Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Spitzer Retracts Findings

If you go to the PFOX web site right now, you will see prominently displayed on their home page a video of Dr. Robert Spitzer saying "I think that it's just not true" that homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation. Spitzer's famous 2001 study was really the only peer-reviewed, published research they could point to that suggested that sexual orientation could be changed by therapy. Spitzer had used a kind of "unique" and controversial research technique where he asked around for names of people who had claimed to stop being gay, then he interviewed them on the phone and concluded that some of them had actually changed.

The individuals Spitzer interviewed had been recommended by anti-gay therapists and religious ministries. These were mostly people who had undergone "conversion therapy" in order to become straight, and a few of them were convinced at the time of their interviews that the therapy had been successful. Spitzer concluded that a small number of highly motivated individuals might be able to change their orientation.

Today American Prospect has a blockbuster article where Spitzer retracts his research. He says he contacted the journal that had originally published it, the Archives of Sexual Behavior, and they had not responded, so he asked a journalist to please publicize his disavowal of his previous research:
In 2001, the year I started college, the ex-gay movement’s claims received a significant boost. In 1973, Columbia professor and prominent psychiatrist Robert Spitzer had led the effort to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness. Four years after Stonewall, it was a landmark event for the gay-rights movement. But 28 years later, Spitzer released a study that asserted change in one’s sexual orientation was possible. Based on 200 interviews with ex-gay patients—the largest sample amassed—the study did not make any claims about the success rate of ex-gay therapy. But Spitzer concluded that, at least for a highly select group of motivated individuals, it worked. What translated into the larger culture was: The father of the 1973 revolution in the classification and treatment of homosexuality, who could not be seen as just another biased ex-gay crusader with an agenda, had validated ex-gay therapy.

An Associated Press story called it “explosive.” In the words of one of Spitzer’s gay colleagues, it was like “throwing a grenade into the gay community.” For the ex-gay movement, it was a godsend. Whereas previous accounts of success had appeared in non-peer-reviewed, vanity, pay-to-publish journals like Psychological Reports, Spitzer’s study was published in the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Spitzer’s study is still cited by ex-gay organizations as evidence that ex-gay therapy works. The study infuriated gay-rights supporters and many psychiatrists, who condemned its methodology and design. Participants had been referred to Spitzer by ex-gay groups like NARTH and Exodus, which had an interest in recommending clients who would validate their work. The claims of change were self-reports, and Spitzer had not compared them with a control group that would help him judge their credibility.

This spring, I visited Spitzer at his home in Princeton. He ambled toward the door in a walker. Frail but sharp-witted, Spitzer suffers from Parkinson’s disease. “It’s a bummer,” he said. I told Spitzer that Nicolosi had asked me to participate in the 2001 study and recount my success in therapy, but that I never called him. “I actually had great difficulty finding participants,” Spitzer said. “In all the years of doing ex-gay therapy, you’d think Nicolosi would have been able to provide more success stories. He only sent me nine patients.”

“How’d it turn out for you?” he asked. I said that while I stayed in the closet for a few years more than I might have, I ended up accepting my sexuality. At the end of college, I began to have steady boyfriends, and in February of last year—ten years after my last session with Dr. Nicolosi—I married my partner.

Spitzer was drawn to the topic of ex-gay therapy because it was controversial—“I was always attracted to controversy”—but was troubled by how the study was received. He did not want to suggest that gay people should pursue ex-gay therapy. His goal was to determine whether the counterfactual—the claim that no one had ever changed his or her sexual orientation through therapy—was true.

I asked about the criticisms leveled at him. “In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques are largely correct,” he said. “The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.” He said he spoke with the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior about writing a retraction, but the editor declined. (Repeated attempts to contact the journal went unanswered.)

Spitzer said that he was proud of having been instrumental in removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. Now 80 and retired, he was afraid that the 2001 study would tarnish his legacy and perhaps hurt others. He said that failed attempts to rid oneself of homosexual attractions “can be quite harmful.” He has, though, no doubts about the 1973 fight over the classification of homosexuality.

“Had there been no Bob Spitzer, homosexuality would still have eventually been removed from the list of psychiatric disorders,” he said. “But it wouldn’t have happened in 1973.”

Spitzer was growing tired and asked how many more questions I had. Nothing, I responded, unless you have something to add.

He did. Would I print a retraction of his 2001 study, “so I don’t have to worry about it anymore”? My So-Called Ex-Gay Life

After presenting his results in 2001, Spitzer told the Washington Post that the research "shows some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that." The findings became the centerpiece of a particularly awkward branch of the anti-gay movement, the "ex-gay" movement, which claims that thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of gay people have become straight. Unfortunately, nobody can ever find one of those converted individuals, except for the leaders and spokespersons of the "ex-gay" movement itself.

I received an email saying that the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior is now waiting for a formal statement from Spitzer explaining the nature of his retraction. This is a big event in the war against bigotry.

45 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The individuals Spitzer interviewed had been recommended by anti-gay therapists and religious ministries."

don't you guys usually complain that ex-gay ministries can't produce even one convert from the homosexuality cult?

in this case, they provided 200.

a scientist interviewed them, in an analysis that passed peer review, and found their stories credible

after ten years of withering attack by lunatics, he is finally surrendering

this is similar to how the APA reclassified homosexuality out of the mental illness list in 73 after relentless attacks by gay activists

let's face it: no research in this field is valid because the gay agendists have so poiticized the research

everyone knows that research that starts with a foregone conclusion is faulty

no scientist in their right mind would dare publish a study questioning the gay agenda at this point

they know they'd be hounded to death until they admit what you could admit about any study: nothing's ever conclusive

just like gays are actively seekign to destroy the institution of marriage, they are also working to destroy science

April 11, 2012 11:25 PM  
Anonymous party boy said...

here's a fun story:

"WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration on Wednesday decided not to move forward with an executive order prohibiting workplace discrimination among federal contractors that is a top priority for the LGBT community.

"While it is not our usual practice to discuss Executive Orders that may or may not be under consideration, we do not expect that an Executive Order on LGBT non-discrimination for federal contractors will be issued." a senior administration official told The Huffington Post.

The decision is a blow to LGBT activists who had huddled with administration officials at the White House earlier in the day to discuss the status of the executive order. That meeting featured White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett along with officials from the Human Rights Campaign, Center for American Progress, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and other groups.

There is currently no federal law that bars public and private employers from discriminating against workers on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, although pushing for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) -- which the administration supports -- remains a top goal of the LGBT community. But with a reluctant Congress, many activists believed that their best hope of securing protections would be through an executive order from the president. Such an executive order has been endorsed by 72 members of Congress.

