That means there's no such thing as cheating or affairs, because everything's out in the open.

Well, one would like to think so, but it doesn't always work that way. For one thing, as pointed out later in the article, some poly relationships involve fidelity commitments, and some folks in such arrangements break that commitment, just as some people in monogamous relationships do. But even with relationships that are generally open, there are often mutual agreements on rules or guidelines, and where such agreements exist, some folks may break them.

Believe me, I've seen it happen.

Oh, and the subtitle is awful:

When it comes to relationships, the polyamorist motto is "The more, the merrier." Considering the sorry state of traditional marriage, is multi-partnering due a closer look?

Uh, no, the motto is not "The more, the merrier". Even for people who happen to be comfortable with multiple relationships, there are limits -- limited time, limited emotional energy, and so on. And really, it's rather silly to put poly relationships in the context of the supposed "sorry state of traditional marriage". Traditional marriage -- and other forms of monogamous relationships -- still work just fine for lots of people. Polyamory is simply another option.

Those relatively minor nits aside, this is one of the better articles on polyamory I've seen.

Yes, it's different and (generally) more complicated. No, it's not for everyone. Yes, it can work quite well for some folks. And from what I've seen, kids generally do just fine with it ... except sometimes when they have to deal with ignorant outsiders.

I think the word is "compensating". We need to send all these guys off to a men's sensitivity weekend or something, so they can get comfortable with their gender.

Really guys, it's okay to miss your daddies. Talk, hug each other, even cry a little. It'll do you a lot of good.

I've never been able to decide whether the Bush Admin's "good vs evil" line is just posturing or if they really are that simple-minded. The former possibility is only annoying as hell; the latter is profoundly disturbing.

When you folks have one party rule....

I'm sure there will be no secrets anywhere, right? You'll provide comprehensive tomes describing all the procedures and capabilities of the CIA, NSA, FBI et al.? How about transcriptions of everything said in the white house put out each day? Complete transparency will reign over Washington DC? I don't think so.

Me neither, but I'm sure if that happy day ever comes, Fred Hiatt et al will conveniently rediscover the concept of investigative journalism.

Of course, there's no guarantee they won't again use that concept to "investigate" things spoon-fed to them by their Corporatist-Republican cocktail buddies.

It's worth noting that this is an excellent investment for Google. If it works, it help open up the kind of wireless space that Google would be great at providing services for. Their potential ROI for this is huge.

It's a great example of Benevolent Self Interest.

(3) Is there anyone who can identify the specific views of Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul that are "crazier" and more "unserious" than the views expressed here by John Hagee and Joe Lieberman?

Well, one clear example of craziness is that they're all continuing to run for president despite the fact that Very Serious People have decided that they're unelectable. Any sane person would realize that being declared unelectable means that one is unelectable.

... on so many things that I'd be unlikely to vote for him, but I have to say that I strongly agree with him on other things, and I admire his consistency. Especially in comparison to most other politicians at his level.

The "weirdo" labeling is, indeed, a "slothful mechanism for enforcing norms". But it's also a tiresomely predictable part of the media scripting for presidential races. Ron Paul has been given that role for the Republican candidates, and Dennis Kucinich was a shoe-in for the spot for the Democrats.

(I suppose I should confess to having libertarian leanings on some issues, though I've never identified with the "big-L Libertarians". They seem so obsessed with the threat of government tyranny that they're totally oblivious to the the threat of corporate tyranny.)

MarieA wrote: "We must return to rational dialogue or this country will sink in a morass of authoritarianism."

Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but how do we return to doing something that so few of us have ever really done?

Granted, though, the irrationality seems to have been much worse these past several years. I blame the Bush Administration and their enablers for encouraging and sustaining an unfortunate -- if understandable -- increase of irrationality after 9/11. The took advantage of it for short-term political advantages, not caring about the long-term damage.

L.W.M., we are all supposed to interpret the Constitution. The Supremes are just the ones who get the final say ... and even that isn't really final.

William Timberman: "Being who we are, though, we're rightfully sensitive about the possibility that we may someday be declared an evolutionary dead end by some agency whose identity we haven't yet discovered."

It's worth pointing out that there is no need in the evolutionary process for such an agency nor such a declaration. Evolutionary dead ends are part of the process.

Your basic point is interesting, though. Most people -- to whatever extent they give the matter any thought -- assume that humans are a pinnacle of evolutionary success. Even setting aside the fact that evolution doesn't really have pinnacles, it's not at all clear yet that we're anything other than a flash in the pan.

The Des Moines Register is owned by Gannett Co., Inc. Of course they'd endorse Clinton. The surprise is the Globe backing for Obama. Did the memo from their owner -- the New York Times Co. -- get lost?