Captain Needa has a point...

Above: I'm not kidding. It really is
unlivable for like 5 months a year.

As you probably know, I'm originally from a medium-sized city in Upstate New York called Rochester, and-you didn't know that? Really? I know I've mentioned it before. Like, a few times. Remember? It's the town with the Alec Baldwin-approved grocery store, hilariously out-of-touch county officials and an extremely low tolerance for transphobic radio hosts. No? Unbearable winters and confusing local elections? None of this rings a bell? Wow, it's like you don't know me at all.

Anyway, researchers at the University of Rochester (the very same institution that last year proved all religions wrong) have invented a cloaking device. Yes a goddamn cloaking device. Freak out nerds, the future is here.

"They can't have disappeared. No university optics program that small has a cloaking device."

-Captain Needa,

shortly before being

force-choked/fired

"Could I get you to stand over there and look
through the lens? Awesome. Now stand still..."

-Predator

Ok, you can stop freaking out now, the future isn't really here. After all, this is science, so we're going to have to walk things back a bit. If you're anything like me, when someone says 'cloaking device,' you think of something that can render a three-dimensional object invisible, like a Romulan Warbird or the Predator. The -sigh- "cloaking device" developed by the U of R's optics department works by placing a series of four lenses between the viewer and the object you don't want to look at. You can then look through the lenses and, assuming they're large enough and precisely arranged, see through to the other side. So, like, hurray? I guess.


Just so I'm clear, it's not so much a cloaking device as it is an 'elaborate system of lenses,' right? Which, sure, is pretty damn impressive but if you're going to come out and call something a cloaking device, it should at least-

"So you're not impressed? Tell me, how does your cloaking device work? What's that?
You didn't invent one? Oh, maybe you should stop talking then. I've got science to do."

-Doctoral Student Joseph Choi,

putting me in my place and deservedly so

Or you could ask people to do this and get
the same effect for free. Suck on it, Choi.

-oh. Well, I guess that shut me up. Anyway, according to the technology's developers, their system, called the Rochester Cloak (yeah, that's what they're calling it), can be scaled up to hide larger objects and has practical applications including giving truck drivers a better view behind and allowing surgeons to see through their own hands while operating. And if that's not cool enough (it's not...) the components are off-the-shelf meaning you could build one yourself for like $100, which is relatively cheap. I assume...I mean I've never actually shopped around for four square inches of invisibility.

Re-armageddon!

Look out rapture fans, they're rebooting the apocalypse! That's right, Left Behind is getting a reboot powered by the unbeatable box office gold that is Nicolas Cage.

Nicolas Cage's most recent role was in the short-lived internet meme:
'Hey, that guy from the 1800's kind of looks like Nicolas Cage. Spooky, huh?'

Co-authors Lahaye and Jenkins are all
 that stand between us and the Gayluminati.

What the shit is Left Behind you ask? Make yourself comfortable. I'll explain. Left Behind is a series of novels by Tim LaHaye, an evangelical minister and a novelist called Jerry B. Jenkins, who I'm guessing did all the heavy-lifting. I mean, LaHaye's got a lot on his plate already what with warning everyone about the gays and the Illuminati. You know, the secret international conspiracy that's been manipulating global events in an effort to establish a one-world government? Oh, yes, he's one of those. Check out some of his tin-foil hat-worthy ramblings:

"Having read at least fifty books on the illuminati, I am convinced that it exists and can be blamed for many of man's inhumane actions against his fellow man during the past two hundred years."

-Tim LaHaye,
spouting some crazy

You know, I've read a lot of books about wizards, but it doesn't mean
we can blame them for the last 200 years of people being dicks to each other.

Above: Buddhist monks totally
wasting their time seeking a state of
enlightened detachment...suckers

But I digress. LaHaye's books are are about the rapture, which, according some Christians, is when all true-believers will be beamed up to heaven to watch the rest of us amoral heathens suffer through a thousand years war leading up to Judgement Day. You see, in the Left Behind universe, God only raptures those who subscribe to a super-specific branch of theological belief. Which one? Why Premillennial dispensationalist eschatological protestant Christianity of course. Which kind of begs the question: why is God such a dick?

I mean, if there was really one true belief system and the rest were just decoys or traps there to damn people to an eternity of pitch fork poking and Jean-Paul Sartre plays, why would God or whoever bury it in some bullshit secret code in the craziest book of the Bible? Like, is he trying to get us to buy the strategy guide?