The final decision is a setback from the LGBT community, which saw the executive order as one of the few major remaining priorities left on the legislative docket. And it raises the stakes for the next battle, which is likely to center around the inclusion of marriage-equality language in the Democratic Party platform. Minutes after the White House had informed advocates of the president's decision, Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, told The Huffington Post that they were "extremely disappointed" and "will continue to advocate for an executive order."

"The unfortunate truth is that hard-working Americans can be fired simply for being gay or transgender. Given the number of employees that would be covered by this executive order, it represents a critical step forward," Sainz said.

Companies that contract with the federal government employ 22 percent of the entire U.S. workforce. In addition, 42 percent of gay individuals and 90 percent of transgender individuals say they have experienced some form of employment discrimination."

April 12, 2012 6:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oops. Here are the paragraphs Anon omitted from the HuffPo piece posted above

"“The President is dedicated to securing equal rights for LGBT Americans and that is why he has long supported an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit employers across the country from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity," White House spokesman Shin Inouye told The Huffington Post. "The President is committed to lasting and comprehensive change and therefore our goal is passage of ENDA, which is a legislative solution to LGBT employment discrimination -- just as the President pressed for legislative repeal of DADT.”

..."We are deeply committed to working hand-in-hand with the LGBT community to enlist support from key stakeholders and other decision-makers," the senior administration official said, "and to continue to engage with and educate the business community and the public more broadly about the importance of employment nondiscrimination and the importance of passing ENDA.""

April 12, 2012 8:47 AM  
Anonymous party boy said...

didn't include them because they are empty political manipulations

yeah, Obama's "committed" but not willing to do anything

in other words, he wants you to vote for him despite the fact that he had the power to do something but didn't because, well, he agrees with you

not exactly a meaningful statement

oops, did he fool you?

admit it, you were fooled again

hahahaha!

April 12, 2012 10:17 AM  
Anonymous Mr Party Hardy said...

hey, he's not just committed

he's dedicated and deeply committed

pro-family forces are quaking

hohohohoho!

heehee!!

April 12, 2012 10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"don't you guys usually complain that ex-gay ministries can't produce even one convert from the homosexuality cult?

in this case, they provided 200."


They provided 200 reparative therapists who said they changed orientation, but since then many of those therapists have come to know the truth.

In 2008, John Smid, who served with Exodus International as well as Love in Action, resigned from Love in Action, admitting harm was experienced by some gays who were treated at LIA, and issued an apology to those he and his organization have harmed:

"In 1994 an article was written that said that I told a young man it would be better for him to commit suicide than for him to go into the gay lifestyle….I am very sorry for the conversation that I had with you that fateful day….

He added

Some people have spoken out about being wounded through their experience with Love In Action. I want to say I am very sorry for the things that have wounded you or hurt you by my hands of leadership at Love In Action or anything I have done personally that has harmed you. Please forgive me."

Alan Chambers, of Exodus International, had a change of heart a bit later, in January 2012. Chambers used to say "reorientation of same sex attraction is possible." Now like Dr. Spitzer stated in his paper and has been saying ever since, Chambers agrees such change is extremely rare in his experience, one tenth of one percent.

"The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not experienced a change in their orientation"
-- Alan Chambers


"a scientist interviewed them, in an analysis that passed peer review, and found their stories credible"

Actually there was great controversy getting Spitzer's paper published.

"Professor Spitzer's paper was rejected by the American Journal of Psychiatry , the Archives of Sexual Behavior agreed to carry it with open peer commentaries from 42 experts. Two-thirds of them were critical of it.

One member of the International Academy of Sex Research, which supports the journal, resigned in protest. Other academics have openly criticized the decision.

Lawrence Hartmann, professor of psychiatry at Harvard University and a past president of the American Psychiatric Association, insisted that the paper was too flawed to publish and was likely to cause harm. "For all its dignified-looking data, scientific journal format and partial disclaimers, it is in essence irresponsible and unscientific," he said. He noted that there was no control for self-delusion or deception in the study participants.

April 12, 2012 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Milton Wainberg, assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia, was among those who had tried to persuade Professor Spitzer not to publish.

He said: "I'm angry that just because he is Spitzer, he gets to publish this poorly designed study that overlooks harm with total disregard for the consequence of validating a homophobic, stigmatizing treatment that aims at attacking homosexuality."

He complained that no account was taken of the psychological damage that, in his experience, reparative therapy could cause.

Peter Tatchell, a leading British gay activist, said: "Everyone I have spoken to who has been through this so-called treatment says that it has not only failed to convert them to heterosexuality but it has also caused them immense psychological and emotional harm."

Further, Spitzer's study was criticized by many because the subjects were professional ex-gay political lobbyists, some even on the payroll of right wing organizations, presenting a blatant conflict of interest. There were no physical measures - such as the polygraph or penile plethysmograph - to corroborate what the subjects told Dr. Spitzer in their telephone interviews.

"after ten years of withering attack by lunatics, he is finally surrendering"

Since the publication of this paper, many “ex-gay” organizations, such as Focus on the Family, PFOX, and NARTH have touted Spitzer’s findings as “proof” that sexual orientation can be changed permanently. Spitzer has long claimed that this is a misinterpretation of his findings and has tried to distance himself from these groups. He has constantly told these groups to "Stop Exaggerating" the findings of his study.

""The gay person who is thinking about entering some kind of program to change should know that the likelihood of success is quite small. And, of course, Focus on the Family does not say that,"…

"Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect it's very rare. Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? I don't think it's 10 percent."

"If some people can change - and I think they can - it's a pretty rare phenomenon."


"this is similar to how the APA reclassified homosexuality out of the mental illness list in 73 after relentless attacks by gay activists"

The APA, as well as Spitzer, Smid and Chambers, made their decisions based on scientific study and real world experience.

"everyone knows that research that starts with a foregone conclusion is faulty"

That right and explains why all the research done by NARTH to support their conclusion that change is possible for the majority of gays is faulty. The fact is such change is very rare, approximately "one tenth of one percent" per reparative therapist Alan Chambers.

April 12, 2012 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Milton Wainberg, assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia, said: "I'm angry that just because he is Spitzer, he gets to publish this poorly designed study that overlooks harm with total disregard for the consequence of validating a homophobic, stigmatizing treatment that aims at attacking homosexuality."

but, if he took that into account, he wouldn't be objective

Spitzer had already proven his objectivity by his role in getting homosexuality off the DSM

"Further, Spitzer's study was criticized by many because the subjects were professional ex-gay political lobbyists, some even on the payroll of right wing organizations, presenting a blatant conflict of interest. There were no physical measures - such as the polygraph or penile plethysmograph - to corroborate what the subjects told Dr. Spitzer in their telephone interviews."

the peer reviewers apparently didn't find this to be a problem

"Since the publication of this paper, many “ex-gay” organizations, such as Focus on the Family, PFOX, and NARTH have touted Spitzer’s findings as “proof” that sexual orientation can be changed permanently."

why shouldn't they have touted that?

