Opening Ceremony Hits All the Right Notes

Bill Plaschke, at the Los Angeles Times, "For openers, London puts on a smashing show":

LONDON -- Was that an opening ceremony or a night at the pub? Were the 2012 Olympics being honored or noogied?

Was that really James Bond tumbling out of a helicopter into the stadium with Queen Elizabeth II? Were those really a passel of flying Mary Poppins conquering one giant Voldemort?

And that compelling British national anthem sung by an inspirational choir of deaf and hearing children.… Were those kids really wearing their pajamas?

Whatever it was Friday night, it was bloody well wonderful.

After seven years of worrying how it would impress the world, London decided to be its dizzy, disjointed self, welcoming the Olympics to its cluttered backyard with a wink and nudge and belly laugh that should resound through these Games' history.

It might not have contained the tradition of Athens or the majesty of Beijing, but London's third opening ceremony was an absolute charm.

Continue reading.

Don Perry, Chick-fil-A Vice President for Public Relations, Dies Unexpectedly — Progressives Celebrate on Twitter

The Los Angeles Times reports, "Chick-fil-A's PR chief dies suddenly amid gay-marriage imbroglio."

And the left's response at Fire Andrea Mitchell, "Left wingers celebrate the death of Chick-Fil-A spokesman Don Perry on Twitter." And Twitchy, "PR VP for Chick-fil-A has died; Left responds with viciousness."

Rosanne Barr's been aiming rapid-fire hate at Chick-fil-A, including wishing cancer on the people who eat the company's food. Apparently she's apologized, but there's still a lot of vile tweets in her timeline:

off to grab a shit fil-A sandwich on my way to worshipping Christ, supporting Aipac and war in Iran.
— Roseanne Barr (@TheRealRoseanne) July 25, 2012

Plus, CNN has another report uploaded to YouTube, "Chick-Fil-A gets the boot."

And here's a commentary from Jack Nicas, at WSJ, "First Amendment Trumps Critics of Chick-fil-A" (via Google):

CHICAGO — The First Amendment is coming to the rescue of a chicken-sandwich chain that has drawn the ire of politicians outraged by its president's public opposition to gay marriage.

One by one, local officials here and in Boston have revised their comments regarding the entrepreneur's stance against gay marriage, tiptoeing between their disapproval of remarks he made on the subject and his right to say them.

Last week, Dan Cathy, president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, a closely held company based in an Atlanta suburb that operates 1,600 fast-food restaurants in 39 states, said he opposed gay marriage and supported the "biblical definition of the family unit."

The comment sparked a public backlash that included same-sex "kiss-in" protests at Chick-fil-A restaurants and social-media campaigns to boycott the chain. Public officials from Boston to Chicago announced their opposition to the company's expansion in those cities.

Chicago Alderman Proco Moreno wrote in the Chicago Tribune Thursday, "Because of [Mr. Cathy's] ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward."

On Friday, Mr. Moreno conceded that free-speech rights trump his authority on the issue, and shifted his focus from Mr. Cathy's remarks to potential discriminatory policies at the fast-food chain. He said he would reopen talks with Chick-fil-A, but pledged to fight the company until it amends or clarifies its anti-discrimination policy.

Chick-fil-A, which promotes its Christian values and is closed Sundays, said in a statement that the "culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect—regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino have similarly sought to clarify earlier statements that they opposed Chick-fil-A, saying they never intended to legally block the chain's efforts for new restaurants in their cities.

"The mayor simply said that Chick-fil-A's [president] does not share Chicago's values," Mr. Emanuel's spokeswoman said in a statement. "If they meet all the usual requirements, then they can open their restaurant just like any other business." The clarifications comes as legal experts said there are no legal grounds to block a company's land-use application because of an executive's political views.

Alan Weinstein, a professor of law at Cleveland State University who specializes on the intersection of land-use law and constitutional issues, said he has seen officials try to use zoning laws to block adult stores or religious institutions, but never a commercial enterprise because of political views. He said that beyond the First Amendment, "in the land-use sphere, the government has no legitimate interest" in the political views of an applicant.

Yeah, the land-use angle has really messed up the idiot left-wing fascists. For some stupid reason, the progs are are now justifying unconstitutional discrimination against Chick-fil-A because Republicans have (allegedly) passed local ordinances against abortion clinics. Or something? It's ridiculously idiotic, but that's the hate-added homosexuals for you. The argument might make sense if Republicans were discriminating against businesses that supported abortion rights --- that is, there's no valid comparison here, and hence it's simply a way for progressives to say, "Yeah, stick it to the f-kers. They've been jackin' us on abortion so f-k 'em." See the socialist idiot (and fascist idiot, apparently) Freddie deBoer at Balloon Juice, "A Simple Observation on Chick-Fil-A."

