Story here.

Posted by: Ace at 08:11 AM | Comments (48)
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

A new book is out claiming, for the eight millionth time, that it is.

Andrew Sullivan, who vowed that gay marriage would not change conventional marriage one iota and who further vowed that gay marriage would have the salutary effect of reducing and restraining gay male promiscuity, is championing the book, declaring, again, that heterosexual breeders really need to get over their hang-ups about having multiple partners and embrace polyamory.

By the way, he never, ever seems to notice that he's grossly contradictory or outright lying. It just never occurs to him there's an inconsistency here.

Megan McArdle has read the book, too. She writes:

I'm in the middle of Sex at Dawn, the book that's caught the attention of a number of commentators, including Dan Savage and our own Andrew Sullivan. I'm about halfway through the book, and so far, I'm disappointed to say that it reads like fucking cock-twaddle.

Actually, she said "horsefeathers," but I knew what she really wanted to write, so I changed it.

As someone who's wary of evolutionary biology stories which just happen to tell us that our dominant social structures are "natural", I should find the book interesting. Unfortunately, it reads like an undergraduate thesis--cherry-picked evidence stretched far out of shape to support their theory. The language is breathless rather than scientific, and they don't even attempt to paper over the enormous holes in their theory that people are naturally polyamorous.

For example, like a lot of evolutionary biology critiques, this one leans heavily on bonobos (at least so far). Here's the thing: humans aren't like bonobos. And do you know how I know that we are not like bonobos? Because we're not like bonobos. There's no way observed human societies grew out of a species organized along the lines of a bonobo tribe.

She then links this gay guy over at Scientific American, who questions this evolution-says-we're-supposed-to-be-promiscuous thesis. If evolution and "nature" really want us to just have sex with as many partners as we like, why has evolution and "nature" given us such a profound check on such behavior -- sexual possessiveness of our partner's exclusive affection, heart-break over a partner's infidelity, and empathy for our partners making us not wish to hurt them in this very painful way?

Heartbreak is every bit as much a psychological adaptation as is the compulsion to have sex with those other than our partners, and it throws a monster of a monkey wrench into the evolutionists’ otherwise practical polyamory. It’s indeed natural for people—especially men—to seek sexual variety. My partner once likened this to having the same old meal over and over again, for years on end; eventually you’re going to get some serious cravings for a different dish. But I reminded him that people aren’t the equivalent of a plate of spaghetti. Unfortunately, we have feelings.

Unless you have the unfortunate luck of being coupled with a psychopath, or have the good fortune of being one yourself, broken hearts are not easily experienced at either end, nor are they easily mended by reason or waved off by all the evolutionary logic in the world. And because we’re designed by nature to be not only moderately promiscuous but also to become selfish when that natural promiscuity rears its head—again, naturally—in our partners, “reasonable people” are far from immune to getting hurt by their partner’s open and agreed-upon sex with other parties. Monogamy may not be natural, but neither is indifference to our partners’ sex lives or tolerance for polyamory. In fact, for many people, especially those naively taking guidance from evolutionary theorists without thinking deeply enough about these issues, polyamory can lead to devastating effects.

He quotes an anthropologist who outlines the basics of the phenomenon we know as heartbreak, and the clinical description of heartbreak is itself sort of heartbreaking.

There is little doubt that many of us, gun to our heads, would admit, "Sure, I'd like to see what that other person not my spouse is like in bed."

But the polyamory proponents conveniently forget about the directly contrary impulses -- inborn instinct and drive, it seems, every bit as "natural" and "Darwinian" as the spread-the-seed impulse -- that keep most of us monogamous at least most of the time.

There's no doubt that one of these two impulses must be suppressed -- either the impulse to cheat must be suppressed, or the impulse to not wish to hurt someone close to you must be suppressed.

It's not surprising that a confirmed malignant narcissist like Andrew Sullivan thinks it's the latter that's screwing up everyone's good time, and thrills over books that justify ("Science!") sexual sociopathy.

