Some developments in the area of euthanasia, which we discussed below:
"Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041130/D86MEAA80.html
H: I'm wondering how you would feel about the subject...

C


- posted by Christoph Roggenkamp @ 11/30/2004 06:43:00 PM

 
Got home safe, myself. I got a 5:09 train to Trenton, and was in NYC by 7:45. It's a very easy trip to take!
I had a great time this Thanksgiving - sorry I was in a bad mood on Saturday morning...
It was fun planting the trees and hiking Gettysburg - Hannah's Swamp Tours will become a phenomenon, I predict!
That abandoned trolley grade near Devil's Den was cool, too.
We can definitely put wish lists up on Amazon - we might have to show Dad how it works...
It was good talking politics etc. with you H, on the car trip back. Here is the link to the article about Bush winning 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties in the U.S.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-fast22nov22,0,6617098,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines
(The 3 he didn't win are: Clark County, NV (i.e., Vegas), Chatham, N.C. (Kerry was leading by 5 votes) and Nantucket.)
Dad: the Fallujah story I was referring to wasn't in the CSM, but in the Times of London, a link here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1359782_1,00.html (title: "Mujahidin terrorised Fallujah, residents say")
Here's one quote:
"Such is the fear that the heavily armed militants held over Fallujah that many of the residents who emerged from the ruins welcomed the US marines, despite the massive destruction their firepower had inflicted on their city."
Later in the article:
"The same story of arbitrary executions was told by another resident, found by US troops cowering in his home with his brother and his family."

[Update 12:45 - Here's an interesting analysis in The Australian: "WMDs camouflage real reasons behind Iraq invasion". Link here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,11498606,00.html ]

Interesting things ignored by much of the media...

Anyway, not to bring politics back into it...
I had a great time, guys!

C

- posted by Christoph Roggenkamp @ 11/29/2004 11:49:00 AM

 
hello all,
well, the weekend is over, and we have all gone our separate ways again. putting it that way sounds really sad, doesn't it? hopefully we can all get together for xmas again soon.
ebony and I got back to the house around 4:30 pm yesterday, after dropping XO off at 30th st. station. I got chinese food and sat down and watched most of LOTR- The Two Towers, extended version. I liked the new scenes, but also understand why they were cut out of the movie. it's a tad on the long side though...
JP, C, hope you guys got home safely.
Make sure you blog often. Just like taking your vitamins.
Another thing, C and I talked about xmas presents on the ride to philly, and think that it might be cool to have wishlists on amazon.com, or something similar to that, to make present buying easier. I will work on mine today.
comments?
with love,
H

- posted by H @ 11/28/2004 09:53:00 PM

 
Hello all,
well, it was an overcast weekend here in philly. it is still pretty warm here on the east coast, which is nice.
how was the weekend in nyc, J & C? I hear you got a ton of site seeing in. hehe.
not much to report here. my first days off from work since starting are very soon. thursday and friday baby!
see you all soon.
love,
H


- posted by H @ 11/22/2004 09:11:00 AM

 
C: awesome post, very informative. just to get back to your responses to my 11/4 comments.
2. I think that Kosovo is definitely an example of something that happened a while ago that probably didn't improve our status in the eyes of terrorists. Listening to radio reports on NPR, they often talk about the Iraqi peoples' tendency to think very negatively about americans. an example is the recent upset over the marine who shot the wounded man at close range in teh head. sure, you could look into background influences for this soldier to explain his actions, and not immediately think that he was a cold blooded killer, killing an unarmed man who wasn't a threat to him (opinions vary on the 'threat' issue). Iraqis are usually more likely to think that this american IS a cold blooded killer. we did, after all, invade their country.
now, I am not saying that we need to tip toe around the world, only doing things that would make everyone else happy. but as kosovo was not advantageous for our image in the terrorists' eyes, iraq is probably even worse.
3. why could i say the two ARE connected? there is no evidence linking al quaeda to saddam.
the bush administration would like us to think that, but it is simply not true.
5. what do you mean by "overshadowed by me in WWIV?"
Regarding the germany comparison... it is infortunately that we are not able to establish a real 3rd party that actually has power. Where do you stand on environmental issues, C? I am asking about the current administration, policies, not in the theoretical, libertarian sense.
I hope that my comments on euthanasia were illuminating.
love to all. at work, gotta go.
H

- posted by H @ 11/18/2004 09:58:00 AM

 
Here's my response to some of the comments on the blog below.
My post about my trip is below this post.