RELATED: At the New York Times, "Mayor Says Banning Chick-fil-A Is Wrong."

2012 London Olympic Games Opening Ceremony

It's starting.

At NBC, "Britain stages a spectacular welcome for the world."

And at CNN, "London 2012: Live blog."

4:45PM Pacific: At the Guardian, "The best of today's pictures in the build up to the London 2012 Olympics opening ceremony."

5:17PM Pacific: The New York Times is live-blogging: "Live Coverage of the Opening Ceremony."

5:28PM Pacific: London's Daily Mail has a thrilling roundup: "Going for gold! Team USA (complete with Made in China berets) makes star-spangled entrance at London 2012 Olympics."

5:44PM Pacific: More spectacular photos at Daily Mail: "Britain fires up the world: London gets the 2012 Games under way with the Greatest Show On Earth (rounded off by Macca, of course)."

5:51PM Pacific: Yes, I've been think the same thing, at WSJ, "Olympic Boos for NBC Arrive With No Delay."

During the opening ceremony to the 2012 London Olympics, many U.S. viewers were upset they couldn’t watch it live. NBC waived its right to live-stream the ceremony, choosing to show it on tape delay later in the evening, during primetime coverage.

Viewers vented their frustrations on Twitter. Some expressed anger at NBC directly. Others said they were disappointed they couldn’t watch the ceremony while simultaneously live-tweeting it, as British viewers did. We called NBC for comment, and will update this post if they respond.

Check the link for the response.

6:07PM Pacific: Now at the Times of Israel, "No Munich tribute as Olympics open with dazzling ceremony":

Israel TV commentary goes silent for 30 seconds in tribute to the Munich 11 as Israeli team enters stadium. Flag-bearer Shahar Zubari sports national flag cut into his hair-do. IOC chief Rogge, who rebuffed Munich campaigners, hails Olympic spirit. Sports Minister Livnat stands, head-bowed, to honor victims.

The London Olympics 2012 opening ceremony made for riveting viewing for almost four hours on Friday night. Its artistic content was overseen by director Danny Boyle, and was eccentric, compelling, and frequently surreal. Then came the delegations of athletes. And then the speeches.

Sports Minister Limor Livnat, wearing a black ribbon on her arm, stood in head-bowed, silent tribute to the 11 murdered Israeli athletes of Munich 1972, as International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge spoke — an image not shown on the Olympic feed broadcast by Israel’s IBA.

6:23PM Pacific: At the Times of Israel, "Sports minister stands silently at Olympic opening event":

Limor Livnat’s tribute to murdered Munich athletes, during IOC president’s speech, not broadcast on official Olympic TV feed; Israel TV shows picture after ceremony ends.

6:32PM Pacific: At the Los Angeles Times, "Let the Olympic Games begin: Unity is message as youth light torch":

LONDON -- Organizers of the London Olympics did exactly what they intended.

They surprised the world.

Roger Bannister, the first man to break the four-minute barrier in a mile race, did not take the final torch leg to light the Olympic flame as many had expected. Instead it was a ceremony of inclusion.

Seven young athletes, the hope of the sports future in Britain, were joined by past icons in the torch ceremony Friday night in the opening ceremony. The youngsters moved to the center of the field of play and each lighted a stem that ignited more than 200 petals. This eventually converged into a "flame of unity."

Others thought to be in contention for the final honor were rower Steve Redgrave, decathlete Daley Thompson and even soccer icon David Beckham. Earlier in the week, one bookmaker, anticipating the choice of Bannister, quit taking bets on him.

Beckham, of course, was involved in the torch's journey to Olympic Stadium, driving a speedboat on the Thames with soccer-playing youngster Jade Bailey aboard. Bailey handed the torch to Redgrave, who carried it into the stadium.

It culminated a magical night in London, the return of the Olympic Games here for the third time. The last time was 1948, and, often, the opening ceremony felt like it took 64 years to complete, a long journey deep into the night ... and morning.

The ambitious production, engineered by filmmaker and artistic director Danny Boyle, took more than 3 hours 45 minutes. Occasional rain fell on Olympic Stadium in the early part of the program.

But the showers were long gone by the time the youngsters supplied the emotional punch.

7:56PM Pacific: At the New York Times, "A Five-Ring Opening Circus, Weirdly and Unabashedly British":

LONDON — With its hilariously quirky Olympic opening ceremony, a wild jumble of the celebratory and the fanciful; the conventional and the eccentric; and the frankly off-the-wall, Britain presented itself to the world Friday night as something it has often struggled to express even to itself: a nation secure in its own post-empire identity, whatever that actually is.

