Purchase of the day.

Yesterday, February 8. "What to Expect When No One's Expecting: America's Coming Demographic Disaster" [Kindle Edition] Jonathan V. Last (Author) (Earnings to Althouse blog = $0.90)

P.J. O’Rourke quipped of this book: "A powerful argument that the only thing worse than having children is not having them. I'm reading What To Expect When No One's Expecting aloud to the three little arguments for birth control at my house in hope they'll quit squabbling and making messes and start acting so cute that all my neighbors decide to conceive."

Thank you to all who used the Althouse portal yesterday to make a total of 60 purchases and caused the blogger to think, they like me... they really like me!

"What gives the mayor the right to decide, without adequate notice, to give our children drugs that will impact their bodies and their psyches?"

The drug is Plan B (the "morning-after pill") and the mayor is Bloomberg.

About 40 separate “school-based health centers” doled out 12,721 doses of Plan B in 2011-12, up from 10,720 in 2010-11 and 5,039 in 2009-10....
The city says about 6,300 NYC girls had unplanned pregnancies last year, and more than half had abortions. Of those who give birth, the city says, about 70 percent drop out of school, making their futures bleak.

A conversation for the end of the year.

What is Drudge trying to say about Sonia Sotomayor?

This is at the top of the right-hand column at Drudge this morning:



Now, as we saw last night, what Justice Sotomayor did was deny an emergency injunction. That would have required a finding that "the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear," which clearly, they are not. And her opinion never mentions "morning-after" pills, only contraception, generally. (The challenged HRSA’s guidelines refer to "all Food and Drug Administration . . . approved contraceptive methods.")

With that rather strange photograph and the reference to "morning-after," I've got to infer that Drudge intended sexual humor aimed at the Justice. I think the photograph was chosen for the "bedroom hair" and the groggy eyes. Or do you focus on the hand? Does it seem to be tossing pills at us?

France provides free birth control to girls aged 15 to 18 — and bars doctors from notifying parents.

Amanda Marcotte approves:

Straightforward, almost boring health care policy story about a government taking sensible, cost-effective measures to curb a public health problem. But the story isn't really about health care policy — the underlying narrative here is that the French are yet again making American politicians look like a bunch of out of touch prudes....

Needless to say, the measure sailed through the French legislature without any kind of political battle...

"The founder of Domino's Pizza is suing the federal government over mandatory contraception coverage in the health care law."

"Tom Monaghan, a devout Roman Catholic, says contraception isn't health care but a 'gravely immoral' practice."

The hippie commune where "birth control was frowned upon, and abortions were prohibited; childbearing was seen as a natural, beautiful and wholly spiritual undertaking for a woman."

The Farm... it's still around.

I was amazed to see that article in The Daily Mail (in the news because there's a new documentary movie), because just a week ago I referred to The Farm here:

Meade says there was a hippie pro-life movement. He remembers hippies urging women not to have abortions and saying give your babies to us and we'll give them back to you whenever you want. I don't remember that iteration of hippie values, I don't know how the urging would have been done in pre-internet days, and my Googling fails again as I try to research the hippie pro-life movement.

Later, Meade told me the place was called The Farm, and I read about it in Wikipedia.

Federal court gives preliminary injunction to company with religious objection to HHS contraception mandate.

CNSnews reports.

"After years of holding steady... the United States abortion rate has fallen to an all-time low."

"It dropped 5 percent between 2008 and 2009, the most recent years for which data is available, the largest decline in the past decade."

Why? One suggestion is that the bad economy has caused people to be more careful about contraception. Another is that more women are using birth control devices that eliminate the user-error factor.

"I'm free and I love to be free/To live my life the way I want/To say and do whatever I please..."

Consider the use of the old Lesley Gore song — "You Don't Own Me" — for political, pro-Obama purposes:



Now, I love old Lesley and her classic song. And it's fine with me if the Democratic Party is her party — and she'll cry if Obama loses, cry if Obama loses, you would cry too if it happened to you. "You Don't Own Me" dates back to 1963 — pre-Women's Liberation, pre-Beatles. But let's consider the lyrics and the extent to which they express the values of the present-day Democratic Party.

