Month: May 2011

Apparently Kyle's little brother Ike is doing voiceovers:

A reader writes:

There are several IUDs on the market in the US. (Planned Parenthood has a lot of info here.) The reason why there were so many lawsuits about the Dalkon Shield was that it was a horribly designed product.  After an IUD is implanted, a short cord is attached to the IUD in the uterus that runs down through the cervix so the IUD can be removed.  On the Dalkon Shield, this cord was made of fine woven fibres that acted as a wick to draw fluid from the vagina into the cervix causing infections that rendered tens of thousands of women sterile.  Evidence at trial demonstrated that this defect was known to the manufacturer but that they continued to sell the product. 

In this instance, the tort system worked exactly as it should have – the negligent manufacturer was bankrupted. (Disclosure – my office represented plaintiffs in the Dalkon Shield cases.)

Another writes:

Speaking from experience, the IUD is amazing.

I had it for two years, and when I wanted another child I had it removed and was pregnant the next month. But when I wanted to have it replaced, I was stunned to find my insurance plan did not cover it. It does, however, cover abortions.

My ob-gyn doesn't get the logic either. My children cost about &10,000 each to deliver, not counting prenatal care. My insurance company covered the vast majority of these expenses. An IUD costs around $1,500 total. Currently I take the pill, but I often forget to take it and I cannot get more than one month at a time. It makes no sense. Want cheaper healthcare? Cover all birth control and make long-term prevention accessible. This also has the added bonus of reducing abortions. Win-win.

Massie's theory:

If the British public rejects a relatively minor change to the electoral system there is almost no chance, at any conceivable point in any conceivable future, they will vote for a republic.

Matthew Shugart explains problems with both First Past The Post and the Alternative Vote.

Catholic women have abortions at about the same rate as women overall; skip the cloying politics at the end of the video:

Steven Cook prods the Obama administration to undermine the Assad regime:

Washington may be missing an important strategic opportunity.  After all, with Bashar and the Alawi power structure gone, it is unlikely that the Damascus-Tehran axis would survive. This would be a major blow to Iranian ambitions.  The end of the Assad regime would effectively shut down the channel through which Tehran plays in the broader arena of Middle Eastern politics, supporting Hizballah, Hamas, and placing traditional U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and Jordan on the defensive.

His suggestions for doing so:

It would not hurt for Washington to sharpen its public position; instead of calling on Assad “to change course,” it would be more effective if President Obama stated that the Syrian leader “must go now” and that the United States stands with the Syrian people in their effort to throw off a brutal dictatorship.  The administration could also seek broader sanctions beyond what they implemented on April 29th.  Why not go to the UN and send emissaries from the Department of Treasury to reluctant countries to pressure them to cut the Syrians off?

The latest rhetoric from Foggy Bottom:

The US and Italy warned Syria on Thursday that it will face penalties and increasing isolation if it does not halt its violent crackdown demonstrators. Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said Syria had to know that there would be "consequences for this brutal crackdown." Speaking at press conference with Franco Frattini, the Italian foreign minister, Clinton said the US is looking at boosting sanctions it has already imposed on Syrian leaders.

Bruce Keough, who oversaw Romney's 2008 New Hampshire campaign, is ditching Romney because Keough thinks voters  "want somebody who's been true to a certain set of political ideals for a while." Chait isn't buying this rationale:

The reality is that Romney is the same candidate as he was in 2008. It's the GOP that's changed. In 2008, a health care policy of subsidies, a regulated market and a mandate to prevent freeloading was considered a reasonable, even admirable, policy for a Republican to hold. Now it's the Death Of Freedom. Romney has gone from being a conservative in good standing to a left-wing deviant without changing his position at all.

Josh Green, on the other hand, thinks Romney can win by waiting:

In a field as weak as the current one, Romney can win without really exciting anybody. The key is for him to wait patiently until the noisier contenders burn themselves out like Roman candles and the conservative mood shifts from eager anticipation to concern to desperation. This process is already underway.

