January 10, 2012

GAY MARRIAGE THREATENS ‘THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY ITSELF’


POPE BENEDICT: GAY MARRIAGE THREATENS ‘THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY ITSELF’

Pope Benedict XVI has a warning for all mankind: Gay marriage is one of a number of threats to the family unit that holds the potential to undermine “the future of humanity itself.” This warning, which is sure to cause angst and pain among those who disagree with its sentiment, comes as other Catholic figures are using strong language to condemn pro-same-sex marriage policies.
During an address to diplomats from nearly 180 nations, the pope discussed the importance of education and the need to reinforce the traditional man and wife paradigm. According to the Daily Mail, these were some of the pope’s strongest comments yet about gay marriage, as he said that the family unit is necessary to sustain both education and development.
“This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society,” he said. “Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself. The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and states.”
Benedict went on to call for policies that promote the family. While these statements are bold, the pope isn’t the only Catholic leader speaking out against gay marriage. El Pais is reporting that Demetrio Fernández, the Bishop of Córdoba (Spain), recently claimed that UNESCO has crafted an elaborate program that will make half of the world’s population gay in the next 20 years. Fernández‘s comments came during a sermon he delivered on Spain’s Boxing Day, a holiday held on December 26.
“The Minister for Family of the Papal Government, Cardinal Antonelli, told me a few days ago in Zaragoza that UNESCO has a program for the next 20 years to make half the world population homosexual,” Fernández is quoted as saying. “To do this they have distinct programs, and will continue to implant the ideology that is already present in our schools.”
Madrid Archbishop Antonio Rouco Varela (AP)
And while railing against the pro-choice and same-sex marriage policies of Spain’s previous Socialist Party-led government, Madrid Archbishop Antonio Rouco Varela reportedly claimed that abortion and euthanasia constitute a bigger crisis in Spain than the economy and politics.
“The family is under attack in Spain,” Varela maintained, also stating that ”Life is a sacred right that humans have been given by God.”
(H/T: Daily Mail)

