Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 30, 2003)
Opinion The Battalion Page 1 I ♦ Tuesday, September 30, 2003 Stopping domestic terrorism Government must do more to stop actions of radical environmentalist groups u f I Vie capitalist 1 state and its JL symbols of propaganda must also be tar geted. These symbols and forms can take the shape of individuals, businesses... the Statue of Liberty, Disney, Wall Street, etc.” Words such as these bring to mind the haunting images of the World Trade Center crumbling to the ground in a hateful anti-American attack on U.S. lives and property, but the quote does not come from a foreign threat. While law enforcement officials have been investigating the possibility of “sleeper cells" of terrorist groups such as al- Qaida, they’ve ignored a terrorist group living here in the United States. What’s worse — the U.S. government is advocating the ideology behind its hatred and violence in public, schools and on television commercials every day. The words come from the Earth Liberation Front’s Web site, the “heroes of environmental ism," and unless the government does more to stop the ELF’s activities, Americans are going to be put in danger by this group's radical agenda. The ELF admittedly fought against the “American Dream” by torching a five-story condominium complex in San Diego, sabotag ing five housing construction sites and destroy ing car lots during last summer alone. On Sept. 23, its members tried to bomb a Michigan pumping station belonging to Nestle Waters, the parent company for Aberfoyle and Ozarka. all the while claiming to be promoting life. It is true that the ELF, while boasting about its$100 million in property damage, has not been responsible for taking any human lives. However, by asserting that nature is more important than human life and showing no regard for human rights, it is only a matter of time before killing people becomes part of the group’s agenda. As syndicated columnist Robert Tracinski wrote, “No, they don’t want to kill people; they just want to make sure that we don’t own anything, don't eat anything, don’t use any power and have no place to live.” Environmentalism, which the ELF violently fights for, places inanimate objects such as trees, dirt and mountains above the lives and prosperity of human beings. ELF’s idyllic world is a place in which humans live in harmony with nature. If one ever wonders what the “life” it claims to promote would look like for mankind, watch any charity com mercials where dis eases and filth rank above men and women and claim their lives daily. Even those starv ing African states take from nature; such a harmony cannot exist to humans, who depend on taking things from nature to survive. Putting an end to the ELF and similar radical organizations will require a two-pronged attack. First, the government must classify ELF and punish the group as domestic terrorists. Currently, the legal system classifies the ELF’s violence as vandalism, arson and property damage. Assigning meager fines for a group that clearly wants to destroy the American way of life is grossly inap propriate. “Make no mistake,” U.S. Rep. Scott Mclnnis, R- Colorado, told the Vail Daily, “the violent methods used by these crimi nals are nothing short of acts of terror. These actions cannot go unpunished. It’s only a matter of time before human life is taken.” It is insane for a country to prosecute a war on terror by traveling halfway across the globe to fight anti-American extremists while ignoring ones in the United States. But American offi cials are doing worse than simply ignoring these acts of terrorism, they are equating their actions with an insolent teenager spray-paint ing his name in the neighborhood park. Second, the government must cut these ter rorists off at their source by curbing teachers from unknowingly spreading propaganda in the American school system. Anyone who attend ed public school can remember talk about “saving the earth.” Teachers must not use an innocent child’s love of nature to encourage a negative image of businesses on impression able young minds that may carry radical envi ronmentalism into adulthood. Children must not be taught in schools that technology and industry cause only pollution, global warming and wholesale wildlife extinction. These young children don’t have the neces sary cognitive function to question it; they simply take it on faith. Being taught about water pollution in sec ond grade is inappropriate when children aren't even old enough to realize that the minority of cases where an industry that has polluted the local water supply pales in com parison to the rivers of polluted filth that Third World nations live in as a result of not having these industries. Americans must separate environmentalism from responsibility and an appreciation for nature and expose it as the anti-human philoso phy it really is. The ELF is its proper conclu sion. Unless ELF members are classified as terrorists, Americans won’t stop them, and unless Americans stop preaching their ideas, others will only take their place. Mike Walters is a senior psychology major. & MIKE WALTERS Mahesh Neelakantan • THE BATTALION A scientific compromise Ectogenesis may satisfy a long debate H: 4 I V uman beings used to be ... ’he hesitated; the blood rushed to his cheeks. ‘Well, they used to be viviparous.’” So wrote Aldous Huxley in his classic novel, “Brave New World.” Huxley predicted that humans in the future would no longer give birth naturally, but instead, be grown in glass test tubes. The stuff of sci ence fiction novels, however, is quickly becoming reality. Researchers are getting even closer to developing a technique known as ectogene sis: the process by which a fetus develops into a baby in an environment outside of the mother. Experts estimate that ectogenesis could be possible within the next five years. As weird as it may sound, this technology is not some thing to fear. Aside from helping infertile couples, ectogenesis may be able to do the impossible: settle the debate over abortion. Both sides of the debate should come together to support this developing procedure. The science of ectogenesis is still in its infancy, leading some to believe that ectogen esis will never exist. However, Dr. Hung-Ching Liu of Cornell University in New York has already devel oped an artificial womb. His research group also discov ered that embryos can attach to the walls of this synthetic womb and begin to grow. Meanwhile, Dr. Yoshinori Kuwabara of Juntendo University in Japan has created an ectogenetic chamber: a tank connected to a machine that brings oxygen and nutrients to the