The noisy, busy, witty, dizzying production somehow managed to feature a flock of sheep (plus a busy sheepdog), the Sex Pistols, Lord Voldemort, the engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel, a suggestion that the Olympic rings were forged by British foundries during the Industrial Revolution, the seminal Partridge Family reference from “Four Weddings and a Funeral,” a group of people dressed like so many members of Sgt. Pepper’s band, some rustic hovels tended by rustic peasants, “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” and, in a paean to the National Health Service, a zany bunch of dancing nurses and bouncing sick children on huge hospital beds.

It was neither a nostalgic sweep through the past nor a bold vision of a brave new future. Rather, it was a sometimes slightly insane portrait of a country that has changed almost beyond measure since the last time it hosted the Games, in the grim postwar summer of 1948.

Britain was so poor then that it housed its athletes in old army barracks, made them bring their own towels and erected no buildings for the Games. The Olympics cost less than £750,000, turned a small profit and made the nation proud that it had had managed to rise to the occasion in the face of such adversity.

There was that same sense of relief intermingled with self-satisfaction this time. But such was the grandeur of 2012, even in these tough economic times, that 80,000 people sat comfortably in a new Olympic Stadium, having traveled by sleek new bullet trains and special V.I.P. road lanes to a new park that has completely transformed once-derelict east London.

A little rain fell, but it hardly mattered. Queen Elizabeth II was there, after co-starring with a tuxedoed Daniel Craig, also known as James Bond, in a witty video in which she appears to parachute from a helicopter (in fact, she entered the park the usual way). Looking mystified at times — the ceremony was pitched to a generation different from hers — she presided over a bevy of lesser royals and Prime Minister David Cameron.

The first lady, Michelle Obama, was in the audience to cheer on the United States athletes, who, it must be said, did a lot of cheering for themselves anyway during the athletes’ procession. And Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, was there, too, although he was practically Public Enemy No. 1 around here after he appeared to question the British capacity for enthusiasm, something only Britons are allowed to do...

Israel Underwhelmed by Surprise Munich Memorial

At the Jerusalem Post.

Families say unannounced minute of silence in London was a PR stunt aimed at deflecting criticism against IOC.

Also, Limor Livnat, Israel's Minister of Culture and Sport, will protest at the opening ceremonies. See: "Limor Livnat to stand in protest at Games opening ceremony."

More from Paula in Israel, "Munich 11 - They're All Gone."

Palestinians Cheer IOC's Rejection of Moment of Silence for Munich Massacre

At Yediot Ahronot, "Palestinians welcome IOC's rejection of moment of silence."

RELATED: At Atlas Shrugs, "LEBANESE OLYMPIC TEAM DEMANDS BARRIER SEPARATION FROM ISRAEL SQUAD (AND IOC COMPLIES)." (Via Memeorandum.)

And Astute Bloggers, "DISGUSTING: DHIMMI OLYMPIC COMMITTEE KOWTOWS TO RACIST ARAB ANTISEMITISM."

More at Memeorandum.

EXTRA: From Deborah Lipstadt, "No, Open Zion, Deborah Lipstadt Won’t Shut Up: Jews shouldn't be satisfied by an impromptu Munich commemoration."

Investors Flee Facebook

At the New York Times, "Facebook Delivers an Earnings Letdown":

SAN FRANCISCO — Unhappy with Facebook’s first financial report as a public company Thursday, investors fled the stock in droves even as Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s chief executive, extolled its growth prospects to industry analysts.

The disillusionment of investors was clear in after-hours trading, and when the market opened on Friday the depth of the disappointment was even more pronounced. Shortly before 11 a.m., the stock was down 14 percent, to slightly under $23 a share, a new low. That came on top of an 8 percent decline in regular trading on Thursday, even before the earnings announcement, on the chill from weak earnings from the social gaming creator Zynga, a major Facebook partner.

Since going public two months ago at $38 a share, Facebook has seen its stock lose 40 percent of its value.

Mr. Zuckerberg has rarely spoken publicly about the company he built in his dorm room eight years ago. But nothing he and his lieutenants said Thursday about their plans to make money by advertising to Facebook users seemed to reassure investors.

“Obviously we’re disappointed about how the stock is traded,” said David Ebersman, the chief financial officer. “But the important thing for us is to stay focused on the fact that we’re the same company now as we were before.”

The financial report for the company’s second quarter did contain some good news. Revenue was up 32 percent, beating analysts’ predictions. But profits were not impressive, and the total number of users inched up only slowly.