Obama’s Arrogant Authoritarianism


Morning Bell: Obama’s Arrogant Authoritarianism
Posted By Lachlan Markay On January 10, 2012 @ 10:05 am In Rule of Law | 6 Comments
 [1]
Last week, President Barack Obama took the latest step on his road toward an arrogant, new authoritarianism with four illegal appointments that entirely trampled on the Constitution’s requirements. More troubling still, the President chose to shred the Constitution all in the name of serving his Big Labor agenda while killing jobs in the process.
The President’s actions once again gave voice to his animating view of governing: doing so is much easier when one isn’t constrained by the Constitution and its checks and balances. “We can’t wait,” the President exclaimed after unilaterally appointing Richard Cordray as director of the newly inaugurated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). He also appointed three officials to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), two of whom had been nominated less than a month before.
The policy implications of the President’s appointments? The CFPB will now have unmitigated authority to issue regulation upon regulation, contributing to the already-crippling red tape that is strangling business in America. And the NLRB will have the power to advance the President’s agenda to bolster unions across the country at the expense of job growth in a smarting economy.
For what, exactly, can’t the President wait? Quite simply, constitutional republicanism — the system of checks and balances integral to American government and political freedom. He grew impatient with the delays that inevitably accompany any legislative action an acted outside the Constitution’s mandated process. But the American people should ask, “Is such action really preferable to a deliberative, if slower-moving, constitutional republic?”
The President’s appointments last week, troubling as they are, are but the next steps on the road to a despotic form of governance that has come to characterize his Administration — and all of liberalism in America today — what authors Fred Siegel and Joel Kotkin termed in City Journal this week Obama’s “New Authoritarianism.” [2]Frustrated by the unwillingness of the people’s representatives to enact his agenda wholesale, Obama has, from early in his Administration, sought to enact a series of proposals through administrative fiat, not the legislative process:
  • The Democrat-controlled Senate rejected his cap-and-trade plan, so Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency classified carbon dioxide [3], the compound that sustains vegetative life, as a pollutant so that it could regulate it under the Clean Air Act.
  • After Congress defeated his stealth-amnesty immigration proposal, the DREAM Act, the Department of Homeland Security instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials [4] to “adopt enforcement parameters that bring about the same ends as the DREAM Act,” as Heritage’s Mike Brownfield explained.
  • When the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act–explicitly designed to bolster labor unions’ dwindling membership rolls–was defeated by Congress, the NLRBannounced a rule [5] that would implement “snap elections” for union representation, limiting employers’ abilities to make their case to workers and virtually guaranteeing a higher rate of unionization at the expense of workplace democracy.
  • After an innovation-killing Internet regulation proposal failed to make it through Congress, the Federal Communications Commission announced — on Christmas Eve, no less — that it would regulate the Web anyway, despite even a federal court’s ruling [6] that it had no authority to do so.
  • In its push for national education standards, the Education Department decided [7] to tie waivers for the No Child Left Behind law to requirements that states adopt those standards, shutting Congress out of the effort.
  • Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, the Department of Justice (DOJ) simply decided [8] it would no longer enforce those laws.
  • DOJ made a similar move with respect to the Defense of Marriage Act: rather than seeking legislative recourse, DOJ announced [9] it would stop enforcing the law.
While these efforts are all aimed at circumventing the legislative process, none was so brazen as his four illegal appointments. Last week, Obama went one step further: He violated not just the spirit of the Constitution, which vests in Congress the power to make laws, but the letter of the law as well.
The move is “a breathtaking violation of the separation of powers,” explain [10] former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese and Heritage colleague Todd Gaziano, a former attorney in DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, in a Washington Post column. “[N]ever before has a president purported to make a ‘recess’ appointment when the Senate is demonstrably not in recess,” they note. “That is a constitutional abuse of a high order.”
Dr. Matthew Spalding, vice president of American Studies and director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation, explains [11] that this “new despotism” — a government where regulations and unilateral actions replace republican governance — runs entirely counter to the Founders’ vision of America:
The greatest political revolution since the American Founding has been the shift of power away from the institutions of constitutional government to an oligarchy of unelected experts. They rule over virtually every aspect of our daily lives, ostensibly in the name of the American people but in actuality by the claimed authority of science, policy expertise, and administrative efficiency.
If this regime becomes the undisputed norm — accepted not only among the intellectual and political elites, but also by the American people, as the defining characteristic of the modern state — it could well mark the end of our great experiment in self-government.
President Obama’s actions are exactly the kind that the Founders feared and sought to guard against. His illegal appointments usurp power from the American people’s duly elected representatives, and the regulations they will promulgate will, undoubtedly, contribute to the unabated growth of the undemocratic administrative state.
Now that the President has crossed the threshold of constitutionality, there really is no telling where he may stop. There is a clear trend here, however, and it leads further and further from the constitutional order. With these illegal appointments, the President has taken to new heights his disdain for the separation of powers. Whether it will stop here depends on Congress — Will lawmakers of both parties reassert the legislature’s constitutional authority and take a stand against Obama’s arrogant new authoritarianism?
Quick Hits:

The EPA needs to be stopped. Nixon gave us this agency but Obama is giving them WAY TOO much power.


Constitutional right of due process at stake in EPA case


Oral arguments were heard Monday by the U.S. Supreme Court in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, a potentially landmark case. The justices will determine whether the bureaucratic convenience of a federal agency supercedes due process, the fundamental individual liberty guaranteed to every American citizen by the Constitution. The case presents such a clear-cut choice about what it means to be an American that it will be a deadly blow to political liberty if the justices decide for the bureaucrats against individual Americans.
Here are the basic facts of the case, as described in The Washington Examiner's Jan. 8 Sunday Reflection by Mark Hyman: "In 2005, Chantell and Michael Sackett purchased less than two-thirds of an acre of land near Priest Lake in northern Idaho for the modest sum of $23,000. They were nearby small-business owners and wanted to become homeowners. They planned to build a three-bedroom home. The property was located in a platted residential subdivision with water and sewer hookups and was bordered on either side by existing homes. There were community roads in both the front and back of the property.
"The couple was savvy enough to have conducted regulatory due diligence before they purchased the land. The previous owner informed them he had consulted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding any building restrictions. There were none. After buying the property, the Sacketts applied for and received all of the pertinent local permits to build a residential dwelling as local zoning ordinances permit. In the spring of 2007, they began preparing the lot for construction."
So far, so good, right? Wrong. Somebody at the EPA decided, incorrectly, that the Sacketts' private property was actually a wetland, so only the federal agency could decide what, if anything, would ever be done on the lot. The bureaucrats then ordered the Sacketts to remove foundation work that had been completed, plus much more. The EPA's decree, according to Hyman, directed the Sacketts "to plant new vegetation and specified what to plant ('native scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous wetlands plants and seeded with native herbaceous plants') and how to plant ('approximately 10 feet apart'). Additionally, they were ordered to fence the property, monitor plant growth for three growing seasons and to permit unfettered access to the property by EPA agents."
Through it all, the EPA fined the Sacketts $37,500 daily for noncompliance with its order (the fines totaled nearly $40 million as the case was argued Monday). Worst of all, EPA claimed in federal district and appellate courts that respecting the couple's due process rights by granting them judicial review of the order would be a "disservice" to the agency.
If the court fails to stop EPA in its tracks for flagrantly violating the Constitution, it will free federal agencies to proceed at will to erect "a multitude of new offices" and send "hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." The last time a government tried to do that to us, we had a revolution.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2012/01/constitutional-right-due-process-stake-epa-case/2078316#ixzz1j1rwKKKH