By the way, Ms. Gore did not write "You Don't Own Me." It was written by 2 men, John Madara (who also wrote "At the Hop") and David White (who co-wrote "At the Hop" and was a member of the doo-wop group Danny & the Juniors who recorded "At the Hop"). Madera and White also co-wrote "The Fly," which was a dance that you could do at the hop, and here's Chubby Checker showing you how:



That was 1961, 2 years before Lesley sang Madera and White's declaration to female autonomy, which is no kind of dance song at all, though Diane Keaton, Bette Midler, and Goldie Hawn manage to turn it into a dance for the purpose of bringing a close to the execrable 1996 movie "First Wives Club":



That movie is best described by David Rakoff in "Half Empty": "A gynocentric comedy predicated on the scenario where men are cheating bastards and middle-aged women the goddesses who best them while cementing their sisterhood with Motown-scored makeover montages, vengeful shopping sprees, warmed-over Lucy-and-Ethel hijinks, and random humiliations visited upon women who are younger and therefore by definition stupid whores."

Anyway, look at the lyrics to "You Don't Own Me," words which a couple youngish guys put in the female singer's mouth, as repurposed for the 2012 election "war on women" theme:

I'm young and I love to be young
I'm free and I love to be free
To live my life the way I want
To say and do whatever I please

Sounds libertarian to me. But it's the Obama side using this, so presumably we're supposed to hear something like:

I'm free and I want my birth control to be free
To live my life the way I want
To say and do whatever I please and have the government pay for it

Why should more than 10 people show up at a Sak 'n Save at in Reno to see Sandra Fluke?

Who is this woman? Why is she a celebrity? She's read a couple of speeches prominently, in Washington D.C., where she was selected for that role by — which Democratic bigwigs? Why?! And Rush Limbaugh made fun of her elevation into the spotlight. He did it in a crude way that boosted her name recognition. That seems to be the closest thing to something that she did to achieve prominence, and I imagine that in her own mind, surrounded by those who chose her and elevated her, she may think she is an eminent person capable of drawing crowds. What a splash of cold reality to find yourself deposited — by your promoters — at a grocery store in Reno where nobody cares.

Meade goes to Obamastock.

Me, I was working yesterday, even locked out of the law school, so I didn't make it to the big political rally in the center of campus — Bascom Mall. But Meade was there, and he was really inspired. He wrote a song about his nearly ecstatic experience, and he won't stop singing. It goes like this:

I came upon a child of Obam-a
She was walking by Sterling Hall
So I asked her, "Where are you going?"
And this she told me...

"I'm going up to Bascom Mall,
I'm gonna join in a political rally
Gonna put out my two hands
Try and keep my birth control free.

We are starstruck
We're beholden
And we've got to keep ourselves in government lardon."

Then can I walk beside you?
I have come here to dialogue
And with a Flip cam, I feel like Herzog,
Artistically burning.

Well maybe it's just not our year,
And maybe, well, Yes We Can
But Tammy B and Mark Pocan
Have my stomach churning.

We are starstruck
We're beholden
And we've got to keep ourselves in government lardon.

By the time we got to Bascom,
We were thirty thousand strong
Everywhere you looked - career politicians.

And I dreamed I saw drone bombers
Chooming roof hits in the sky,
Turning into Obama Pies
O'er Bascom Nation

We are starstruck
We're beholden
And we've got to keep ourselves in government lardon.

"Romney leads by nine among men but is down by one among women."

Says Rasmussen, in its announcement of the daily presidential tracking poll. The basic numbers are the same as yesterday: Romney 48%, Obama 44%. This is the first day in which the tracking poll — which includes 3 days — is based entirely on post-convention polling.

I'm very interested in the way the gender politics game is playing out. It seems that the Democrats have pushed very hard making a special offer to women — positing a "war on women" and so forth. But they're only up one point with women, which seems to be less than the usual skewing of females toward the Democratic Party. One might anticipate that the war-on-women politics would repel some men, but it looks like it's failing to work on women too.

You've got Republicans getting a 10-point advantage in the gender gap, when it's the other party doing the gender politics. Does that mean gender politics is now a bad strategy? Not necessarily. Obama might be doing even worse without it. (That's an argument in the pattern of Obama's argument about the economy: You're not better off than you were 4 years ago, but the economy would have plunged worse without the help I've been providing.)

It's also possible that gender politics can work for the Democrats, but they haven't been doing it right this time. What's distinctive about the way they've been doing it in 2012?

First, they're doing it so intensely, with the "war" trope. That's not believable, and it makes it too obvious that they're mostly begging us to look at this and not the economy, when everyone — women included — thinks the economy is the main concern.

Second, they seem to be offering special benefits for women, rather than presenting general issues in an emotionally empathetic way that appeals to women. For example, in the past, we've seen Democrats talk about the wars in terms of tired, worn-out soldiers who need to be returned to the care of their families. This year, the Democrats are talking about seemingly free birth control treatments — something for women that men don't get.

