Hate to break it to you, my shrike friend: But I saw your new man on Dontdatehimgirl.comLike the majority of creatures in the animal kingdom, including Eliot Spitzer, brand-new New York governor David Paterson has mated with females other than his life partner.

If you think the above is a ridiculous sentence, you should read the thrown-together essay in today's New York Times on the marital habits of non-humans, followed by today’s Daily News article about how Paterson and his wife both had affairs during a rough patch in their marriage. Sex, politics, fuzzy creatures in love—you couldn’t do better for conversation fodder this week.

The Times article serves as a primer on sexual fidelity in the natural world, or rather the lack of it: “Social monogamy is very rarely accompanied by sexual, or genetic, monogamy” among beasts, it explains. In fact, animals from shrikes (“elegant raptorlike birds”) to monkeys have been known to exchange goods for sex.

This is certainly interesting—but is it relevant? Like, at all? We hold humans—especially public figures—to higher moral standards than we would animals. To do otherwise would be to somehow ignore the whole of human civilization, which is pretty much predicated on the idea that we’re more than just chimps with better posture. Why should our sexual behavior be exempt from the social contract when the rest of our behavior is beholden to it? After all, if Elliot Spitzer was caught flinging poop at his opponents, you wouldn't see an article on the Times front page subtitled "Animals as well as governors have trouble with poop-flinging.”

If you can't find enough material for discussion in the Times article alone, you could also bring in the feminist angle. I’d contend that the circumstances of women’s lives make us as a gender way less susceptible to half-assed “But it’s biology!” arguments. American women begin menstruating at an average age of 12 but don’t have children until they’re (on average) 25. After 13 years of successfully ignoring and subverting the biological need to reproduce, it’s pretty hard for us to believe that we don’t have any control over our dumb animal bodies.

Notes on a pretty minor scandal: The PatersonsAlso, we're constantly reading poorly reasoned articles blaming biology for gender norms, like the old saw about how women like pink because Neanderthal girls spent a lot of time gathering berries. The Times article about infidelity makes a big point about how both sexes cheat, but it’s illustrated by a boy monkey hitting on a long-lashed girl monkey even as he’s tethered to his long-lashed monkey wife. Why? For the same reason that last summer’s study about female cheetahs and their multiple partners got translated in the media as “lady cheetah are total sluts.” Because, as Beth Skwarecki points out in this quarter's edition of the excellent feminist magazine Bitch, the media often skews stories to conform with social constructs, even when the reporting doesn't back them up.

Which brings us to Governor Paterson. The Daily News reports the story thus: “In a stunning revelation, both Paterson, 53, and his wife, Michelle, 46, acknowledged in a joint interview they each had intimate relationships with others during a rocky period in their marriage several years ago.” It’s sort of sweet and heartening that they were able to make it work, don’t you think? But the Daily News headline is “Gov. Paterson admits to sex with other woman for years,” as if it’s that age-old story about how Power Makes Men Cheat -- as if Michelle Paterson was the classic scorned wife a la Silda Wall Spitzer.

The scandal here, such that it is, tells us very little about power or gender or government, and probably too much about the Patersons' private lives A couple hit a rough patch, tried dating other people, and then went to counseling. Now they’re back together. At the Politico, Ben Smith sums it up best when he says his sources all responded the same way: “Yawn.”

Quick! Pick one!: Obama and ClintonNo time to read The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, the Sunday New York Times, Harpers, The Nation, The New Republic, and New York Magazine during your morning commute? Don’t worry – "How To Sound Smart This Week" will provide the Cliff's Notes.

With Super Tuesday rapidly approaching, chances are good that you’ll have to talk politics this week. For the Democratically inclined, it used to be really easy to bluff your way into a political discussion: express warm feelings towards John Edwards, thereby throwing the Hilary vs. Obama binary into a tailspin. Unfortunately, Edwards dropped out of the campaign, so now you have to pick a side. Even if you don’t know your own mind, though, plenty of major news publications seem to know if for you, especially if you’re a lady.

In this week’s New York Times Magazine, Linda Hirshman looks at the conventional wisdom that women will vote for Hilary. There’s a lot to discuss here, like the frustrating fact that women are way less informed than men about politics. A recent poll suggests that this is because there are so many more male journalists and politicians. When women can’t find anyone to identify with, they lose interest -- whereas in elections with female candidates, they’re more likely to get involved. If you don’t mind heated debate, this is a pretty excellent topic of conversation. Is it reasonable to check out when you’re not included in the conversation? Or is that a cop-out?