January 9, 2012

Apple CEO made $328 million in 2011 - a 1%'er but Liberals LOVE Apple




LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Tim Cook could well end up being the highest paid CEO in America in 2011, after Apple Inc. granted him a million restricted stock units last August for taking the reins shortly before co-founder Steve Jobs died.

An Associated Press review of a securities filing shows Cook's pay package was valued at $378 million. The vast majority came in a grant of a million restricted stock units worth $376 million at the time. Half of the stock units will vest in August 2016, the other half in August 2021.
His salary and performance bonus, about $900,000 each, made up much of the rest. He also made $16,520 from company contributions to a 401(k) retirement account and company-paid life insurance premiums.

In comparison, Jobs accepted a $1 annual salary for years and owned about 5.5 million shares, worth about $2.3 billion today.

In total, Cook has about 1.36 million restricted shares that haven't yet vested and 13,754 regular shares worth a combined $580 million, the filing showed.

Cook's award is well above that given to Philippe Dauman, the Viacom Inc. chief executive who led the top paid CEOs of 2010 with an $84.5 million haul based on a new contract that granted him shares and stock options.

Cook's pay package was also valued at more than all of the next nine highest paid CEOs of 2010 combined, or about $356 million.

Apple said that its compensation goal is to encourage long-term results above short-term risk-taking, and the 51-year-old former chief operating officer won't begin to reap the actual benefits of the stock award for another four years.

But Securities and Exchange Commission rules compel companies to book a share grant's value in the year it is granted, making Cook's whopper of a pay package unlikely to be beat.

Cook's share grant was already known last year. The filing disclosed that the company also decided in November to raise his base annual salary to $1.4 million and double the bonus target for paid executives to 100 percent of their annual salary.

Apple said it raised the bonus target to keep its executive pay more in line with that of other technology and entertainment peers like Google Inc. or The Walt Disney Co.

The filing was released the same day Apple shares reached a new high in midday trading, briefly hitting $427.75 before falling back to close at $421.73.

The AP formula calculates an executive's total compensation during the last fiscal year by adding salary, bonuses, perks, above-market interest the company pays on deferred compensation and the estimated value of stock and stock options awarded during the year. The AP formula does not count changes in the present value of pension benefits. That makes the AP total slightly different in most cases from the total reported by companies to the SEC.

ONLY THE LEFT CAN SAY THIS... THE LEFT ARE BY FAR THE BIGGEST RACIST IN AMERICA


SHE’S AN “UPPITY NEGRO” JOURNALIST CLOWNS MICHELLE OBAMA

(blackmediaSCOOP) Now that’s just disrespectful! Christopher Knight writes for the “Culture Monster” a column at the L.A. Times, and guess what he sees when he looks at this political cartoon of First Lady Michelle Obama:
Believe it or not, Knight sees an “uppity Negro.” Those aren’t our words, they’re his:
“The caricature of Obama as a profligate queen relies on the racist stereotype of an “uppity Negro[.]“
Who other than someone with their own disturbing prejudices would look at that obvious piece of political satire hitting the First lady up for her excessive and lavish vacationing and think “uppity Negro”?
Naturally, though, like all bigoted leftists, Knight attempts to project his own troubling racial issues on others. The racist image appeared Tuesday on the right-wing blog Gateway Pundit; the slur was later called out by Media Matters for America.
The doctored painting also turned up in August 2010 on the right-wing Instapundit website, where it apparently originated.
Sorry, Mr, Knight, the only one flying the flag of bigotry here is you!
This mess just never ends!
What do you think?
SCOOP: BIGJOURNALISM

Hillary isn't going to fade away.


