September 2]
The Battalion
)ds
f PGJI
time
I T, N.Y. (AP)
t win the B.COp
> Fred Funk-l*
ugh money top
ay full time on fe
round was sus^
tin Sunday with
th hole and nev
tournament wai
hole event
lan — the tl
under-par-i
rivacy put
peril by
enetics
ove over, Psychic
Friends. A new tech
nique of reading the fu-
may be coming your way in
lyoff, won by Fin form of genetic testing,
when he neaih*foat may be coming along
s I K)t - it, however, is a legal right
ho started theit nhers to know your future as
dong with Pat
for third with61
>58,000.
Woods $140,19111
nents and putlu
money list-oc
ling enough nioi
ihap-
dyet.
icien-
are
ently
ap 125 and eanui king on
ur card for 1992; Hu-
>20,000 — and hel ic
tents in which to a ome
be a lock. ect, a
iemic, actually.’ft 'ear at-
past the 150thsp' ptto
t last week—S103 )out
ne in the top 15Ji T 5111 ;
nlimited numb f 'P enet _‘ c
options, guaranti
vill get into any
wants next year,
i-place money!
eligible to
sic, the last reji'“
/ear, since he has
amount won by
ast year.
to go through gnie:
and to judge you based on
hasn’t
Columnist
Jenni Howard
Senior economics
and international
studies major
ect of human DNA. Re-
chers hope to not only dis-
erthe locations of all genes,
which ones cause certain
ts or diseases. Discovering
influence of our genetic
up could result in im-
ved medicine and cures to
nerly incurable diseases, but
future of an individual’s
so means thatWfti it to privacy is becoming
ierby the second.
Currently, there is no estab-
ledlegal protection against
lershaving access to an indi-
ual’s genetic information.
...the future of an
individual^ right
to privacy is be-
I coming hazier by
the second.
‘meal
verages
>fts.
t
)UpS,
^njoy
dwith the current research on
letically-based behavioral
its, if a link were found,
teotypes could be placed on
ividuals before they even de-
)ped the trait.
Certain tests can be per
iled on humans to deter-
ie whether or not they carry
es for some diseases, and
setests could be helpful in
future for preventing the
ase. But for now, they only
vide a sense of reluctant an-
pation for what could lie
ad, and possible discrimina-
ifothers find out.
Consider the case of a preg-
Itwoman in California who
[given two options from her
llth Maintenance Organiza-
[(HMO) after discovering
it her child would have cystic
bsis: get an abortion, or
ethe child and forget any
lical coverage for its care.
The woman ended up having
child, and the HMO backed
m after threats of a lawsuit.
Unfortunately, the occurrence
tisurance companies reject-
clients based on what they
!ld genetically be at risk for
Ibecome more common.
It would only be natural to ex-
thealth insurance organiza-
)s to want to know how in-
jable their clients are,
jecially with the rising cost of
Jth care. But the result would
Jo deny coverage to those
ti need it the most. What is
bmore disturbing is how easy it
pd be to access genetic infor-
[ion about people without
p ever knowing it.
tithe Jan. 17,1994, issue ofTime
lazine, George Annas, professor
ealth law at Boston University,
lit would be completely legal to
I clippings of Bill Clinton’s hair
pa barbershop, have them ana-
d, and publish a list of diseases
tedded in his genetic code,
lisunfair that such highly per-
al information about a person
Id be accessed and used by
one who is interested,
iven if people with certain
etic markers could potential-
e a problem for society,
2ther it be a drain on medical
Social resources, it is only fair
them have a chance to
(rcome these obstacles,
atever genetic research
lead to in the future, the le-
Jframework for protecting the
/acy rights of a person should
et today.
Page Tl
Monday • September 23, 1996
Predicting the class of ’OO
This is a special reprint of a column written
by Stacy Feducia with an introduction by
Michael Landauer, editor in chief and a senior
journalism major. Feducia is a former Battalion
columnist and a member of the Class of '93.
With every freshman class comes an onslaught
of questions. When will they stop wearing their
high school rings and Project Graduation shirts?