According to Newsweek, it’s simply how the brain works. An article on the neuroscience behind voting points out that our gut instinct propel us to vote for people who are like us – e.g. women for Hilary – but adds that identification is highly fluid. It mentions an oft-cited study in which Asian girls who were reminded of their gender before a math test scored poorly, but those reminded of their ethnicity scored well. In other words, we tend to act according to the stereotypes the world has about us. Which suggests, in turn (as you might point out) that women are less enthusiastic about politics because they’re not expected to be – a vicious cycle, sure, but definitely a cycle that can be broken.

Meanwhile, over at The Nation, veteran feminist Katha Pollitt casts her support behind Obama. Pollitt is the definition of an informed voter, but the argument she makes is entirely emotional: “Let's go with the candidate voters feel some passion about."

Lastly, if the conversation turns into a swamp of pure political ambivalence, bring up today’s Salon essay by Rebecca Traister. No factoids or chewed-over science here – just pure commiseration with voters who still haven't managed to pick a side.

Last week: The sub-prime meltdown

Market collapse: Hyman Minsky would not approveNo time to read The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, the Sunday New York Times, Harpers, The Nation, The New Republic, and New York Magazine during your morning commute? Don’t worry – "How To Sound Smart This Week" will help you convince those around you that you’re a big ball of erudition.

Start the conversation with an eye-opening statistic: “Did you know that thanks to the subprime meltdown, American households are losing over two trillion dollars a year?”

Follow up by referencing ‘60s-era economist Hyman Minsky (bonus chutzpah points if you refer to him as “my favorite 60s-era economist”), who believed that Wall Street placed too much emphasis on taking risks. “Minsky predicted all this years ago,” you could add, “and he thought the only solution was to change the culture of Wall Street. Once you wind up in a period of panic like the one you’re in, it’s too late for politicians to do anything.” That, at least, is the gist of this week’s New Yorker piece on Minsky.

Of course, you might go on, that won’t stop those politicans from trying. The Nation points out that while both Edwards and Clinton have called for an end to foreclosures and a freeze on interest rates, the Obama campaign has taken a much more centrist approach.

“Essentially,” you could say, “Obama is blaming people who took out irresponsible loans, rather than financial industry. Max Frazer in the Nation thinks this might be because he’s received almost $10 million in support from people involved in the real estate market. Then again, Clinton’s raised even more, and she’s not banging the personal responsibility drum.”

As for the Republicans, there’s not much they can do about the meltdown if they want to hew to good conservative principles – or so says Ross Douthat in a video conversation at the Atlantic website.

Bringing things full circle, you could end with another fun stat: “Did you know that there are currently more choreographers in the US then metalcasters?” What that means, according to Christopher Caldwell in this weekend’s Times Magazine, is that Republican candidates need to stop talking about liberating entrepreneurs from tight restrictions, and Democrats need to give up the rhetoric about backing the factory man over the fat cats. The new economy is firmly in place, and any solution to the mortgage meltdown is going to have to pay attention to the choreographers.

Last week: Cloverfield

Give me your headless, your poor: The Cloverfield poster No time to read The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, the Sunday New York Times, Harpers, The Nation, The New Republic, and New York Magazine during your morning commute? Don’t worry – we’re here to help you convince those around you that you’re a big ball of erudition.

Start by wondering whether your conversation partner saw the intensely disapproving review of Cloverfield in the Times this weekend, and quote Manohla Dargis’s final line: “Rarely have I rooted for a monster with such enthusiasm.” Burn!

Then point out that Anthony Lane in The New Yorker seemed to like the movie, even though he said the film’s gimmick—it’s a monster movie shot entirely on a camcorder held by one of the kids fleeing the monster—was “a bit pre-millennium.”

And, finally, address the real monster in the room—not the film’s 9/11 imagery, because duh -- but a little film everybody was really excited about back in the summer of ’99. “Remember The Blair Witch Project?” you might say, and then, if you’re feeling saucy, “Yeah, me neither.”

Last week: Teen Angst Edition