Perhaps it's caring and altruism that resonates with women, not special benefits for us. We like to think of ourselves as unselfish, trying to help others. That's the classic pull of the liberal agenda. Maybe it doesn't work to give us stuff. You need to make us feel that we are giving.

If you're going to pander, you have to pander the right way.

The NYT tries to figure out what portion of Barack Obama is Valerie Jarrett.

A fascinating long article by Jo Becker:

“She is the single most influential person in the Obama White House,” said one former senior White House official, who like many would speak candidly only on condition of anonymity.

“She’s there to try to promote what she understands to be what the president wants,” the former aide said. “Ultimately the president makes his own decisions. The question that is hard to get inside of, the black box, is whether she is really influencing him or merely executing decisions he’s made. That’s like asking, ‘Is the light on in the refrigerator when the door is closed?’ ”

Makes her sound like Karl Rove, right? But as the NYT puts it: "If Karl Rove was known as George W. Bush’s political brain, Ms. Jarrett is Mr. Obama’s spine."

“He’s got a real mess in the West Wing,” said one close presidential adviser. “Valerie is effectively the chief of staff, and he knows, but he doesn’t know. She’s almost like Nancy Reagan was with President Reagan, but more powerful.”...

It is not so much that she is Mr. Obama’s liberal id. Rather, her voice is often the one at the table reminding everyone of the president’s aspirational “first principles,” that he “didn’t just come to the White House to hold the office, but to make change,” [according to Anita Dunn, who was the president’s communications director].

Specifics: 1. Jarrett was responsible for encouraging Kathleen Sebelius to go ahead with the contraception mandate in the health insurance regulations; 2. She once "order[ed] a drink from a four-star general she mistook for a waiter"; 3. She snubbed George Soros and may be be responsible for his "largely sitting on the sidelines this presidential election," 4. She insulted Cornel West (after he whined about not getting invited to the inauguration), letting people know, as he put it: "one, I was crazy, and two, I was un-American."

#1 is the most important revelation, and the NYT begins and ends the article with it:

Worried about the political and legal implications [of the requirement that employers provide health insurance that covers the cost of birth control], the chief of staff, William M. Daley, reached out to the proposal’s author, Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary. How, he wondered, had the White House been put in this situation with so little presidential input? “You are way out there on a limb on this,” he recalls telling her.

He was told that Valerie Jarrett was involved, and it was her support that made Sebelius go ahead with something that got Obama in trouble with Catholics as he faced his reelection.

Catholics, a group Mr. Obama won in 2008, make up more than a quarter of the electorate. Though most personally support birth control, Mr. Daley and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. worried about how forcing church-affiliated organizations to pay for it would play....

Mr. Biden arranged for Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York to meet with the president and express the church’s view. With the support of some of the president’s political advisers, Ms. Jarrett pushed back in her own meeting with Mr. Obama, aides said. And she signaled Ms. Sebelius to “keep fighting — I’m with you on this,” said one former official with knowledge of the matter.

But by January, even friendly voices were accusing the president of throwing “his progressive Catholic allies under the bus.” Democratic members of Congress were fielding calls from constituents who felt, in the words of one, that this was a “big blunder.” In a senior advisers meeting, the president, exasperated, ordered his senior staff to “figure it out,” one participant said.

But if some expected significant backtracking, they were mistaken. In phone calls the next week, the president outlined his compromise: the burden for the coverage would shift from employers to insurers, but women who worked for religious organizations could still avail themselves of the benefit.

“When the president called me,” said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, “I could practically hear Valerie’s influence.”

And the "war on women" — which to me looks like nothing but rhetoric designed to paper over this policy screw-up — is that the voice of Valerie Jarrett? What is the President's voice? Whose "aspirational 'first principles'" are we talking about?

Is the light on in the refrigerator when the door is closed?

"As a member of the House Budget Committee, I've seen firsthand just how extreme Paul Ryan is..."

"... so I'm not going to mince words: Paul Ryan in the White House would be a nightmare for the middle class," emails Debbie Wasserman Schultz, implying unconvincingly that under other circumstances she would mince words.

Not only does Congressman Ryan want to end Medicare as we know it and raise taxes on middle-class Americans to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, but he also supported a bill that could ban birth control and all abortions -- even in cases of rape and incest.

This isn't the kind of leader we can afford to have a heartbeat away from the presidency....

A bill that could ban birth control? Can I get a citation for that? I found this on BarackObama.com marshaling the facts about Ryan:

Paul Ryan is severely conservative...

Paul Ryan would take us backward on women’s health:

Ryan cosponsored a bill that could ban in-vitro fertilization, as well as many common forms of birth control, including the pill. It could also ban all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. He supported letting states prosecute women who have abortions and doctors who perform them.

Can we get a cite to the text of that bill? Banning "many common forms of birth control, including the pill" — really? I'm just going to assume this is a lie until the Obama people prove to me that it's not a lie. That's the way we're doing things now, right?

Twice in 2 days, Obama says "my sons" when talking about the birth control mandate.

He was relying on the Teleprompter, which isn't really odd. It's the kind of mistake you make when the words aren't coming out of your own head.

I wonder if perhaps Obama is a bit tired. You know, unlike Mitt Romney, he has a whole other job in addition to presidential campaigning.

"For decades, Democratic politicians have found ways to win Catholic swing voters despite taking positions that are at odds..."

"... with the Catholic Church’s views on abortion, same-sex marriage, and yes, contraception. But it will be considerably harder for this White House to win over those same voters if it seems to be picking a fight with American Catholicism as a culture — with the local Catholic hospital, the local Catholic soup kitchen, and yes, the Fighting Irish."

Says Ross Douthat, who is good at political analysis, but a bit slapdash about the law at issue in the suit that was filed by the Catholic bishops.

Whether [they] win in court will presumably depend on how the judicial branch weighs the public health concern involved. It’s true that religious institutions can’t be exempt from every regulation they don’t like, and maybe the courts will accept the argument that it’s worth sacrificing a measure of religious liberty in order to marginally expand the number of insurance plans covering contraception.

At least he says "presumably," and perhaps he's trying to express the view that the courts don't follow legal rules but approve of laws that seem like a pretty good idea in relation to how troublesome they are to people who like to think they have rights.

"Objects characteristic of business environments, such as briefcases and boardroom tables, make people more competitive..."

"... less cooperative, and less generous. Smells matter too: mere exposure to the scent of an all-purpose cleaner makes people keep their environment cleaner while they eat. In both cases, people were not consciously aware of the effect of the cue on their behavior. Or consider this one: people’s judgments about strangers are affected by whether they are drinking iced coffee or hot coffee! Those given iced coffee are more likely to see other people as more selfish, less sociable, and, well, colder than those who are given hot coffee. This, too, happens quite unconsciously."

From Cass Sunstein and Richard H. Thaler, "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness" (p. 71). From section of the chapter titled "Following the Herd," which deals with "priming," one of the influences on human behavior that government can figure out how to use.

***

I was searching through my ebook of "Nudge" today after writing that post about offering drug-addicted women $300 to get themselves sterilized. Offering money is the crudest way to incentivize behavior you don't want to compel (or can't — ethically or legally — compel), and I was interested in whether Sunstein and Thaler talked about sterilization. They don't, but they do talk about deterring pregnancy:

Teenage girls who see that other teenagers are having children are more likely to become pregnant themselves. Obesity is contagious. If your best friends get fat, your risk of gaining weight goes up.... (Page 55.)

Teenage pregnancy is a serious problem for many girls, and those who have one child, at (say) eighteen, often become pregnant again within a year or two. Several cities, including Greensboro, North Carolina, have experimented with a “dollar a day” program, by which teenage girls with a baby receive a dollar for each day in which they are not pregnant. Thus far the results have been extremely promising. A dollar a day is a trivial cost to the city, even for a year or two, so the plan’s total cost is extremely low, but the small recurring payment is salient enough to encourage teenage mothers to take steps to avoid getting pregnant again. And because taxpayers end up paying a significant amount for many children born to teenagers, the costs appear to be far less than the benefits. Many people are touting “dollar a day” as a model program for helping reduce teenage pregnancies. (Surely there are more such programs to be invented. Consider that a nudge to think of one.) (Page 234.)

Consider that a nudge to think of one? Are you nudged to rethink free birth control?

ADDED: The notion that hot coffee makes people less selfish and more "sociable" reminds me of the Coffee Party. Remember that? The liberal answer to the Tea Party.

Michelle Obama exults over the way "insurance companies will now have to cover basic preventive care--things like prenatal care, mammograms, contraception — at no extra cost."

Right. She didn't say free. She said "no extra cost." Key word: extra. The cost will be bundled into the price of insurance, which you will be required to buy, whether or not prenatal care, mammograms, and contraception are in the range of things you might need or want. That's the beauty of it. Because it's not an extra cost, it's not an avoidable cost. Everybody into the pool.

"Class warfare" and "the war on women" — 2 wars or 2 fronts in the same war?

A question that came to mind as I was reading this comment, from Yashu, on last night's "Rosengate" post:

What happened was, in their efforts to attack Romney, the Dems suffered a strategery malfunction. Crossed wires caused a short circuit.

