California voters soundly rejected five of six ballot measures in the state's special election Tuesday, barring the Legislature from relocating funds as a short-term fix to the current budget crisis.

The only measure that passed 'mdash; by an overwhelming 74 percent of voters 'mdash; was Proposition 1F, which will freeze salaries of state lawmakers during deficit years. Because California will be $21.3 billion in the red beginning July 1, this will include 2009-10.

'The message was loud and clear,' Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement. 'An overwhelming majority of people told Sacramento, 'Go and do your work yourself. Don't come to us with your problems.''

Propositions 1A-1E, which were rejected by more than 60 percent of voters, sought to reach mandatory funding goals by redirecting roughly $5.9 billion toward the state's general-revenue funds.

Proposition 1A would have established state spending caps and prolonged recent tax increases, while Proposition 1B attempted to cushion future cuts to education by requiring the state to pay $9.3 billion toward California K-12 schools and community colleges. Propositions 1C-1E would have borrowed money from California lottery profits, California Children and Families Commission reserves and mental-health program funds, respectively.

Because of the failure of Propositions 1A and 1B, California's public colleges and universities will be subject to additional cuts in state support of up to 10 percent. The University of California will be hit with a $765 million slash to top off the $115 million cut to the system that was announced three months ago.

'Such severe budget reduction, following years of chronic underfunding, would force the university to weigh a number of stark choices,' UC President Mark G. Yudof said in a statement. 'At this point, all options must be placed on the table for consideration at some point in the future.'

According to Yudof, these options include slicing enrollment, academic programs and student services while boosting student fees and class sizes, in addition to pay reductions or furloughs for university employees. The failure of the ballot measures will also trim state support for student aid.

Jack Pitney, a political-science professor at Claremont McKenna College, said state lawmakers will have little choice but take funds from politically sacred avenues such as education, since the public seems to want more than they're willing to pay for.

'For a lot of people, the budget's been an abstraction,' Pitney said. 'But with the next round, there will probably be serious consequences, particularly in the schools. Democrats have taken heat for accepting spending cuts. Certain Republicans have taken heat for accepting tax increases, and the heat's only going to get more intense this summer.'

After election results were announced Tuesday evening, Schwarzenegger flew to Washington, D.C., the next morning to request federal stimulus money for the state.

In a meeting with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Schwarzenegger was informed that California remains eligible to receive another $8 billion in stimulus money for its Medicaid program.

'The rest of it we have to do ourselves in California,' Schwarzenegger said. 'We've made it clear that we're not asking for a bailout. We're not asking for any money we don't deserve under the economic stimulus package.'

The governor began closed-door meetings with state leaders yesterday. Today, Senate and Assembly members will hold the first of many daily public sessions planned to work out budget details.

Last week, Schwarzenegger announced plans to lay off 5,000 of the state's 235,000 workers, slash education funding by up to $5 billion, sell state properties, borrow $2 billion from local governments and reduce eligi
bility for health-care programs.

Schwarzenegger also proposed the state release and deport 19,000 illegal immigrants from prisons, as well as transfer nearly 23,000 other prisoners to county jails.

Readers can contact Kimberly Cheng at [email protected].

San Diego and UCSD police arrived at North Torrey Pines Road Monday night after witnesses reported a stabbing at Black's Beach involving two alleged gang members.

A fight broke out between two Latino males near the Black's Beach Dumpsters between 9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m., witnesses said.

After sustaining two knife wounds, the victim made his way up the cliffs to the edge of Eleanor Roosevelt College, where he flagged down a UCSD police officer just after 10 p.m.
The second male was unharmed.

A witness at Asia Hall described the victim as a 20-year-old Latino male wearing a white shirt and plaid shorts, adding that the victim was conscious and breathing but refused medical attention.

He was taken to Scripps Memorial Hospital and subsequently released with non-life-threatening injuries.

SDPD officers had direct contact with both parties, but neither would cooperate with police questioning, and the victim did not wish to press charges, officials said.

This incident marks the second stabbing at Black's in the past year. In July 2008, an unidentified victim was stabbed in the side after a late-night 'drum circle' ended in a large brawl.

Readers can contact Jesse Alm at [email protected].

WOMEN'S BASKETBALL 'mdash; Suffering their first conference loss of the season, the No. 10 Tritons split their games over the weekend, picking up a 63-57 win over Cal Poly Pomona on Feb. 13 before falling 64-59 to Cal State San Bernardino on Feb. 14. The upset shocked the California Collegiate Athletic Association, as the Coyotes had just come off a nine-game losing streak three nights prior. Despite the loss, UCSD maintains first place, standing atop the CCAA with a 15-1 mark in conference play and a 22-3 overall record.