H (your 11/04/04 comments):
1. Status quo goes back to the 1970s. This one was a bipartisan problem, and Reagan is at fault, too.
2. What kind of 'more effective international efforts'? The UN is massively corrupt via the oil-for-food scandal. (This is 10 times bigger than Enron - why is the media suppressing stories about it?)
We have allies, unless the only allies that count are Germany and France. What is your basis for the sentence "The more the terrorists know that the US will defy the UN and just barrel ahead with bombing countries that didn't attack us, the more likely they are to attack us." When we defied the UN and bombed Kosovo (which didn't attack us), did that make terrorists more likely to attack us too?
3. You could just as easily say "We all know the two ARE connected".
4. Kerry suggested using law enforcement techniques in the war on terror - i.e., sending the FBI in to analyze explosive types and blast trajectories after the fact. He didn't give the impression he would take the fight to the enemy.
5. The PATRIOT act mostly just sorts out, clarifies and enhances laws passed by Clinton and by Reagan and GHWB. There have been no reported abuses of the PATRIOT act. Regarding supreme court etc., these issues were overshadowed by me by WW IV. Secrecy is mostly bad, but I never heard from Kerry that he would have been more transparent. (That doesn't mean I love the PATRIOT act, but I think it is a red herring.)

JP: (your 11/05/04 comments):
I'd like to see citations that "Bush admin announced there was GOING TO BE an attack on the country". I didn't hear about them guaranteeing one.
Regarding shipping containers, funding the military, etc., if the Democrats were serious about this, they would be strongly pushing for laws being passed to remedy this. If they are not strongly pushing for laws addressing these issues, their comments seem like pure politics to me, with no real feeling behind it. Kerry is still a senator, I am waiting for his bill proposals on these issues.
I do agree that we need to increase our spending on the military, especially supplying troops with more ammo and protection. Kerry badly hurt himself by voting against supplying the troops ("I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it").

H: (your 11/06/04 comments):
It would be interesting to see the Democrats with the Greens, but remember that Germany has a parliamentary systems where one builds governing coalitions with multiple parties involved. The USA, for better or for worse, is a 2-party system. Nader, of course, is trying to change that (and Perot did a good job, capturing 19% of the vote in 1992.)

JP: (your 11/09/04 comments):
I personally think euthanasia should be legal, but I understand why some people have problems with it. H has pointed some issues out (11/10/04 comments).
Fallujah is not revenge. This town should have been taken over by coalition forces in March of 2004, but the Bush administration caved in to political pressures. On the other hand, I read that the insurgents had booby-trapped much of the old city, which is the only part we didn't take over in 3/2004. The tactic of pulling back the take-over of the city, in hind-sight, seems to have worked, however, as there are many reports of Fallujahns rising up against the insurgents, who were making themselves very unwelcome. The locals were starting to execute the insurgents (some of the foreigners were beating Iraqi women who did not fully cover themselves, etc.). Fallujah is a smuggler's town - its population increased from approx. 10,000 a few decades ago to more than 300,000 - most of this growth is attributed to the smuggling business coming in over the desert to the west. The second battle of Fallujah was no surprise - there were weeks of advance notice of the battle, enough time for the civilian population to evacuate.
I agree that we should make allies with the terrorists' neighbors, however, we pursued this strategy under the old "status quo" that I like to talk about - look at Saudi Arabia, etc. It can't be the exclusive way to approach things.
There is a blogger who has a keen grasp on these kinds of issues - he calls himself Wretchard and his blog is Belmont Club at http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/
He has been analyzing Fallujah since the beginning and most of his predictions have been spot on. He is a Filipino living in Australia, and seems to have worked for the Filipino government in the 1980s in their relations with Muslim insurgency groups in the Philippines.
He does a very good job of looking at the bigger picture of Fallujah.

C

- posted by Christoph Roggenkamp @ 11/16/2004 07:22:00 PM

 
Well, I'm back!
I got back from New Orleans Saturday night, after spending 4 nights there. It was a lot of fun.
I've been catching up with things at work, and have been spending most of my free time binging on playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - I was in computer withdrawal after 5 days of no Internet or computer games. GTA:SA is amazing - even better than GTA: Vice City, which was better than GTA III.
The game takes place in LA, San Francisco and Vegas in 1992. You come back to the 'hood and help re-start your gang - your gang color is green and your brother is the leader. After a while, you are forced to leave and head for SF to start your life over. They say that if you play only the minimum parts of the game to finish it, it takes about 40 hours and you only complete about 50%. I'm about 2/3 done with my first time through.
New Orleans was cool - we stayed at the Bourbon Orleans, in the middle of the French quarter. The hotel is said to be haunted by ghosts of some children and a soldier. We took a walking tour which took us by houses said to be haunted. The most interesting building was the home of Madame LaLaurie - in the 1830s, a fire broke out in the home. When firefighters got to the attic of the house, they found a torture chamber, with dead and alive slaves chained to the walls, in various stages of dissection (including the living ones). The LaLaurie family escaped in the confusion - their fate is unknown. Needless to say, the house is said to be haunted. If you want to read about more of the atrocities (and they are really, really bad), google "LaLaurie".
We took a paddleboat down the Mississippi to the Chalmette battleground, where in 1815 Andrew Jackson defeated the British in the last battle of the war of 1812. It is a pretty weak battleground compared to Gettysburg. Chalmette is a big rectangular field, and the Americans were on one side behind an earth wall (swampland and the Mississippi were 2 other sides). The Brits marched toward the Americans and were routed - over 2000 casualties to the Americans' few dozen. This battle made Jackson a national hero - many years later, he announced his candidacy for President in New Orleans.
We went to the casino; I did well at blackjack; I quit while I was ahead.
The weather was in the 60s and 70s - the food was amazing (I love gumbo!) - and it was a relaxing time.
I'll contribute to some of the political debate later. My apartment mate David is teaching a class on media law at a school here in NYC and I am a guest lecturer on the FCC tomorrow night. I need to prepare for that discussion tonight.
I'll be in Hanover for Thanksgiving - JP and I can take the train to Philly and catch a ride with you, H, right? Later, I can go back to Philly with H and catch the train to NYC.
Glad to see you guys are keeping up the blog! I'll be posting more this week!
C
- posted by Christoph Roggenkamp @ 11/16/2004 05:43:00 PM

 
Hey everyone. BLOG MORE.
I am already anticipating the whole Thanksgiving time! C, now that you are coming too, how are we going to work coming to Philly so I can drive us all to H-nover? Let me know thoughts, plans, etc.
Things are going well here. Studies are truckin along. winter is creeping up...
anyone up for some hiking while we're all in south central PA? C, want to do pole steeple again? it's never too cold to hike!
love,
H

- posted by H @ 11/16/2004 08:58:00 AM

 
Hello all,
glad to hear everything is well in Hanover. except for wu's absense of course. So C is coming to Hanover for thanksgiving? am eager to hear the background story on that situation. I am very excited though. JP, you'll be on the east coast this time next week!!! and you'll be in philly a couple of days after that! I am so pumped. gavin and I are devising schemes to get ebony used to you. she doesn't like tall strangers. Gop was at the apartment and she barked and attacked his shoes for hours. we think that if you two meet while outside, and you take a walk with her and stuff, that she should become accustomed to you and be fine. I can't hug you when she's around though, she'll think you're attacking me and will want to be protective.
Philly should be a good time though. we went to see gav's brother's (brian) band, called Huzzavox. Brian also lives in philly. Huzzavox is a cool name in my opinion. they play rock, I guess. not my bag, kind of mainstream, but they are tight and fun to watch. they are pretty well known in philly and are trying for the old record deal. the crowd was pretty into them too. Brian's funny. he's 40, but none of the band members (all in their early to mid 20's) know how old he is, think he's late 20's. he looks good though. his wife, kara, also looks good for her age, which is close to brian's. they're both kinda nuts but still a lot of fun.
it is another sunny saturday in philly but it is getting COLD!!!!!!!!!!
work is fine, as usual.
love,
H

