lary 28, 2003
*g
I from page 1
if the clones
enetically,” he si;
the cat clone ere;
of A&M scieni!:
• 2001, did not to
e fur color as
ler because of ini
mosomes. Copy
ither’s orange spi
X chromoso®
for the spots
active again,
during the nor®
-ocess, Evers sai;
ogical process
tep, he said,
ers have also
m when cloni:
ws, Evers said
te project thatp:
ycat, researctii
h 87 embryos a:
;d. He said,
he difficulty cot
to inactive gents
;d animal embn;
nake it to birtli
ni non-function;:
blem that can a!
a embryos tona
luring the first!
pregnancy, Ev
Id be able toap
• research finis
medical advanci
; said.
ers have started
g project involv:
er, Westhusinsii
ig the deertostt!
tant lifestyles.
earch departe
cloning anim;
ive much
dn said,
he has submits
>sals that sta
ling for Fall 20(
from page
Andrews, a
jor, also atte
roject Bonfire i
r students and
s should help
ns.
any students
was their first as
ience seeing
ion of bonfir:
id. “The class
:yond should
aity to expenet
mt won't happen
its don’t pay
they can focus
year.”
, a senior Eng
the tradition
Id not be suppoiif
itions or othemit
fully supported
/•
lents that put
t together lastf!
>ut the Universi
Gross said,
id good intends
shouldn’t be
aonetarily supp
cannot compare
ind that will ne' :
riginal unless ii
4&M.”
r Project wants
be successful
p it going yeat
ham said. “Ti
s most success?
it came back
Jople wrong. Tit
rtant than whett
oney back or not
Opinion
The Battalion
Cost of war high for Iraq
]U!K
ud: ; nex!
H ow the son of
poor Iraqi farm
ers could develop
into a man capable of
ordering the murder of
everyone between the
ages of 15 and 70 in a
group of Kurdish vil
lages, says President
George W. Bush, is not
something typically
going through one’s mind while
pumping gas. However, it should
be. Whether it’s the increasing
price of the 87 unleaded being
pumped into your Chevy or the
deployment of your uncle to the
Middle East, another war with
Iraq will affect you. By blatantly
violating every United Nations
resolution passed against him.
Saddam Hussein has made him
self the target of world scorn. His
time is up, but ousting him will
come at a price.
Disclosing or destroying all
weapons of mass destruction,
ending all support of terrorism,
and ending the persecution of the
Iraqi people are all conditions the
terms outlined by the president
before the United Nations for
Saddam Hussein to avoid war.
There is no compromise.
This madman of the Middle
East has ballistic missiles with
range enough to hit countries
such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, and
Turkey, a region where more than
135,000 American civilians and
service members live and work.
Bush says these missiles are
capable of carrying any of the
chemical or biological weapon
agents Hussein has possessed.
Your friend in the recently
called-up reserves could be his
target. There is no question
of Saddam’s willingness to use
these weapons; just ask his own
people, the Kurds.
Dispersing these types of
weapons does not require a great
deal of technical skill. Only one
Iraqi intelligence agent or terror
ist is needed to murder
innocent U.S. civilians
with Serin or VX nerve
gas. These are weapons
Saddam has possessed in
the past and has yet to
prove he does not still
possess. According to The
Associated Press, a
Kuwaiti sergeant recently
arrested was working with
Iraqi intelligence on a plan to
poison large numbers of U.S.
personnel.
It does not take a stretch of
the imagination to see Saddam
giving these invisible killers to a
terrorist group such as al-Qaida,
allowing him to attack the United
States without implicating him
self. The thought of inhaling
nerve gas while waiting in line at
George Bush Intercontinental
Airport is not a pleasant one, but
it is a possible reality if Saddam
remains in power. As our parents
dreamed of a world without
Soviet aggression, 1 sometimes
wonder if my children will have
to live in a world with a mon
ster like Saddam. With
the Soviet Union, at
least we knew what to
expect.