Just the Ticket

THE beginning of a new year is a time for resolutions, and Hillary Clinton’s admirers are already busily, lovingly resolving on her behalf. On one sideline, her friends tell me that after a few years of hyperactive globetrotting what she really needs is to put her feet up and dictate another volume of her memoirs while nagging Chelsea to deliver grandchildren. (“She’s tired; she needs some time off,” her husband told ABC.) At the other extreme, a couple of Democratic consultants, Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen, propose to draft her right now as the 2012 Democratic presidential candidate, whether she likes it or not. (“Not only is Mrs. Clinton better positioned to win in 2012 than Mr. Obama, but she is better positioned to govern if she does,” they wrote in The Wall Street Journal.) Other helpful devotees have noticed that Brown University is looking for a new president, or have imagined her creating a clone of the Clinton Global Initiative focused on empowering women. Or maybe Ruth Bader Ginsburg will decide to put her feet up, opening a seat on the Supreme Court.
Nicholas Blechman

Related

Tony Cenicola/The New York Times
Bill Keller

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
The right choice is none of the above.
Hillary Clinton is 64 years old, with a Calvinist work ethic, the stamina of an Olympian, an E.Q. to match her I.Q., and the political instincts of a Clinton. She has an impressive empathic ability — invaluable in politics or statecraft — to imagine how the world looks to an ally or adversary. She listens, and she learns from her mistakes. She was a perfectly plausible president four years ago, and that was before she demonstrated her gifts as a diplomatic snake-charmer. (Never mind Pakistan and Libya, I’m talking about the Obama White House.) She is, says Gallup, the most admired woman in America for the 10th year in a row, laps ahead of, in order, Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin and Condoleezza Rice; her approval rating of 64 percent is the highest of any political figure in the country.
So it’s too early to hang up the big ambition. And a lot of us would be deeply disappointed in her if she did. This would be none of our business if she had taken the off-ramp after her time as first lady. (Nobody is thinking very hard about what’s next for Laura Bush.) But she moved on to the Senate, to a near-miss presidential campaign, and to a credible term as secretary of state. She raised our expectations.
The proposal to draft her in place of President Obama this year is preposterous. It exaggerates his vulnerability and discounts Hillary’s loyalty. But the idea that she should replace Joe Biden as Obama’s running mate in 2012 is something else. It has been kicking around on the blogs formore than a year without getting any traction, mainly because it has been authoritatively, emphatically dismissed by Hillary, Biden and Team Obama.
It’s time to take it seriously.
I know the arguments against this scenario, and we’ll get to those. But the arguments in favor are as simple as one-two-three. One: it does more to guarantee Obama’s re-election than anything else the Democrats can do. Two: it improves the chances that, come next January, he will not be a lame duck with a gridlocked Congress but a rejuvenated president with a mandate and a Congress that may be a little less forbidding. Three: it makes Hillary the party’s heir apparent in 2016. If she sits out politics for the next four years, other Democrats (yes, Governor Cuomo, we see your hand up) will fill the void.
She would bring to this year’s campaign a missing warmth and some of the voltage that has dissipated as Obama moved from campaigning to governing. What excites is not just the prospect of having a woman a heartbeat — and four years — away from the presidency, although she certainly embodies the aspirations of many women. It’s the possibility that the first woman at the top would have qualifications so manifest that her first-ness was a secondary consideration.
The biggest obstacle to this scenario is, of course, President Obama, reinforced by the people around him. The Obamas have long regarded the Clintons as representing the tawdry side of politics: the deal-cutting, the calculating, the endless schmoozing, the permanent campaign — in short, the things that this professorial president could have used more of in his first term. The Clintons — Bill, at least — have tended to see Obama as politically naïve, steeped in youthful arrogance, a loner, happier to be right than successful. The mistrust may have abated a little, as Hillary has proved herself the most faithful of allies. And Bill has been a pretty disciplined defender of this administration, though his endorsements tend to come with a helping of paternalistic (and public) advice. But the Obamas and Clintons remain a marriage of convenience.
The Obama inner circle believes the president doesn’t need Hillary to win a second term. Just now, when the Republican field looks like a bug-spattered windshield and the most likely nominee strikes many in his own party as an empty suit, that confidence is understandable. But Democrats should not get too cocky. Mitt Romney, as I’ve argued before, has a case to make to voters and the resources to make it. In Iowa, exploiting the Supreme Court’s laissez-faire ruling on campaign spending, he brought down Newt Gingrich with an “independent” attack machine of considerable firepower.
Moreover, even if Obama can win without Hillary, there’s a lot to be said for running up the score. If she can do in 2012 what Obama did in 2008 — animate that feeling of historic possibility — the pair can lift some House and Senate candidates along with them. One reason Republicans did so well in the 2010 Congressional elections is that they overcame the gender gap and carried women voters 51 to 49. Those voters will flock back to Hillary, the more so if the Republican ticket is locked into a culture-war agenda. So, by the way, will Hispanic voters, securing such endangered states as Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado.
Vice President Clinton would be a formidable asset in governing as well as campaigning, both as a political calculator and as an emissary to Capitol Hill. She has, to put it mildly, an ability to navigate the world of powerful, problematic men.
In the event that Obama has the good sense (or, if the economy fails to perk up, the sense of desperation) to offer her the vice president’s slot, some of her closest friends will implore her to decline. They will tell her that it means tarnishing her reputation by playing the second’s traditional role of campaign attack dog. But that needn’t be the case. Like Romney, the Democrats can outsource to a super-PAC the wet work that used to be the job of the running mate, letting Hillary stick to the high road. And whatever her friends say, there’s no way the dutiful Methodist schoolgirl would turn down an I-need-you from the president.
THAT leaves the delicate question of ditching Joe Biden. He is not a dazzling campaigner, and — five years Hillary’s senior — he is not Obama’s successor. But he is a loyal and accomplished public servant who deserves to be treated with honor.
A political scientist I know proposes the following choreography: In the late winter or early spring, Hillary steps down as secretary of state to rest and write that book. The president assigns Biden — the former chairman of Senate Foreign Relations — to add State to his portfolio, making him the most powerful vice president in history. Come the party convention in September, Obama swallows his considerable pride and invites a refreshed Hillary to join the ticket. Biden keeps State. The musicians play “Happy Days Are Here Again” as if they really mean it.
Of course, this is more exciting if it’s a surprise, and now I’ve spoiled it. Sorry. But not as sorry as I’ll be if — as I fear — it’s just a fantasy.