“With the unprecedented hype around the company’s I.P.O., some investors believe more upside would have materialized — higher revenues, higher earnings,” said Jordan Rohan, an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus.

This don't look so good, do they?

Why the Obama Campaign is Suddenly So Worried

"Four Little Words," according to Kimberly Strassel:

What's the difference between a calm and cool Barack Obama, and a rattled and worried Barack Obama? Four words, it turns out.

"You didn't build that" is swelling to such heights that it has the president somewhere unprecedented: on defense. Mr. Obama has felt compelled—for the first time in this campaign—to cut an ad in which he directly responds to the criticisms of his now-infamous speech, complaining his opponents took his words "out of context."

That ad follows two separate ones from his campaign attempting damage control. His campaign appearances are now about backpedaling and proclaiming his love for small business. And the Democratic National Committee produced its own panicked memo, which vowed to "turn the page" on Mr. Romney's "out of context . . . BS"—thereby acknowledging that Chicago has lost control of the message.

The Obama campaign has elevated poll-testing and focus-grouping to near-clinical heights, and the results drive the president's every action: his policies, his campaign venues, his targeted demographics, his messaging. That Mr. Obama felt required—teeth-gritted—to address the "you didn't build that" meme means his vaunted focus groups are sounding alarms.

The obsession with tested messages is precisely why the president's rare moments of candor—on free enterprise, on those who "cling to their guns and religion," on the need to "spread the wealth around"—are so revealing. They are a look at the real man. It turns out Mr. Obama's dismissive words toward free enterprise closely mirror a speech that liberal Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren gave last August.

Ms. Warren's argument—that government is the real source of all business success—went viral and made a profound impression among the liberal elite, who have been pushing for its wider adoption. Mr. Obama chose to road-test it on the national stage, presumably thinking it would underline his argument for why the wealthy should pay more. It was a big political misstep, and now has the Obama team seriously worried...

Continue reading.

Smokin'! — Britney Spears Steps Out in Slinky Sequins for 'X-Factor' Boot Camp

Lovely.

At London's Daily Mail, "Bringing the seXy Factor! Britney Spears steps out in tiny shorts and slinky sequins as her outfits appear to get even racier."

Suspect James Holmes Was Seeing Psychiatrist at University Before Massacre

Some news out that signals bad news for the University of Colorado Denver, IMHO.

At USA Today, "Defense: Shooting suspect seeing psychiatrist":

DENVER (AP) – Court papers say the former graduate student accused in the Colorado movie theater shooting was being treated by a psychiatrist at the university where he studied.

The revelation was disclosed Friday in a defense motion. The motion sought to discover the source of leaks to some media outlets that a package that James Holmes sent the psychiatrist contained a notebook with descriptions of an attack.

The motion says the package contained communications between Holmes and Dr. Lynne Fenton that should be shielded from public view.

And at the Los Angeles Times, "Colorado judge bars school from releasing James Holmes documents."

Plus, Holmes is claiming amnesia: "Batman killer claims he has amnesia and doesn't remember opening fire in crowded movie theater... as he complains the food in jail is making his stomach hurt."

Horrific Death: 12-Year-Old Amaro Viana Drowned in Boiling Hot Water After Watching Both Parents Murdered by Black South African Thugs

The legacy of Mandela.

At Telegraph UK, "South African 12-year-old drowned in boiling water after seeing parents killed":

A 12-year-old boy was drowned in boiling water after seeing his mother raped and killed and his father hacked to death by three men who broke into his home south of Johannesburg, South Africa.

And at London's Daily Mail, "The murders so brutal they shocked even South Africa: Couple shot dead, then son aged 12 is drowned in scalding bath."

So much for truth and reconciliation.

More at the San Francisco Chronicle, "Divided South Africa honors Mandela's birthday."

President Obama Has Traveled All Over the World — But Not to Israel

Not during his presidency, at least.

Via the Weekly Standard, "'Where's Obama?' Anywhere but Israel."

Also at Israel Matzav, "Where's President Obama?"

Bar Refaeli in Elle France

A nice pictorial, via Hollywood Rag.

Parlez-vous français? The French Elle is here.

Smokin' Supermodels, Then and Now

Some beautiful women.

At the New York Times, "When Beauty Fades: Supermodels as They Age Are Focus of Documentary."

Notice Paulina Porizkova at the clip, one of the greatest of all the Sports Illustrated hotties.

Those were the days.

U.S. Economy Skyrockets as Growth Surges at 1.5 Percent of GDP!

Just kidding.