- posted by H @ 11/13/2004 02:22:00 PM

 
Quite a masterful post there by our anonymous genius, mr.x. you should really start writing for some kind of newspaper, underground magazine, etc. I AM SERIOUS. the crazy punks who put those babies out would love your 2 cents. even something more mainstream might be possible.
Anyway. regarding assisted suicide. recently I attended a lecture here at CHOP on medical ethics, and interestingly, the idea of "shutting off life support and letting nature take its course" started with newborns with serious medical problems, back in the 60's and 70's. there was a huge issue of whether parents should be allowed to make the call. it would seem intuitive that they do so, but there were some concerns raised that parents would opt for death if they thought that the child would be too much of a burden in life. kind of morbid, but the concern was there.
Basically, now the guidelines (for adults) are that the family can make the decision, or if someone close to the person had heard verbatim from the person that they would have wanted to live more naturally, they follow that directive. with the case of terry shiavo in florida, fyi a woman who has been on a feeding tube for over 10 years, there's the issue of husband vs. parents. it is ironic that jeb bush, who is so opposed to gay marriage, because it violoates the holy institution of marriage, would say that the husband, part of that holy institution, would not be responsible for such a decision.
as the rules stand now, it is important to look at how the person is being kept alive. it is the idea of natural vs. unnatural life support. the supreme crt deemed anything that is administered by a nurse or non-family member unnatural. if the family member is responsible for that level of care, it is natural. that really helps define things. so it is okay to remove all services provided by non-family members- that is considered to be invasive. anything else might fall under euthanasia.
it comes down to the whole "preserving life at all costs" thing. I mean, my opinion is clear. if someone does not want to suffer further (if they are still conscious), or would not have wanted to live in a permanent vegetative state, the plug should be pulled. it eases many burdens: most importantly, the emotional and financial burden on the family. I think people are afraid that we will be killing off criples and old people, ala the nazis. but that kind of knee jerk is not appropriate in these cases.
it also comes down to the right to choose. ooh, sticky topic. wont' touch that now.
essentially, science has prolonged life, but at what cost? we must think in a more human sense, and a realistic sense. I see it often in the NICU. doctors struggling between doing everything they can, and knowing the suffering of this new life. the issue is being addressed here every day. they can save babies who weigh 1000 grams, but what will happen to that baby in teh long run? should a line be drawn?
so many open ended quesitons....
regarding iraq. we can only ready ourselves for the worst.
with love,
H

- posted by H @ 11/10/2004 09:09:00 AM

 
Hey everybody,
JP, how was san fran? hopefully it was a "good time." hehe.
it was really cold this morning, so I am contemplating (to my chagrin) that winter might be officially here.
Good weekend, pretty warm and sunny. one of gavin's friends from college, Tara, was in town from pittsburgh so we hung out sunday. she and I really hit it off, and had a great time. otherwise, not much to report. work is fine, as usual.
JP, you gotta get a raise from those bastards. you deserve more! threaten them!
Love,
H

- posted by H @ 11/08/2004 11:38:00 AM

 
well, I think I'm spent on the whole issue. a couple people I know have been joking that we all might as well go over to the dark side. I was talking with my friend rory, who is a green party supporter, and it was his opinion that the democrats should look to people like the green party to try to get away from sounding too much like the republicans. I kind of agree, but question the feasibility. sometimes I think about how it worked in Germany. It was more like republicans versus democrats and greens, which, in my opinion, helped bolster the dems image and execution of their policies. it may have given people a clearer distinction between the two parties. Your thoughts on that, all?
it seems like it is another beautiful saturday in PA. At least I can say with pride that PA voted democratic for president, right dad? ahh, getting back to politics AGAIN. will it ever end?
I am really looking forward to thanksgiving. I can't wait to be together. C, any word yet? If you can't come for the actual thanksgiving celebration, you should take the train out for the weekend or something! think it over.
work's going well.
love,
H

- posted by H @ 11/06/2004 09:14:00 AM

 
C,
wow, this is turning into a regular little back and forth. Let me just preface anything that I say with admission that I didn't really like Kerry, since I feel like he did not represent me. I was (and still am) an anybody but Bush person.
I guess these are my responses to your reasons for voting for Bush...