It's goddamn Deborah Cliff all over again...*

"Holy shit, look out! God's love
is everywhere! We're doomed!"

-Left Behind, The Comic Book

If it sounds like I'm a little peeved that such a book/movie/video game/soulless media franchise, even exists much less is getting a big-budget reboot, it's because I am. There's just something transparently wish-fullfilly about writing a story about God proving your worldview 100% correct and then forcing everyone who disagrees with you to endure a thousand years of horror. And for a guy who presents himself as an authority on a religion ostensibly about things like peace and love, the whole thing seems a little, what's the phrase? Contrary? Aggressively hypocritical? Horseshit?

But what do I know? I'm ragging on things I don't know anything about and have absolutely no stake in, so please, take my ranting with the requisite measure of salt. How much salt? Oh, I'd say about 5'2" and hundred and twenty pounds or so? I don't know, whatever a bronze-age woman might have weighed.

"Look, in my defense, I did warn Lot's wife not to look back
at the spectacular scene of fire and destruction behind
them. What was I supposed to do? Not murder her?" 

-God

*+5 to your nerd roll. If you don't know what I'm talking about, it's this puzzle in Simon's Quest in which you have to find a crystal and then-you know what? You could google it, but really you just had to be there.

Oh, and one more thing...

Did I mention that Cage will be playing an airline pilot named Rayford Steele? Yup, Rayford Steele. And if that didn't stretch credulity enough in a movie about the rapture, Rayford goddamn Steele doesn't even moonlight as a gay porn star. Can you believe it?

Co-staring Chad Micheal Murray as Shaft Ramwell
and Lance E. Nichols as Dakota Thrustmore.

Let's Celebrate Dependence Day!

Turns out breaking up is harder tae dae than anybody in Scotland thought. Yesterday, voters in the United Kingdom's hat decided to continue under the iron-fisted rule of the British Parliament instead of going it alone. And that's cool I guess.

Above: Hat in blue. 

Pictured: British camouflage, late 1700's.
If you look carefully, you might
be able to spot the soldiers.

The whole process was way the hell more civilized than say, dumping tea in the harbor and taking up arms against garishly dressed English troops, but now that it's over, aren't things going to be a bit awkward? I mean, the vote was 55-45. That's a lot of bummed out Scots who came within caber tossing distance of an independent Scotland only to have their bag-pipes deflated at the last possible moment by-wow, hey sorry about all the tired stereotypes, I'm an American who went to public school, so my understanding of places that aren't the U.S. is kind of limited. I'll stop.

"Hey, just to show there's no hard feelings,
I'm taking everyone out for Fro-yo."

-Ulysses S. Grant, 1865

What I'm trying to say is that no matter where you come down on the whole independence thing, you've got to admit that this was a close vote between two completely understandable points of view, and it's not going to be easy going back to work next week with people who didn't vote your way. Like here in America, we flip out at each other over stupid shit like Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays, or how many guns people should be allowed to take to Chipotle. Thursday's referendum was about whether or not their country should be its own country. So now what do they do?

For the time being, Scottish people can look forward to a hilariously named consolation prize, devo-max (a bunch of expanded powers for the Scottish Parliament), but it's not quite the same thing as blue-faced freedom (sorry, last one, I promise).

For the winners: delicious cupcakes.
For the losers: cupcakes, but they'll
taste kind of like defeat. Also vanilla.

What? Have you ever even tasted chicken
 tikka masala? God save the Queen, man.

On the other hand, being part of Great Britain can't be all that bad. They have a democratic system of government, decent schools and a high standard of living. Of course self determination is always going to win out over-oh, also they have healthcare, a strong currency and are well respected on the international stage. But still, being in charge of one's own destiny is certainly preferable to-did I mention that they have amazing Indian food and Doctor Who? Um, is it too late to sign up?

Anyway, hang tight Scotland. You've waited 300 years, a few more won't hurt. Until then, smile, pretend to enjoy whatever the hell Branston Pickle is supposed to be and then, when the time is right, blamo: tea in the harbor. They never see it coming, trust us.

Um, but maybe you could skip the racist disguises... 

Let's take the bait!

Above: I reiterate: no. 