A reader writes:

It is important to be honest that we went there to kill bin Laden. It is irrelevant if he was reaching for a gun or personally resisting. The command was to kill; the command was followed. I am comfortable with that, and much more comfortable acknowledging it than pretending it was anything other than a mission to kill bin Laden.

Dropping guided bombs would have killed OBL (or not!) without proof of death. The strategic decision to send troops to kill him doesn’t change the moral calculus from a guided bomb. The only reason to capture him as far as I am concerned (being comfortable with the kill order) would be to gain intelligence, but that is of marginal benefit in this case.   Any attempt to take OBL alive given the mission would be fraught with peril.  Can you imagine the reaction if the SEALs handcuffed OBL, put him on the helicopter, and then were shot down or crashed before making it back to base? Why would you take the risk of allowing OBL to escape? You have the ability to kill him, you kill him – that has been the policy of 3 consecutive Administrations.

So the reach-for-the-gun thing, in my mind, really misses the picture. We went there to kill him. We killed him. Get comfortable with it or not.

Joe Keohane crafts an alternate history of a failed SEAL mission and the political firestorm that would have resulted. A reader poses another scenario:

Can you imagine what we'd be discussing at this very moment if bin Ladin were alive and a prisoner of the U.S military? Can you imagine how the country would start to tear itself apart over questions variously ranging from the conditions bin Ladin should be held in, where he should be held, where he should be tried, what sort of  a court should try him, what rights and legel representation he should be entitled to, etc? Do you think for a second that a prisoner bin Ladin wouldn't provide endless fodder for political demagoguery from cynics seeking advantage by appealing to our basest instincts for revenge? Do we really want the world to witness the political opportunists in our government demanding a public, televised execution (or worse)?

And then there's this: what do we do when American citizens around the world start disappearing, kidnapped by radicals who demand bin Ladin's release in exchange for the lives of their kidnapping victims? How many more grainy video tapes of innocent Americans being decapitated by Islamic radicals are we willing to put up with?

What actually transpired that night was a mere technicality. Osama bin Ladin had to die in that raid. It was the only possible outcome.

Another:

Are you ever going to address the question of whether the president broke any laws in ordering US troops to enter Pakistan and kill Osama bin Laden? If he did break laws, does that make him a criminal?  Why does KSM deserve due process rights, but not bin Laden?

The Dish is looking for two interns to help with editorial content, assist with remedial tasks, and work on larger projects.

Interns will be full time (37.5 hours a week) and will be paid an hourly wage of $10.25. The position, unlike many internships, includes benefits (my bleeding heart insistence) and are a year-long commitment. Applicants must be in DC or willing to move to DC. We are hoping to hire interns within the next month or two. Start dates are semi-flexible.

We've wanted our own exclusive interns for years and now we are at the Beast, we can have them. We're looking for extremely hard workers, web-obsessives and Dishheads, who already understand what we do here. I should add that Zoe, Chris and Patrick all started as Atlantic interns with some of their duties for the Dish, and became full-time staffers because of the amazing work they produced. We're also looking for individuals who can challenge me and my assumptions and find stuff online that we might have missed.

To apply, please e-mail a (max 500-word) cover letter explaining why you want to work for the Dish and a resumé to Dish.Intern@newsweekdailybeast.com. The cut off for applications is Friday, May 13th.

Fallows was wrong:

The number of Americans saying President Obama was born in another country has been sliced in half, according to a new Washington Post poll. In interviews following the public release the president’s “long-form” birth certificate last week, fully 70 percent of Americans say Obama was born in Hawaii, a big bump-up from the 48 percent who said so a year ago. Even more say he was U.S.-born, or call that their best guess, for a total of 86 percent.

We do not live in a post-factual world. And producing valid proof of contested or queried claims is not pointless. The biggest shift in opinion? Among conservative Republicans. If journalists spent more time getting information rather than preening about which information should be dispersed, we'd have fewer conspiracy theories, not more.

And by the way, a note about the current press's disdain for pursuing conspiracy theories. What was Watergate at the beginning of the Washington Post's inquiries – if not a conspiracy theory? There was a conspiracy. And journalism did what it is supposed to do: expose it.

So where are Palin's medical records?