Marriage has declined precipitously among young women, both college graduates and women with less education. But most women do eventually marry. According to the report, 82 percent of women who ended their formal education after graduating from high school will marry by the age of 40. Among women with a college degree the figure is 89 percent. Marriage has remained mostly intact, but childbearing in wedlock has not, a change that has opened a deep class divide.
Along the way, as part of this escalatory sanctions dynamic, measures are adopted that at the time may not appear to be decisive, but in essence create an irreversibility that eliminates all non-confrontational options. This leaves the sanctioning countries with only two policies: Regime change or war. Or both.
This happened in 1998 in Iraq. Under President Bill Clinton, Congress adopted the Iraq Liberation Act. A full embargo had already been in place on Iraq for six years, which had a crushing effect on the Iraqi economy and society. But while the sanctions crippled the fabric of the ancient Iraqi society, it did not break the endurance of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. Frustrated, Congress felt that more pressure was needed—after all, we could not afford to leave Saddam with the impression that we weren't serious. The Iraq Liberation Act raised the stakes to demonstrate that seriousness by making regime change official US policy. This meant that even if Saddam sought to capitulate, it would not suffice. His regime had to go. As desirable as that outcome was, its effect was to redouble Saddam's determination. His last theoretical exit ramp had been eliminated.
The second day of oral arguments have already concluded, and the omens do not look good for ACA's survival. But below is a round-up of reaction to Day One (Day Two reax to come). What was being debated yesterday:
Adam Serwer bets that the tax/penalty distinction won't delay the ruling:
The justices seemed clear that they would not duck the historical moment by avoiding a ruling on Obamacare under what might be called a tax dodge. Judging by their remarks, the Obama administration is likely to see a verdict on its signature domestic program prior to the November election. But there's still no telling what that verdict might be.
It's not too surprising to see the court tracking this way. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants thought the Anti-Injunction Act was relevant to the case, so the Supreme Court had to hire an outside attorney, Robert Long, to air the case. Obama's Solicitor General Donald B. Verilli Jr. in fact argued before the court Monday that the justices shouldn't read the individual mandate as a tax in this sense, a clear sign that the administration thinks the court is on its side and wants to dispatch with the constitutionality questions before the president's reelection campaign this fall.
First, the justices sometimes ask questions for rhetorical effect or play devil’s advocate. I don’t think they are doing so here, but obviously I can’t be sure. Second, it is theoretically possible that the constitutional definition of what qualifies as a “tax” is broader than the [Anti-Injunction Act] definition.
Jeffrey Toobin isn't predicting anything but worries about a court radical enough to decide Citizens United:
In weighing how the contemporary Supreme Court behaves, there’s a relevant precedent here. In the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court not only rejected a major piece of legislation but created a constitutional standard that makes any meaningful campaign-finance legislation next to impossible to pass. The question is whether they will do the same with health-care reform.
Dahlia Lithwick praises the Court's willingness to debate dusty old laws:
One question is why we went to all the trouble of briefing, arguing, and roping someone in to defend the Anti-Injunction Act, if the court had every intention of blowing off the first gate and hearing all three days worth of argument. That’s the wrong question. The court actually did what it does best this morning—reading complex old statutes (when Kennedy asked Long why the wording of the Anti-Injunction Act was so weird, Long basically replied that’s how people wrote back in 1867), asking practical questions, and reaching what looked to be nearly universal agreement that they’ll hear the case this year.
The key 15 minutes from yesterday's proceedings can be listened to here.
"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it's going to be struck down. All of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong. The only conservative justice who looked like he might uphold the law was Chief Justice Roberts who asked hard questions of both sides, all four liberal justices tried as hard as they could to make the arguments in favor of the law, but they were — they did not meet with their success with their colleagues," – Jeffrey Toobin, on today's developments.
And so what? Howard P. Kainz has a pretty fair account of how far the theology of the LDS church is from orthodox Christianity, despite its profound fascination with Jesus. But he also fascinatingly contends that "while Romney’s religion is—to say the least—heterodox, it raises fewer ethicalor ideological 'red flags' than the beliefs of many preceding presidential candidates." Because Mormonism is so outside most traditional Christian denominations, and because it has an admirable history of separating church and state (most persecuted religions see Jefferson's vision more clearly than others), Romney escapes the theocratic charge that would clearly dog Santorum:
[T]he fact that Mitt Romney, the first Mormon candidate for the presidency in our nation’s history, is not only a bishop in the LDS church but a High Priest of the highest echelon (the "order of Melchizedek") within that religion, and is not being opposed because of the "separation of church and state," is an indication that Americans do not consider him a bona fide Christian. In contrast, one can imagine what would happen if a Catholic or Lutheran or Episcopalian bishop or priest sought the presidency. An impossibility! … It is becoming clear that—from the ‘ordinary’ Christian point of view—Mormon "high priesthood" is a sui generis order, possibly analogous to higher Masonic degrees, incorporated into a religion quite different from most Christian denominations.