Via Instapundit, who notes a funny comment in McArdle's comment section.

How Sullivan Thinks... He's an extremely narcissistic guy -- he's always contriving some reasons why his personal preferences are morally required to be everyone's preferences.

Hence, his creation, as critics called it, a one-man political party, the Party of Andrew. And then later, when he found the 2000 year old church to contradict the Sacred Scrolls of Sullivan, the Church of Andrew.

So here's what's going on: He has a lot invested in the idea that gay marriage must be equal to, in every way, if not superior to, straight marriage, because he's in a gay "marriage." (Apparently one with a loosey-goosey policy on fidelity.)

Now, if he doesn't feel this same need that most straights do to be monogamous, that would imply that his marriage is deficient in some manner; that he is deficient in some manner. That would imply that gay marriage is... lesser than straight marriage, as it lacks (for him, at least) one of the main features of straight marriage.

He can't have that. He can't and he won't.

Thus, any heterosexual (or homosexual, for that matter) who retains a sentimental attachment to the ideal of lifelong exclusive commitment must be irrational and fundamentally broken in some manner. Science ("Science!") must endeavor to prove this.

And to prove that Sullivan is as he conceives himself -- the most superlative life-form on the planet Earth (and probably most other planets, too, but he'll get to them as time permits).

Posted by: Ace at 07:45 AM | Comments (206)
Post contains 1039 words, total size 7 kb.

Given that the polling is pretty consistent on this issue, shouldn't the MFM start calling Obama, Bloomberg and other supporters of the Ground Zero Victory mosque "fringe elements" and "a tiny minority"?

A poll released Tuesday found 71 percent of New Yorkers want the developers of an Islamic center and mosque near ground zero to voluntarily move the project.

The Quinnipiac University poll finds the same percentage of New Yorkers want Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to investigate sources of funding for the project in lower Manhattan.

Cuomo, a Democrat running for governor, has said little about the issue. He says it's protected by the Constitution, although he will investigate if concerns are found.

The poll finds 53 percent of registered voters feel the Muslim developers shouldn't be allowed to build a couple blocks from ground zero. Yet about the same share says they have a right to.

Obviously, just because 70% of people think something doesn't mean they are right. Still, you'd think the fringe minority element would take a moment to reflect and consider why they are so far outside the American mainstream. They never do because in this case the 'wackos' are the self anointed arbiters of "right thinking" and morality. Sure less than 30% agree with them but as long as it's the right 30% and they are in it together, then they are the holders of wisdom and the masses just don't get it.

Funny how 20% who think Obama is a Muslim* shows a dangerous rise in the number of lunatics in the country but 29%? Oh, well, that's an important sector of the American public who must be listened to and celebrated.

Two strange stories that are related enough:

The FBI actually has to defend itself from CAIR types for having the temerity to invite Robert Spencer to speak to a terrorism task force.

Via Michelle Malkin, The US State Department is buying thousands of copies of Ground Zero mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's book.

*Just to be clear, no, I don't think Obama is a Muslim.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:33 AM | Comments (76)
Post contains 365 words, total size 3 kb.

At Hot Air, this gem:

President Obama's top education official urged government employees to attend a rally that the Rev. Al Sharpton organized to counter a larger conservative event on the Mall.

"ED staff are invited to join Secretary Arne Duncan, the Reverend Al Sharpton, and other leaders on Saturday, Aug. 28, for the 'Reclaim the Dream' rally and march," began an internal e-mail sent to more than 4,000 employees of the Department of Education on Wednesday.

...

Although the e-mail does not violate the Hatch Act, which forbids federal employees from participating in political campaigns, Education Department workers should feel uneasy, said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute.

"It sends a signal that activity on behalf of one side of a political debate is expected within a department. It's highly inappropriate ... even in the absence of a direct threat," Boaz said. "If we think of a Bush cabinet official sending an e-mail to civil servants asking them to attend a Glenn Beck rally, there would be a lot of outrage over that."

