Sunday, April 24, 2016

The kids really ARE all right: There are no differences between children of same-sex parents and heterosexual couples, study finds

What complete and utter garbage.  There was no objective gauge of child wellbeing at all.  They took the parents' word for it.  And it was all done over the phone.  The researchers did not even see the children concerned.  Anybody see a problem with that?  The journal article is "Same-Sex and Different-Sex Parent Households and Child Health Outcomes: Findings from the National Survey of Children's Health"  It's a vivid demonstration that you can get the most rubbishy "research" published if it validates current political correctness

Traditionalists may worry about the impact of same-sex parenting on children, but a new study adds to a growing body of evidence that there's no problem at all.

Researchers say the children of same-sex parents are just as healthy - both mentally and physically - as those of heterosexual parents. The only difference noted was that lesbian parents found raising their children more stressful.

It's estimated there are 690,000 same-sex couples living in the United States and that 19 per cent of such couples and lesbian, gay or bisexual individuals are raising children under the age of 18.

There is growing acceptance of different-sex parents, as portrayed in the 2010 film The Kids are All Right, in which Julianne Moore and Annette Bening play committed lesbian parents.

Child development experts from the universities of Amsterdam, Columbia and UCLA, used the US' National Survey of Children's Health and matches 95 same-sex female households to 95 different-sex parent households with children between the ages of six and 17.

They took the parents' age, education and location into account, as well as their child's age, race and gender to get the best matches possible.

One parent from each couple was interviewed by telephone about their experience, such as whether raising a child is stressful.

To gauge their child's wellbeing, parents were asked questions such as: 'How often during the past month was your child unhappy, sad, or depressed?' and 'Does he or she do all required homework?'

They were asked to plot their answers on a scale of one to five, with one meaning 'never' and five meaning 'always'. The results were then weighted and analysed.

Nanette Gartrell at UCLA told CNN: 'It is the only study to compare same-sex and different-sex parent households with stable, continuously coupled parents and their biological offspring.'

The experts wrote in the study published in the journal Cell Press: 'Children with female same-sex parents and different-sex parents demonstrated no differences in outcomes.


Canadian public broadcaster won’t name swimming pool sex assault suspect — because he’s a Muslim migrant

Terrible mass sexual assault in a Lethbridge hotel swimming pool on Saturday. Two young girls, and a grown woman, were attacked in the Holiday Inn.

The CBC story has all the basic facts. They don’t disclose the names of the victims — makes sense.

But what else is missing?  The name of the accused.

I don’t get $1.2 billion a year from the Liberal government like the CBC does, but I know how to use Google. It took me less than thirty seconds to find the Lethbridge Police department’s press release. It actually seems to have been the basis for the CBC story, almost line for line.

Except for this line: "Wijdan Yasir, 28, of Calgary, is charged with three counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference.”

Oh. That’s why. Because he’s a Muslim migrant, in his case, from Pakistan.

It’s the same reason why the CBC helped in the cover-up of the Syrian migrant kids in a Halifax elementary school beating up the Canadian girls. If the roles were reversed, it would be huge news.

The mainstream media pretends to care about bullying and rape culture and sexism. But they don’t if it’s a Muslim migrant behind it.


How Democrats Win Debates by Corrupting English

Humans have been using euphemisms ever since Adam first “knew” Eve. In politics especially, obfuscating and twisting the meaning of words has been going on forever. But today’s debates aren’t only littered with rhetorical distortions; in some ways, many of Democrats' most potent arguments are built on corrupt language.

One word that’s really getting a workout this cycle is “loophole.” Basically, all of life is a giant loophole until Democrats come up with a way to regulate or tax it. In its economic usage, “loophole” — probably more of a dysphemism — creates the false impression that people are getting away with breaking the law. It’s a way to skip the entire debate portion of the conversation and get right to the accusation.

So when Hillary Clinton promises to close the loophole of corporate inversion, what she means to say is that Democrats disapprove of this completely legal thing that corporations do to shield their money from the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. Loopholes are like giveaways, monies that D.C. has yet to double and triple tax.

It’s one thing for Democrats to try and set the parameters of a debate before the debate is even had, but it’s quite another to watch the press participate.