And Romney doesn't talk about religion the way the others do. Partly because he doesn't want to highlight the Mormon issue; but partly because Mormons are less theocratic in American national politics than evangelicals or pre-Vatican II Catholics like Santorum.
In response to Obama’s “hot mic” comments, Romney called Russia, in one of his dumb-ass “Double Gitmo!” moments, “without question our number one geopolitical foe.” The more Romney speaks on foreign policy, the more lightweight and knee-jerk he sounds. Medvedev gives Romney a little reminder that the Cold War is over. Larison rolls his eyes:
Whenever Romney speaks about foreign policy, I never rule out that it could be driven almost entirely by shameless opportunism. He sees an opening to criticize Obama on policies related to Russia, he takes it, and then predictably can’t avoid ridiculous hyperbole. However, it’s not just opportunism. This seems to reflect the bizarre, outdated hostility towards Russia that his earlier policy statements have conveyed. Sometimes the U.S. and Russia have divergent interests, and sometimes these interests may conflict, but that’s true of the U.S. and any other major power. His description of Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe” suggests that Romney has a very warped, anachronistic view of the threats to the United States.
I thought it was China, given the debates. But that Romney is seeking to find enemies rather than allies or areas of mutual cooperation tells you a lot about what his presidency would be like on foreign policy. Heather Hurlburt adds:
Romney reflexively saying that Russia is the U.S.’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe” today shows, yet again, how bad the U.S. political class is at geostrategy; it also shows how uncomfortable Romney is on national security issues, needing when in doubt to reach back to those comfortable certainties of the 1980s.
Hmmm, red tile roofs, palm trees, sun in the west (or east?) … this has to be in southern Italy. I'm going off a hunch that it's on the northern coast of Sicily. I'm going with Cefalu because this does not quite seem like Palermo.
Another writes:
My partner and I, wrapping up a vacation with our boys in your fair city, recognize those roof tiles as being the same as those we saw in the walled portion of the beautiful city of Dubrovnik, where we honeymooned in 2003. The roof tiles were in patches of lighter and darker hues reflecting original tiles untouched by the shells of the Serbs, and replacement tiles. This scene looks to be not in Dubrovnik proper, so we will guess just north of Dubrovnik. The Adriatic looks just as calm in this photo as we remember it.
Another:
I'm guessing this is a Portuguese island, and since I've never been to the Azores, I'm going with Funchal, Madeira. The red tiles, the satellite dishes, the marine haze, and the water being far below, as though the buildings were above a steep grade, remind me of Madeira. I didn't submit a guess of Portugal (#53) or a former colony like Mozambique (#54), the last times I saw those red tiles, and I really should have at least tried. I had just got back from Madeira and sent in a VFYAW that was posted.
Another:
Spent a lot of time looking up the red satellite dish and where they was used. Unfortunately the only place I could find that had red satellite dishes were Thailand. Since your clue said it was in the Western Hemisphere I will just throw out a guess: Limon, Costa Rica.
Another:
At Bee Pure NZ we only offer the best "Value for Money" Bee Venom. Reduced from $178.00 (rrp) with a bigger 100gm Tub at NZD including tax $69.00 Bee Pure NZ Bee Venom or two for $130.00, with Actives 10+ Honey and Bee Venom this is your best value for money natural alternative to Botox®.
Best spam ever. Another reader:
The Breakers, Palm Beach, Florida? A wild guess. But who are those men on the roof?
Another:
Las Gaviotas, Baja California is a walled community a north of Ensanada. It's a great place for Southern Californians to take a brief respite from Southern California by going to "Mexico," and staying in a walled fortress where the homes are built with nearly adjoining walls. The entrance is guarded by Federales whose enforcement of the community's rules (no pot! no nudity!) comes with the implied threat of a Mexican jail. It's a lot funner than it sounds, especially if you like drinking on a balcony overlooking the Pacific while anticipating lobster and tuna steaks for dinner. Also, it has a semi-decent surf break within its confines, which is a plus, as none of the local Baja hoodlums can make it past the Federales to threaten your wave. Instead, you get threatened by the same cretin from Orange County you went there to avoid in the first place. In any case, the view from the window looks like it was taken from one of the houses that its in the back of the compound, which would put it way to close to the old highway to be nice house …
Even though I'm probably wrong, I appreciate the opportunity to wax nostalgic about Las Gaviotas, I spent more time there with great friends, having great times, than was healthy.