I guess you think they should only "tout" findings that support the gay agenda

"Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect it's very rare. Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? I don't think it's 10 percent."

but the lunatic fringe groups make that significant by their claim that change is invariably impossible

"The APA, as well as Spitzer, Smid and Chambers, made their decisions based on scientific study and real world experience."

actually, they based it in political and social pressure

at the time, most professionals still believed homosexuality was a mental disorder

"That's right and explains why all the research done by NARTH to support their conclusion that change is possible for the majority of gays is faulty."

I don't know why you can't see that the other side is just as biased

there are few neutral parties in this field

April 12, 2012 1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the peer reviewers apparently didn't find this to be a problem"

You are still having a reading comprehension and retention problem, I see.

"Professor Spitzer's paper was rejected by the American Journal of Psychiatry, the Archives of Sexual Behavior ***agreed to carry it with open peer commentaries from 42 experts.*** Two-thirds of them were critical of it."

The Archives of Sexual Behavior would not publish Spitzer's paper without commentaries from experts in the field, two=thirds of whom were critical of the paper.

"at the time, most professionals still believed homosexuality was a mental disorder"

At what time?

In 2003 when Dr. Spitzer's paper was published, no experts "still believed homosexuality was a mental disorder" unless they were associated with NARTH.

Maybe self-forgiveness easier that way.

In fact, a large number of professional organizations, comprised of experts in medical and mental health fields, publish something similar to this statement from the American Psychiatric Association:

"Is Homosexuality A Mental Disorder?

No. All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees ]NOT Dr. Spitzer himself] removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field [not "political and social pressure"]. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness."


"Since the publication of this paper, many “ex-gay” organizations, such as Focus on the Family, PFOX, and NARTH have touted Spitzer’s findings as “proof” that sexual orientation can be changed permanently."

why shouldn't they have touted that?


Because as Dr. Spitzer said in the original study, and in countless interviews about it since:

"The gay person who is thinking about entering some kind of program to change should know that the likelihood of success is quite small."

"Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect it's very rare."

"If some people can change - and I think they can - it's a pretty rare phenomenon."

April 12, 2012 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Professor Spitzer's paper was rejected by the American Journal of Psychiatry, the Archives of Sexual Behavior ***agreed to carry it with open peer commentaries from 42 experts.*** Two-thirds of them were critical of it."
"at the time, most professionals still believed homosexuality was a mental disorder"

no, I didn't read that. I took Jim's word for it that it was peer-reviewed

didn't realize there was any qualification

so I'll change my statement: at least one-third of people the Archives of Sexual Behavior deemed "experts", qualified to perform peer review, had no problem with Spitzer's study

that's pretty significant, considering the pressure there would have been at that time to support the gay agenda

you might be able to criticize how some interpretted the study but the study itself some sound

it was printed by a prestigious scientific journal and supported by experts

"At what time?

In 2003 when Dr. Spitzer's paper was published, no experts "still believed homosexuality was a mental disorder" unless they were associated with NARTH."

well, you seem to be the one with the comprehension problem

if you'll read back, you'll see I referred to 1973, when the APA was pressured into removing homosexuality from the DSM

by 2003, of course, you couldn't be an "expert" and hold that opinion because it had become heretical to question the gay agenda and heretics were banished from the profession

this often happens when the scientific establishment comes to regard an assertion beyond question or inquiry

"In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness."

this is a Soviet style rewrite of history

anyone around the psychiatric community at the time is fully aware that most professionals considered homosexuality a mental defect

if you don't believe it, there are polls documenting this

lunatic fringe gay activists had been turning out to APA conventions disrupting meetings, destroying booths and making a relentless nuisance of themselves

"Because as Dr. Spitzer said in the original study, and in countless interviews about it since:

"The gay person who is thinking about entering some kind of program to change should know that the likelihood of success is quite small."

"Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect it's very rare."

"If some people can change - and I think they can - it's a pretty rare phenomenon."

yes, and what pro-family groups have been debunking is the lunatic fringe's insistence that change is impossible

and Spitzer clearly doesn't believe that

Spitzer, recently:

“The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.”

yes, but that's enough

and it's what lunatic fringe gay advocates are refusing to accept

April 12, 2012 6:28 PM  
Anonymous party boy said...

SLAAAAYAAAM DUNK!!!!

one and a half sweet hours later

no TTF response

perhaps TTF should retract the post!!

April 12, 2012 8:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon, it didnt look like you said anything to respond to. A study like spitzer's is not reviewed according to whether referees like his conclusions or not, but whether he seemed to use rigorous research methods etc. In this case, spitzers academic prestige won him points that his otherwise-unacceptable methods would have lost him, and the journal decided to publish the paper even though an editor quit over it and two thirds of the commenters did not approve of it.

Spitzer at the time asked people if their orientation had changed and they said yes, and he bleived them. That is not rigorous research, and now in his later years he is embarrassed by it and wants to retract it. There are peope who comment at this blog who believed at one time in their lives that their sexual orientation had changed, and then lo & behold it changed back! After some years it appears spitzer realized that that was what had happened, his old research subjects contacted him and toldhim they had been incorrect and so on.

April 12, 2012 8:16 PM  
Anonymous party boy said...

"A study like spitzer's is not reviewed according to whether referees like his conclusions or not, but whether he seemed to use rigorous research methods etc."

actually, he described what he did precisely. there was no subterfuge. readers could draw the conclusion they wanted.

but just talking to the 200 examples provided him proved one thing: when gay lunatic fringers say there have never been any people who say they have have changed, they are lying

"In this case, spitzers academic prestige won him points"

as it should

"that his otherwise-unacceptable methods would have lost him,"

considering the subjective nature of the topic, that is, how people feel, his methods were the best that could be done

again, talking to people who say they have changed to see if their stories seem credible is what he described doing in the study

just confirming that there are people who say this knocks a leg out from under the table of those who hold that there are no individuals who claim to be ex-gay

"and the journal decided to publish the paper even though an editor quit over it"

"an editor"?

tell us more

for all we know, that's a gay proofreader

"and two thirds of the commenters did not approve of it"

again, that a third of experts found no problem with the study is telling considering the pressure to conform to the gay agenda

"Spitzer at the time asked people if their orientation had changed and they said yes, and he bleived them."

well, actually, his interviews were a little more involved than that

he discuss their stories to see if they appear sound

I've got news for you: your statement describes the process of peer review everywhere

peer reviewers don't gather evidence, they simply take for granted that the researcher is telling the truth

"That is not rigorous research, and now in his later years he is embarrassed by it and wants to retract it."

he's an old man who sees where the politics are going and wants to be disassociated with what he believes is the losing side

"There are peope who comment at this blog who believed at one time in their lives that their sexual orientation had changed, and then lo & behold it changed back!"

so, you criticize Spitzer for "just believing" them but that seems to be what you do

"After some years it appears spitzer realized that that was what had happened, his old research subjects contacted him and toldhim they had been incorrect and so on."

actually, if you read his recent statements, he still believes that change is possible

he just is weary of his study being a lighting rod for some of the more obnoxious bolts in our society, lunatic fringe gay activists

when a person is infected with the AIDS virus but never gets sick, he is studied for clues to the cure

why not do the same here?

only because the establisment has decided that homosexuality is not a disorder

but that's a value judgment, not a scientific one

April 13, 2012 8:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, everybody knows that gay people sometimes believe they have changed and have become straight. nobdy disputes that. If you were gay in a repressive church you might really really wish you were straight too, and you might even convince yourself that a miracle has happened and you have been saved from the sin of homosexualty. Until a cute guy smiles at you.