fetus developing inside. Kuwabara has already delivered goats from this chamber, and says that his ectogenetic cham ber could be ready for a human fetus in the next five years. Critics of ectogenesis may call it dehumaniz ing and unnatural, which is odd. Ectogenesis is merely an artificial means to sustain life, and, by this definition, it is no different than life support. Plus, the end result of pregnancy and ectogenesis is a normal human baby, navel and all; one is not less human than the other. And while ectogenesis may entail an unnatural delivery, so does a Caesarean section. Still, the issue of ectogene sis is not as well-known as that of abortion, which has been infamous from the beginning. On one side are the pro-life supporters who believe that a fertilized human egg is a complete human being that has the same rights and privileges as, say, a 35-year-old brain sur geon. On the other side are the pro-choice supporters, who feel that an egg is not a viable human being, but a mass of cells dependent on a woman’s body. Hence, a woman has the right to remove these cells from her body. This is a woman’s pri vate decision; so, the poten tial loss of a productive human life need not concern the public. Enter ectogenesis. Now, an unwanted fetus, rather than being aborted, is removed from a woman and placed in an ectogenetic chamber. The fetus is then raised in a laboratory under the supervision of reproduc tive scientists. Then, the baby is “born” and adopted by a loving family. No abortion takes place, appeasing pro-life groups, while the woman still decides if she wants to be pregnant, satisfying the pro-choice sup porters. The fetus, too, fares better. It develops into a child in a much safer environment, one where medical assistance is never far away and there is less risk of alcohol exposure or bodily injury. Skeptics may ask who will provide the money to raise the fetus by ectogenesis. As all technology, the price for such a procedure would be high initially, but, in a matter of time, decrease dramatical ly. Once ectogenesis becomes routine it may even be equal to, or lower than, the cost of the abortion a woman was originally seeking. So, instead of a woman paying for an abortion, she can instead foot the bill for ectogenesis. What’s more, the sundry of pro-life organizations should put their money where their mouth is and help financially support women seeking ecto genesis. Pro-choice groups should not object to ectogene sis either, and should help chip in. Indeed, the amount of resources that both groups spend fighting one another would probably be better served supporting ectogene sis: at least, actual progress will be made. To date, ectogenesis is the only idea where pro-life and pro-choice groups can find common ground. Thus, it gives both the chance to tran scend the brutal abortion war, rather than fighting it to no end. Both sides should realize this and finally make amends. Midhat Farooqi is a senior genetics major. MAIL CALL Seniors guilty of leaving early In response to Sept. 29 mail call: This will be an unpopular opinion but as much as many of us would like to blame fresh men, sophomores and old Ags for leaving the game on Saturday, the worst offenders were the juniors and seniors. I saw juniors and seniors leaving the game in large numbers with eight minutes left in the game. They may want to blame the loss of Bonfire, Vision 20/20 or a few bad football seasons for the lack of spirit, but they have no excuse to leave the game so early. The “Wrecking Crew” has lost its name and so should “The Twelfth Man.” We are just another crowd now. This University wasn’t found ed upon academics. It was founded on the Aggie Spirit. Remember that next time yoy decide to quit on a tradition that is bigger than you. Travis Rape Class of 2003 Valid reasons to leave early It seems like after every football game, there are so many people who write in to complain about leaving foot ball games early. I understand that as part of the 12th Man, we need to do our best to support our team. But at the same time, I feel that as Aggies we need to respect other’s opinions and choices, even if they don’t coincide with our own. It saddens me to hear obnox ious fans heckle others as they leave. It’s plain rudeness, but these people justify their actions because they are the “true fans.” People leave games early for a variety of reasons, whether it be heat exhaustion, other planned events or yes, bore dom. They paid for their ticket, and it is their business if they want to stay for the whole game, not anyone else’s. I hope Aggies can consider oth ers’ feelings in the future. Jennifer Stark Class of2006 Appreciation from Pittsburgh I wanted to say thank you for the wonderful football weekend that I recently spent in College Station. I have spent weekends at other big tradition football schools, but nothing compares to the atmosphere, tradition, respect and courtesy that was shown to me and my guests this past weekend. I’m envious of the pride that you have for your school and community and hope that some of it rubbed off on my fel low Panther fans. I encourage the ADs of Texas A&M and Pitt to get together soon to sched ule future games. Jeff Bartlett Pittsburgh, PA Embarrassing game behavior If you’re in the stands and you see somebody wearing a hat when a yell is about to start it’s no big deal to yell “uncover.” The problem starts when either one or a group of uncover police realize there is somebody around them who is simply not taking their hat off for any yell. At two games in a row at Kyle Field, I watched as a group of guys harassed a fellow Aggie for not taking their hat off. They were cussing, making jokes about them incessantly and threatening them the entire game. This is ridiculous and has to stop. Not only is it breaking one tradition (true to each other as Aggies can be) to “enforce” another, but it also makes us look bad as a group. Politely asking somebody to respect a tradition is one thing, but don’t embarrass yourself and fellow Aggies by thinking you have the right to harass others in an attempt to force conformity. I’ll always ask other Aggies to respect tradition, but I’ll never be caught trying to degrade somebody in order to force them into what I consider is right. That’s not American and it sure as heck isn’t like an Aggie. Joshua Carroll Class of 2003 The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or less and include the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy: Letters may be sub mitted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-1 111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: maiIcall@thebattalion.net