The economy's not skyrocketing. See NYT, "U.S. Economy Slowed to a Tepid 1.5% Rate of Growth."

Ed Morrissey has more, "Breaking: Q2 GDP 1.5%; Update: 2011Q4 revised upward 1.1 points to 4.1%?"

VIDEO CREDIT: Marathon Pundit.

#RomneyShambles

I wasn't even on Twitter yesterday, but I'll venture a guess "#RomneyShambles" was the leading hashtag.

The Independent UK has it, "#Romneyshambles: 'Some Americans just shouldn't leave the country', says Carl Lewis." (At Memeorandum.)

Also, at Althouse, "'Romney book: Britain is a tiny island that makes stuff nobody wants'." (At Memeorandum.) Ann posts crucial excerpts from Romney's book, No Apology, something that Foreign Policy didn't do, because Romney's conservative, no doubt:

Now Foreign Policy — a respected journal? — ends its out of context squib with snark: "Its roads and houses are small? The trees probably aren't the right height either." I'm giving you the whole context that Foreign Policy didn't want to deal with. It's about the British decline into socialism. What do you say we take that seriously?

Socialism/capitalism — that's how campaign 2012 has been framed. Let's stare that issue in the face. Sorry if the Brits' feelings are hurt, but this is about us.

She's right, but no one can help Romney on the gaffes, except Romney. Get it together man, sheesh.

More from Robert Stacy McCain, "Ungrateful Limeys!"

Progressives Attack Professor Mark Regnerus Over Same-Sex Parenting Research

This is a must-read article from Andrew Ferguson, at the Weekly Standard, "Revenge of the Sociologists."

Folks should read the whole thing, especially for the methodological discussion of Professor Regnerus' study, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study."

Here's part of Ferguson's synopsis:

Regnerus hired the public polling firm Knowledge Networks to interview a random sample of 15,508 Americans. From these another sample of nearly 3,000 was taken of young adults born between 1972 and 1992. Roughly 60 percent of the respondents said they spent their entire childhoods with both their biological mother and father. The rest were identified according to the type of family they grew up in: single-parent, adoptive, “blended” or stepfamily, divorced. Another category comprised those who said that one of their parents had a same-sex relationship before the respondents were 18. The group was very small—175 said their mothers had been involved in a same-sex relationship, 73 said their fathers had. Still, it was large enough, according to Regnerus and his consultants, to yield to statistical manipulation.

Only one large nationally based sample had been used before in gay parenting research. The Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfield looked at how the children of gay parents compared with their counterparts from straight families on one outcome: whether the kids performed at an “age-appropriate” level in school. Rosenfield found no difference between the two groups. Regnerus and his colleagues were more ambitious. They checked for 40 different long-term outcomes that would carry over to adulthood. Are you happy in your current romantic relationship? Are you on government assistance, or were you as a child? Any thoughts of suicide in the past 12 months? Respondents were asked to classify their sexual orientation, whether they’d ever been in therapy, whether they’d been convicted of a crime, and to list their income, educational level, and employment history. Several questions explored whether they had been bullied in school or sexually abused as children.

One basic finding immediately leapt out—how few Americans between the ages of 19 and 39 say their father or mother had ever had a same-sex relationship: 1.7 percent. It was also clear that the nature of gay parenting has changed quite a bit from the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s, when these young adults were children. Typically, Regnerus said, they were born from heterosexual unions that went bust; nowadays the children of homosexual couples are often “planned”—brought into a family through adoption, in vitro fertilization, or surrogate motherhood.

Regnerus found much to contradict the “no difference” view. On 25 of the 40 outcomes, young adults who said their mother had a lesbian relationship (he calls these respondents LMs) differed in a statistically significant way from young adults reared by their parents in intact biological families (IBFs). Among those whose fathers had a gay relationship (GFs), 11 outcomes were different from the IBFs.

And the differences were almost always negative for LMs and GFs. LMs in particular were far more likely to be on public assistance and to have received public assistance as children; to suffer depression; to be cohabiting; and to describe themselves as unhappy in their romantic relationships. Their income on average was lower, and so were their educational attainments. More of them were unemployed. And they were far more likely to report that they’d been abused by an adult as children. The differences between the GFs and the IBFs were smaller and less significant—there was no difference, for example, in reports of childhood sex abuse. And GFs were much more likely to have voted in the last election. In case you were wondering.

Regnerus wrote up his findings and submitted them to the editor of Social Science Research, who in turn submitted the paper to a panel of peers for approval. Three other scholars wrote critiques to appear alongside Regnerus’s paper. He also turned over the findings to the Witherspoon Foundation, which prepared a publicity campaign to unveil the new research: press interviews with Reg-nerus, op-eds by him and others, and background briefings for reporters and friendly scholars.