One of the keys to the Tritons' success this season has been their ability to establish early, dominating leads. Against the Coyotes, however, the Tritons failed to execute in the early minutes, battling in a tight game from the start. UCSD trailed 17-24 with just under four minutes to play before a layup by freshman guard Chelsea Carlisle and a triple by junior guard Annette Ilg brought the Tritons to within two. Each time the Tritons scored, Coyote senior forward Jaclyn Rainville nailed a three while sophomore guard Lisa Takata notched a jumper. But a layup and free throw by senior center Alexis Gaskin kept UCSD within two at 27-29 entering halftime.'

'Girls who aren't usually shooting threats were hitting threes right and left,' Osier said of the Cal State San Bernardino players. 'Unlike Friday night, our defense just wasn't there.'

Cal State San Bernardino's largest lead came with 7:56 on the clock, when Coyote junior guard Ana Onaindia hit a three pointer to make the score 51-42. Over the next several minutes, UCSD went on a 12-7 run to cut its deficit to 58-54. But with only 41 seconds left, it proved too little too late: the Tritons, forced to foul, gave the Coyotes their final six points in free throws.

'[Cal State San Bernardino] came out ready to play and it was a good reminder for us that if we don't show up ready to play, we can and will get beat,' head coach Charity Elliott said. All the credit goes to San Bernardino 'mdash; they played a great game.'

The Tritons finished 21-for-60, and although they outscored the Coyotes 36-20 in the paint, Cal State San Bernardino dominated bench play, toppling UCSD 18-1.
'
Gaskin scored a game-high 22 points and hauled in 10 rebounds; senior forward Michelle Osier also finished in double figures, tallying 12 points and 10 boards. Carlisle and junior guard Leilani Martin contributed 11 and 10 points apiece.

'Although we're disappointed, we can learn a lot from this loss,' Osier said. 'Even though we've been successful, we've got a lot to work on. Our strength offensively is that we are all scoring threats. We make it difficult for teams to scout us because someone different steps up every night. 'hellip; But we all know that against great teams and during the postseason, that isn't going
to cut it. We've got to all be on our game every night if we want to continue to be successful.'

More characteristic to form, the Tritons seized victory over the Cal Poly Pomona Broncos on Friday evening. Six Triton players reached double figures in the effort to achieve the team's 15th consecutive win 'mdash; a streak that has only been set twice in school history. Trailing closely for most of the second half, the Tritons tied the game at 42 with a jumper from Martin with 12:34 on the clock. Surging ahead, UCSD then fired off a 17-8 run, clutching the largest advantage of the game when Carlisle nailed a triple, giving the Tritons a 59-50 lead with two minutes remaining. The Broncos, who failed to score any three-pointers in the second period, suffered against a well-executed Triton defense. UCSD capitalized 20 points off 14 Cal Poly Pomona turnovers, stifling the Broncos' chances for points off free throws as Cal Poly Pomona shot only 20 percent from the line in the second.

Martin went 5-for-6 from the field, leading the Triton scorers with 14 points. Ilg and Osier followed with 13 points; Carlisle notched 12 while Gaskin pitched in 10.

'Friday night was a tough fight against a very good Cal Poly Pomona team and I was really proud of how our team came out and played hard for 40 minutes,' Elliott said. 'Against Pomona, it was our team defense that made the difference 'mdash; we were OK offensively, but our defense won the game for us.'

This week, the Tritons will host two of their remaining four conference games at home. UCSD will face San Francisco State on Feb. 20 for Spirit Night. The Gators are in eighth place with a 6-10 record in conference and 12-11 overall. At last year's Spirit Night, UCSD claimed a 64-58 victory over San Francisco State.

'I know that we will learn the lessons needed and we will come back out for practice this week with a new focus and energy,' Elliott said. 'We all get so excited about Spirit Night and I can't wait to see all the students out supporting both the men's and women's teams. It's a great night for the entire student body and we are going to do all we can to make them proud.'

Readers can contact Brianna Lee at [email protected].

Determined to open the University of California to a larger and more diverse group of applicants, the UC Board of Regents met yesterday in San Francisco to discuss changes to various freshmen eligibility standards, as well as a new financial-aid plan'shy;.

At the meeting, held at UC San Francisco from Feb. 3 to Feb. 5, the Committee on Educational Policy voted unanimously eliminate the SAT II as a requirement for freshman eligibility. The changes would go into effect for the incoming class of 2012.

If approved by the full Board of Regents today, the complex plan will also create an 'entitled to review' applicant pool, inviting those not guaranteed admission by current standards to apply and receive a comprehensive review of their application.

The comprehensive review process takes into consideration criteria other than grades and test scores, such as an applicant's special talents and abilities, as well as life experiences and special circumstances. The Academic Senate estimates that students admitted to the university in this manner would make up approximately 2.5 percent of their incoming class.

If approved, the plan will decrease the statewide guaranteed-admissions rate from the top 12.5 percent of students in California to the top 9 percent, while the rate based on students' ranking within their high-school graduating class would increase from the top 4 percent to the top 9 percent.

The plan would restrict the admission guarantee in the former pool of applicants while expanding the latter, and would enable an estimated 21.7 percent of graduating seniors to receive full review of their applications, in contrast with the 13.4 percent who were eligible in 2007.

