Subject: Report on the use of uncertified software in California voting machines - msg#00097

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

Study: 1%+ of long haul air travelers get clots

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/12/19/travel.clots.reut/index.html fb4d9f6.jpg Study: 1 in 100 long-haul fliers may get blood clots LONDON, England (Reuters) --Up to one in 100 long-haul fliers could develop blood clots, and wearing compression stockings, taking aspirin and travelling business class may not help, a study showed on Friday. New Zealand researchers tested almost 900 passengers who took long-haul flights over a six-week period. The subjects travelled for at least 10 hours a flight and each flew an average of 39 hours over the course of the study. They discovered nine cases -- four of pulmonary embolism and five of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), which involves the formation of blood clots which can cause death if they invade the lungs or brain. Seventeen percent of the passengers in the study by the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand wore compression stockings to aid circulation. Thirty-one percent took aspirin to thin the blood and reduce the risk of thrombosis. The team, whose report was carried in The Lancet medical journal, said all air travellers were at risk, not just those in economy class. "As a result, our findings lend support to the recommendation that the term 'economy class syndrome' should be avoided with the disorder renamed 'traveller's thrombosis."' The New Zealand team concluded that their findings may err on the side of conservative estimates. During recent court action, victims have blamed cramped aircraft cabins for their blood clots and argued that airlines have known of the risks for years but failed to warn people. But a British court agreed with the airlines, which claimed that DVT was not an accident under the 1929 Warsaw Convention that governs international air travel. DVT made international headlines and airlines came under pressure to do more to prevent the condition after a 28-year-old British woman died from the condition about three years ago after a 20-hour flight from Australia to London. Copyright 2003 <http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#Reuters>Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. fb4d9f6.jpg Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/12/19/travel.clots.reut/index.html

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

NYT Op-Ed William Safire : Behind Closed Doors

Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:45:28 -0800 From: Shannon McElyea <shannon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: FW: NYT Op-Ed William Safire : Behind Closed Doors To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx> did not see this on IP... \----------------------------------------------------------/ Op-Ed Columnist: Behind Closed Doors December 17, 2003 By WILLIAM SAFIRE WASHINGTON - When George W. Bush was running for president, he was inspiring on the subject of privacy. But it was not your privacy or mine he was talking about. He has gone all out to keep his administration's energy-legislation deliberations from public scrutiny. Cast your mind back to the White House task force, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, that came up with the stalled Bush oil policy. Democrats complained that it met frequently with Enron and other energy executives but blew off environmental lobbyists. Bush and Cheney, sensitive to charges of being too close to the oil industry, clammed up. That secrecy violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, claimed the rightist Judicial Watch and the leftist Sierra Club as they sued for access. Cheney's lawyers dumped 30,000 pieces of wastepaper on them from around the bureaucracy, but not one memo produced by Cheney's group. Only federal officials were members of that task force, Bush lawyers argued, so advice from outside consultants is none of the public's business. A federal court ruled against the stonewalling, and an appeals court let the ruling to allow discovery stand. But the administration escalated the case to "the president's constitutional authority to gather candid advice from his advisers" plus "fundamental separation of powers questions." Up it went to the Supreme Court. This week the justices, who apparently have nothing better to do next year, agreed to hear the Cheney appeal. The administration's eagerness to slam the door in the snoopy public's face will now be argued before the high court during political primaries and probably decided in July, right before the issue-hungry Democratic political convention. Are Republicans out of their collective mind? Why the hots to hide? A decade ago, Hillary Clinton tried to pull the same kind of wool over the people's eyes about her health care task force, but the D.C. appeals court ruled that her consultants were "de facto members" of the official group and stripped away the secrecy. Remember how we raised the roof about all those phony executive privilege claims as Clinton lawyers tried to jam a cone of silence on top of Secret Service agents? Remember how we fought for the right of Paula Jones to subject the high and mighty to discovery? What is sauce for the Clintons is sauce for the Bushies. An ordinarily astute S.A.O. (senior administration official) assures me that no potential embarrassment is at the root of this unnecessary fight to the finish, and that it's just the principle of the thing. Let us assume that the court's surprising willingness to hear the case - despite the appeals court's refusal to overturn the district court's discovery permission - augers ill for government in the sunshine. Assume, too, that Ted Olson, the most respected solicitor general since Erwin Griswold, is at his most persuasive in seeking a landmark decision holding that "any discovery" would be unconstitutional, thereby placing the vice president high above the law. The principle of the thing is wrong. Of course the president's cabinet and staff should be able to offer reasonable confidentiality to outsiders in return for candid advice. But when it comes to domestic legislation and not sensitive national-security affairs, the names and the advice of outside consultants and lobbyists should be discoverable according to law. How's this for a practical principle: don't use a sledgehammer to swat a gnat. The Supreme Court, courageously and at some cost, did its bit for the Bush administration's electoral legitimacy. It should not now be called upon at re-election time to erect a high barrier to finding out who is advising whom about the public's business behind closed doors. Beyond this case, even when it comes to federal officials, the argument that only secrecy ensures candor is specious. Presidents record and blab; speechwriters remember and tell all; most advisers want their "private" advice to become known. When, in a memoir, I protected a colleague by not mentioning his unpopular advice in an Oval Office meeting, he objected furiously to having been left out of history. If "freedom" is the word Bush and Cheney want as the hallmark of their administration, they should begin with freedom of information. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/17/opinion/17SAFI.html?ex=1072869915&ei=1&en= ec5a87be6571fe52 --------------------------------- Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like! Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here: http://www.nytimes.com/ads/nytcirc/index.html HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact onlinesales@xxxxxxxxxxx or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@xxxxxxxxxxxx Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Study: 1%+ of long haul air travelers get clots