Then he sat back waiting for publication, expecting not much more than heck to break loose.

As of mid-July, a month after his paper was published, these are some of the things that have happened to Mark Regnerus. Three of his colleagues in the sociology department at UT joined with a fourth to -publish a widely distributed op-ed in the Huffington Post accusing him of “besmirching” the university through his “irresponsible and reckless misrepresentation of social science research.” Led by Gary Gates, the UCLA demographer who had declined Regnerus’s offer to help design the study, more than 200 “researchers and scholars” signed a letter to the editor of Social Science Research. The letter demanded that the editor “publicly disclose the reasons” why he published the paper and insisted that he hire scholars more sensitive to “LGBT parenting issues” to write a critique for the journal’s next edition. UT’s Director of Research Integrity sent Regnerus a letter informing him that a formal complaint of “scientific misconduct” had been lodged against him. The complaint, made by a gay blogger/activist/“investigative journalist” called Scott Rose, triggered an official inquiry into Regnerus’s research methods and his relationship with the Witherspoon Foundation; he’s now preparing to appear before a panel of faculty investigators. Requests have been filed with the Texas attorney general’s office demanding that Regnerus, as an employee of a state-run institution, make public all email and correspondence related to his study. And he has hired a lawyer.

A large number of his fellow social scientists—members in good standing of the guild of LGBT researchers—would like to destroy his career.

Now, be sure to finish reading Ferguson's report. The main problem with the Regnerus study is that the sample of children raised by same sex couple was minute. There are simply not enough kids raised by intact homosexual couples to generate statistically significant findings, so Regernus had to expand categories, which courted controversy. All of this was anticipated in the paper, however, and apparently these are the exact same problems of all previous research on such families in the LGBT literature over the past few decades. But that didn't stop gay activists from seeking to destroy Regnerus. It's a vicious inquisition, and frankly an ugly commentary on the sociology profession.

Indeed, that's what leftist sociologist Christian Smith discussed in a piece this week at the Chronicle of Higher Education, "An Academic Auto-da-Fé." Smith notes that Regnerus is an exemplary scholar in the field, with first-class training, and that the paper was rigorously conducted, peer reviewed, and the editorial board of the journal stands behind it. But...

The Regnerus case needs to be understood in a larger context. Sociologists tend to be political and cultural liberals, leftists, and progressives. That itself is not a problem, in my view. (I am not a conservative.) A critical progressive outlook is part of sociology's character and contribution to the world, making it an interesting and often useful discipline, especially when it comes to understanding poverty and inequality, determining whether social policies are effective, and establishing why education systems succeed and fail. But the ideological and political proclivities of some sociologists can create real problems.

Many sociologists view higher education as the perfect gig, a way to be paid to engage in "consciousness raising" through teaching, research, and publishing—at the expense of taxpayers, donors, and tuition-paying parents, many of whom thoughtfully believe that what those sociologists are pushing is wrong.

It is also easy for some sociologists to lose perspective on the minority status of their own views, to take for granted much that is still worth arguing about, and to fall into a kind of groupthink. The culture in such circles can be parochial and mean. I have seen colleagues ignore, stereotype, and belittle people and perspectives they do not like, rather than respectfully provide good arguments against those they do not agree with and for their own views.

The temptation to use academe to advance a political agenda is too often indulged in sociology, especially by activist faculty in certain fields, like marriage, family, sex, and gender. The crucial line between broadening education and indoctrinating propaganda can grow very thin, sometimes nonexistent. Research programs that advance narrow agendas compatible with particular ideologies are privileged. Survey textbooks in some fields routinely frame their arguments in a way that validates any form of intimate relationship as a family, when the larger social discussion of what a family is and should be is still continuing and worth having. Reviewers for peer-reviewed journals identify "problems" with papers whose findings do not comport with their own beliefs. Job candidates and faculty up for tenure whose political and social views are not "correct" are sometimes weeded out through a subtle (or obvious), ideologically governed process of evaluation, which is publicly justified on more-legitimate grounds—"scholarly weaknesses" or "not fitting in well" with the department.

To be sure, there are many sociologists—progressives and otherwise—who are good people, scholars, and teachers. But the influence of progressive orthodoxy in sociology is evident in decisions made by graduate students, junior faculty, and even senior faculty about what, why, and how to research, publish, and teach. One cannot be too friendly to religion, for example, such as researching the positive social contributions of missionary work overseas or failing to criticize evangelicals and fundamentalists. The result is predictable: Play it politically safe, avoid controversial questions, publish the right conclusions.