When will they take down their tassel from their
rear-view mirror?
But for the Class of2000, there are some unique
questions. And being different can be good. Last
week, we at the Batt were faced with an odd ques
tion: What do we do when we’re printing a letter in
Mail Call by a fish? Do we use the ’00 or go with the
full 2000? Hearing that Fish Camp had dubbed the
class “The Class of‘Double-O,’" we decided to go
with the ’OO.
As I stumbled through the staff files, I found that
this and other questions were raised by a former
Battalion columnist by the name of Stacy Feducia.
Known for writing columns about butt-cracks and
her experiences on the assembly line at a tampon
factory, Feducia made a name for herself on this
very page.
On August 29,1991, she took leave of her normal
style to ask a few questions about a class that would
be entering A&M five years later.
The following is the gist of that column, included
mostly just for laughs. But as campaigning gets un
der way this week for the leadership of this unique
class, a word of advice to the fish: Aggies are watching
you. Whether it is Feducia or some future Aggie, the
Class of2000 will be viewed as a milestone and, with
strong leadership, it will also be a proud example of
what A&M has become.
G iven that Fish Camp will no doubt be the first
episode in an epic of endless trauma for the
Class of 2000,1 decided to address it first. For
those of you unfamiliar with Fish Camp, a class
hump-it is composed every year to celebrate class
unity and Aggie Pride. This year’s hump-it goes like
this: “Fish Camp ’91, Aggie Spirit, pride and fun. All
the pieces come alive. The Fightin’ Class of ’95.”
Simple enough, but not when you throw in that
troublesome Class of 2000. Being the responsible
journalist and assuming they refer to themselves as
the Class of 2000,1 posed the question to members
of our esteemed English department. Know what I
found? Trauma! Confusion! Dismay!
“Surely there is a word that rhymes with ‘thou
sand,’” pondered Dr. Robert Newman. “But I can’t
think of one, and now it will torment me all day.”
I asked Dr. Janet McCann, a poet.
“In the Webster’s Compact Rhyming Dictionary,
no word rhymes with ‘thousand,’” she said. “You
could try a phrase like ‘cows and.’” So I tried it.
Fish camp ’96. Aggie Spirit really kicks. Beating all
those Bevo cows and ... The Fightin’ Class of 2000.
Let’s face it: That sucks. Deciding those academi-
ans were not close enough to the situation to be ef
fective, I asked the real experts, the Fish Camp Staff.
“Oh, no! I’d never thought about it. Let me get
some help,” cried Cristen Van Vleet of the Class of
’92. In the background, I heard distinct sounds of
anguish and trauma, not to mention a lot of hysteri
cal laughter. “Well, I don’t know, but it really de-
Hi THofijt QCVO
a*fA C# TfiOO
pends on the creativity of the people that year (the
Fish Camp ’96 Staff),” Van Vleet replied. “After all,
the Class of 2000 is so unbelievably unique! You
could do that big 2-0 or you could do double-0. You
could do anything.”
But it’s not that easy when it comes to the Class of
2000 class set. Theoretically, those fish will do a set of
ZERO push-ups at good bull events that mandate phys
ical retribution. Of course asking them to do 2000
push-ups would be out of the question — they’d never
get to turn out the lights at Midnight Yell. The Class of
2000 would still be pushing come kick-off the next day.
“Maybe they’d do a hundred. I don’t know,” of
fered Corps member Brandon Daugherty. Corps
Commander John Sherman concurred, “It would be
the prerogative for that class, but I’d suggest 100.
However, they’d have f o draw a line at some point
for the classes after 2000.”
The Corps of Cadets seems to have it under control
for now. But in five years, this could be one of the
most controversial issues since women for the Corps.
One big question still hovers on the horizon.
HOW DO YOU PUT CLASS OF 2000 ON YOUR AG
GIE RING?
“I never thought about that. Let me ask a higher
authority,” said Jackie Flowers, Aggie ring clerk. After
a long, anguished delay, she returned with this an
swer: “As far as I know, we’d go with ’00.”