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/12/19/travel.clots.reut/index.html fb4d9f6.jpg Study: 1 in 100 long-haul fliers may get blood clots LONDON, England (Reuters) --Up to one in 100 long-haul fliers could develop blood clots, and wearing compression stockings, taking aspirin and travelling business class may not help, a study showed on Friday. New Zealand researchers tested almost 900 passengers who took long-haul flights over a six-week period. The subjects travelled for at least 10 hours a flight and each flew an average of 39 hours over the course of the study. They discovered nine cases -- four of pulmonary embolism and five of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), which involves the formation of blood clots which can cause death if they invade the lungs or brain. Seventeen percent of the passengers in the study by the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand wore compression stockings to aid circulation. Thirty-one percent took aspirin to thin the blood and reduce the risk of thrombosis. The team, whose report was carried in The Lancet medical journal, said all air travellers were at risk, not just those in economy class. "As a result, our findings lend support to the recommendation that the term 'economy class syndrome' should be avoided with the disorder renamed 'traveller's thrombosis."' The New Zealand team concluded that their findings may err on the side of conservative estimates. During recent court action, victims have blamed cramped aircraft cabins for their blood clots and argued that airlines have known of the risks for years but failed to warn people. But a British court agreed with the airlines, which claimed that DVT was not an accident under the 1929 Warsaw Convention that governs international air travel. DVT made international headlines and airlines came under pressure to do more to prevent the condition after a 28-year-old British woman died from the condition about three years ago after a 20-hour flight from Australia to London. Copyright 2003 <http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#Reuters>Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. fb4d9f6.jpg Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/12/19/travel.clots.reut/index.html

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

NYT Op-Ed William Safire : Behind Closed Doors

Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:45:28 -0800 From: Shannon McElyea <shannon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: FW: NYT Op-Ed William Safire : Behind Closed Doors To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx> did not see this on IP... \----------------------------------------------------------/ Op-Ed Columnist: Behind Closed Doors December 17, 2003 By WILLIAM SAFIRE WASHINGTON - When George W. Bush was running for president, he was inspiring on the subject of privacy. But it was not your privacy or mine he was talking about. He has gone all out to keep his administration's energy-legislation deliberations from public scrutiny. Cast your mind back to the White House task force, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, that came up with the stalled Bush oil policy. Democrats complained that it met frequently with Enron and other energy executives but blew off environmental lobbyists. Bush and Cheney, sensitive to charges of being too close to the oil industry, clammed up. That secrecy violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, claimed the rightist Judicial Watch and the leftist Sierra Club as they sued for access. Cheney's lawyers dumped 30,000 pieces of wastepaper on them from around the bureaucracy, but not one memo produced by Cheney's group. Only federal officials were members of that task force, Bush lawyers argued, so advice from outside consultants is none of the public's business. A federal court ruled against the stonewalling, and an appeals court let the ruling to allow discovery stand. But the administration escalated the case to "the president's constitutional authority to gather candid advice from his advisers" plus "fundamental separation of powers questions." Up it went to the Supreme Court. This week the justices, who apparently have nothing better to do next year, agreed to hear the Cheney appeal. The administration's eagerness to slam the door in the snoopy public's face will now be argued before the high court during political primaries and probably decided in July, right before the issue-hungry Democratic political convention. Are Republicans out of their collective mind? Why the hots to hide? A decade ago, Hillary Clinton tried to pull the same kind of wool over the people's eyes about her health care task force, but the D.C. appeals court ruled that her consultants were "de facto members" of the official group and stripped away the secrecy. Remember how we raised the roof about all those phony executive privilege claims as Clinton lawyers tried to jam a cone of silence on top of Secret Service agents? Remember how we fought for the right of Paula Jones to subject the high and mighty to discovery? What is sauce for the Clintons is sauce for the Bushies. An ordinarily astute S.A.O. (senior administration official) assures me that no potential embarrassment is at the root of this unnecessary fight to the finish, and that it's just the principle of the thing. Let us assume that the court's surprising willingness to hear the case - despite the appeals court's refusal to overturn the district court's discovery permission - augers ill for government in the sunshine. Assume, too, that Ted Olson, the most respected solicitor general since Erwin Griswold, is at his most persuasive in seeking a landmark decision holding that "any discovery" would be unconstitutional, thereby placing the vice president high above the law. The principle of the thing is wrong. Of course the president's cabinet and staff should be able to offer reasonable confidentiality to outsiders in return for candid advice. But when it comes to domestic legislation and not sensitive national-security affairs, the names and the advice of outside consultants and lobbyists should be discoverable according to law. How's this for a practical principle: don't use a sledgehammer to swat a gnat. The Supreme Court, courageously and at some cost, did its bit for the Bush administration's electoral legitimacy. It should not now be called upon at re-election time to erect a high barrier to finding out who is advising whom about the public's business behind closed doors. Beyond this case, even when it comes to federal officials, the argument that only secrecy ensures candor is specious. Presidents record and blab; speechwriters remember and tell all; most advisers want their "private" advice to become known. When, in a memoir, I protected a colleague by not mentioning his unpopular advice in an Oval Office meeting, he objected furiously to having been left out of history. If "freedom" is the word Bush and Cheney want as the hallmark of their administration, they should begin with freedom of information. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/17/opinion/17SAFI.html?ex=1072869915&ei=1&en= ec5a87be6571fe52 --------------------------------- Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like! Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here: http://www.nytimes.com/ads/nytcirc/index.html HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact onlinesales@xxxxxxxxxxx or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@xxxxxxxxxxxx Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company