Saddam’s calculated
manipulation of the
current U.N. inspec
tions is merely a
stalling tactic to
keep U.S. forces
from moving in until
the weather becomes
too hot. The pattern of
deception continued this ^
past week with the dis
covery of 12 rockets
designed to carry chemical
weapons not listed in Iraq's
report to the United Nations.
Iraqi officials labeled this materi
al breach as merely an “account
ing error.” If you and I are
accountable for being academi
cally honest, surely a dictator is
responsible for keeping track of
something as mundane as his
chemical weapons.
Fears of a U.S.-led invasion of
Iraq have already caused an
increase in world oil prices, and
consumer confidence will react
negatively to a U.S. invasion
according to economy.com.
Uncertainty is the U.S. econo
my's worst enemy.
With the Bush administration
openly discussing an invasion of
Iraq, world markets are already
taking into account temporary
disruption of the global oil sup
ply. Saudi Arabia and Russia
have excess production capacity
able to fill any void left from
Iraqi non-production. With a rel
atively short conflict, the world
economy will not greatly feel an
oil crunch. A victory in Iraq will
add a dependable supply of oil to
the world market, thus ensuring
lower oil prices. The $30 to $50
billion price tag, a mere 2-3 per
cent of the $2 trillion Federal
Budget projected using
Congressional Budget Office
estimates, -is a small price to pay
for our economic well-being and
national security.
Saddam has had his chance to
be reasonable; either he meets
the criteria of the U.N. resolu
tions, or the United States will
act. Some may say the potential
cost of losing brave American
men and women while expanding
our presence in the Middle East
and the war on terror is too high
for us to bear. I say the cost of
inaction is even greater. As Gen.
Omar Bradley once said, “In war,
there is no prize for runner-up.”
Matt Cheshier is a senior
economics major.
Redefining what constitutes rape
SARA
FOLEY
ue to efforts of
women’s rights
activists in the past,
ape has transitioned from a
ihameful and silent secret to
a commonly accepted court
room case, and a crime that
more women are taking a
stand against. While rape is
a crime that women certain
ly have a right to press
charges for, the definition has been contorted
to fit the whims of women who regret what
they did.
A California Supreme Court case ruled Jan.
6 that not only do women not have to say the
word “no” for the case to be considered a
rape, but they can say something as vague as,
should go home.” In addition, the case
expands on the idea presented in similar cases
in Maryland and North Carolina that once one
partner expresses discontent, they must stop
to provide atra- immediately, even when using such ambigu-
* ous terms.
According to the court report of People v.
John Z., Laura T. was the only female at a party
in March of 2000, and had gone into a bedroom
to talk to the defendant. The two then engaged
in various acts of foreplay, acts that she admit
ted reciprocating and enjoying. However, dur
ing intercourse, Laura changed her mind.
Unable to express this clearly, she said a few
times, “I should go home.” Approximately four
minutes after she expressed this, her assailant
got up and assisted her in finding her clothes
ation
uggested
guidelines issii'
doctors to coi
ig millions 1
moderate risk
;e for signs 1
i in the bloo :
newly recognizt
t attacks,
as been
ears that infla
major trigger
worse event!
rol. But until no"
been unsure!#
look for the co f
can be measure 1
blood test.
and leaving the party, according to the Los
Angeles Times.
Although it is clear that Laura may have
regretted some of her actions, she did not make
it clear to her partner that she did not want to
have sex with him. The combination of her
indefinite word choice with the fact that a few
moments previously, she had been participating
with her partner and enjoying it, it is under
standable that it may have taken more than a
moment’s notice for John to comprehend that
this activity was no longer consensual.