Self-reported change is not the same as real change though, and after a while the persons real feelings become undeniable.

The peer review process is not a perfect one but it is the centerpiece of the scientific method, and is as good as we've got. Most of the reviewers knew ther was something fishy here but the editors decided to publish the study anyway, with commentaries.

April 13, 2012 9:26 AM  
Anonymous party boy said...

there was nothing fishy there

Spitzer accurately described his methodology in the paper

the journal printing the article was prestigious, the researcher was noted for his stature in the scientific community, a third of the reviewers that this prestigious journal considered experts consider the paper sound despite the obvious pressure to support this "civil rights" cause, and, finally, the journal printed all dissenting comments

the peer review process is not only imperfect, it is misunderstood by the general public and often misused by those with various political causes

TTF has acted like it's the Goodhousekeeping Stamp of Approval

it actually just looks at the rationale of a study but doesn't replicate it or gather any evidence that the experiments actually took place

it's not an exaggeration to say that a work of fiction could pass peer review

"Anon, everybody knows that gay people sometimes believe they have changed and have become straight. nobdy disputes that. If you were gay in a repressive church you might really really wish you were straight too, and you might even convince yourself that a miracle has happened and you have been saved from the sin of homosexualty. Until a cute guy smiles at you."

you completely misunderstand what would constitute a reparative change

if you had any experience, and enjoyed it, whether it's eating kangaroo meat or going to the opera, you obviouly have the capacity to enjoy it again

people who have engaged in homosexual behavior have crossed a line and may always have some degree of temptation

that's the nature of sin

the meaning of change, however, is to develop the capacity to function in a heterosexual relationship

it has happened and continues to happen

like a heroin addict or an alcoholic, there is a need to avoid putting yourself into situations where you might suffer temptation

"Self-reported change is not the same as real change though, and after a while the persons real feelings become undeniable."

you accept people's self-reporting unless it contradicts the gay agenda

any psychological study leans heavily on interviews

maybe you should see a psych about your inability to accept reality

April 13, 2012 10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 13, 2012 10:51 AM  
Anonymous slice o' bright said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 13, 2012 11:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, the peer review process is very rarely exploited for political reasons. If an editor is perceived as doing that the joural will lose respect in the field and thatt will be the end of it. This is actually a good example. Spitsers study was not good quality but his reputation was good, and the journal made an editorial decision to run it, even though it was opposed by most reviewers. This shows that unpopular results can get published, and shows a way to do it, that is, accompany the publication with a lot of commentary so the reader can be informed of the issues.

The editor is not bound to accept the referees' opinions, but again an editor who tries to make asll the decisions himself is going to lose prestige in the field. Word gets around the scintific community very fast.

Your talk about "homosexual behavior" and learning to fake being heterosexual are ignorant. There are plenty of gay people who do not engage in any sexual behavior at all, and learning to have sex with women does not make a guy straight by any measurte.

Finely, self-report measures of cognitive processes are always suspect, their worthlessness as psych measures resulted in the behaviorist revolution of the 20th centruy. Cognitive researchers use self-report but consider reporting as a behavior itself, and not a true indicator of any internal processes.

April 13, 2012 12:13 PM  
Anonymous party boy said...

well, the Democrat war on stay-at-home moms has backfired on it

the Obamas released their taxes today and paid a rate far less than Warren Buffets secretary

the deficit topped one trillion for the third straight year

Obamacare is unconstitutional and Obama only believes in the Constitution if Obamacare is allowed by it

the Russians are drawing up their list of demands for when Barack is more flexible

but, boy, are they in for a surprise:

today's latest poll of likely voters, the first since the Democrats announced they don't think stay-at-home moms work, show Romney winning the election, 48-44%

how's that whole hopey-changey thang, goin'?

April 13, 2012 2:37 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I have been contacted by several commenters who say their posts today have been lost by Blogger. Unfortunately, Anon is not one of those, so this appears to be a one-person conversation. Hopefully Blogger will start working again soon.

JimK

April 13, 2012 2:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the site is haunted and gay agenda comments can't get through

it's the curse if the Bambino

April 13, 2012 4:30 PM  
Anonymous wait til he's flexible said...

this is funny:

"Gay rights activists vowed Thursday to step up political pressure on the White House over President Obama’s refusal to sign a nondiscrimination executive order, decrying the decision as an attempt to avoid controversy before the November election.

One prominent liberal donor said he would spend $100,000 to fund a “We Can’t Wait” campaign targeting Obama, a takeoff on the president’s own slogan. The donor’s money will be used to fly victims of discrimination at federal contractors to Washington to confront Obama and his aides and gin up public attention.

The dispute opened up an election-year rift between the president and a political constituency that has scored historic victories from his White House – namely the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and the administration’s decision to stop advocating for the Defense of Marriage Act.

Those actions helped trigger an outpouring of financial support from gay donors for Obama’s reelection campaign. But some activists said Thursday that the White House’s decision on the nondiscrimination order — coupled with the president’s unwillingness to fully embrace gay-marriage rights — threaten to dampen enthusiasm.

“This isn’t a broken promise President Obama can blame on Congress,” said Jonathan Lewis, son of billionaire Democratic benefactor Peter Lewis and the funder of the new effort to pressure the White House on the executive order.

“He has not been able to provide a single valid reason for why he is now refusing to sign the executive order protecting LGBT workers,” the younger Lewis added, referring to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “It has become increasingly clear that this decision is based on cowardice rather than leadership.”"

April 14, 2012 8:09 AM  
Anonymous coffee and jazz bubbling said...

so sad

science itself, which has done so much good, is a victim of the liberal agenda

when will they ever learn?:

"Since the fading belief that the world is in the grip of runaway man-made global warming still threatens us with the biggest bill in history, it is rather important to know how far we can trust the science which is said to support that belief. One of the most vociferous cheerleaders in the cause has been the Nature, which calls itself “the world’s most prestigious weekly journal of science”.