Those who are attacking Regnerus cannot admit their true political motives, so their strategy has been to discredit him for conducting "bad science." That is devious. His article is not perfect—no article ever is. But it is no scientifically worse than what is routinely published in sociology journals. Without a doubt, had Regnerus published different findings with the same methodology, nobody would have batted a methodological eye. Furthermore, none of his critics raised methodological concerns about earlier research on the same topic that had greater limitations, which are discussed in detail in the Regnerus article. Apparently, weak research that comes to the "right" conclusions is more acceptable than stronger studies that offer heretical results.

What is at stake here? First, fair treatment for Regnerus. His antagonists have already damaged his chances of being promoted to full professor. If his critics are successful at besmirching his reputation, his career may be seriously damaged.

But something bigger is at stake: The very integrity of the social-science research process is threatened by the public smearing and vigilante media attacks we have seen in this case. Sociology's progressive orthodoxy and the semicovert activism it prompts threaten the intellectual vitality of the discipline, the quality of undergraduate education, and public trust in academe. Reasonable people cannot allow social-science scholarship to be policed and selectively punished by the forces of activist ideology and politics, from any political quarter. University leaders must resist the manipulation of research review committees by nonacademic culture warriors who happen not to like certain findings.

Well, progressives aren't "reasonable people." They're fascist thugs. Wintery Knight has more on that, "Mark Regnerus and the progressive war against science."

Anyway, homosexual blogger Scott Rose has his complaint published at The New Civil Rights Movement, "Opinion: Regnerus Study — Official Misconduct Allegations."

More later, because this battle is just starting.

Warner Brothers, Maker of 'Dark Knight Rises,' Has History of Violent Filmmaking

An interesting piece, at the New York Times, "A Studio With Violence in Its Bones: Warner Brothers and Its Decades of Violent Films." There's no pullout quotes. Just read the whole thing. Warner Bros. made "Sudden Imapact," famous for "Go ahead, make my day." And also "The Matrix."

Protesters Disrupt Chick-fil-A Grand Opening in Laguna Hills

At the O.C. Register, "Gay youths protest at Laguna Hills Chick-fil-A."

This is how stupid these people are:

Locally, Cathy's comments prompted members of Youth Empowered to Act, a group with The Center Orange County, to plan the protest.

The youth group decided Chick-fil-A's latest Orange County restaurant opening would be "the perfect time and place to bring attention to the discriminatory policies and beliefs of Chick-fil-A," executive director Kevin O'Grady said.

Youth program director Laura Kanter said the purpose of the protest is to let consumers know "where the charitable arm of this corporation sends its money.

"We want to alert consumers that if they're spending their money at Chick-fil-A, some of that money can be spent against LGBT people and their families," she said.

Kanter noted donations to organizations such as the Family Research Council by WinShape Foundation, a nonprofit charity started in 1984 by Cathy's parents, Chick-fil-A founder Truett Cathy and his wife, Jeannette.

The Family Research Council "believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large," according to its website.

So far no one has demonstrated that Chick-fil-A discriminates. And of course, the owner is free to his political opinions, and he can contribute to any interest group he so pleases. There's video from the Register as well: "Chick-fil-A cancels camp out amidst protest." And see NBC News Los Angeles, "Orange County Chick-fil-A Opening Greeted by Gay-Rights Protesters."

In related news Glenn Greenwald is pushing back against the fascism in Chicago, "Rahm Emanuel’s dangerous free speech attack" (via Memeorandum):

It’s always easy to get people to condemn threats to free speech when the speech being threatened is speech that they like. It’s much more difficult to induce support for free speech rights when the speech being punished is speech they find repellent. But having Mayors and other officials punish businesses for the political and social views of their executives — regardless of what those views are — is as pure a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech as it gets, and beyond that, is genuinely dangerous.

RTWT.

Scott Lemieux at LGM agrees with Greenwald, although his commenters really, really hate Chick-fil-A (and would like to shut 'em down):

[CEO] Cathey has, in fact, committed [discriminatory] acts. Donating money to organizations that seek to deny me equal rights under the law is an act, and if he and his company and his precious little dog suffer for it, tough shit. If conservatives wanna dish it out, then they can damn well take it.

Fuck him, his chickens, and the drooling Jesus goons who support him.

It goes back and forth like that at the post

Now, somewhat surprisingly, Steve M. at No More Mr. Nice Blog agrees with Greenwald only on practical grounds, and thus disagrees with the First Amendment argument (which shows Steve's a fascist). And here's idiot left-wing fascist Tom Hilton in the comments:

I basically agree with you on the practicalities of the thing. (On the other hand, I think if it does come down to that war the yahoos lose out way more than we do, simply because the most economically dynamic areas of the country are mostly very liberal.)