Michelle distressed about power of 'white Irish Catholic'...


Michelle Obama: "Distressed" about Daley, Madigan, Hynes clout

| No Comments
WASHINGTON-- When Michelle Obama worked in Mayor Daley's City Hall in the early 1990s, she was "distressed" by how a small group of "white Irish Catholic" families -- the Daleys, the Hynes and the Madigans -- "locked up" power in Illinois.
And as she prepared to become first lady, Mrs. Obama naively wanted to delay a move into the White House for six months, so her daughters could finish the school year. Her initial thought was to "commute" to the White House from her South Side home.
And Marty Nesbitt, one of President Obama's best friends, had been recruited to run for Chicago mayor by African-American leaders -- but never ended up challenging Rahm Emanuel, who was Obama's chief of staff who went on to win City Hall.
Details about Mrs. Obama's initial reluctance to embrace her new life, her time in City Hall, the influence she has in the White House, tensions between Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, Emanuel and former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs -- are in a new book about the first couple by New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor.
The Chicago Sun-Times has obtained a copy of The Obamas, to be published Tuesday. Kantor hits Chicago for an East Lake Shore Drive book party on Jan. 16; the next day, Jan. 17, she headlines a 6 p.m. event at the Harold Washington Library, 400 S. State.
Mrs. Obama worked in the Daley administration between Sept. 16, 1991, and April 30, 1993, according to City of Chicago personnel records. She was hired by Jarrett, then Daley's deputy chief of staff.
Kantor writes Mrs. Obama "disapproved of how closely Daley held power, surrounding himself with three or four people who seemed to let few outsiders in -- a concern she would echo years later with her own husband.
"...She particularly resented the way power in Illinois was locked up generation after generation by a small group of families, all white Irish Catholic -- the Daleys in Chicago, the Hynes and Madigans statewide."
When Jarrett was forced out of City Hall in 1995 -- even though she was close to Daley -- "the Obamas were horrified, their worst suspicions about the world confirmed."
Jarrett, Gibbs, Obama's top strategist David Axelrod, Mrs. Obama's former chief of staff Susan Sher and Chicago pals Eric Whitaker and Marty Nesbitt "gave me many hours of interview time each," Kantor wrote in her acknowledgements. In all, Kantor got the cooperation of 33 current and former members of the Obama administration and close friends.
Still, with reports about issues in the administration -- and an Emanuel who did not welcome Mrs. Obama's influence -- the Obama White House gave the book a frosty reception.
"The book, an overdramatization of old news, is about a relationship between two people whom the author has not spoken to in years," White House spokesman Eric Schultz said. "The author last interviewed the Obamas in 2009 for a magazine piece, and did not interview them for this book. The emotions, thoughts and private moments described in the book, though often seemingly ascribed to the president and first lady, reflect little more than the author's own thoughts. These secondhand accounts are staples of every administration in modern political history and often exaggerated."
Camille Johnston, Mrs. Obama's former communications chief, told the Sun-Times, "We had some disagreements over how certain things would be handled, but in the end we all got back to the place Mrs. Obama had set at the onset: nothing on my agenda is more important than what's on his."