Um, no. Just no. In fact, I'm going to go so far as to suggest that this thing isn't real but instead an elaborate hoax. Like maybe this is all part of somebody's plan to incite outrage and then have a good laugh at how ridiculous everyone who is upset by this is. Well slow clap to you Mr. (or Ms.) Tasteless Sweatshirt Hoax Mastermind. Huh? Oh, you don't know what the hell I'm talking about? That's fair. Here's the link. And because you're not really going to click on anything I tell you to anyway, here's another link to whatever sort of internet pornography you find the most arousing. Ha! That was a trick-wait, did you click on it? Ok, click on the porn link. Ha! There, I cleverly tricked you into reading the thing that I'm talking about-you didn't click, did you? Goddamnit.

You know, with electroreceptors in their snouts.
 Haven't you ever bought anything on eBay?

Fine, here, I'll explain: if you clicked on the link, you'd be reading a story about Urban Outfitters and their $129 Kent State sweatshirt. Yeah, $129. Holy shit Urban Outfitters, how are you still a store? Anyway, the shirt totally looks like it's splattered in blood; presumably in reference to the 1970 massacre at Kent State University. The sweatshirts quickly sold out, not because anyone actually finds them funny, but because the kind of people that buy shit just so they can sell it on eBay at a huge profit can sense collectibles the way sharks detect the distant thrashing of their prey.

Yes, even the Silvan Elves...and they're
usually good sports about this sort of thing.

But so what? I mean, everyone freaking out over this sweatshirt is kind of playing into their hands, right? Like, they do shit like this all the time, in fact, most of their Wikipedia entry is about how they routinely create controversy (re: free media attention) with their products. Behold this link. They've pissed off religious groups, people with eating disorders, LGBT groups, the Anti-Defamation League and all the races. All of them, even the fictional ones.

My issue with this particularly shameless attention grab is not so much the unforgivably cynical exploitation of human suffering, but the masterfully empty non-apology they issued in response to criticisms:

Pictured: what they're
doing, but with words.

"Urban Outfitters sincerely apologizes for any offense our Vintage Kent State Sweatshirt may have caused. It was never our intention to allude to the tragic events that took place at Kent State in 1970 and we are extremely saddened that this item was perceived as such. The one-of-a-kind item was purchased as part of our sun-faded vintage collection. There is no blood on this shirt nor has this item been altered in any way. The red stains are discoloration from the original shade of the shirt and the holes are from natural wear and fray. Again, we deeply regret that this item was perceived negatively and we have removed it from our website to avoid further upset."

-Urban Outfitters

explaining that we're all idiots

and need to stop whining

We are saddened...was purchased...this item was perceived negatively. The passive voice and blame transference contained within the text are an opus. It somehow manages to have a net-responsibility quotient of -3. In fact, just by looking at it the reader is legally more at fault than Urban Outfitter. Whoever wrote this was a goddamn wizard.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of Public Relationship Managers,
for they are shameless and quick to bullshit."

-Steve, Public Relationship Manager

Urban Outfitters Inc. 

Here, let's take it apart, slippery sentence by slippery sentence. You may want to shower afterwards:

Urban Outfitters sincerely apologizes for any offense our Vintage Kent State Sweatshirt may have caused. - Your delicate sensibilities and not our soulless publicity stunt, are the reason you're angry.

It was never our intention to allude to the tragic events that took place at Kent State in 1970 and we are extremely saddened that this item was perceived as such. - What? Kent State? Never heard of it. Also, shut up.

The one-of-a-kind item was purchased as part of our sun-faded vintage collection. - What part of sun-faded don't you understand? Your problem is with the G-Type star we're orbiting, go cry to it or whatever. We don't care.

There is no blood on this shirt nor has this item been altered in any way. - You're an idiot and will buy whatever we tell you, both figuratively and literally.

The red stains are discoloration from the original shade of the shirt and the holes are from natural wear and fray. - We just found these, like in a box or something. Who knows how they got like that? That'll be $129...fucking idiots...

Again, we deeply regret that this item was perceived negatively and we have removed it from our website to avoid further upset. - Again, this whole thing is basically your fault. Oh, and now you can't buy one even if you wanted to. Pussies...

Or everyone could just, I don't know,
 stop shopping there? I mean they are
objectively terrible people. Like awful.

Look, I get that this kind of controversy is nothing but awesome for Urban Outfitters. Their company's name is all over the news and now everyone's going to keep checking the website to see what horrible thing they'll do next. Great. But at the very least they could do us the courtesy of respecting our intelligence and admitting that this was a dick move. Like seriously: try something like this: Sorry everybody, that was a pretty asshole thing to do. Our bad. Anyway, check out our website. Uh, assuming you're affluent and attractive that is.

Everybody loves a parade! (except Bill Donohue)

Man, pulling out is their
answer for everything...*

Brace yourselves municipal celebration fans, the Catholic League has pulled out of New York's St. Patrick's Day parade. Why? Because gay people. Oh yes, for the first time in the event's 253 year history, an LGBT organization, OUT@NBCUniversal, will be allowed to march. NBC is the network that broadcasts the parade, and OUT@NBCUniversal is their (cumbersomely acronymed) Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Transgender and Straight Ally Employee Alliance or LGBTSAE. So while it's cool that a gay group will finally get to march, my enthusiasm is somewhat blunted by the fact that this particular one sounds like a glorified focus group tasked with finding new ways to get gay people to watch America's Got Talent. But whatever, it's still progress, right?

Anyway, the move upset Catholic League's president Bill Donohue, who insists that his issue isn't with an LGBT group participating, but rather with the event's organizers making an exception for them. Officially, organizations who espouse a political message aren't allowed to march, so why should OUT@NBCUniversal be allowed in while, say, a pro-life group would remain unwelcome?

"It's just not faaaaiir!"

-Bill Donohue, speaking from 

behind his official pouting desk

Also, nothing kills a festive atmosphere like
people calling each other baby-murderers.

Because shut up, that's why. The problem with Donohue's argument is that he assumes that being gay is the same thing as making a political statement, which ok, it's not. Pro-life organizations however, are political as they exist for the sole purpose of speaking out against a woman's right to choose. Wherever you come down on the issue, it's a matter of opinion, right? Some people are pro-life, some are pro-choice and no amount of sign waving at a parade is going to settle it. It's a contentious, emotional issue and for these reasons neither side of the issue gets to march.

Ok, so if there's no politics at the parade, how come Donohue's Catholic League has been allowed to march for all these years? Well, the Catholic League isn't out there endorsing any particular message. Sure, they're a religious group, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're political.

Above: A completely unrelated picture of Texas Governor Rick Perry
praying in front of a giant waving American flag. 

"Opposing discrimination? 
I don't know, sounds kinda gay..."

-Bill Donohue

The League was formed back in 1973 to defend "...the right of Catholics--lay and clergy alike-- to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination." So really they're an advocacy group, just like pretty much every LGBT organization ever. The line between advocacy and straight up political group is hazy, yeah, but I guess this is one of those times when we have to use our judgement. Is advocating fair and equal treatment the same thing as pushing a political agenda? Can't we all agree that everyone should be able to 'participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination'?

Who the hell is that,
some kind of Irish Santa?

Ok, so the truth is we probably can't all agree, and that sucks quite a bit. But what does any of this have to do with St. Patrick's Day parades and reenforcing negative Irish stereotypes? Here's what Bill has to say about it:

"...the parade is not about gays or abortion or anything other than St. Patrick."

-Bill Dono-wait, has he ever

even been to the parade?

I'm confused. Was St. Patrick a
leprechaun or an alcoholic?

Yeah, no. Sure, the parade has its roots in celebrating a Catholic saint but we're way past that now. For almost everybody, St. Patrick is an excuse to have a parade and the people that participate in it do so because they want to be a part of NYC's biggest celebration. The parade's organizers didn't lift their ban on politics, they just acknowledged that being gay isn't any more a political stance than being Catholic, and that you shouldn't write-off an entire community as a one-issue political group. But by dropping out of the parade, Bill Donohue made the Catholic League just that: a one-issue organization.

The shame here is that It would have been pretty cool to see the Catholic League marching along side an LGBT organization in common celebration of Ireland's patron saint of snake drowning. Too bad Donohue had to get all butt-hurt about it. Now, instead of 'participating in American public life' he'll be sitting at home, watching the parade on TV and harumphing over how the gays have ruined everything.

"First marriage, then professional sports and now your pitiful
St. Patrick's Day parade. Yes, everything is going to plan. Mwa ha ha!"

-Gays

*um...sorry.

Yes, Telepathy!

So if you're anything like me, you enjoy communicating with others but are sick of having to form words with your mouth like some kind of caveman. Well that's all about to change. Scientists from Harvard University have invented telepathy. Yes, goddamn telepathy.

Pictured: two hyper-evolved energy beings fighting a mind-war with
psionic lightning bolts. Not pictured: what telepathy actually looks like.

Above: Yeah, one of those things, but
probably not made out of a colander. I hope.

The scienceticians in question hooked someone up to an EEG machine (see right) in India, and had them think really hard about the words 'hola' and 'ciao.' The machine then picked up on their brainwaves, converted them into a file and emailed that to three other test subjects in France. There, the file was then translated into light pulses which flashed in the subjects' peripheral vision and I guess made them think 'hola' and 'ciao,' uh, somehow. Sorcery probably. The point is, some geographically-challenged scientists spent a shit-load of grant money to say 'hello' to three people in France in like every language but french, and they did it all the way from India using science.

"Muzjiks? That can't be a real word-
Wah? No, no, I'm totally listening
to you...you, uh, crazy muzhik..."

Sure, yeah, they could have just called their colleagues in France using their phones or Skype or something, but they did it with their minds and that's kind of awesome. Well, in theory. I suppose there's a decent chance that in the future, everyone could be using this breakthrough to telepathically text or check their email without other people knowing. Like you could be sitting there thinking that you're having a conversation with someone when really they're playing Words With Friends with their minds and occasionally chiming in with 'uh-huh' and 'oh, yeah, I know, right?' just to make you think they're paying attention. God, what a dick this hypothetical future brain-texter is. I don't know why you even hang out with them.

Anyway, there's almost certainly some non-future dick applications for the technology. People who've lost the ability to speak for example, may finally be able to communicate with the outside world through direct-yeah, who am I kidding? We're like a decade away from Apple iBrain and a barrage of frontal lobe advertising. Enjoy!

"My new iBrain? Oh, it's great. Right now, I'm communicating telepathically with my sister in 
Baltimore, buying a book off Amazon and watching a YouTube video of a baby goat. Yup, the flood
of information is uh...it's pretty constant. I can't...uh, can't even turn it off...hey, anyone got an icepick?"

We hardly knew ye, Bub...

Whoa, Marvel is going to kill off Wolverine? Huh. I mean, finally, right? For those unsure as to why anyone should care, congratulations, you must live a well-rounded life. You're probably into totally reasonable interests like watching the sports and going to clubs or whatever, so allow me to explain why this is both a big goddamn deal and also complete bullshit.

Rabid sports fans who paint themselves and shout at people playing a game: normal.
People who dress up like characters from Attack on Titan and go to Comic-Con: weirdos.

Oh shit, I think they're on to us...

Anyway, Wolverine is a short, hairy, Canadian mutant with stupid hair who smells like beer and has a crush on a woman who's like a hundred years younger than him. His super-powers include adamantium-coated claws which he uses to murder/stab his problems away and a healing ability that makes him functionally immortal. Ah, but then how...? Good question. You see his powers were recently shut down by an intelligent virus from the Microverse. It's the kind of explanation you'd expect from the people who hand out home-made flyers about how clouds are part of a vast international conspiracy, but there it is.

"I'm the best there is at what I do.
But what I do best is look dreamy."

-Not Wolverine

Now if you're mainly familiar with the live-action X-Men movies, you're probably wondering what five-foot nothing of hirsute borderline alcoholic murder frenzy has to do with singing Australian beef castle Hugh Jackman. You are not alone. It seems like a miscast akin to the time someone thought Jonathan Rhys Meyers would make a totally good Henry VIII, one of history's fattest and most ginger tyrants. Try and keep in mind however, that the people who made the X-Men movies like money and would like the average movie-goer to give them more. Take X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It was mostly pointless and ruined Deadpool, but enough people went to watch Hugh Jackman be ruggedly bestubbled for 107 minutes that they made a sequel. With ninjas.

The point is, people love Wolverine. He's one of the most popular comic book characters ever, and at any given time is a member of the X-Men, X-Force, a couple Avengers teams and stars in two or three books of his own.  He can't stay dead for long, he's load-bearing.

"I'm sorry folks, Wolverine is just making us too much money. 
If we don't kill him off, people won't respect us as artists."

"Ashes to ashes dust to-oh who're
we kidding? Give her six weeks."

Sure, Wolverine will actually die in an upcoming issue, but in comics, particularly Marvel comics, characters die and come back to life on a fairly regular basis, especially marketable characters. Captain America, Nightcrawler, Spider-Man, they've all died and then come back. Back in the 90's Colossus contracted a thinly-veiled HIV allegory, died, was cremated and still managed to come back to life. On Earth-616, death isn't so much the inevitable fate we must all accept as the natural conclusion of life, so much as it is like going on sabbatical. Whenever the writers are bored, or have run out of ideas or just need to get some free media coverage they kill off a major character. They wait a few weeks (or sometimes years), and then reveal that the character we saw die was secretly a clone, or a robot or possessed by Doctor Octopus (yup) or something.

It's a way of squeezing a little more interest out of a played out character and as much as everybody loves Wolverine, you have to admit, the writers have done just about everything they can do with him. He's been a bad guy, a zombie, a samurai, Hugh Jackman, a private eye in the 1930's, and has currently taken over for Professor X (also dead at the moment) as headmaster of the school. Like, where else can they go with him?

Settle down, if he can come back from this, he can come back from a transparent marketing decision.

Ten things I hate about Furk

"What part of 'gay people made me
hire a prostitute' don't you understand?"

Sorry marriage equality fans, it's time to pack it in. It turns out that the increasing social and legal acceptance of same-sex marriage is actually going to "...undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage..." Yup, that's right, gay marriage will make married straight people cheat on their partners. Science says so. This comes as welcome news for people in opposite-sex relationships who have been having unprotected, anonymous sex for years with multiple partners and don't quite know how to explain the open sores and persistent crotch itch to their spouses.

"You just had to have marriage
equality, didn't you?"

And that's just one of the Family Research Council's (or FRC, remember the Furks?) Ten Arguments from Social Sciences Against Same-Sex Marriage. Of course, they're not so much arguments as they are unsupported homophobic assertions that letting gay people get married will cause the collapse of civilization and the extinction of the human race, but tomato to-mah-to, right? On the surface, it all sounds pretty cockamamie, but if anyone's got their finger on the pulse of the social sciences it's the Family Research Council. After all, research is their middle name.

What? They said a number
of studies. Zero is a number.

I mean, it's not like they'd just make up a bunch of bullshit and call it research, right? Here's what either Mat Staver or possibly Matt Barber (co-hosts of the Faith and Freedom Radio) show have to say:

"...we know this to be the case...a number of studies have shown that uh, same-sex, particularly homosexual males, simply monogamy isn't part of the equation."

-I don't know which Matt that is,

but they both sound like dicks

See? There you have it, a number of studies have shown that gay people ruin everything. We just can't argue with facts like that...

Or can notn't we? I'm going to say yes...I think. I'm not really sure can notn't means, but I am fairly certain we can argue with a couple of douches whose only experience with the social sciences comes from Leviticus.

"Yeah, listen Nicole, the guys that wrote this were a bunch of misogynistic old men living in the bronze age.
Do you think maybe you could stop holding this up as justification for treating gay people like shit?

"How else are we supposed to back up
our ridiculous claims? With 'facts'?"

-The Family Research Council

If you haven't already, check out their list. It's totally supported by scientific research. Well, except when said research disagrees with the point they want to make. Here's what Dr. Kyle Pruett from Yale had to say about anti-gay groups using his research:

"They were cherry picking research for their own purposes--they would have seen that my research doesn't support their conclusions at all."

-Dr. Kyle Pruett, calling bullshit on groups
like FRC for misusing his research

Scholarly research is a long, painstaking
process. So like, why bother when you
can just make shit up about gay people?

Also, Eleanor MacCoby's book, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together, is cited as supporting the assertion that children need both a mother and a father to be healthy. But this amicus brief prepared by the American Sociological Association in support of the Supreme Court's decision to throw out DOMA, specifically calls out the use of MacCoby's work as disingenuous as her research only dealt with opposite-sex parents and has nothing to do with same-sex couples. Turns out research isn't so hard after all. 

Look, I'm not a social scientist or a law student or anything, I'm just some jerk with a blog about sci-fi and jizz-wailing who spent 10 minutes Googling the FRC's bibliography. Whoever wrote their list is like a college student who just copy/pastes their term paper off of Wikipedia and assumes their professor's too stupid to figure it out. Scooby and the Mystery Gang could have cracked this case. Without Velma.

My research indicates that Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, 

can only become sexually aroused by starving kittens and them forcing them to fight.
(Source: Dr. Smarty McResearchington, University of Your Mom's House Press, 1997)