Whenever some landmark event in the story is approaching – such as a world climate conference or a new report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – Nature can be relied on to come up with a new paper purporting to refute one of the more embarrassing objections to the orthodox theory. However thoroughly such a paper is then dismantled by expert critics, it will remain established as a pillar of the orthodoxy.

In 1996, as the Kyoto treaty approached, it was a paper claiming to show how the “fingerprint” of warming – the part of the atmosphere where it was most obvious – confirmed that it must be due to human activity. Two scientists promptly explained how the data showed precisely the opposite – warming that was man-made should be greatest in the upper troposphere and not, as it actually is, on the earth’s surface. The chief author of that bid to defend the orthodoxy was Ben Santer. It was his last-minute rewriting of a key passage in the IPCC’s second report – contradicting the text agreed by all the scientists responsible – that provoked the IPCC’s first real scandal. Frederick Seitz, the eminent US physicist who exposed this flagrant breach of the rules, described it as the most “disturbing corruption of the peer-review process” he had come across in all his 60 years as a scientist."

April 15, 2012 8:56 AM  
Anonymous coffee and jazz bubbling said...

"In 1998, Nature published the first of the two iconic “hockey stick” graphs by an obscure young physicist, Michael Mann, which rewrote climate science by appearing to show that temperatures had suddenly shot up in the late 20th century to easily their highest level in history. Mann became the blue-eyed boy of the IPCC, which made his graph the centrepiece of its 2001 report. Only then was it exposed, by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, as a meaningless piece of artifice, created by a skewed computer model.

In 2009, months before the Copenhagen conference was planned to produce the most expensive treaty in history, Nature came up with a much-publicised cover story by Eric Steig and a team which included Michael Mann as its adviser on computer modelling. This claimed to show that, against all previous evidence, Antarctica had for 50 years been warming, not cooling. It took McIntyre and Anthony Watts’s science blog Watts Up With That (WUWT) only days to expose this as being, again, no more than the product of a tricksy computer model.

Now, a year ahead of the IPCC’s next major report, Nature has again provoked controversy with an article, by Jeremy Shakun et al, claiming to disprove what has long been seen as one of the most awkward facts for warmist theory. This is the evidence of ice cores which shows that, for millennia, rising levels of carbon dioxide have not preceded rising temperatures but have followed them, as warming releases more CO2 from the mighty carbon sink of the oceans.

As can be seen in full on WUWT, one of its expert contributors, Willis Eschenbach, has now carefully plotted all Shakun’s data, to show how it does not confirm his headline thesis at all. Even the Nature article admits that, when the earth was emerging from the last ice age some 15,000 years ago, it was temperatures that rose first, later followed by rises in CO2. But when Eschenbach downloaded all the CO2 data he could find, he came up with a startling discovery. Shakun had only used one CO2 data source – and he had mysteriously cut off his graph about 6,000 years ago.

When the additional data was fed in, it clearly showed CO2 continuing to rise after this point, for thousands of years, at the same time as temperatures went into a long decline. So once more the theory that a rising level of CO2 automatically leads to a warmer world – the central assumption on which the orthodoxy rests – has been demonstrated to be seriously awry.

As the respected US scientist Judith Curry put it last week, talking about another seemingly flawed paper published by the same journal: “Nature seems to be looking for headlines rather than promoting good science.” It could serve as an epitaph for the way that journal has been promoting this cause for 20 years. Whether, on the basis of so many curious manipulations of data, we should be happy to pay the biggest bill in history is another matter."

April 15, 2012 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And now Anon has brouoght us a Telegraph opinion piece by Christopher Booker, who early in his writing career was a joke writer. He apparently enjoys pulling people's legs.

Science is not opinion, it is fact. The poor lad is confused.

Here are some facts Wikipedia has published about Booker, his theories, and his smears about Climate Change and the IPPC.

"On climate change Booker is a global warming skeptic, and claimed in his long-running column in the Sunday Telegraph that 2008 was "the year man-made global warming was disproved", amid "a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming". He later wrote that the Climate Change Act 2008 was "the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament", and likely to cost hundreds of billions over the next 40 years. In May 2009 Booker spoke at an International Conference on Climate Change organised by the Heartland Institute. In the Autumn of 2009, he published The Real Global Warming Disaster. The book, which became his bestselling work, questions whether there is a scientific consensus for anthropogenic global warming and postulates that the measures taken by governments to combat climate change "will turn out to be one of the most expensive, destructive, and foolish mistakes the human race has ever made". The book was described by The Observer as being as "the definitive climate sceptics' manual," although the reviewer found that much of the book, "including the central claim, is bunk".

In December 2009, Christopher Booker and Richard North published an article in The Sunday Telegraph in which they questioned whether Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was using his position for personal gain, with a followup Telegraph article in January 2010. On 21 August 2010,The Daily Telegraph issued an apology, and withdrew the December article from their website having reportedly paid legal fees running into six figures. Dr Pachauri described the statements against him as "another attempt by the climate sceptics to discredit the IPCC.""


The Guardian reported the 21 August 2010 article was written by Booker and an associate who, like Anon, "appear determined to keep repeating the falsehoods they have been circulating since December. We can expect this smear campaign to continue, and to become ever more lurid as new charges are invented."

April 15, 2012 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On Apr 14, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Christine Grewell wrote:

the Democrat war on stay-at-home moms has backfired on it

One Democratic woman's comment is not a war. The many GOP state laws being passed around the country and Congressional GOP's attempts to defund Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act, which provide for healthcare for all women does constitute a war against women. One of their favorite anti-women weapons is the mandatory transvaginal probe.

Unlike Mrs. Romney, most stay at home moms do not have 2 Cadillacs, as well as maids, landscapers, cooks, or husbands with Swiss bank accounts. Many moms can't afford the luxury of staying home to raise their kids.

HuffPo reports:

"Poor women who stay at home to raise their children should be given federal assistance for child care so that they can enter the job market and "have the dignity of work," Mitt Romney said in January, undercutting the sense of extreme umbrage he showed when Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen quipped last week that Ann Romney had not "worked a day in her life."

The remark, made to a Manchester, N.H., audience, was unearthed by MSNBC's "Up w/Chris Hayes,"and aired during the 8 a.m. hour of his show Sunday.

Ann Romney and her husband's campaign fired back hard at Rosen following her remark. "I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work," Romney said on Twitter...

...Mitt Romney, however, judging by his January remark, views stay-at-home moms who are supported by federal assistance much differently than those backed by hundreds of millions in private equity income. Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice [like his wife had], but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," [unless you are my wife] Romney said...


This Vigilance reader remembers Theresa's complaints about her sister's decision to stay home and raise her kids rather than going out and working for a living. Here is what she said:

"When my sister was out partying and flunked out of college I was busting my tail.

when she decided to quit and stay home with her kids I kept working. working with 3 little kids is really, really hard."