January 5, 2012

HuffPo: Monogamy is Killing Marriage


By Paul Wilson | January 05, 2012 | 10:58

Change font size:  A |  A
"Monogamy is failing men." At least, that's the judgment of the Huffington Post's Vicki Larson, who opened her January 4 piece "Why Men Need to Cheat" with that exact phrase.

Larson's article attacks "monogamy's stranglehold over our beliefs" and declares that "cheating, however, serves men well." Her jump-off point is a book of sociology by Eric Anderson, whom she introduces as an "American sociologist at England's University of Winchester and author of the provocative new book, The Monogamy Gap: Men, Love, and the Reality of Cheating."

What Larson does not include in her bio of Anderson is that Anderson's field of specialization is largely homosexual in nature. Anderson's University of Winchester bio declares that he "is an American sociologist known for his research on sport, masculinities, sexualities and homophobia. He shows an increasingly positive relationship between gay male athletes and sport, as well as a growing movement of young heterosexual men's masculinity becoming softer and more inclusive. Professor Anderson also researches matters related to men's monogamy, men's improving recognition of bisexuality, and the increased acceptance of young heterosexual men kissing."

<<Like this post? Help us take on media bias by donating to NewsBusters (there's also a PayPal option on that page). Without the support of our readers, NewsBusters would not be possible.>> 
So naturally, the Huffington Post turned to a professor of homosexuality and opponent of traditional marriage to discuss how unreasonable monogamy is.

And attack monogamy Anderson did with a vengeance, declaring in Larson's article that "Infidelity does not break marriages up; it is the unreasonable expectation that a marriage must restrict sex that breaks a marriage up" and that "Women also cheat; they also lie about it; and they also want to be able to cheat without their partners doing the same. Monogamy is a problem for all sexes; it builds in an ownership script regardless of gender."

Anderson performed a study to test his conclusions. His study featured 120 undergraduate men, both straight and gay. (No word from Larson on how many were straight, and how many were gay.) His analysis declared that "78 percent of those who had a partner cheated, even though they said that they loved and intender to stay with their partner."

Leaving aside the question of the small sample size, undergraduates in a college setting are hardly the best judges of whether fidelity is possible or not. And it's difficult to not to question whether a homosexual professor with a vested interest in proving monogamy's impossibility might have stacked the sample group so as to obtain his desired result.

But such questions did not seem to occur to Larson (she did mention the small sample size) in her interview with Anderson. Instead, she let him rail against monogamy.

The media war on monogamous marriage (of the heterosexual variety; the media seem to have no problem with homosexual marriage) has intensified lately. Both NBC and CBS did segments in October 2011 questioning whether traditional marriage was coming to an end. ABC News did a segment on January 4, 2012, celebrating the lifestyle of a polyandrous (one woman, multiple male partners) family. Anderson's argument was made earlier made by a June 30, 2011 piece by Mark Oppenhemier in the New York Times Magazine, which liberally quoted gay sex columnist and Internet bully Dan Savage.

But the Huffington Post seems to have taken a special interest in attacking the institution of marriage. The Huffington Post infamously created a Divorce section for its website before adding the marriage section, with the tagline "Marriages Come and Go, But Divorce Is Forever."

Larson herself is no stranger to attacking the institution of marriage. She wrote an article on Dec 20, 2011, examining the legal implications of marriage to and divorce from sexbots. In a December 28 post on her blog, OMG Chronicles, Larson declares that "one kind of forced reinvention - divorce - generally seems to be a positive thing, especially if you're a woman. Divorce is when most of us redo our look, tweak our attitudes and beliefs, examine our own baggage, embrace new challenges, revisit long-shelved passions and rediscover long-lost sexual passions."

The constant attacks on marriage as a "morality cage," as "the nation's top dating coach" Matt Titus argued on CBS's Early Show on October 12, 2011, are part of an attempt by the mainstream media to attack traditional marriage out of existence. Larson's argument that men are slaves to sexual urges unnaturally restrained by monogamy is merely the latest shot in the media war against marriage.