You heard it here first.
Armed forces gives
many opportunities
I am a veteran of the United
States Army that proudly served
my country, my family and my
self. I stood on our country’s walls
of freedom for three years, de
fending her against all enemies.
Whether or not I agreed with
the reasoning behind my deploy
ment, I followed the orders of
those above me. I did not allow my
political beliefs to stand in the way
of my mission — to do that would
have put lives in jeopardy. Along
with every other soldier, I took the
same oath to defend our country,
and I was prepared to die for it.
There is no doubt that our gov
ernment has made political state
ments with our military forces that
cost American servicemen their
lives, but do not let their memories
go forgotten and tarnish the dreams
of potential recruits.
I joined the military for two rea
sons — to gain financial assistance
for college and to mature as a man.
I, too, remember my fallen
brothers in arms being dragged
through the streets of Mogadishu
and going home in body bags from
Kuwait. Do not let the government
overshadow your view of American
servicemen. I hope you join me in
keeping our soldiers in Kuwait in
your thoughts and prayers.
Joining the military under
parental or religious pressure would
be one of the last reasons anyone
should join the military, but if you
would like to be all you can be, see
foreign lands, serve your country
and be proud... join the military.
Matthew D. Bustos
Class of’98
Pride overshadows
service in military
Regarding David Boldt’s Sept.
18 column, “
“Sheer obligation” is why many
join the armed services. Sheer
obligation, whether it is from your
family, your pastor or your own
sense of patriotism, turns into one
thing when you join — pride. Pride
in what you are doing: defending
your country from threats, follow
ing orders, upholding the Constitu
tion, and a host of other things that
you swear to do when you enlist.
Being in the Army, I can attest
to this. Most of the people killed
in the military in the last ten years
have been from special forces. We
don’t even know about most of
them. The American soldier who
was dragged through the streets
of Mogadishu was a Ranger. He
was sent in with a small group of
men to kill a mafia leader. He
joined because he was a fanatic.
You’ve got to be a die-hard Army
go-er to be in the Rangers.
Most of the men that join the
army out of sheer obligation go in,
serve their four years and leave,
never seeing anything other than a
boring military base in the states.
There is nothing wrong with
serving out of obligation. But it’s
wrong to stereotype people who
join out of obligation as having
ultra-conservative parents. Peo
ple join for many different rea
sons: money, advancement, ex
perience, leadership qualities,
seeing the world, and obligation.
Oh yeah, and to fly jets.
Jason Ross
Class of’98 .
Corporal, United States Army
Government keeps
real marriage intact
Congress takes step back in
time? Bryan Goodwin suggests in
his Sept. 17 column that a primary
concern of the U.S. Congress in
passing a bill denying the recogni
tion of homosexual marriages is
concern over money.
The issue is not about money,
privileges or benefits. The real issue
is one of basic morality — uphold
ing the sacred institution of mar
riage. This institution is a lifelong
union between a man and a
woman based on unconditional
love. We should not allow this for
mal union to be extended to homo
sexuals. Goodwin declares that this
denies the right for homosexuals to
declare their love. In this case, the
fact is that the federal government
is not denying anything to anyone.
Simply put, it is preserving marriage
the way God intended.
There is no prejudice involved
here, no “victims” as Goodwin be
lieves. Homosexuals, as individuals,
have basic human rights of citizen
ship to live normally in our country. !
However, marriage is not a right
that can be granted or extended by
our federal government. Thank
God our legislators are doing their
jobs while representing us morally
and acting freely from the pres
sures of a small minority.
Hank Ballinger
Class of’99 7
Ignorant students
don’t deserve vote ?
<
Marcus Goodyear is wrong.
Every Aggie should not vote. The
only people who deserve to vote are
those who have taken the time to
educate themselves. As it is, people
will walk into a voting booth with
out knowing this information. They
usually end up either picking
names at random or voting for peo- !
pie based on name recognition.