Oh wow, look what else T said back then: "I think that taxes should not go above 50% total."

Does that mean she supports the Buffett Rule, or is its 30% tax rate too low?

Recently Gallup reported Americans Favor "Buffett Rule" by 60% to 37% The Buffett Rule mandates a minimum 30% tax rate for Americans with a household income of $1 million or more per year, well under 50%.

April 15, 2012 5:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the Obamas released their taxes today and paid a rate far less than Warren Buffets secretary"

That's because the Bush tax cuts are still in effect. President Obama has repeatedly said he wants to eliminate those tax cuts because he doesn't need them and just last week on NPR said:

" We’ve got to choose which direction we want this country to go in. Do we want to keep giving those tax breaks to folks like me who don’t need them, or to give them to Warren Buffett? He definitely doesn’t need them. Or Bill Gates. He’s already said, I don’t need them. Or do we want to keep investing in those things that keep our economy growing and keep us secure? That’s the choice."

"Obamacare is unconstitutional"

And what is your view of the constitutionality of Romneycare and requiring all W2 employees to pay into Medicare?

"the Russians are drawing up their list of demands for when Barack is more flexible"

And the Russians are Anon's heroes because Russian Leaders Continue to Diminish LGBT Rights

"today's latest poll of likely voters"

Ah yes, Rasmussen, always the outlier gives hope to Anon, just like when he thought McCain was going to beat Obama. Now FOX has joined Rasmussen in reportiing Romney leads Obama, and yet all the other polls, and the averages of all the polls including FOX and Rasmussen show that as of April 14, 2012, Obama beats Romney 46.8% to 44.2%.

April 15, 2012 5:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And now Anon has brouoght us a Telegraph opinion piece by Christopher Booker, who early in his writing career was a joke writer."

hmmm...sounds like the kind of thing that would invalidate his opinion

can we also take Al Franken's vote in the Senate away?

"Science is not opinion, it is fact."

no, as the scientists have explained who frequent this blog, science is comprised of theories

by their nature, they are always open to question

as it happens, the evidence supporting the anthropogenic theory of global warming is not strong

the campaign to assert that it is stands as an excellent example of how liberals are undermining science by politicizing it

"The book was described by The Observer as being as "the definitive climate sceptics' manual," although the reviewer found that much of the book, "including the central claim, is bunk"."

unless this statement is supported by facts, and you haven't presented any, it is bunk

April 15, 2012 9:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One Democratic woman's comment is not a war."

no, but for an entire news cycle, until Mrs Romney gracefully rebuked the statement, the liberal punditocracy was high-fiving each other that Rosen had dissed Nikki Haley

then, the public reaction scared the bejeebies outta 'em

"The many GOP state laws being passed around the country and Congressional GOP's attempts to defund Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act, which provide for healthcare for all women does constitute a war against women."

actually, birth control is not a health issue because pregnancy is not a disease

Obamacare concerns all citizens, not just women

btw, Americans, of both genders, agree that Catholics shouldn't have to provide birth control if it violates their religious beliefs

this actually highlights one of the main problems with Obamacare, which is that it allows bureaucrats to define a minimum level of health care and whenever Democrats hold power they will use it to advance their poitical agenda, as they do with public education

"Unlike Mrs. Romney, most stay at home moms do not have 2 Cadillacs, as well as maids, landscapers, cooks, or husbands with Swiss bank accounts. Many moms can't afford the luxury of staying home to raise their kids."

so, again, you're going to start attacking this woman, after claiming that only one Democratic woman is doing so?

sad

"Poor women who stay at home to raise their children should be given federal assistance for child care so that they can enter the job market and "have the dignity of work," Mitt Romney said in January, undercutting the sense of extreme umbrage he showed when Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen quipped last week that Ann Romney had not "worked a day in her life.""

so, Romney has supported assistance to poor women who have to work

what's your complaint and how does that justify Rosen's attack on stay-at-home moms?

April 15, 2012 9:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...Mitt Romney, however, judging by his January remark, views stay-at-home moms who are supported by federal assistance much differently than those backed by hundreds of millions in private equity income. Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice [like his wife had], but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," [unless you are my wife] Romney said..."

I think you're confused

we don't live in a socialist society

it is not the role of government to assure that everyone has an equal standard of living

societies that have held that ideal have been joyless failures

"Recently Gallup reported Americans Favor "Buffett Rule" by 60% to 37% The Buffett Rule mandates a minimum 30% tax rate for Americans with a household income of $1 million or more per year, well under 50%."

we're at the opening bell of a propaganda campaign by Democrats

Americans need to be educated and will be

while there are individual variations, overall those above a million in income pay 26% and those below 100K pay 15%

almost have of Americans pay no income tax at all

cutting capital gains has always led to more revenue for the U.S. Treasury

every time

and the income from dividends is taxed twice so Buffett and Romney and Obama are effectually paying a higher rate than is apparent form their returns

Obama first started pushing this by saying it would pay down the deficit

now that he has been rebuked by economists in all sides, he has changed the rationale to "fairness"

in other words, he's a demogogue

and a piece of work

he won't be re-elected

"That's because the Bush tax cuts are still in effect. President Obama has repeatedly said he wants to eliminate those tax cuts because he doesn't need them"

if he doesn't need the money and thinks the government should conficate its citizens' unneeded money, why isn't he sending a fat check to the Treasury?

it's perfectly legal for him to do this

he could contribute all his unneeded money and then he wouldn't be a hypocrite

"We’ve got to choose which direction we want this country to go in."

I can't think of anyone who disagrees

"Do we want to keep giving those tax breaks to folks like me who don’t need them, or to give them to Warren Buffett? He definitely doesn’t need them. Or Bill Gates. He’s already said, I don’t need them."

those people pay for most of our governmental expenses as is

they aren't getting any breaks

"Or do we want to keep investing in those things that keep our economy growing and keep us secure? That’s the choice."

actually, rich people's spending stimulates more than government spending does

a well-known fact

April 15, 2012 10:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And the Russians are Anon's heroes because Russian Leaders Continue to Diminish LGBT Rights"

Obama has been caught plotting with them to deceive the American public and this is all you can say?

"Ah yes, Rasmussen, always the outlier gives hope to Anon, just like when he thought McCain was going to beat Obama. Now FOX has joined Rasmussen in reportiing Romney leads Obama, and yet all the other polls, and the averages of all the polls including FOX and Rasmussen show that as of April 14, 2012, Obama beats Romney 46.8% to 44.2%."

actually, Ramussen is generally more accurate because they poll "likely" voters

the polls showing Obama winning are dated and Ramussen agreed at the time

truth is, now that the nomination is settled, the election is no longer about Romney but is a referendum on the Obama presidency

Obama is trying hard to rev up the base by exploiting the killing of a teen in Florida and by citing an imaginary "war on women" but he has to keep this up for months and even his base would like to to live in a prosperous country

it's in all our best interests

April 15, 2012 10:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's certainly in the interest of women

Obama has conducted the real war on women, as the vast majority of jobs lost since he became president were the jobs of women

if that's not a war on women, what is?