Crossed wires: i.e. two separate tactical strands of the Obama 2012 campaign against Romney momentarily met in Rosen's soundbite and short-circuited.

1. GOP "war on women" (Dem pandering to women)
2. Class warfare (spurring resentment of Romney's wealth)

Rosen was predictably going along on #1 (that's the meme the Dems are pushing now, #2 will come to the forefront later). But because they had to defend themselves against Romney's counterattack (Obama's economy hurting women), for a moment #2 came to the fore: i.e., Ann Romney's a rich bitch who's never worked a day in her life, so what does she know about the economy or jobs?

Short circuit. Because the "rich bitch" was tacit, implicit; what was explicit, what everyone heard out loud was: stay-at-home mom never worked a day in her life, so what does she know about the economy or jobs?

A stupid sneering insult to stay-at-home moms, i.e. a large number of women. Short circuit.

Do Democrats need to be careful to fight these 2 wars separately, or is there a way that the 2 wars could be merged successfully? Rosen merely lost a battle. That doesn't mean her side has lost the war or that it is not capable of a war on 2 fronts. You might not want them to win, but that doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion. Whichever side you are on, you will want to understand this.



Here's something I found that was written before Rosengate. (I need a better word than "Rosengate." What would be the equivalent of "-gate" that would signify not a scandal, but a battle. Maybe: -incourt. Rosenincourt/Rosincourt?) Anyway, this is from a website I've never noticed before called policymic, and the author is John Giokaris:

During the weakest post-recession recovery in history, there’s very little material to accentuate the positive with, so the Democrats are trying to make up for it by dividing the American public with class warfare and trying to convince women they need dependency on government for protection.

See the connection between the 2 wars? In the merger of these wars, there is a coherent left-wing vision of government, and the stay-at-home wife is a threat to this vision. In the "war on women," women are threatened and beleaguered. They are victims, and they can't make it one their own. The left would like you to see that only the government can competently and reliably serve the needs of women.

The traditional vision would have each woman ally with one man and form a single economic unit that would be effectively and efficiently structured, with one spouse leaving the house each day to engage in commercial activity and the other spouse looking after things in the home. The married couple takes care itself, including its emotional and sexual needs, which are the very thing that produces offspring, and the love and economic support flows naturally to the next generation, which is trained to follow the same effective and efficient structure.

The left-wing response is to reject that traditional vision, but how? The rejection is the 2-front war. Women should perceive the traditional married-life model as a big threat. It's retrograde and subordinating. It's a throwback to the bad old days when women lacked choices. Anyone promoting the traditional married-life model will be re-framed as someone who will destroy the advances that have been made for women — even if they are only saying women have a choice, and the traditional model is actually a great choice, a choice you should consider, a choice that works best if you can find a good husband.

There's the central battleground: Do women have a choice? The left has loved the word "choice" when it comes to childbearing. Indeed, in the "war on women" battlefront, they want to say their opponents aim to take away the choice that is birth control and abortion, the choice whether to become pregnant or to go through with a pregnancy. But a different choice comes into play here: Should women choose the traditional marriage structure to protect their economic needs? It's a great option if you can get it, so the left would like to say: You can't get it. That's a choice that is no choice. Only rich people can afford that luxury. Only a 1 percenter can keep a wife at home. The right-wing candidate is very rich, and his rich-bitch wife doesn't know what she's talking about. They'd like to deprive all the other women of the protection they really need, which must come from the government.

In this left-wing framework in which the vast majority of women need the government structure around them, women are not supposed to identify with Ann Romney . The left would like to alienate her from you by portraying the economically supportive husband as something only available to the rich. President Obama would like you to think that even he, as a Harvard Law School graduate, could not keep a wife at home with their 2 children. It's an economic solution that works for so few people that it's no choice at all.

How does the other side fight this 2-front war? It's obvious now, isn't it? They need to show that the traditional household division of labor is viable and advantageous to many people, even those of modest wealth. I'd like to see that battle fought. Personally, I think many women have been fooled over the years into working terribly hard for too little reward. I also think — and I'm very non-retrograde here — that many men can do well as the stay-at-home spouse. (And I support same-sex marriages and think these nontraditional couples can prosper using a traditional division of labor.)

I would love to hear a very open and fact-based discussion of household economics. Let's do the math and take everything into account, including the tax advantages for the 1-earner family, the costs of going to work (clothes, transportation, eating out, etc.), and the many expense that can be avoided if someone is at home doing household work. There's a lot of propaganda in this 2-front war for the minds of women (and men). Let's keep our wits about us as we make our personal life decisions and our political decisions.