Getting close. Another:
Cancun, Mexico? This is the first time I've even been close to recognizing the VFYW. Maybe it's just the fact that I used to go to Mexico every year around this date on the calendar, but that looks a lot like the Yucatan peninsula. Or maybe it's Puerto Vallarta …
It is:
First time entry, and I knew it the moment I saw it! This has to be a view out toward the sea from the center of town in Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico. My best guess is that the picture was taken from the building at the northwest corner of Matamoros and Galeana. I recognized the Malecon immediately, the wonderful seaside promenade that has just been completely redone and is beautiful. And the white double-hipped roof must be right next to Senor Frogs – that awful tourist trap no one should get caught in. My boyfriend and I just strolled this stretch of town when we were down visiting his parents for Thanksgiving. They live in the very gay Zona Romantica – very helpful in luring their son to visit.
A visual entry:
Another:
The view is of buildings overlooking Puerto Vallarta's Malecon. It's of a special spot too; a pivotal location in a great movie that helped put Vallarta on the map and gave it a place in Hollywood romance lore. As every guidebook and tourist map will tell you (over and over again), Puerto Vallarta was made famous to Northerners by John Huston's 1964 Night of the Iguana, and by Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, who conducted their notorious affair there throughout its filming.
In the movie, Burton plays Reverend Lawrence Shannon, a disgraced priest who's been kicked out of his own church for being too hands-on with a "very young Sunday school teacher." He's now a tour guide and his current, thankless task is shuttling a group of Baptist schoolteachers around Mexico. These hens are headed by a suspicious, joyless harridan who is chaperoning her Lolita-like niece (played, naturally, by Sue Lyon). It's an impossible situation.
What's special about the spot shown in the contest photo? In the lower left, in the open space with the palm trees, you'll see a stubby black and white striped truncated obelisk. It's an old light house. Watch for it in this video at the forty-two second mark; you'll see that this week's VFYW is of the exact location where Burton's Reverend Shannon loses his shit:
I'm sure you'll get a ton of correct submissions for this one – the view is instantly recognizable if you've spent any time walking around PV's old town. (The iron bars on the windows are a recognizable feature too – sadly, they are everywhere there and they are not decorative.) The window is on the top floor of the Condominio Marina Del Rey, on the corner of Calle Galeana and Calle Matamoros. Specifically, it's at 20°36'34.45"N, 105°14'0.53"W
Another who got the right address:
We enjoyed this one. The red satellite dish stood out. The logo seemed to match Dish Network, which limited it to the US, Canada, and Mexico. But the red dish itself only appears in images from Mexico. The silhouettes on top of the building seemed like it would be helpful, but no dice (afterwards we found that they don't even appear on Google's latest street view of the area). The small "lighthouse" on the left seemed like a longshot. But a math prof at University of North Carolina apparently really likes light lighthouses. Bingo! There's our light house.
Another asks:
What the heck is that SWAT team doing on the roof of the building at the center of the photo? Maybe Malia Obama visited Puerto Vallarta during her spring break trip to Oaxaca?
Another finally solves the mystery:
This week's photo was taken from one of the condos facing the ocean, I'm guessing the 3rd floor, at Condominio Marina del Rey, 511 Matamoros in Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico. I was just in Puerto Vallarta last week on a side trip from Guadalajara where we were visiting my husband's family; it is a lovely town. The building in the center of the photograph along the malecon and next to the lighthouse houses La Destileria restaurant and the building just in front of it with the twin peaked silver roof is Senor Frogs. The small black figures that you see on the roof of the building to the right are cutouts of KISS and assorted other rockers that adorn the Bebotero Bar:
Determining the winner this week was tough, but the following reader has gotten the highest number of previous views correct without winning yet:
After getting stumped on a few previous ones, I'm glad to see you post a place that I would recognize anywhere. The giveaway is the small lighthouse (el faro) which places this in Puerto Vallarta, a place I know very well.
Originally famous because of the gossip and tawdry details surrounding the Night of the Iguana, the town has grown dramatically over the last few decades. It is now quite a popular destination for Canadians and Americans and has a very active gay scene. Frankly, I would recommend it for your next vacation; it's hard to beat its Mexican charm, food or views of the bay, especially in the surrounding towns of Mismaloya and Boca de Tomatlan. I've been going there since I was a kid, and as much as it has changed, it's still one of my favorite Mexican beach towns.