Here’s CNN: “Clinton to push closing corporate tax loopholes.” Here’s The Hill: “Obama calls for Congress to close corporate tax loopholes.” Here’s how Halimah Abdullah and the Associated Press reported the issue on NBC: “President Obama on Tuesday criticized loopholes that help protect offshore tax havens and U.S. companies that move abroad for lower tax rates.”

But Bernie Sanders, bless him, just skips the entire perception game and just comes out with it by Tweeting: “The offshore tax haven network isn’t something that we need to reform or refine. It’s a form of legalized tax fraud that must end.”

“Legalized tax fraud” is a revealing statement about the progressive belief system. For progressives, taxation is moral. So when you fail to pay an imaginary tax that doesn’t exist but Democrats think should, you are by default engaged in fraud. The law has just to catch up with sin.

Take “access,” formerly meaning having the ability to approach, enter or use. In today’s liberal parlance, when the state doesn’t give you something for free, it’s taking something from you. It’s denying you access.

When there’s a lack of access to birth control, it doesn’t, as the dictionary might lead you to believe, mean that Walgreens and CVS have been dissuaded from selling condoms, or that someone is bolting the door when women attempt to purchase birth control at the local pharmacy. It means that government has not made condoms free for anyone who desires them.

To oppose the latter — whatever you make of the position — is not tantamount to a ban or outlawing. Yet Clinton has accused Cruz of attempting to “ban” contraception. Neither Cruz nor any Republican in office today has ever tried to ban — prohibit, forbid, proscribe, disallow — contraception altogether. This is a fairy tale with a thriving political fan fiction community.

Voters who pay only marginal attention to political debates (most) are probably left with some vague notion that men are working to deny women access to birth control. It would be understandably disconcerting if this were true. The idea of a War Against Women loses a bit of its bark when it’s really The War on Having Taxpayers Pay For Everyone’s Pill.

“Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,” Clinton recently lamented as she spoke about the prevalence of the anti-abortion movement’s activism. Women won’t have a true right on this issue, she says, “As long as we have laws on the book like the Hyde Amendment (a provision pretending to bar federal funds for pay for most abortions) making it harder for low-income women to exercise their full rights.”

By “extraordinary measures,” Clinton means walking past anti-abortion protestors who might say something that makes a woman uncomfortable. Any genuine attempt to hinder a person from walking into a Planned Parenthood is already illegal, after all. Some of us, you see, are imbued with special rights, or full rights. Women who support the right to an abortion, for instance, have full rights — not women who want to express themselves in opposition.

There are plenty of other distortions. “Disenfranchisement” once meant revoking the rights gained through suffrage, but has been corroded to mean asking a person to provide a picture ID or to wait in a line before voting. Today, a country that deports hundreds of thousands of people every year has open borders, while millions of illegal immigrants are called everything but illegal. Today, tax cuts cost Americans something, but state spending is an investment.

And so on.

This is just a small taste of the war on meaning, of course. And to allow them this falsification language is to surrender a debate before it even begins.


Politically correct rubbish preached at Independence Hall

Independence Hall, Philadelphia — If you paid a visit, you’d expect to experience the gravitas of the room where both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were created. But it turns out you might get a dose of misinformation with your tour as well. That’s what happened recently when a group of tourists listened to a tour by a National Park Service Ranger. According to former DOJ lawyer J. Christian Adams at PJ Media, the ranger told the group, “The Founders knew that when they left this room, what they had written wouldn’t matter very much.” She added that the “most important part of the Constitution written at Independence Hall was the ability to change it.” Sounds like someone thinks the Constitution is simply a document of historical curiosity.

That’s not all. The ranger also told the tourists that the Constitution protected the institution of slavery. Has she even read the document? “The text of the Constitution in 1787 did not mention slavery even once,” writes Adams.

Last year, the ranger spoke at a workshop for school teachers whose goal was to explore “perspectives on Independence Hall and the Meaning of Freedom.” When she rose to speak, she delivered a lecture titled “Remember the women.” What did those teachers take back to their classrooms? Differing perspectives are one thing, but the National Park Service should not tolerate providing inaccurate, biased and plain wrong information. It’s a dereliction of one of the core duties of a ranger.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: