NATIOK
HE BATTALIA
nge
life
THE BATTALION
Monday, March 25, 2002
■ - MU I Ml MR M NMHIMNM MR
Opinion
Beyond a shadow of doubt
[merica’s backup government is causing more harm for country than good
ition of the be
isler said Fric
see this kind
;ence of trends ti
o lower rates an
igh rate."
us, indicates
; are continuity
evel of drinkini
said. ‘Those
> be addressed
colleges take.''
'rsity ofVermon
jne of 10 colky
in an Arneri
ociation-led in
> binge drinl
it joined the
’ that 65 percen
admitted bi
said And;
i rector of the
tram. That nn
oercent.
e election com
discretion if
ite.
mission’s deci
mess and arbi
m rules. Medu
,ure forced tk
right thins
mission contin-
leech rights
ates stand up
hat they change
Dubberly said
en contacted!))
Union (ACLU)
an injunction in
lection commis-
and added thu'
end other candi-
ige the election
tis controvers)
late to examine
election rules,
?e held Marcl
>e time we w
. when we
1) have a cam)
ition of all
d to Bonfu
> fill some of
onfire’s absent
Id be a comptij
ludent groups
e/its such as I
of-war and fh
<pressed hisc j
ents intenditij
>us bonfires,^7-"^ [ o j
so would ^ c °lumn:
FRANK CHANCE* THE BATTALION
COLLINS EZEANYIM
s the nation entered chaos on
Sept. 11, the Bush administration
.Secretly deployed a “shadow gov
ernment,” a system of government man
agers working secretly outside the
nation's capital. This was done to ensure
that vital government resources were still
available, no matter how disastrous the
catastrophe became. Last fall, when
Americans had no idea where the next
terrorist threat would come from, this
was a good idea. Half a year later, how
ever, this shadow government is still in
place and has generated controversy as to
whether its expense, or even its existence,
is justified.
The Bush administration should have
plans to properly deal with the effects of
a catastrophic attack on Washington. In
fact, many departments have had these
plans since the beginning of the nuclear
age. But this shadow government, known
internally as COG for “continuity of gov
ernment,” has many obstacles to over
come before it proves to be effective.
Where the shadow government might
result in overkill is the number of bureau
crats stationed around the clock in secret
government bunkers. It makes sense for
some representatives to be there; for
example, agents from the Department of
Agriculture would be responsible for
many vital functions during a catastrophe.
According to The Washington Post, these
functions include ensuring that farm pro
duction and food processing are continued
and providing emergency provisions to
farmers. The representation of other agen
cies, such as the IRS and the Department
of Education, are not as justified.
Moreover, there seems to be poor
planning on the part of the Bush adminis
tration in that only the executive branch
of the government is fully represented in
the COG plans. It is obvious that the
executive branch will be looked to for
leadership in a time of crisis. But all
components of the constitutional govern
ment would be needed to ensure the con
tinuation of American democracy.
According to The Washington Post, both
Congress and the judiciary have continu
ity plans, but they take the practical
approach and do not maintain 24-hour
fortified facilities.
The maintenance of a 24-hour govern
ment presence in secret bunkers
inevitably leads to debate about cost.
Currently, with the war on terror and the
recession occurring concurrently, the cost
to run the main government is very high,
and maintaining a perpetual shadow gov
ernment can become very costly.
A solution to this might come from
the new government agency created by
the Bush administration, the Office of
Homeland Security. Recently, Homeland
Security Director Tom Ridge announced
a homeland security advisory system that
assigns colors to certain levels of threat
conditions, for example, green corre
sponds to a low risk of terrorist attacks
and red means a severe threat.
Instead of keeping government
employees in secret bunkers around the
clock, the agents should only be
deployed if Ridge and his office assess a
red threat condition. This would ease the
tax burden, and the government would
still be prepared in a devastating attack.
Another controversy erupted when
important congressional leaders, includ
ing Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle
and Democratic Leader Rep. Richard
Gephardt claimed they were never told
about the bunker government. Sen.
Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who as
president pro tempore is fourth in the line
of presidential succession, said he
learned of the shadow government only
after reading about it in newspapers.
Obviously, the Bush administration
should have used some tact in alerting
congressional leaders of its COG plans.
A continuity of government plan is
absolutely necessary, especially in a time
when the United States is no longer safe
from any kind of terrorist attack. A shad
ow government operating during times of
crises is better than having no govern
ment at all. But the Bush administration
has made a misstep in its implementation
of the shadow government and further
corrections need to be made.
Collins Ezeanyim is a junior
physics major.
among t!ieii 1 ||
M. Though 11
. J,. , ui ouxrage ai in is
frustrationsfcle i S unmatched! The author
.:*u RnntitfItClarpH .1 . •
e
with
Bonfiff
lievesthatstitf 11 of
nevca uiguuy, lanaucism,
more importand plain ignorance."
nff-CUltf articlp IQ full
support off^
MAIL CALL
feed perception
response to Jonathan Jones’
not an Arab or a Muslim,
.^.degree of outrage at this
-.... . i lie a u li i wi
Red the Muslim world to be
1,1 ^ bigotry, fanaticism,
, H .ain igii'JiaiiL-c.
•pis article is full of the same
f©! Jones contorts the find-
I s of a USA Today/CNN/Gallup
to meet his own agenda and,
g so, brings further division
internal strife to a campus
Sling to unite under the ban-
r of diversity.
Ihe depiction of the Muslim is
racist, bigoted and, in short,
0u f as true of Muslims (or Arabs)
a cowboy or gangster is of most
picans. President Bush has
nsfantly warned that our fight
loinst terrorism is against the ter-
iofs. not Islam. Jones, stay on
l e subject and stop spreading
Mice and hatred!