April 16, 2012 6:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how about the Obama security team incident in Cartagena?

"CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney walked onstage without any assistance and spoke for an hour and 15 minutes without seeming to tire in his first public engagement since he underwent a heart transplant three weeks ago.

He sat in a plush chair throughout the long chat with daughter Liz Cheney and looked decidedly healthier than recent appearances where he has been gaunt and used a cane.

Cheney even threw in a couple of political plugs amid much reminiscing at the Wyoming Republican Party state convention in Cheyenne on Saturday.

He said the presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is going to do a "whale of a job." He said it's never been more important than now to defeat a sitting president and the Republican Party should unite behind Romney.

"He has been an unmitigated disaster to the country," Cheney said of President Barack Obama."

April 16, 2012 8:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

considering the unanswered comments above, it seems TTF should retract his support for brackish Obama

April 16, 2012 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wooo boy!

the Obamacists sure are taking a shellacking!

April 16, 2012 12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"at least one-third of people the Archives of Sexual Behavior deemed "experts", qualified to perform peer review, had no problem with Spitzer's study

that's pretty significant"


No wonder Spitzer has retracted his research when it is so joyously misused by people with no understanding of the scientific method.

If only one-third of those qualified to perform peer review had no problem with Spitzer's study, that means two-thirds of those same qualified scholars -- a landslide majority of them -- did find problems with Spitzer's paper. That fact is twice as "significant" as the one-third who did not.

Spitzer himself now concedes, "In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques are largely correct,” he said. “The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.” He said he spoke with the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior about writing a retraction, but the editor declined.

The study in question has been used for many years by anti-gay activists as evidence that homosexual people can change their sexual orientation - and that they're blameworthy if they don't try to do so, given that most anti-gay activists hold unscientific "beliefs" that homosexuality is an 'abomination' or an 'objective disorder.'

It's remarkable the journal that published Spitzer's original findings refused him the right to publish a retraction notice. Everyone knows now from countless examples that self-reported 'ex-gays' turned out to be - surprise, surprise - current gays.

Alan Chambers also recently conceded, "The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not experienced a change in their orientation"

John Smid also conceded the harm reparative therapy has caused and asked to be forgiven for his part in causing it, "Some people have spoken out about being wounded through their experience with Love In Action. I want to say I am very sorry for the things that have wounded you or hurt you by my hands of leadership at Love In Action or anything I have done personally that has harmed you. Please forgive me."

And now we find that David Blankenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values, is lobbying against North Carolina's amendment to ban same-sex marriage:

"If you want to create a backlash against mother-father marriage – if you want to convince people that the real agenda of marriage advocates is not protecting marriage, but ignoring and ostracizing gay people – then this amendment might be to your liking. But we believe that the cause of marriage is hurt, not helped, by gratuitously linking it to the cause of never under any circumstances helping gay and lesbian couples."

Blankenhorn, a “personal friend” of National Organization for Marriage founder Maggie Gallagher, was one of the only witnesses the pro-Proposition 8 side produced who was willing to testify. It didn’t go that well for Blankenhorn however, and in the end he actually ended up admitting that gay marriage bans probably do harm same-sex couples and that “Adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children,”

This year, Blankenhorn, has felt moved to come out against the over-reaching action in North Carolina.

"considering the unanswered comments above"

If a tree falls in a forest and no-one hears it, does it make any sound?

April 16, 2012 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GOP Lady Heroes

April 16, 2012 5:02 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "don't you guys usually complain that ex-gay ministries can't produce even one convert from the homosexuality cult? in this case, they provided 200.".

LOL, you make that statement as though you think that is something significant - it isn't.

Spitzer requested only patients claiming successful conversions to heterosexuality from all the available organizations doing "reparitive" "therapy" at the time. It took Narth and the other organizations almost 2 years to find 200 people merely claiming to have been changed. During that time given the number of therapists and clients in these organizations aproximately 250,000 people passed through "reparitive" "therapy" programs. Using a veryconservative figure of a pool of 100,000 clients from which the 200 "success" cases were selected the "success stories" represent a conversion rate of .04% - a dismal failure even if Spitzer hadn't retracted his conclusions and said none of the people he spoke to changed.

The idea that after 11 years Spitzer is "caving in" to pressure from gays and lesbians is similarly absurd. The major reaction to his questionable study came within months or a year or two at most of the publishing of his study. Since that time the reaction to the study and mentions of it have declined to virtually nothing. It isn't conceivable that Spitzer would have resisted pressure early on to retract his study and then 11 years later when no one was talking about it, given in to non-existant "pressure" to retract.

Spitzer had a long time to reconsider his study and after 11 years he realized the iniital criticisms of it were correct - virtually all of the "success" stories were people either working for anti-gay organizations or with a vested interest in advancing the idea that gayness can be changed, there was no objective observations to confirm that any of the people merely claiming to have changed had done so, and virtually all clients were deeply religious and most probably believed it was a sin to tell people they hadn't changed and allow them to believe gays couldn't come to Jesus by stopping being gay.

April 16, 2012 5:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One Democratic woman's comment is not a war."

no, but for an entire news cycle, until Mrs Romney gracefully rebuked the statement, the liberal punditocracy was high-fiving each other that Rosen had dissed Nikki Haley

then, the public reaction scared the bejeebies outta 'em


Mrs. Romney has been outed. She was not hurt or insulted by Rosen's words.

The Hill reports:

"Ann Romney, the wife of GOP front-runner Mitt Romney, told supporters at a private fundraising event on Sunday that last week’s Hilary Rosen controversy was an “early birthday present.”

“It was my early birthday present for someone to be critical of me as a mother,” she said. “That was a really defining moment, and I loved it.”

Ann Romney turns 63 on Monday.

While the private event in Palm Beach, Fla., was for supporters only, multiple reporters heard the comment from the public sidewalk outside the house where the event was taking place...."


Happy Birthday, Ann Romney!

April 16, 2012 6:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Senate Republicans used a filibuster to kill the Buffett Rule last night on the very day a CNN poll released earlier found that 72 percent of voters said they favor “a proposal to change the federal income tax rates so that people who make more than one million dollars a year will pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.” So popular is the Buffett Rule in the abstract that 53 percent of Republicans and 40 percent of Tea Party supporters say they favor it as well.

"at least one-third of people the Archives of Sexual Behavior deemed "experts", qualified to perform peer review, had no problem with Spitzer's study

that's pretty significant"


So let's see, if "one-third" or 33.3% is "pretty significant," over twice as much, that is well over two-thirds, or 72% must be "extremely" significant.

April 17, 2012 9:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reason Number 203 That The GOP War On Women Is Very Real

April 17, 2012 5:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Mitt Romney campaign is fighting back in the War on Dogs.

The Daily Caller's Jim Treacher posted a blog item Tuesday with an excerpt from President Barack Obama's bestselling memoir "Dreams From My Father," in which Obama writes of eating dog meat when he was a little boy in Indonesia.

"With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough). Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share."

Treacher brought out the excerpt as a way of responding to a weird old story that has haunted Romney's presidential ambitions since the Boston Globe first reported it in 2007. The story goes like this: In 1983, Romney strapped the family dog's crate to the roof of the car for a 12-hour drive from Massachusetts to Canada because there was no room in the car. During the trip, the dog, an Irish Setter named Seamus, suffered the "runs," as Ann Romney put it this week. Her husband coolly pulled over to hose off the dog and the car, then kept driving.

The media have seized on the story. "Say what you want about Romney, but at least he only put a dog on the roof of his car, not the roof of his mouth," Treacher wrote. "And whenever you bring up the one, we’re going to bring up the other."

Team Romney, which has been mostly sullen and quiet about Seamus, seems to like Treacher's idea. In January, Obama campaign honcho David Axelrod tweeted a photo of Obama's dog, Bo, riding in the president's armored limousine, with the caption "How loving owners transport their dogs." On Tuesday evening, Romney campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom retweeted Axelrod with the comment, "In hindsight, a chilling photo."

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt responded with a tweet questioning Fehrnstrom's decision to embrace the story from Obama's childhood: "What's the next attack @EricFerhn and the RNC will surface on a 6-10 year old?"

The War on Dogs has been joined.

April 18, 2012 7:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, that's good. Everyone knows DOGS is the number one issue the whole country is worried about -- not jobs, not tax reform, not the GOP war on women, not climate change, but dogs.

The GOP thinks comparing what an adult father of 5 did with the family pet during a family vacation -- and years later getting his wife to support his claim the dog "loved" being up on the roof of the car for a 12 hour ride -- is somehow repaired by what a child was fed based on the local customs of his step-father's homeland, Indonesia.

I'm sure that stance will bring back the women voters Romney has alienated when his campaign wasn't sure ("We'll get back to you on that") if their candidate supported the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act or not. Romney recently called Gov. Walker of WI a "hero." even though on 04-05-12, Walker signed a law repealing WI's equal pay act as the GOP continues its war on women's rights.

Apparently Romney thinks Walker is a hero even though Walker just approved paying women less than men for equal work!

Shame on them and their long term war on women's rights, which as caused many to wonder, is there a A permanent gender gap problem for Republicans?

April 18, 2012 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"WASHINGTON -- A handful of House Democrats, encouraged by the recent bipartisan agreement that stay-at-home moms should be considered just as hard working as anyone in the workforce, will introduce legislation to apply that standard to mothers on welfare as well.

Under current law, raising children does not count toward the required "work activity" that must be performed by recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, the federal program that emerged from the 1996 welfare reform. Some states make an exception for mothers with children less than a year old.

The Women's Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, a copy of which was provided to HuffPost in advance of its introduction, would allow mothers with children ages 3 and under to stay at home with their children and continue receiving benefits.

The act was inspired by the recent kerfuffle, in which the political establishment, from President Barack Obama to Mitt Romney, took great umbrage at the suggestion by Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen that Ann Romney had not "worked a day in her life."

"All moms are working moms," Mitt Romney responded.

If that's the case, then it's unfair to apply a different standard to low-income women, reasoned Rep. Pete Stark of California, a top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

"Mitt Romney was for forcing mothers into the workforce before he decided that 'all moms are working moms,'" Stark told The Huffington Post. "I think we should take Mr. Romney at his most recent word and change our federal laws to recognize the importance and legitimacy of raising young children. That's why I'm introducing the WORK Act to provide low-income parents the option of staying home to raise young children without fear of being pushed into poverty."

The proposed WORK Act wouldn't exactly even the playing field: Whereas wealthy women such as Ann Romney would still have the option to stay at home until their children grew up, poor women would be sent back into the workforce when a child turned four.

The 1994 Senate-candidate Romney supported that basic idea. "Once there are no preschoolers at home, parents should work to receive welfare support," he wrote then. "A child needs to see firsthand the dignity of work."...

April 19, 2012 7:45 AM  
Anonymous gay is a cult said...

"No wonder Spitzer has retracted his research when it is so joyously misused by people with no understanding of the scientific method."

the scientific method calls for objective inquiry

that's almost impossible when an issue is as politicized as the whether homosexuals can be cured of same gender sexual preference

at some point, gay agenda strategists determine that if it could maintain that homosexuality is impossible to overcome, it could argue that society must cater to them as a matter of civil rights

anything that contradicts that is considered heresy and all scientists are well aware they will be attacked and ostracized if they contradict, just like Spitzer was

there are principles that the gay agendists have deemed non-negotiable and they will destroy anyone who dares to cross

but the scientific method has no place for negotiation

in such an environment, how can the scientific method proceed since objective scientific inquiry can't?

"If only one-third of those qualified to perform peer review had no problem with Spitzer's study, that means two-thirds of those same qualified scholars -- a landslide majority of them -- did find problems with Spitzer's paper. That fact is twice as "significant" as the one-third who did not."

actually, no

peer review is valid when it discovers issue on which there is scientific consensus

not consensus on findings, mind you, but principles of analysis

even one reputable scientist that disagrees with another on a peer review issue demonstrates that we have entered the realm ofr opinion and not fact

"Spitzer himself now concedes, "In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques are largely correct,” he said. “The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.”"

this statement obviously needs elaboration since that's all he considered the findings evidence of originally

what ex-gays says about it

"The study in question has been used for many years by anti-gay activists as evidence that homosexual people can change their sexual orientation"

which was the correct way to use it

"- and that they're blameworthy if they don't try to do so, given that most anti-gay activists hold unscientific "beliefs" that homosexuality is an 'abomination' or an 'objective disorder.'"

see, here's the problem

gay activists want scientists to affirm their moral positions

you can still take the position that homosexuality is acceptable without believing it is incurable

but you can't impose your belief on others without such proof, and homosexual activist are interested in imposing thei beliefs

remember one thing, however:

even if no one has found a cure for homosexuality, it doesn't prove there isn't one any more than the fact tht we haven't found a cure for cancer proves there isn't one

this is the only situation in which scientists have been pressured to draw such a conclusion

"It's remarkable the journal that published Spitzer's original findings refused him the right to publish a retraction notice."

no, it's typical

April 21, 2012 9:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home