1. Is that a status quo that had something directly to do with the Democrats, more specifically Clinton? Or is it something that goes farther back to the Reagan years? Do you feel "safer" with the status quo that we have today?
   
2. I guess you could spin his words to portray that he wanted to "sit back," but I don't really think that that is necessarily true. The sense that I got was that he wanted to have more effective international efforts that involved America's hopefully-not-completely-alienated allies. One could say that this is a throw back to before 9/11, but I don't really think that it is. I would think that the global atmosphere surrounding this issue would change if the US showed some effort. The more the terrorists know that the US will defy the UN and just barrel ahead with bombing countries that didn't attack us, the more likely they are to attack us.
   
3. Which war are you refering to? The war on terror or the war on Iraq? We all know that the two aren't connected. If it's the war on terror, then why didn't he get Osama yet? Why isn't there better monitoring of shipping containers that travel by boat?
   
4. Regarding sitting back and waiting for another attack... that is basically speculation.
   
5. I know that you're a libertarian. Does something like the PATRIOT act represent your idea of how people in this country should be treated? I know that the PATRIOT act was a bi-partisan effort, passed in the chaos post- 9/11 stuff, but it is mostly a product of the Bush administration. Do you think that Bush, who will most likely appoint SC justices who will restrict a woman's right to choose, and restrict stem cell research based on 'moral grounds,' is really the best candidate for your interests? Does the secrecy that this adminstration extends to its actions represent your ideals?
   

To finish off I want to say that I think the Democratic party is an incredible dissapointment. I agree that they need to re-think their modus operandi. But voting for the Bush adminstration, with creeps in it like Cheney and Rove, is frightening.

ahh, politics, like I always say....

Dad and JP, feel free to jump in at any time.

love,

H

- posted by H @ 11/04/2004 03:45:00 PM

 
Having quickly explained my choice below, it does seem time for the Democratic Party to step back and figure out what it needs to do to be successful again. Think about what happened in this election:

The Republicans kept the White House.
The Republicans gained seats in the Senate.
The Republicans gained seats in the House of Representatives.
The Republicans increased their number of governors.

In other words, a clean sweep, 4 for 4, for the elephant party.
What does the Democratic Party need to do to stem this tide, let alone reverse it?
C

- posted by Christoph Roggenkamp @ 11/04/2004 10:45:00 AM

 
H:
The reasons I voted for Bush are a bit long and complicated (I voted against him in 2000 mostly because of the stem cell question - not much more than that).
Here's the short version (at least, I'll try to keep it short):
- During my lifetime, and especially during the 1990s, the after-party of the Cold War, there was a status quo which was dangerous, but seemingly innocuous. This status quo led directly to people flying planes into buildings in the biggest city in the U.S., and only a few blocks south of JP and me. The first plane flew over our heads on its way to death and destruction.
- Kerry basically said that as President, he would try to get us back to that status quo, where we ignore the problems of the world and hope, crossing our fingers, that people wouldn't attack us like that again.
- We did not choose this war - it was thrust upon us. Bush's idea is a radical one, admittedly, but in my opinion more likely to end this war than anything offered up by Kerry. Bush decided to take the fight to the enemy - break the status quo, and start to change the conditions that produce people who want to kill as many innocent Americans, Europeans, South-East Asians, Middle Easterners, etc. as they possibly can.
- It's a gamble, but the alternative is to sit back and wait (1 year, 5 years, 20 years, etc.) for people to attack again, with no guarantee they won't take out an entire city, or worse.
There's an author (Steven Den Beste) who has written a very good overview of what's going on - you can find it here.

If there had been a candidate who would have cut taxes, massively reduced government spending, while aggressively fighting the war, I would have voted for that candidate over Bush. Unfortunately for Kerry, he was not that candidate.