Women of all ages should know not to
expect a man to be a mind reader, but by bring
ing the consent for sex to the point of what
someone intended to say, instead of what she
did say, does just that. The equivocal, “I have to
go home,” could be broadly interpreted in later
cases, to the point where almost any utterance
could be translated as a channel to charge
someone with rape. While a few cases might be
justified, undefined terms such as these could
cause a series of unjustly accused rapists
around the country. If a woman truly believes
she is being raped to the point of pressing
charges, she should be able to make that known
to her partner, not only by her word choice, but
by her actions as well. Unclear phrases, such as
Laura’s “I should go home,” can be misinter
preted as a plea for reassurance or urgency, and
was by the defendant in this case, John told Fox
news.
Furthermore, it is difficult to pinpoint the
moment consensual sex transforms into an
attack and a partner turns into a rapist.
MAIL CALL
Although in many legal cases it has been decid
ed that a woman may retract consent at any
moment during intercourse, the amount of time
allotted for the partner to grasp this change of
circumstances is not factored in. John ceased
pursuing intercourse with Laura four minutes
after her protests of needing to go home,
according to the court report. The court decided
that four minutes was more than a reasonable
amount of time for him to stop. However, con
sidering the circumstances and Laura’s unclear
language, the time it may have taken him to
comprehend she was no longer enjoying the act
and wanted him to stop may have been that
amount of time.
The lines are difficult to draw, and little dis
tinction can possibly be made from 30 seconds
to one minute to three minutes. “Immediately
stop,” the term that the court used, is as indefi
nite as the term the plaintiff used to urge him to
do so.
The definition of rape has become hazier,
and additional questions have arisen due to this
case. For a case to be considered a rape, a cer
tain amount of force should be present.
Persistence, not force, was the problem in this
case, according to Justice Janice Rogers Brown.
At this point, it can be difficult to prevent regret
from turning into rape accusations and hard to
discern what actual terminology communicates
“No.” Unfortunately, this case only further com
plicated the system instead of clarifying it.
Sara Foley is a sophomore
journalism major.
NAMBLA legally
advocates change
In response to Thomas Campbell's
Jan. 14 column:
Thomas Campbell's article on
NAMBLA was replete with inaccura
cies. While I am not in agreement
with NAMBLA’s view that all age-of-
consent laws should be repealed, it
costs us nothing to be fair and bal
anced and to tell the truth.
First of all, Campbell tells us,
"NAMBLA is rightly being sued by
the parents of a 10-year-old
Massachusetts boy who was mur
dered by two men, one of whom
was allegedly a member..."
Campbell doesn't mention that the
suit is a wrongful death action and
that there is not even a crumb of
evidence linking NAMBLA to any
advocacy of violence.
This case is so weak that it is
only public sympathy for the fami
ly that has kept it from being
thrown out a long time ago, as, in
time, it will be. One can under
stand why the Curley family would
react the way they have, but the
ambulance-chasing attorneys who
manipulated them into filing this
case ought to be ashamed of
themselves.
Second, Campbell informs us
that "any sexual contact of a child
younger than 14 ... is a form of
child molestation for which the
perpetrator can receive jail time.
Anyone advocating sexual contact
with children is advocating lawless
ness at the expense of children."
True, if that were what NAMBLA
did. But there is nothing "lawless"
about advocating a change in the
laws — or even a repeal of the
laws, which is what NAMBLA does.
They are exercising their right to
free speech, as NORML does when
it calls for repealing marijuana
laws, or as the NRA does when it
calls for relaxing firearms laws. The
evidence that NAMBLA advocates
lawless activity is paper-thin; the
evidence that they advocate mur
der is nonexistent.
The Battalion has a First
Amendment right to disparage the
First Amendment if it chooses. But
it should at least check facts before
going to print. Printing lies about
your opponents does nothing to
enhance your argument.
Dennis Jacques
Class of 2003
Page 11 • Tuesday, January 28, 2003
A suffering
industry
I recently ordered a CD from
amazon.com after hearing a
certain song on the radio
that I really enjoyed. So, being
the good music consumer that I
am. I decided to actually buy
the album. There was one prob
lem, though: The song that I
wanted was only available on a
special version of the band’s
CD. The CD that arrived was not that particular
version of the album, and I had already opened
the package, now unable to return it. If I wanted
the original song I had heard on the radio, I
would have needed to buy the CD again.