But Greenwald is, in typically libertardian fashion, full of shit on the principle of the thing. Advocating discrimination is fundamentally not the same thing as advocating anti-discrimination--and in certain contexts, the law actually recognizes that (e.g., the law does not protect speech that creates a hostile environment for a protected class).

Again, how stupid can one be? Boston and Chicago are discriminating against Chick-fil-A, on the basis of political speech no less, constitutionally protected. The progs are going batsh*t crazy on this, and it's really disgusting. Stupid and disgusting. And fascist.

More at Memeorandum.

Mitt Romney Changes His Tune on London 2012 Olympic Games

At the clip, these are Romney's updated comments apparently.

The New York Times reports on the earlier remarks, which were unwise, "Romney’s Remarks on Olympics Cause Stir in London":

LONDON — Mitt Romney’s carefully choreographed trip to London caused a diplomatic stir when he called the British Olympic preparations “disconcerting” and questioned whether Londoners would turn out to support the Games.

“The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging,” Mr. Romney said in an interview with NBC on Wednesday.

That prompted a tart rejoinder from the British prime minister, David Cameron. “We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world. Of course it’s easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere,” an allusion to Salt Lake City, which hosted Games that Mr. Romney oversaw.

Mr. Romney’s verbal slip came on the first day of a highly anticipated trip that was expected to test his skills on foreign diplomacy, terrain in which he is not necessarily as comfortable as when dealing with economic issues. His remarks quickly threatened to usurp the news cycle of his overseas trip, which will also include a visit to Jerusalem to meet with Israeli leaders on Sunday.

Ouch.

So much for rekindling Anglo-Saxon relations.

More at Memeorandum. And see especially Alex Spillius at Telegraph UK, "Commentary: if Mitt Romney doesn’t like us, we shouldn’t care."

Social Unrest Exposes Long-Simmering Ethnic Divisions in Anaheim

Anaheim's a large urban area with a huge minority population, especially Latino (53 percent of the population) --- it's like Santa Ana, except you've got the "happiest place on Earth" bringing in $ billions of taxable revenue every year, and providing postcard images of a resort nirvana at the center of the O.C.

But last weekend's shootings have brought ethnic tensions to a head. The Los Angeles Times reports, "Protests reflect deep divisions in Anaheim":

In a city best known for Disneyland, the Angels and the Ducks, the fatal police shootings of two Latino men over the weekend have uncorked days of furious, sometimes violent protests.

The unrest has exposed long-simmering divisions in Anaheim between the glitz of Disney and professional sports and the struggles in some of the less prosperous Latino neighborhoods in Orange County's largest city.

Of the city's estimated 340,000 residents, 53% are Latino, and the protests have occurred in the city's flatlands, where many of those residents live. Most City Council members hail from the more affluent Anaheim Hills neighborhood to the east. The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed suit claiming the current at-large system of electing the council leaves Latinos poorly represented. The suit said that Anaheim has had only three Latino council members in its history.

The extent of the ethnic discord is hard to assess, as are accusations from some protesters that the Anaheim Police Department mistreats nonwhite residents. City leaders have asked federal and state officials to conduct independent examinations of the shootings and deny that the police harass Latino residents.

Rusty Kennedy, executive director of Orange County Human Relations, said anger over the weekend shootings reflects wider woes in Anaheim's poorest communities, which suffer from unemployment, overcrowding and gang activity. "It's a hot summer, school's out, and frustrations from the economy are certainly being felt," Kennedy said. "There are really good families in these neighborhoods that are just struggling to survive. They have fears their child will get in between the gang members and police."

Continue reading.

It's hard to say for sure, but at least in the first killing, of "Stomper" Diaz, the cops may have overreacted. Diaz was unarmed and shot twice, the second time in the head after he'd already fallen to his knees. The left is getting up in arms about this, because it gives them agenda items to expand social welfare programs and "diversify" the police departments. See Firedoglake, "Four Days of Protests in Anaheim Against Police Brutality of Hispanic Population." And at communist Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!, "Anaheim Police Brutality Sparks Outrage After 2 Latinos Shot Dead and Demonstrators Attacked." Gustavo Arellano, the radical editor of the O.C. Weekly, is interviewed at the piece. It's compelling, and I think he's right about how citizen journalists can debunk the police department's narrative. The department's call to buy citizens' videos of the riots is especially underhanded. Watch it.

UPDATE: Linked at Instapundit. Thanks!