[Update at 11:15 am: here is a quote from George Will which neatly summarizes most of my problems with Kerry:
"Kerry ran a high-risk "biography candidacy" based on a four-month period 35 years ago. His contrasting silence about his nearly 20 Senate years echoed. He was an anomalous kind of challenger. The most important changes he promised would be either restorations or resistances. That is, he campaigned as the candidate of complacency, albeit a curdled, backward-looking complacency. Regarding foreign policy, he promised to turn the clock back, to the alliance-centered foreign policy before the intrusion of the "nuisance" of terrorism. Regarding domestic policy, he promised to stop the clock, preventing any forward movement on entitlement reform to cope with the baby boomers' retirements."]

Hopefully this is somewhat helpful in explaining my decision.
C
- posted by Christoph Roggenkamp @ 11/04/2004 10:22:00 AM

 
hey,
my last blog somehow got lost in publishing.
the point I made was that even though, with 58 million votes, Bush is, by popular vote, more popular than Clinton, KERRY is ALSO more popular than Clinton, with 55 million votes. Hence that stat isn't that dazzling.
Then I called Kerry a wuss for conceding, except used secede. hehe.
C, why did you vote for Bushy?
H

- posted by H @ 11/03/2004 03:34:00 PM

 
just an addendum to what I wrote. I meant to say concede, not seceed.
H

- posted by H @ 11/03/2004 03:32:00 PM

 
Why call Pennsylvania and not Ohio?

Here's what I don't understand - as of 10:55 a.m. Eastern time, Kerry is leading Bush in PA by about 120,000 votes, or 2.2% of the total.
Bush is leading Kerry in OH by about 135,000 votes, or 2.5% of the total.
Yet the media has already called PA for Kerry but won't call OH for Bush, even though the margin in narrower in PA than in OH!
I guess the media wants to prolong this as much as it can - more advertising dollars or something...

- posted by Christoph Roggenkamp @ 11/03/2004 10:55:00 AM

 
H:
Here's my voting history:
1992 - Clinton
1996 - Clinton
2000 - Gore (and H. Clinton for NY's U.S. Senator)
2004 - Bush

One thing is clear: I've voted for the popular vote winner in every election I voted in!

Interesting fact: Bush is more popular than Clinton ever was!
1992: Clinton got 43% of the popular vote (yes, it's true: 57% of Americans voted against Clinton).
1996: Clinton got 49% of the popular vote with 47.4 million votes.
2000: Gore got 48.4% of the popular vote (51 million) - Bush got 47.9% of the popular vote (50.5 million). Here, Bush was NOT more popular than Clinton.
2004: Bush got 51% of the popular vote with 58.8 million - an absolute majority (which Clinton never had) and over 10 million votes more than Clinton ever got.
Don't get me wrong - I loved Clinton; I just am noting for the record that Bush is more popular than Clinton ever was...

- posted by Christoph Roggenkamp @ 11/03/2004 10:35:00 AM

 
I can't help but feel a vague sense of profound dread this am. am wearing all black for no real legitimate reason. will probably burst into tears at any moment.
Dad, I am pretty pissed that arlen specter got re-elected here in PA. What are your feelings?
As JP said in the last blog, nothing's decided yet. I know Kerry won't concede until the fat lady sings (hopefully), but I had a feeling that things would go badly and they are. I never had any real hope I guess.
the mood keeps dropping and dropping.
On a lighter note, gavin and I did get to vote last night. didn't even have to wait in line or anything. of course the people at the polling place made fun of the picture on my driver's license. they weren't even young folks, just some old heads havin a laugh at my expense.
ahh, what a world.
Hey C, who did you vote for?
love,
H

- posted by H @ 11/03/2004 08:55:00 AM

 
another day, another deutsch mark.
it's another way too nice day here in philly, but I am indoors. boo. it has to be around 7o F outside already.
we got two trick or treaters the whole night. one was actually an older woman holding a lit cigarette in one hand and a pumpkin candy bag in the other. nice.
ahh, city life. there were tons of kids a few blocks south of us, but didn't come around to our neighborhood. gavin and I walked ebony later on that night and saw the usual college girls in sexy nurse and cat outfits and stuff. we were walking with the dog by some houses where people were handing out candy and they asked us what our costume was. gavin told them that ebony was our daughter dressed up as a dog. for some reason that made me almost pee myself laughing.
no candy though.
love,
H

- posted by H @ 11/01/2004 08:57:00 AM