Well, as Michelle Obama said, Barack Obama isn't going to allow you to live your normal lives.

Posted by: Ace at 07:15 AM | Comments (53)
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

His pitch:

This year's Republican primary in Alaska has come down to a fight between the establishment and the conservative grassroots. Unfortunately, Joe Miller and his homegrown base of conservative Alaskans are facing legal battles with well-funded special interests committed to maintaining the status quo in Washington.

With your support, Joe can continue his momentum; stave off the inevitable lawsuits, and cross the finish line with another victory for the conservative movement. Please donate 50, 75, or 100 dollars to preserve the integrity of Alaska's electoral system and ensure that the true conservative is on the ballot in November.

Posted by: Ace at 06:46 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

Really good. The first couple of minutes are so-so, but give it a chance until he gets on a rhetorical roll.

Posted by: Ace at 06:19 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

A guest post by Michael Smith of Heritage Alliance.

I asked Michael Smith to write us up a guide to organizing before the election. He'd offered advice in this area before, and I thought I should take him up on it.

Below, his essay. It's a great, detailed DIY guide to local organizing (and local insurgency). A lot of people like to blog or comment because they feel they don't have a voice in our actual politics; I know that was the main reason I started.

But, for those with a bit of social agility and talent for organization (and if you haven't tried, maybe you have that talent but don't know it yet), there is a more tangible way to have a real voice in politics.

I know that if morons here were well-represented up in NY-23 we never would have had to learn to spell the name "Dede Scozzaflava" or whatever the hell it was called.

....

Grassroots Organization... For Morons

by Michael Smith,
Heritage Alliance.

Nolan Ryan used to annoy sports reporters because every time they'd ask him the same mindless pre-game question they ask all the other players ("What's it going to take to win tonight?"), he'd give the same answer: "The key to winning this ball game is to outscore the opposition."

Now that conservatives have been throwing rallies, renting billboards, and crashing town halls for 18 months, they're coming to realize that by 7 p.m. Nov. 2, what counts is how many votes they've put on the board.

How to get votes? Organization. When it's done right, it wins elections--and it's just about the only way to beat an incumbent.

More importantly this season: While felons and Democrat election officials can steal a close one, they can't beat a blowout. We need a blowout.

Organizing voters simply means having the names and contact information for, and communicating with, people who vote like you in your area. That area can be as small as your block, precinct, state legislative district, or U.S. Congress district--whatever you think that you, as an activist, can handle.

But why bother? Especially if you live in a safe GOP district, or the opposite--one designed as a corral for Democrats. Either way, can you hope to move the needle?

Damn the torpedoes! Choose from any of the following valid reasons to organize:

* Small numbers can swing primaries, when only 10 percent of registered voters show up.

* Are all your representatives--state house, state senate, U.S. Congress--solid conservatives? Nothing can get them voting right faster than the knowledge that somebody is organizing voters in their district. If they don't, the primary is their term limit. (And, as Ace noted recently, the primary is where personnel changes must be made. By general-election time, the choice is often between meh and bleah.)

* Many states (such as Texas, where I live) need to build a big state-house majority for redistricting. Since 2006 they've suffered with Democrats in seats that had always been "safe" Republican.

* There's no guarantee that the Republican who replaces your Democrat this November won't turn RINO. More on that later.

But let's look at how organizing benefits you personally.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:00 AM | Comments (170)
Post contains 2351 words, total size 14 kb.

Good News: By the end of the year we'll have doubled the number of Predators patrolling the southern border!!

Bad News: We currently have 3.

Posted by: Geoff at 05:50 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

....

*cough...

Thanks to Andy at Lost Chicken Blog.

Posted by: LauraW at 05:50 AM | Comments (177)
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

Brand Democrat™ from Slublog.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:22 AM | Comments (83)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.