Tag Archives: sociology

Last chance to elect Romney!

28 Nov

Sheryl Nuxoll, brewing some bitter tea!

Yep, you read that headline right. The most toxic elements of the teabag loon parade have finally admitted that they really (no, REALLY) don’t care  about democracy. They just really (no, REALLY) want their guy to win. So what if he’s a hypocritical, vacillating windbag with no morals or ideals of his own, at least he called himself a Republican and tried hard to hate gays, women, and brown people on a regular basis. A wearisome wave of wingnuts have hatched a plan to stop that nasty Kenyan Socialist President in his tracks…THE 12th AMENDMENT. Oy ist mir! I have such a headache!

The idea (if it can be given such a noble label) has been floating around for a few days, but it took a state senator from Idaho to really crystalize things. Starting with a tweet (140 characters may be all she knows), Sen. Sheryl Nuxoll, R-Cottonwood, pushed an article on how to keep Obama from getting a second term. It boils down to having at least 17 of the 24 states that gave Romney electoral votes refuse to participate in the electoral process. That would eliminate a 2/3 majority of the states and (according to Nuxoll) throw things to the Republican-controlled U.S. House.

One teensy little problem with this plan. It won’t work. The majority required only matters in the House itself, after the Electoral College meets. If electors don’t show up, their votes don’t count, and the President wins by a >ahem< wider margin — oops. Reading is a pesky business. The right wing really only likes selected parts of the Constitution (or the Bible, for that matter), so perhaps we can forgive Sen. Nuxoll for her somewhat — shall we say — overenthusiastic efforts.

What’s more disgusting about this blatantly hopeless nonsense is what it says about the Republican mindset. Before the election we had Repbulican officials in Pennsylvania and Florida admitting that the only reason they were trying to stop “voter fraud” was to keep Democrats from voting and give Romney an edge. When that didn’t work (at all, given that both states went for Obama again), the whining babies of Lossville admit that they don’t care about the process, just the win. Who cares if the people voted for a President? We can use dirty tricks to steal the election! That mindset really says all we need to know.

Dear Dr. Mark Regnerus and Other Homophobic Bigots…

24 Jun

Who Cares About Science?

I was fortunate enough to get a great many responses to my BWA for Mark Regnerus.  Along with the responses came many wonderful ideas for a call to action.  I would like to share a key call to action and I have to thank Scott Rose from The New Civil Rights Movement for leaving this item on my blog. I also need to thank my friend and ally Sara Swain.

First, one needs to point out just some of the flawed science of Dr. Regnerus: the core of Regnerus’ analysis is “kin altruism”, the biological tie between parent and child, a mythical sine qua non in securing the stability required for children to thrive. That stability can come ONLY from this mythical kin altruism, and children can thrive ONLY with this kin-altruism-derived stability. Ergo, ONLY those children raised by their biological parent(s) (who are presumably not drunkards, abusive, mentally deranged, etc.) have the potential for the kind of positive outcomes Regnerus is seeking–I would love to see some meaningful data he had, presuming Dr. Regnerus knows what that is.

Take Action:

Here is just a snippet of the action Scott Rose took and I encourage all LGBT folk and our allies to take similar action:

William Powers, Jr.
President
University of Texas, Austin
Office of the President
Main Building 400 (G3400)
Austin, Texas 78713-8920

In Re: Scientific Misconduct Complaint against UTA’s Mark D. Regnerus

Dear President Powers:

I have filed, through the “EthicsPoint” online system, a complaint against UTA’s Mark D. Regnerus for Scientific Misconduct in violation of UTA’s Academic Dishonesty Policy, which forbids use of misinformation to hurt others.

Please respond promptly to this letter, which is being published at http://www.TheNewCivilRightsMovement.com

Here are some facts of the case:

1)        This is not a complaint that UTA Mark D. Regnerus is active politically. The complaint rather is that Regnerus took money from political persons and groups to further their political goals, and in preparing a study for them, rushed it through production for their use in the 2012 elections, though Regnerus himself has stated in a video interview given to the Daily Texan’s Hannah Jane Deciutus that his methodology for the study does not work “to the long-term benefit of science.” In other words, in order to retain a large grant from political organizations, a) Regnerus knowingly failed to uphold acceptable standards for his discipline, and b) knowingly rushed through his study in time for his funders to use it in the 2012 elections, instead of c) working professionally to produce a study that would work “to the long-term benefit of science.” In that, Professor Regnerus’s behavior is antithetical to the raison d’être of a university.

Please contact the University of Texas, Austin and let President Powers hear our collective voice that homophobic non-science is not acceptable!

Bigot of the Week Award: June 15, Mark Regnerus

15 Jun

Bigot of the Week

Congratulations to University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus for making anti-gay hate groups happy and ignoring basic principles of surveys all in one publication. The outspoken professor has a new study in the July issue of Social Science Research entitled How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Great title — lousy science. One expects better from University of Texas, Austin–shame on you UT Austin.

Regnerus claims that his extensive research

clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults — on multiple counts and across a variety of domains — when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father.

Unfortunately, a cursory review of the study clearly reveals two things: Regnerus’ methodology is fatally flawed and the outcomes he trumpets aren’t that obvious even allowing for those flaws. The main thing he proves is that kids in stable homes do better than kids in unstable homes (DUH) and that he only looked at heterosexual stable homes. He makes no effort to create a matched set of households for comparison and uses some truly bizarre logic to determine what constitutes a same-sex household (really? have you ever taken a basic research class, Mark?).

Regnerus has a history of headline-grabbing sensationalism based on bigotry. He wrote a piece for Slate arguing that the sexual revolution has actually been harmful to women as well as pieces maintaining that good Christians should ensure that their children marry early before society can corrupt their values. His new study was funded by two socially conservative groups: the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation.

Both the New Yorker and Media Matters do an excellent job of dismantling the Regnerus study. What a shame this right-wing bigot wasted over $750,000 dollars in research funds just to give NOM and Tony Perkins another lie to spread.

%d bloggers like this: