Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 9, 1999)
The Bat <ie Battalion Page 9 • Friday, April 9, 1999 <o err is human... Politicians, like the average citizen, should be forgiven for making mistakes, changing views don’t know, m it sure.” er notice iwlnost 'litidans oid making :hei of these D avid dements he |lu’ black g|e? ■lether it be abortion, care reform or the situa- mln Kosovo, politicians today ivej^een forced into becoming iow it-alls, rendering opinions atfeeem to be informed on issue. Granted, tins is jwlit should be. Politicians mikTfuentes lve * ie P ower to make laws in spibnse to the issues, they are against the L n e Ued to be well informed. WI £T ■ Hfcwever, politicians are still e. weekend«rfcW n bein ^ „ is amazing m people jump at the chance ■ticize a politician if he or t ie is unsure about an issue r | V\/iW )m i time to time - I r^QT| How can a politician be ex- ^ Wlljcted to have an immediate Mnion on every single issue? I • Hiermore, how can a politi- l||1,an be expected to stick to one \ HI I Ipsition on a given issue for his • her entire lifetime? Human beings are by nature i 't i >! great tear- 1( j ec j s j ve; t [ ie y readily chang- ! ^ on a s rcj ig their minds all the time. " -at help pa. Aether people are contemplat- UChap'Mlf l he morality of abortion or £* ;>cidin S on what to order for 'amCSTeadiitBh People waffle on their timing off a tlir ’I" 10113 and decisions on a dai- *■'finish basis. Why should politicians Cleveland * an V different? Golf/Motr Instead, politicians are forced Williamsli®^ 0 choosing sides right off the tionaltwoKBitHs it so wrong for a politi- [ ago.Seffifean to stay neutral on an issue Pataidwti! they reach a final opinion? nal-rouEC Idefies logic. . three undetjg '' but shot bet Georgia’s 115 Imada, w c b the indivi — tie with an ir the toumamec' id-place isecutive time^1 in a tournamen; his second top f y tthile Aggies will al placing thirdi'l A / ways battle the nev- ssicsMarch!). V V er-ending issue of diose 73.46 ^erance, it is an indisputable a, will be joined ictithat Christianity contin- / sophomores Cl- es t0 change the world. As ?y Cronin, jun ur calendars mark the turn This problem is exem plified in the plight of Gov. George W. Bush in regard to his campaign for the upcoming Repub lican presidential nomi nation. He may be the early front runner but as CNN Interactive (www.cnn.com) affec tionately puts it, “Bush has adopted the Austin equivalent of the Rose Garden strategy: focus on Texas and avoid tricky national and internation al issues.” Such a strategy comes at a price, however, as Bush has become the whipping boy for many political pundits who la bel him a weak and inde cisive candidate. A1 Hunt, j a columnist for the Wall Street Journal calls Bush’s vague statements on Kosovo “a model of ob fuscation” and “tentative, tardy and indecisive.” Homosexuals have blasted Bush for his indif ference on the subject of extending hate crime laws to protect gays. Social conservatives claim Bush’s vague anti abortion stand is too soft even though Bush promises he would back a constitutional amend- k ment to outlaw most abortions if more voters sup ported it. However, he makes it clear that “America is not ready to ban abortions.” Gary Bauer, a competitor for the Republican presidential nomination, criticizes this inde cisive stand on abortion, “As leaders, our role must be to help shape public opinion, not simply react to it.” In the midst of all this criti cism, no one has bothered to ask the most obvious of ques tions. Could it be that Bush has not made up his mind? Is that so ridiculous a possibility? Just because a politician has not made a concrete stand on a few issues does not necessarily mean he is indecisive or weak. The average voter does not make a snap judgment on the issues; he or she has the right to ponder what their stand is all the way up to election day. Why should politicians be robbed of that courtesy? Bush has never had to contemplate A large number of these issues in his short political career at the state level, therefore it is unreal istic to expect him to have a concrete stand on all of them. Of course he is not going to make a stand on something he is not sure of. Such a course of action would be foolish and dangerous. Yes, once crunch time arrives in 2000, Bush will MICHAEL WAGENER/Tnn Battalion have to suck it up and deliver his stand on all of these issues. He owes every voter in America that much. But until then, give the man a break and let him make up his mind. David Lee is a sophomore general studies major. Effects of Jesus, Christianity positive for humanity, world or Matt 1 fthe new millennium, peo- * e are reminded that time it- df is measured by the birth ents this season. Christina BARROWS istif f Jesus Christ. Both believers I nd non-believers alike have been greatly anged by the impact and teachings Christ ade almost 2000 years ago. Recording to Newsweek, nearly one-third of le world’s population claims to be Christian, lis proves Jesus Christ’s largest contribution and the Texas Mas been Christianity itself. enge lastfi# Based on the very foundation of the Christian of Texas when 1 ?ligion, Jesus Christ provided opportunity to onghorns S# c ?ceive eternal life in heaven. Christians believe ie only way to heaven is through the accep- mce of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. BFor God so loved the world that He gave His begotten Son, that whoever believes in \ lim should not perish but have everlasting life. ]or God did not send His Son into the world to ondemn the world, but that the world through h| might be saved.” (John 3:16-17). , J|The belief that God became man to show the y /Jmid how to live and then died for man to of- ?r a cleansing of sin and the joy of eternal life ecame a welcomed new doctrine to conquer eath. Notre Dame theologian John Dunne said. The idea is the Christian goes with Christ trough death to everlasting life. Death be- omes an event, like birth, that is lived v ; : Bugh.” As the second most important command- tent, Jesus also taught his followers to “Love 1 Hr neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:29-31). In te New Testament, Jesus is constantly in con- tet with the less fortunate of society. s Hewsweek recently reported on the influence * Ills commandment has had throughout the cen- 2 tries and found during Roman times Christian § Btpassion was shown to orphans, widows and 5! Merly. When Saint Lawrence was reportedly F rdered by Roman authorities to reveal the f hurch’s treasures, he showed them the hungry ; nd sick. S Ilf he same work can be seen in modern time I Hugh the life of Mother Teresa. It is also evi- e |t in both the Christian and secular world trough thousands of charities and programs Bred at caring and providing for the less fortu nate. Jesus Christ’s teachings on violence have also had a heavy influence on the world. Jesus counseled men to be peacemakers and “turn the other cheek” rather than strike back (Matthew 5:39). Newsweek reported that during the Ro man time period after Christ’s death there was an immediate reduction in barbaric deaths fol lowing the spread of the gospels. This does not, however, mean things are where they should be as many wars are waged in Jesus’ name. Still, people seem to recognize Christ’s influence in this area as shown in Newsweek’s recent poll which found the major ity of people polled believe if there had never been a Jesus there would be more war, less charity and less happiness. Christianity has also, sometimes to its own misfortune, changed laws. The “religious right,” as it came to be known during the 1980 election, has prayerfully tried to seek reform. But conserva tive Christians have become increasingly discour aged as issues such as abortion and drugs contin ue to be largely unchanged by politics. “Christianity has also r some times to its own misfortune, changed laws. ” Conservative Christian Cal Thomas explained in Newsweek that true believers are beginning to sense “that the kingdom of this world, which regularly demands compromise, cannot be rec onciled to a kingdom not of this world that al lows for no compromise.” For example, the Christian leaders that en forced Prohibition had the good intentions of combating alcoholism and drunkenness. Unfor tunately, it effectively helped organized crime and created a much greater problem than the one it began fighting. Thomas says the lesson from Prohibition is “by and large, the Christian mission should be to change hearts, not laws.” Christian-based laws will have little benefit on society until peo ple stop compromising their values. But to a true believer in Christ, gaining of these moralistic ideals means very little. Chris tianity is about knowing Jesus more and every thing is counted as a loss to the surpassing love of Christ (Phillipians 3:8). Christina Barrows is a sophomore English major. Military personnel should heed orders, take all vaccinations ASON STARCH T he threat of biological war fare is greater today than ever before. Currently, at least 10 countries the United States considers adversaries have the ability to produce biological weapons, and that is a startling fact in light of today’s combat scenarios. At the same time, there is a growing number of American mil- itary personnel refusing to take the anthrax vaccine and other vaccines before deployment to the trouble spots around the globe. The concern that the health threat of the vaccine is greater than the federal gov ernment has acknowledged is the justification some of these service members claim. Are they justified in refusing the order? No way. Airman First Class Jeffery Bettendorf, Linited States Air Force, is one of a small but vocal number (now around 200) of military members who say that the inoculations are unsafe and unlawful. They say the military has no right to force service members to take shots of a vaccine that could, Bet tendorf claims, potentially cause cancer or other health problems in the future. Bettendorf even went on ABC’s 20/20 to talk about the order he refused. How ridiculous. Bettendorf’s argument is that the anthrax vaccine has not been properly tested and that the manufac turer of the vaccine, recently criticized by the Food and Drug Administration for violations of safety and sterility standards, cannot guarantee the vaccine’s effectiveness. The FDA’s report played a big part in Bettendorf’s argument. But the report dealt with safety standards of production of the vaccine, not the effectiveness of the vaccine to prevent infection. Bettendorf was de moted, slapped with 45 days extra duty and was dis charged under “other than honorable conditions.” Good riddance. The federal government, acting on years of data supplied by the Center for Disease Control and inde pendent research, claims that the vaccine is safe for service members, and the only potential hazard is the possibility of allergic reactions in some people, much like allergies to penicillin. Any service member with an ounce of common sense understands the need for the vaccine shot. An thrax, the vaccine for which these service members are refusing, is a terrible and deadly threat when employed as a biological weapon. It is a spore that occurs mainly around livestock, but has serious re- procussions when it infects humans. It enters the lungs and produces toxins that cause hemorrhaging of the lungs and other organs. Anthrax has been developed as an aerial delivery weapon, either by missiles, artillery shells, or aircraft spray. The worst part is, it is impossible to tell that a person has been exposed until the signs of infection begin to show up. In fact, the Army has been using the Anthrax vaccine since the 1970’s in conjunction with deployments of special forces units with no ap parent ill effects. The Defense Department will, of course, continue to deal with concerns over health issues like Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome, but no evidence supports any link between the Anthrax virus and ill nesses stemming from overseas deployments. It is a serious threat, and so the Defense Department has taken a firm stand on the requirement for vaccina tion. That stand is justified. We do not need service members dying from a disease that could have been avoided if they had fol lowed orders. Dead warriors cannot defend America. When I was deployed to Africa and the Middle East, fellow Marines and I received a myriad of shots including the Anthrax vaccine. There was no choice. Many thousands of military members have received the vaccinations and are in perfect health. Besides, the oath taken by service members requires them to obey the orders of the President and the officers ap pointed over them: if the order is to get the shots, then they are obligated to do so. The military does not exist to provide a career and benefits for its employees. Its purpose is the de fense of the United States, which requires a high lev el of sacrifice, including the possibility of dying in its defense. Of course, it is understandable that these people are concerned about Anthrax. Anyone who steps into harm’s way considers all the potential threats. But once a volunteer signs on the dotted line, they are committed to obeying the orders they are given. So once again we approach the paradox of mili tary service. The military is here to defend democra cy, not practice it. The Department of Defense is not going to handicap itself by infecting service mem bers with any vaccine that has not been tested and approved for use. It would be shooting itself in the foot, and Ameri ca need not be reminded of the consequences of an ineffective military. Countries all around the globe remind us daily what a weak military yields for qual ity of life. So, we take the shots, and in doing so we make the U.S. fighting forces all the more capable of com pleting the tasks America demands. Silly Bettendorf, vaccines are for warriors. Go home, little boy, and leave defense to the unselfish. Jason Starch is a junior rangeland ecology major.