Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 14, 2003)
i^CHNOLOG IE BATTALIO) ilec olog) !-inch notebook etion at the Ex? Burton Amp,r c jacket. Apple as led up to desigr, X snowboardin with iPod, Appli MP3 player. Hi xssible for user* a built-in contn leir jacket wife >r digging in Ac about the Bunx portable DJ bw on Global Ter >n said in a prei ing songs before t so much easier- off your gloves e xitable in Windc. can downloads itomatically mIic The Burton Ar pple's online an Burton dealers f: d several introdt; s for new multk xnd web browsir cation. Final 0 simplified versiii • digital video pr d Cut Express« iiasts the abilih: ng. creative titk professional toe rofessionals the r iLife, is a no combines Apple raph editing pad lital music player r creating digit and iDVD, whi sers to turn the hotos and movie VD slideshow move to consol multimedia , ind provide a jser-friendly N\4e on tool fur.4 rates its multi® ly, Apple inti the Safari we for Mac OS 1 rlaims that Safa vnload pages ar iScript faster ft Intent r, Netscape ar own Chime: and will elimins advertising. Apf earned up withi Google seat P engine and w i n c 1 u d built-in Goot earch interface wr afari. LSS10I1 s that followed : Tori st attacks, ill not be expander l said he has thing unusual sit| rcurity because sence. rage person cot# day probably wot most of the s lid. “The only ed about is makfl xt enough oppofe f the ground.” nia does not blast d e flight likely it a week because ■eplace science the shuttle and dr Force time ritical communiT te. ie? u may qualify topical medication der; tic tests, and its at no charge. L Inc. free Opinion The Battalion Page 7 • Tuesday, January 14, 2003 Stripping pedophiles of their civil liberties North American Man/Boy Love Association promotes questionable sexual abuse T he North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) promotes what it considers to be “mutually con sensual” relationships between men and boys as young as 8 years old, according to its Web site, www.NAMBLA.org. Because of NAMBLA's promotion of these selfish relationships in which an older man sexually abuses a boy, the association has come under fire from child welfare activists, and is rightly being sued by the parents of a 10-year-old Massachusetts boy who was murdered by two men, one of whom was allegedly a member of NAMBLA, according to cnn.com. NAMBLA is being defended by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts in a suit filed by the parents of Jeffrey Curley. Curley was leaving his grandmother’s home when 25-year-old Charles Jaynes and 21-year-old Salvatore Sicari lured Curley into Jaynes’ car with the bait of $50 and a new bicycle, foxnews.com reported. Curley was allegedly taken to a Boston public library, where Jaynes accessed the NAMBLA Web site before taking the boy to Jayne’s house in New Hampshire. Foxnews.com also stated that after Curley resisted Jaynes’ sexual advances, the 5-foot-9, 250-pound man put a gasoline-soaked rag in the boy’s mouth and sat on him until he died. Jaynes then sexually molested the lifeless body of Jeffrey Curley, put him in a concrete-filled Rubbermaid container, and threw him into a Maine river, the Web site reported. According to the laws of every state in America, any sexual contact of a child younger than 14 — wanted or unwanted — is a form of child molestation for which the perpetrator can receive jail time. Anyone advocating sexual contact with children is advocating lawlessness at the expense of children. NAMBLA believes these are crimes without a victim, but psychologists dating back to Freud have described the ill effects molestation has on children. The ACLU is defending NAMBLA's right to free speech as it pertains to man- bevy relationships because it believes that NAMBLA’s rights are protected by the First Amendment. NAMBLA’s right to free speech ends when it advo cates the sexual molestation of cit izens who cannot defend them selves. Jeffery Curley had no way to defend himself against Charles Jaynes. What is more distressing is that NAMBLA had at one time posted tips on ways for men to seduce young boys. The tips have since been removed from the Web site. When speech presents a clear and pres ent danger to others, it is no longer pro tected by the First Amendment. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater or inciting a riot are both unprotected forms of speech, as should be any material inciting the molestation of America’s youth. The ACLU stated in taking this case that it believes it must protect the freedom of speech in controversial cases in order to protect it for all. If that was truly the case, it would not have fought against voluntary public prayer or a moment of silence across the nation. Instead, the ACLU shows how it is nothing more than a politi cal machine working to silence prayer in the name of the First Amendment, while simultaneously working to protect the right to speak about sex between a man and a boy. According to its Web site, \ “NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual rela tionships.” The extreme oppres sion it is campaigning against is known as the age-of-consent- ^ laws. Each state has age-of-consent laws to protect its children — not to oppress them. Age of consent is in place because children are prone to manipulation and need that law to protect them. NAMBLA’s deplorable crusade to end age-of-consent laws is in reckless disregard of the safety of children, and advocates only perverted, selfish, sexual cravings. The United States must hold the welfare of children in a higher regard than sexual wishes of adults, and cannot allow NAMBLA’s advocacy of child molestation to continue. The case of Curley vs. NAMBLA gives the United States the opportunity to squash a move ment seeking to abuse children. As opening arguments for the Curley case draw near, Americans need to decide for themselves what is more important — the welfare of children, or the sexu al gratification of pedophiles. Thomas Campbell is a senior agricultural journalism major. Dodging the Democrats Reinstituting draft not way to avoid war L ate last month, U.S. Rep. Charles B. Rangel, (D-NY) wrote an editorial in The New York Times asking for a reinstatement of the mili tary draft. Rangel wrote in the Dec. 3 1 issue that he will ask Congress to “sup port legislation (he) will introduce to resume the military draft.” Rangel argues that minori ties and the underprivileged com prise most of the modern enlisted military. A draft would