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.