify as sophistry because sophistry at least has the form and appearance of valid, cogent argumentation. In 2008, Susan Jacoby wrote in her book The Age of American Unreason that the American right has “been so effective at turning the once honorable word [“intellectual”] into a political pejorative. The right wing has been able to get away with this disingenuous logic — and with putting it in the mouths of genuinely anti-intellectual right-wing politicians — because nonreading Americans know less and less about their nation’s political and intellectual history.” Similarly, five years later, then-Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal urged his fellow Republicans to “stop being the stupid party.”

Unfortunately, the GOP never heeded Gov. Jindal’s uncharacteristically sage advice. Instead, they continued in precisely the reverse direction and chose Trump to be their standard-bearer.

Trump is hardly a trendsetter. He is merely following the lead of the right’s most prominent propagandists on Fox News and hate/outrage/grievance radio: Newt, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, the formerly influential Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, etc. None of them can reason well. When challenged, they don’t act like good thinkers would — by listening carefully and then responding with careful, effective, fact-based arguments. Instead, they interrupt and shout down their opponents, belittle them with some pejorative term (“feminazi,” “libtard,” “snowflake,” “elitist”), attack their character or motives, and then avoid further challenge of their vapid rants by escaping to advertisements. Reactionary demagogues have effectively programmed millions in their audiences to argue in this willfully — indeed, proudly — ignorant manner. Hence the demonic, furious, malicious, sneering comments that routinely populate right-wing blogs and comments sections, not to mention social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. such baseless, inflammatory comments do not measure up to the kind of rational political dialogue envisioned by our Founding Fathers and encouraged by academic institutions. Just the opposite, they are the odious residue of minds poisoned by exposure to thousands of hours of manipulative, deceptive, McCarthyist filth. All of this toxic irrationality is very frustrating for the left, who, unlike the right, don’t have it all figured out. Quite the contrary, they always want to learn more, to make intellectual and moral progress, to pursue difficult questions and try to solve difficult problems. They are not afraid of different perspectives, which is why only they, not the right, value multiculturalism, immigration, diversity and scientific exploration. All that people like Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer have to offer is demonization — demonization of non-whites, of Muslims and of the left. This unenlightened, know-it-all mindset, completely impervious to conflicting facts and theories, is just not the stuff of rationality, progress and constitutional democracy. It is, rather, the stuff of superstition, cults and fascism. Fortunately, the brainwashed right constitute a minority — only 35 to 40 percent — of the American population. This is why Republicans have to cheat to win local, state and national elections. Because they can’t be honest about their self-serving, oligarchical motives, they have to resort instead to the most ruthless, unscrupulous, anti-democratic tactics: voter suppression (including voter purges), unconstitutional gerrymandering and dissemination of fake news. The election of the first black president alienated the right, but the fault for this alienation lies entirely with the latter. The same is true today, in Trump’s America; the right, not the left, are the real haters. [W]e on the left are “not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.”

Utah - State's Last Minute Brief Says Ignore Everything We Said About Mark Regnerus

As previous posts have noted, both professional associations and the federal judge in the Michigan marriage ruling have been brutal in their evisceration of Mark Regnerus and his right wing hate group funded supposed study on gay parenting.  Even the Sociology Department at the University of Texas has sought to distance itself from Regnerus and his "study."  Now, the State of Utah has filed a supplemental brief in the same sex marriage case pending before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that in essence says "ignore everything we said relying on Mark Regnerus and his work."  As noted before, I cannot help but wonder when the University of Texas will find some basis to fire Regnerus.  But back to the new brief filed by the State of Utah.  Here are highlights via Joe My God:

On the eve of oral arguments before the Tenth Circuit Court, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes filed a last minute brief that totally dismisses the state's previous reliance on the work of discredited researcher Mark Regnerus.

Utah files this supplemental letter in response to recent press reports and analysis of the study by Professor Mark Regnerus, which the State cited at footnotes 34 and 42 of its Opening Brief, and which addresses the debate over whether same-sex parenting produces child outcomes that are comparable to man-woman parenting.

