Thursday, February 12, 2004

Posted here Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 4:37:40 PM     Bush on nuclear weapons.. It would have been breathtaking had Bush told his audience of military officers that, as a token of our commitment and a recognition of the sacrifices involved, he was terminating all programs to develop new U.S. nuclear weapons. It wouldn't have cost him much to do so; these mini-nukes won't give us a real edge anyway. But he would have reaped extraordinary political and diplomatic gains; his nonproliferation proposal would have taken on a sheen of legitimacy. This leads to the radical shift in mind-set that Bush must undergo if his new policy is to have real meaning. Much of the world views Bush as indifferent, even hostile to the obligations of international treaties, laws, and fixed alliances. A stepped-up effort in nonproliferation will require continuous cooperation between the United States and the leaders of at least 40 other nations, many of whom view Bush as an opportunist who does not take them or their interests seriously. If Bush wants to lead in this realm, he has to show—by deeds, not just words—that he's worthy of being followed, that he can give as well as take.   ********

draft Posted here Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 1:25:50 PM     Like getting rid of social security and medicare, civili liberties a calm life, this could happen without a whimper? US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005   Vancouver IndyMedia - Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/105146.php ********

Power vs people.. Posted here Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 10:52:04 AM     Campaign labguage.. The gap between Mr. Ickes and Mr. Shrum reopens a rift among Democratic strategists that was exposed during Al Gore’s campaign four years ago. Departing from Mr. Clinton’s "third way" centrism, Mr. Gore—on Mr. Shrum’s advice—defined his campaign against George W. Bush in stark terms: "They’re for the powerful," he told the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles. "We’re for the people." Since most people think they have some power, this probably doesn't work. ********

Medical records Posted here Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 9:31:56 AM     Ouch Justice Department Seeks to Invade Privacy of Women Who Have Had Abortions The New York Times has the story here. The Justice Department seeks to subpoena medical records of women who have had abortions in order to prove that partial birth abortions are medically unnecessary and were "just the doctor's preference to perform the procedure." This is truly grotesque. Doctors do not perform D&X abortions because they have a particular fondness for gruesome procedures; they do so because they believe it is the safest procedure available for women who are in difficult circumstances. This is a pretty blatant attempt to scare doctors away from performing the procedure and invade the privacy of their patients in the process. The key quote from the Justice Department's brief: Citing federal case law, the department said in a brief that "there is no federal common law" protecting physician-patient privilege. In light of "modern medical practice" and the growth of third-party insurers, it said, "individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential. All of which begs the question whether people *should* have their medical privacy protected. Is there nothing that John Ashcroft won't stoop to? comment: the underlying logic of gving in to tech pressures.....   ********

Posted here Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 9:29:24 AM     This is dramatic and importnat. The transcript and early warnings of the first plane to crash.. http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage1.asp "We know what she said from notes, and the government has them," said Mary Schiavo, the formidable former Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, whose nickname among aviation officials was "Scary Mary." Ms. Schiavo sat in on the commission’s hearing on aviation security on 9/11 and was disgusted by what it left out. "In any other situation, it would be unthinkable to withhold investigative material from an independent commission," she told this writer. "There are usually grave consequences. But the commission is clearly not talking to everybody or not telling us everything." ********

Bush playing in the press. Posted here Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 6:39:07 AM     The political analysis - one can almost call it that - is so much advanced from previous elections. Good sign. Here is a texas column on Bush http://www.fwweekly.com/issues/2004-02-11/thought.html "In short, the next time you get worried that we simply aren't doing enough to prevent another terrorist attack or fix the economy, disregard the "windshield cowboy's" twangy tough talk and remember the disturbing realities being perpetrated by the guy who's really in charge." ********