Currently, incumbents win most
races because they have the name
recognition. So please, on election
day, if you don’t know who the can
didates are, don’t punch the holes.
This is the first step toward bringing
our government under our control.
Dave Deal
Class of’98
The Battalion encourages letters to the
editor. Letters must be 300 words or fewer
and include the author’s name, class, and
phone number.
The opinion editor reserves the right to
edit letters for length, style, and accuracy.
Letters may be submitted in person at 013
Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Let
ters may also be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Mail: 111.1
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: Batt@tamvml.tamu.edu
For more details on letter policy, please call
845-3313 and direct your question to the
opinion editor.
threatens to choose legality
Abortion case
A s if our national
debate over
abortion wasn’t
complicated enough, a
story unfolding in a
Wisconsin court could
make the issue even
more treacherous.
In the case, an act
that all should recog
nize as horribly wrong
is being defended in
the name of reproduc
tive freedom.
In March, 35-year-old Deborah Zim
merman entered a bar in Racine, Wis. and
went on a drinking binge. She was nine
months pregnant. Later that day, she gave
birth to a baby girl with a blood alcohol
level of 0.199 percent. That’s twice the le
gal limit for an adult. The infant was born
exhibiting the symptoms of fetal alcohol
syndrome, and has been showing signs of
impaired mental development.
Zimmerman was charged with attempted
murder. The county prosecutor alleges that
she tried to kill her unborn baby with alco
hol. Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty.
It would be believable for her to claim that
her drinking binge was a symptom of alco
holism; an overwhelming addiction might ex
plain her actions, although it wouldn’t excuse
them. But instead, a public defender named
Sally Hoezel has concocted a scary — and
highly political — defense.
The defense asserts that Zimmerman’s ac
tions were not criminal because Wisconsin
law does not recognize an unborn child as a
viable human being. Also, Hoezel claims that
Zimmerman’s actions are actually protected
by the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision.
“Had she in fact killed her unborn
child, she would be exempt from prose
cution,” Hoezel said in an interview on
CNN. “Under our abortion law, a mother
can’t be prosecuted.”
Joan Korb, the assistant district attor
ney prosecuting the case, takes a different
view in light of the late stage of the preg
nancy. She argues that the Roe decision
says "the state has an interest in protect
ing the life of a viable fetus.”
So, as the litigants await the court’s deci
sion, ethicists are left to ponder the conse
quences of the verdict.
The wave of speculation has washed into
the college community. Ethics specialist
Robin Shapiro of the University of Washing
ton asked where lines would be drawn in the
future unless a precedent is established to
punish future behavior.
The true issue hidden in Shapiro’s query is
whether or not we, as thinking students and
participating citizens, can draw lines at all.
Some worry that if Zimmerman’s actions
are found to be illegal, any woman who sips
any alcohol at any point in a pregnancy wifi
be subject to the wrath of the law.
According to this misguided line of
thinking, Wisconsin should ignore Zim
merman’s act. After all, there isn’t a law
that specifically says, “Thou shalt not poi
son a fetus with alcohol.”
Instead, Wisconsin should trust that its
judges can distinguish between alcohol
over morality
use and abuse, and hold people responsi
ble for their actions.
How sad it is that sometimes our moral
compasses point only to “legal” or “illegal,”
having totally forsaken “right” and “wrong.” ■
Deborah Zimmerman is probably both
criminal and victim. Perhaps she didn’t
intend to kill her unborn daughter on
what became her birthday.
She may be more the pitiable, reckless
addict than the would-be murderer. But
according to her own defense attorney,
Zimmerman’s motivations don’t matter.
The notion of abortion on demand allows;
her to abuse herself and poison her fetus. ‘
Today, it is politically fashionable to say
abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.”
But if a reproductive rights argument exon
erates a woman who may have tried to poi
son her daughter just hours before birth,
what could we say to legitimize this kind of
“abortion” procedure?
Would it be safe? No. Would it be rare?'
Maybe not. But, sadly, it would definitely!
be legal.
Columnist
Jeremy Valdez
Senior chemical
engineering major