First, we wish to emphasize the very limited relevance to this case of the comparison addressed by Professor Regnerus. As the State’s briefing makes clear, the State’s principal concern is the potential long-term impact of a redefinition of marriage on the children of heterosexual parents. The debate over man-woman versus same-sex parenting has little if any bearing on that issue, given that being raised in a same-sex household would normally not be one of the alternatives available to children of heterosexual parents.

Second, on the limited issue addressed by the Regnerus study, the State wishes to be clear about what that study (in the State’s view) does and does not establish. The Regnerus study did not examine as its sole focus the outcomes of children raised in same-sex households but, because of sample limitations inherent in the field of study at this point, examined primarily children who acknowledged having a parent who had engaged in a same-sex relationship. Thus, the Regnerus study cannot be viewed as conclusively establishing that raising a child in a same-sex household produces outcomes that are inferior to those produced by man-woman parenting arrangements.

Ouch!!  The bottom line is that Regnerus happily sold his soul to the Witherspoon Institute and created a "study" that would confirm that organization's predetermined anti-gay conclusion.  Regnerus' self-prostitution has now come full circle to bite him in the ass and perhaps usher in the end of his career at any legitimate university.  I find it extremely difficult to have any sympathy for Regnerus who showed less integrity than the tawdriest whore, in my opinion

Israel Debunks NRA Lunacy On Guns in Schools

As seems to be the norm with the far right in America - and the NRA in particular - the truth and objective reality are never allowed to stand in the way of the right wing talking points.  A case in point: claims that Israel has a very low incidence of school shootings because all schools have armed personnel on site as evidenced by the image above.  This sound bite sounds good at first, but under examination, Israeli authorities quickly demonstrate that the claim is untrue.  Moreover, Israel has very strict gun laws - including limits on quantities of ammunition - that would drive the NRA and 2nd Amendment nut cases absolutely apoplectic.  A piece in Daily Kos looks at the real truth of why Israel has very few school shootings.  Here are excerpts:

In the wake of Sandy Hook now we see this from the Israelis: Israelis shoot down NRA's claim that the Jewish State uses more weapons to keep schools safe

Appearing on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, NRA honcho LaPierre said: “Israel had a whole lot of school shootings, until they did one thing. They said we’re going to stop it and they put armed security in every school and they have not had a problem since then.” But Yigal Palmor, spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, said the situation in Israel was “fundamentally different” from that in the United States.

“We didn’t have a series of school shootings, and they had nothing to do with the issue at hand in the United States. We had to deal with terrorism,” said Palmor.

“What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years,” he said. “It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion,” he added.

“There is no comparison between maniacs with psychological problems opening fire at random to kill innocent people and trained terrorists trying to murder Israeli children,” said Reuven Berko, a retired Israeli Army colonel and senior police officer.

Having lived in Israel and trained in courses in Israeli Tactical Point Shooting, I can say that this is very true. There is a very strict emphasis in Israel on gun safety and much less of a "cowboy mentality". Guns are highly regulated and the only people that are out there "carrying" are Soldiers and others connected to Security.
Here are Israeli Gun Control Statistics and Regulations. A sampling of that is here:

Gun Owner Licensing
Genuine Reason Required for Firearm License: Applicants for a gun owner’s license in Israel are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, self-defence, hunting and sport.

Minimum Age for Firearm Possession:  The minimum age for gun ownership in Israel is 27 years and 21 years if served in the military30

Gun Owner Background Checks:  An applicant for a firearm licence in Israel must pass background checks which consider health, mental and criminal30 records

Gun Owner Licensing Period:  In Israel gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm license every 3 years

Licensing Records:  In Israel, authorities maintain a record of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition

Limit on Quantity, Type of Ammunition:  A licensed firearm owner in Israel is permitted to possess a limited quantity of ammunition.

As one can see... It is not quite the picture that the Right and the NRA like to push.  .  .  .  .  I strongly believe the adage "Guns don't kill people, People kill people - But GUN'S Sure make it a lot easier". They do, and it is time, as Americans, that we understand this and begin a rational discussion around just this issue so that incidents like Sandy Hook, Aurora, and the horror of daily events in our urban areas that go unreported don't ever happen again.