Even though I enjoyed the other songs on the
CD, this incident is just one example of music
consumers’ frustration in dealing with the avari
cious and inflexible collection of record compa
nies and interests groups, such as the Recording
Industry Association of America (R1AA), known
as the music industry.
It is an industry that is suffering. In 2001, 763
million CDs were sold. In 2002, the industry only
managed to move 681 million units, according to
Newsweek. That’s a staggering 82 million less
CDs sold in the time span of only a year. The
decrease in music sales is more evident when one
considers that in 2000, the top 10 albums sold
60.5 million copies, according to Rolling Stone.
In 2001, the top 10 only managed to move 37
million units, more than a 37 percent decrease.
The RIAA loves to blame decreasing CD sales
on music piracy via the Internet, and to a certain
extent, it is correct. Many people are using file
sharing programs to illegally download music
files and burn them onto blank CDs. Even the
most anti-RIAA individual will have to admit that
this contributes to fewer CD sales.
But, what the RIAA and major record labels
may not know, or what they may not be willing to
admit, is many music consumers feel forced to
illegally download songs by the industry’s own
heavy-handedness. For example, when I received
the CD from amazon.com with only 10 songs,
and not the 1 1 that were promised, I was almost
compelled to find the song on the Internet and
download it. I had paid for the CD, I reasoned.
But I never download songs from the Internet
without the copyright holder’s explicit permission
because to do so otherwise would be stealing.
However, many other individuals, after dealing
with an industry that makes even legitimate pur
chases difficult, become apathetic toward copy
right holder’s rights and start pirating music from
the World Wide Web at will.
Even with the presence of the Internet, album
sales would be healthy if CD prices weren’t so
ridiculously high. In fact, 41 state attorney gener
als filed a class action lawsuit against the five
major record companies and some national retail
ers, charging them with illegally fixing the price
of CDs, according to Newsweek. The lawsuit was
recently settled out of court with the defendants
paying $143 million in punitive damages. Anyone
who bought a CD between Jan. 1, 1995 and Dec.
22, 2000 should visit musiccdsettlement.com to
file a claim and receive a possible $20 from the
settlement.
Aside from disposing of the heinous practice
of keeping CD prices arbitrarily high, the music
industry could boost its profits by producing more
singles. Any song that is heard on the radio
should be able to be purchased for a price drasti
cally less than the cost of an entire album. But
record labels have severely limited this practice.
Just this past year, “The Ketchup Song” proved
popular with many Americans. But Sony, one of
the five major record companies, was unable to
fully bank on the phenomenon because it only
sold the song on an album with a list price of
$14. I, like many other music consumers, liked
“The Ketchup Song” but was unwilling to pay
that much money for one song.
The music industry has spent a large part of
the past several years fighting Internet technology
instead of embracing it. Many consumers love the
convenience of the Web and would gladly pay to
obtain music from the Internet legally. But even
when it tries to offer users a legitimate alternative
to Internet piracy, the music industry finds a way
to anger its customers. Take the pay-for-play
online music service, EMusic, for example. The
EMusic Web site promises “unlimited MP3s” for
only “one low monthly price.” But
dslreports.com, which provides information on
high-speed Internet issues, has reported that many
EMusic subscribers have had their services can
celed for violating the “spirit of the service.” In
other words, they were downloading too many
song so they had their subscriptions revoked. This
does not constitute an “unlimited” service. This
type of disrespect by the music industry toward
its customers will only make more people yearn
for the convenience of music piracy.
The relationship between music lovers and the
music industry is extremely inimical. Record
companies must lower CD prices, introduce more
singles and use the Internet in more constructive
ways if they are to earn some much-needed con
sumer trust.
COLLINS
EZEANYIM
Collins Ezeanyim is a junior
computer engineering major.