I haven't seen the book, but I do know that the studies tend to be small and not very representative of anything. Given that gay parenting is only starting to approach something resembling the mainstream, one would expect that the environments and some of the outcomes would be different from the norm, but not necessarily in a pathological direction. Among other things, these are kids who are more likely to be growing up in places like Takoma Park, MD, Decatur GA, or Evanston, IL than say Greenville, SC which probably influences some of the findings. The outcomes regarding sexual partners depend on just how small the effects are and the description here is less than useless. Moreover, they are talking about differences in mean (aka average) number of partners and there is sure to be a big range in gay and non-gay households. Unfortunately, that's the kind of thing that opponents of gay marriage and gay parents would gladly blow out of proportion with help from the Right wing noise machine, and non-wingnut journalists seem incapable of inferring anything from numbers, so its a distortion that could stick.

Comprehensive programs usually include abstinence, but abstinence-only programs don't do the converse. The effects seen in this analysis provide modest support for comprehensive sex education but importantly note the lack of negative effects on a population basis.

The two dissenters were probably put on the review panel for political reasons. One is a political appointee in Georgia's governor's Republican administration. The other is part of a non-profit consulting firm that makes its living off the conservative agenda, masquerading as a research organization.

Is he still a fundie and a minister? Reality shows seem to get the narcisisstic and unlikable and he seems to fit the bill. It's sad that he attempted suicide last year but that does not make him likable, decent or a candidate for canonization. I'm sure this is a typical trainwrcek that will attract popcorn eating rubber neckers and that's about the level where Aames seems to belong.

It's odd how many middling institutions are listed here. Why on earth would someone get a big salary to runa medium sized university of ok, but not outstanding rep in Stockton or Tulsa? The guy at University of the Pacific was a professor of mine, long ago and later department chair. I can't imagine paying him a million to do anything.

I recently finished "My Lives" which showed that White was an excellent writer, until he tried to explore people's motives and personalities--he clearly has no insight into himself or anyone else. One of the omissions in "My Lives" was any consideration of his peers--I guess that's what the new book is for. Vidal is equally narcissistic and often has silly opinions, but he can write rings about White. I think White would have had a good career writing Time-Life books (his first real job) or jazzing up university textbooks (his next job). Beyond that, he was lucky enough to be part of the first cohort of gay writers to have significant commercial success and mainstream critical attention. His novels are really much like those of his [peers in this group--coming of age, AIDS, aging (for the ones lucky enough to age). Any number of people are equally or more talented. After reading "My Lives", only a need for intense bitchiness or nasty voyeurism would make me want to read his new book, which sounds like frivolous score settling.

So Mccain is back to packaging himself as a "moderate"? Is he also trying to act like a grown-up (but not like a geezer)?

McCain is loved by the media, which may help in this, but the arc of his career seems to be one of twists, turns, and temper tantrums. I'm a bit skeptical that he can help reshape the party. Candidates remain hemmed in by the need to please Grover Norquist and the Christian Right and I'm not sure these candidates will really do this, plus Whitman's discovery of civic life is rather recent. She seems like just another rich person who has decided that they'd be great in political office, despite a lcak of any relevant experience. perhaps McCain is concerned about his legacy--on close examination he really doesn't have one. He's cashed in his credibility on numerous issues such as campaign reform and torture, with little apparent anguish. Like Bush he's always been a mixture of family connections and emotional immaturity.

A number of the neocons started out as Trotskyites and there are echos of his intelletucalism and combative dogmatism in their approach to issues. His great-granddaughter is the head of one of the NIH institutes and has a similar rep, especially in the dogma & rigidity department.

It's about the odd interlude between the death of Joe McCarthy and the counterculture age of the 60s. It's Rob & laura Petrie country, not Ozzie & Harriet or Leave it to Bevaer whcih were becoming dated at that point. It was a time of great optimism, despite the Cold War; a time when people were starting to relax and and try to keep that glow of youth into middle age. Conventionality still ruled, but the promise of marriage, family, and the suburbs was slowly being challenged. Don's daughter seems to have angry hippie girl written all over her--I see anti-war protests and feminism in her future. The son will wind up listening to indie rock, getting stoned in his dorm room, and either being gay or marrying a whiner like his sister or a nag. Don is a drifter who doesn't like to be tied down--we were hit over the head with that last night. He's the kind of guy who probably will leave a resignation on his desk in about 1969 and disappear on a world tour with a backpack.