As to the specific location, this seems to have been taken from the Condominios Marina del Rey, 511 Matamoros, some condominiums with enviable views of the bay. It's impossible to get a picture of the windows from the front, but I've attached a picture using Google street view:
I'm guessing that this picture was taken from the third floor on the easternmost window. After getting so many near misses, I'm hoping this one finally does the trick.
The caption from the submitter:
Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, view from calle Matamoros 511, unit #302, March 5, 2012, 8:30 am.
Oh Andrew! It's a good thing I am such a huge fan already. I have been a Dish reader for the last several years but didn't read your blog back in the 2008 campaign, so your responses regarding Hillary Clinton caught me off guard. If you want to know why you might turn offwomen readers, just watch that clip a few more times.
Why is it playing the victim card to point out that attacks are sexist in nature? How much do you have to put up with? Why does it have to remain unnamed? Even if Hillary "played the gender card," do you really think it was so terrible for Hillary to let Bill have his career ambition before hers? Married people have to make compromises. Parents have to make compromises. That doesn't mean she isn't a feminist!
Another is more upset:
I write this with a heavy heart. I've been a huge Dishhead for 10+ years, checking your blog multiple times a day and devouring all of your posts. I don't always agree with you, but I've enjoyed your perspective on a range of issues. That's why this is so hard. After watching your arrogant and dickish mansplaining on the Overtime part of Maher's show, I just don't think I can read you anymore.
Not all of the reaction was negative:
My feminist credentials go back to the early '70s and founding the Minnesota Women's Political Caucus, MN NOW, etc. Hillary and Elizabeth Edwards made unfeminist choices. As usual, this old very leftist feminist agrees with you completely.
Another asks:
Regarding Hillary Clinton's career being tied to her husband's, can you clarify what you mean?
Juggling careers can look quite different depending on whether spouses are in the same versus different professions. I know numerous dual-PhD couples who couldn't find a university/location ideal for both. Some decided to let one spouse's career take precedence. Others decided to first move/support one spouse's career and then later give the other spouse a shot (i.e., the chance to pick which university/city they'd move to, whose publications and travel should take precedence, etc.). For spouses in the exact same field, this was extraordinarily difficult and sometimes contributed to divorce.
It seems to me that the Clinton marriage is similar. Their bond was an interest in politics. Bill's career came first and now Hillary's takes precedence, with each supporting the other's ambitions.
Did his career help hers? Of course. When careers are closely aligned, the first person gives the other a leg up as well as a terrible hurdle to overcome (i.e. the perception that whoever sacrificed and went second was inferior or didn't have what it takes to build his/her own career). What we never find out is how much the person who went second was instrumental in the other spouse's success.
So is Hillary an undeserving person who hitched herself to her husband's rising star? Or the essential partner who agreed to go second?
Another adds:
Hillary Clinton did use nepotism to get the prominence she has. However, I fail to see why she should be more condemned for it than Bush Jr., or Mitt Romney or various Kennedys, or any number of other heirs of political families.
She shouldn't. But nepotism – especially when her prodigious talents required none of it – is not feminism.
That's the question that has long been floating in my mind. Part of me thinks, the loathing of Obama will do the trick. But part of me also thinks that an Etch-A-Sketch is not the perfect vehicle for base mobilization. Tom Edsall notes that evangelicals now represent a majority (50.53 percent) of Republican primary voters so far, the "highest percentage recorded in a presidential nominating process," according to Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition:
There are signs that base Republican voters won’t turn out for Romney. Gallup found that only 35% of such voters would "enthusiastically" back Romney in the election, far fewer than the 47% percent who said they enthusiastically supported McCain at this time in 2008. These lukewarm Republican primary voters are, in effect, threatening to abandon the nominee after forcing him to pass ruthless ideological litmus tests.
The core of the party, then, the men and women who cast primary ballots and attend caucuses, has become a liability in much the same way that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party pushed presidential candidates off the deep end from the late 1960s through the 1980s.
The problem with this argument is that Santorum generates the same relatively low level of enthusiasm as well – and that the Gallup number is of all Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents, so doesn't demonstrate the evangelical factor. But since evangelicals are now a slim majority of the GOP – making it even more a religious rather than a political party – the drop in enthusiasm from last time around, when they lost decisively, must be worrying for some in the Romney camp.
Maybe a truly charismatic candidate could turn that around. Palin could do it, at the expense of all moderates. Romney almost certainly can't.
The Dish 