■"erica is not guiltless,
fioally, America influences world
Pots by international loans, polit-
F Pressure, and cultural imperi-
f 1 ", as well as the military
dement. Gallup Editor-in-Chief
pnk Newport, who conducted the
■'ey, states that respondents
I er whelmingly described the
Jfed States as “ruthless, aggres-
■'O' conceited, arrogant, easily
P'elrecl, and biased.” Based on
I Ur article, they are right.
Lois A. Swanick
Class of 2003
| a ni appalled at Jones’ view of
® countries and his high
M for American policy con-
[ nin g the Middle East and
p subcontinent.
First off, as an American citizen,
born in Pakistan, I would like to
state my utter condemnation of the
September 11th terrorists attacks.
These attacks, such as any other
terrorist acts, are not representa
tive of the culture, religion, nor the
countries from which the attackers
come from. If they were, then the
United States needs to admit that
our country’s culture is based on
the ideals of people such as
Timothy McVeigh.
I do agree that the United States
does try to protect democracy.
Protecting your beliefs is essential
to the American way of life. But
displacing your own beliefs onto
others is not the intent of the
“American way.” Democracy may
be right for us, but it is not neces
sarily right for the entire world.
Jones says “when McDonald's
golden arches rise over Kabul, the
Afghans will be clearly on the road
to recovery.” I doubt the Afghan
people would ever trade their way
such as a “Big Mac.” We were
founded on freedom, but why do
we continue to enter into the busi
ness of other countries. Our main
reason: oil. The Middle East’s oil
supply was our number one con
cern for Desert Storm.
Furthermore, the United States
never really cared to help Pakistan
until Pakistan was forced to help
the United States in the war
against Afghanistan.
If Pakistan decided not to help
the US, it would have been consid
ered a terrorist country. We
always have our own personal
agenda whenever we help another
country. For this reason, I do not
think of America as a great protec
tor of democracy, but as a great
protector if its own interests.
Amjad Ladak
Class of2001
A healthier way of life
Genetic screening is beneficial to parents
DHARMARAJ INDURTHY
A ccording to the Feb. 27 issue of
The Journal of the American
Medical Association, a medical
triumph has occurred: the child of a
woman afflicted with early-onset
Alzheimer’s was successfully genetically
screened. This new medical advance rais
es questions about “designer babies” and
a possible new era of eugenics. The only
conclusion is that government cannot
legally deny individuals the ability to use
genetic methods on eggs and embryos to
suit individual tastes.
In this particular process, doctors
harvested eggs from the mother,
screened them to eliminate diseased
specimens and implanted those that
were clean. This is only the latest suc
cess story of genetic screening. These
technologies enable children to avoid a
future of debilitating or fatal disease.
However, such successes prompt fears
for the future. The movie Gattaca, for
example, portrays an uncomfortable
future where genes determine a per
son’s place in society.
Regulatory lines are meaningful only
when based on principle, but screening
fatal illness versus superficial traits is
just a matter of degrees. Non-fatal ill
nesses still may negatively impact the
quality of individual life, and fatal ill
nesses have enabled people to demon
strate enormous virtue. Furthermore, as
Dr. Stephen Lewis asserts in his paper,
“Approaching the problem of defining
‘health’ and ‘disease’ from the perspec
tives of evolutionary psychology and
Darwinian medicine,” the basic medical
definitions of disease and health are
woefully imprecise. There is intrinsic
ambiguity here that defies having both
permissions and prohibitions.
After all, disease and illness come in a
continuous spectrum. From Huntington’s
disease and Alzheimer’s disease, to obesi
ty and autism, to birthmarks and baldness,
it is not trivial to find substantive distinc
tions. Can government deny an
Alzheimer’s afflicted individual the
chance for a healthy child? What about
someone who struggled with morbid obe
sity and does not want that for his or her
Regulatory lines are
meaningful only when
based on principle, but
screening fatal illness versus
superficial traits is just a
matter of degrees.
offspring? What of the bald man who
wants only to spare his son the trifling
affliction? Besides, the U.S. government
lacks rigorous ethic. Unlike suicide or
drug use, genetic screening is too contro
versial an issue to make legal judgments
on moral basis. Ultimately, this is an all-
or-nothing issue in principle.
The Supreme Court has made clear
that a fetus is not considered a person; it
has no human value. Instead, it is more
like property. The same must be pre
sumed for embryos and eggs. If people
are free to abort fetuses, certainly, they
should be able to modify or screen other
organic property. Government would
need compelling grounds to deny such
practices, but none exist beyond fanciful
imaginings of a Gattaca-like future.
Objections have been raised about
privacy issues and discrimination.
Government could keep tabs on genetic
information, or doctors could reveal
genetic information to third parties. If
employers could acquire such infonna-
tion, they might discriminate against
prospective employees with predisposi
tions to disease. Such possibilities, how
ever, are extensions of existing problems.
Combating them means careful regula
tion. Moreover, these are individual deci
sions, and taking such risks should be an
individual discretion.
What about “designer babies?” What
about a future of rich families investing
in genetically fit progeny? Is not a genet
ically driven world the inevitable end of
making genetic screening available?
Even if the consequences appear ugly,
the freedom of people to screen offspring
cannot be denied. If parents want to
manipulate their reproductive property so
that they might receive a child con
formed to their vision, government must
allow it. It is not the fault of such a fami
ly that others might discriminate against
the unmodified or that societal disparities
might ensue.
Perhaps “designer babies” are the
future. If the technology exists, it must
be made available. Individuals have the
right to provide the best future for their
offspring, and if that means manipulating
organic property, they cannot be denied.
In a world where mankind has subdued
nature, created weapons of mass destruc
tion and strived to maximize his conven
ience, it is a little late to be challenging
man’s right to play God.
Dhamiaraj Indurthy is a senior
physics major.