balance out that proportion, forcing the American public and Congress to reevaluate the possibility of war with Iraq. While Rangel’s cause is noble, the overall effect of this gimmick is regret table. Avoiding war when possible should be a concern of members of Congress, but put ting effort into something this dras tic that will obvious ly not pass only wastes time. Rangel has taken this cause so far that he stretches logic and forces it to fit his argument. No flaw in the make-up of the military exists. If Rangel’s planned bill did pass, it would hurt the disadvantaged he seeks to help. Rangel’s argument that the poor compose most of the mili tary is true, but the system that is now in effect works well. Most people who enlist in the military do so for financial reasons, and there is nothing wrong with that. At the Army’s recruiting Web site, potential soldiers can see the financial aid available for those who join the Army. These figures shine light on the main reason the financially underprivi leged enlist. Full-time recruits can earn up to $28,000 for college when signing up. For people who wouldn’t be able to attend college otherwise, MATT this is a large sum. It RIGNEY could easily cover an associate’s degree at a community college, allowing entry into the work force. New enlistees can also earn cash bonuses up to$20,000. Along with college tuition help, the military pays monthly just like any other career. This adds up to a good deal for the disadvantaged. For the middle and upper-classes, however, $28,000 for college carries less meaning. At Texas A&M, yearly costs total more than $ 14,000 each year, assuming in state tuition, according to the Princeton Review. The sum that the Army offers cov ers only two <6 No flaw in the make-up of the military exists. If Rangers planned bill did pass, it would hurt the disadvantaged he seeks to help. ? years of school at a relatively affordable university. Instead of serving in the Army for two to six years, middle and upper-class stu dents feel they can work during college and earn scholarships to make extra money. Many of these students don’t need extra financial aid to attend a university like A&M. With no financial need, these students feel that wasting two to six years of their life does not pay enough. The military serves as relief for people who have no other alternative for financial stability. Since the draft ended several decades ago, the current system was put in place and has been effective. Reinstating the draft would force the military to end such benefits because it cannot give everyone who is drafted the current benefits. This would hurt the economic class of people that the military helps. It would shut the door for many young people who would otherwise depend on the military to provide financial support. Not only would Rangel’s bill hurt the lower class, it would not produce his desired effect. Rangel states that only one member of Congress who has a child enlisted in the military voted for the reso lution that allows President Bush to use force against Iraq. He argues that if more members of Congress had children in the mili tary, they would be less likely to vote in favor of war. The congressman assurpes something that only the naive would assume: Children of the members of Congress will be drafted. This is simply not true. According to the House press release, Rangel noted that, “serv ice in the armed forces is not a common experience.” Neither is being the son of a congressman. If the draft were reinstated, then surely the members of Congress would find ways for their children to be exempt. It would be Congress, after all, who would write this bill. There are simply too many factors that Congress controls for Rangel’s plan to work. Congressman Rangel has the right idea. War can only hurt the American people, no matter what the class. However, Rangel’s plan to reinstate the draft would only hurt the people for whom he seeks equality, and it would never be implemented in its ideal form. Putting liberals into context One of the biggest prob lems with the rhetoric of today's liberals is their use of context-dropping when ever it suits their ideological needs. Context-dropping is the over-simplification of ideas to create abstractions that ignore relevant distinc tions that exist in reality. For example, take the notion of "extremism." Liberals criticize conserva tives' "extremist" views, hinting that their extremism flows from latent racism, overt religious fundamen talism, and quite often, sup port of capitalism. "Tolerance and modera tion must replace extrem ism," they might say, but is this really a meaningful statement? Within some contexts, such as our daily intake of vitamins, modera tion is indeed the best poli cy, as it is in our consump tion of foods, exercise, rest, MAIL CALL study, etc. In other contexts, however, moderation is not a good thing - there is no such thing as too much love, justice, freedom, intel ligence, etc. What intelligent person would say that there should be moderation between freedom and slavery, kind ness and cruelty, careful ness and negligence, or truth and falsehood? Clearly, the virtue of "mod eration" depends on the particular context. "Discrimination" is anoth er common area of context dropping. Liberals might say discrimination is bad regardless of whether the characteristic being discrim inated is relevant or not. After all, nearly every action we take involves dis criminating better choices from worse ones, good val ues from bad, and evaluat ing other people is no exception. In fact, when it comes to evaluating people and societies, liberals often condemn evaluations by relevant characteristics, while glorifying irrelevant ones. For example, differen tiating those who are better skilled in something is "ableism," differentiating moral from immoral men is "bigotry" or "elitism," and differentiating societies which have better values (such as freedom, capital ism, and democracy in America vs. mysticism, sta- tism and force in Africa) is "cultural imperialism" or "ethnocentrism." Irrelevant characteristics on the other hand, are glo rified and promoted. While promotion based on skills and academic achievement is damned as "ableism" and "Western bias," promotion based on irrelevant charac teristics such as race, origin, and income is glorified. Once again, the context of the discrimination at hand is dropped to serve the lib eral's purpose. David Veksler Class of 2003 Matt Rigney is a sophomore journalism major.