UC Board of Regents Chair Richard Blum said that eliminating the SAT II requirement from the freshman application process would enable' qualified candidates to apply to the university who would not otherwise be eligible.

'We are talking about thousands of students who have GPAs over 3.5 [who] are not in the top 12.5 percent [of high school seniors graduating in California] because they are ineligible,'' Blum said. 'We need a policy construct that will extend the benefit of a full review for more than 12.5 percent, which is about 21 percent.'

The meeting also saw the Educational Policy Committee vote to approve a new financial-aid policy, entitled the Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan, which would guarantee enough grant and scholarship funds to cover the system-wide fees of every undergraduate whose annual household income falls below the California median of $60,000.

Yudof backed the policy by claiming it will both increase transparency in the financial-aid process and encourage low-income students to apply.

'The Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan offers a straightforward financial-aid message to reassure low-income students and families that UC is financially accessible, especially during these tough economic times,' Yudof said.

Later in the meeting, Yudof said the planned UC Merced medical school should be built as quickly as possible and gave the green light to an accelerated medical-school program, proposed by Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, which would institute a five-year program to train much-needed physicians for the San Joaquin Valley, which has the least access to physicians per capita of any region in California.

Readers can contact Yelena Akopian at [email protected].

Editor:

I am little confused over your [Jan. 24] editorial, ""Useless resolutions are a waste of time, resources,"" and I hope that we can clear up a few items.

The title's point goes without question. But I am confused about your attacks on A.S. Council resolutions as being ""useless"" and ""pointless,"" as well as your assertions that the A.S. Council does not work to ""represent student opinion"" or ""actively work to address student concerns and needs.""

I am not aware of any useless resolutions passed by the A.S. Council and I don't believe the ""Resolution Supporting America's Institutions"" falls into that category. I say this because I whole-heartedly believe the A.S. Council does exist to ""represent student opinion."" Therefore, when a resolution was presented by one of those students whom we represent, as well as supported by 280 signatures from those students, we took notice.

I do not know about the Guardian but I am not about to tell 280 students that their opinion is unimportant to the A.S. Council. I wouldn't tell one student that their opinion is not important. The A.S. Council takes the time to address all items brought before it with its utmost attention. Student opinion is not a waste of time to us.

In addition, the A.S. Council does ""actively work to address student concerns and needs."" You stated that there are ""half-empty faculty floors and ever-overflowing student floors,"" but if you looked at the statistics, at peak times 'A' spots are 20 percent vacant, 'B' spots are 13 percent vacant, and 'S' are 23 percent vacant. Students actually have more open parking spots than the faculty and your statement is simply not true.

The A.S. Council still actively fights for student parking needs. Last year the A.S. Council Representative to Transportation successfully lobbied for graduated permit-fee plan, so in the future student parking fees will be lower. Keeping student fees down is a need of all students. Also, last week, a resolution to be presented to UCSD Transportation and Parking Services was given to the A.S. Council and will be submitted to the college councils regarding freshman parking. The A.S. Council is fighting to safeguard freshman parking from being eliminated.

When you mentioned the A.S. Council's plan to ""expand shuttle service"" you forgot to finish the sentence. It actually read ""expand shuttle service to and from the airport,"" which is something we are working on. In addition, TPS has made a proposal to expand the shuttle services and that will probably go into effect next year.

If you are so interested in parking issues, you should have applied to be the A.S. Representative to the Transportation Policy Committee (there was only one applicant, an A.S. Council member). I could go on about the other issues, but in the interest of using my time on more ""pro-active efforts,"" I will stop.

In conclusion, let me make two suggestions. Please contact your A.S. representatives via e-mail at [email protected]. Secondly, I invite you to attend an A.S. Council meeting (Wednesdays at 6:30 p.m. in the Price Center Ballrooms).

I encourage you to attend so in the future when you try to blast the A.S. Council for not working on student issues, you might find something true to type instead of the fabrications you printed in your editorial.

Please do not waste students' time and registration fee money in the future with such rubbish.

-- Tom Chapman

ERC Sophomore Senator

[Editor's note: The Guardian is funded solely by advertising.]

I have one question that I will address to Hillcrest as a whole: ""Where the women at?""

I am convinced that Hillcrest is run by a bunch of gay men who all roughly resemble each other: clean-cut, muscular, ostensibly well-off, white, and between 20 and 40 years old. The community that is supposed to be the most diverse is quite the opposite. While Hillcrest is likely the most accepting 'burb of San Diego, it is not in any way diverse.

It consists mainly of a particular age group of males, all white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. It is disappointing that the community I identify with most -- speaking as a lesbian -- I actually identify least with.

I don't relate to conspicuous consumption -- the concept sickens me. As one cruises down University Avenue, I see mostly white gay men and only a few lesbian and elderly people. Hillcrest smells of sex, money, lost dreams, poor-ass lesbians and rich gay men flouting their money.

Upon my introduction to Hillcrest, I thought I had found my Cloud Nine, my haven, my home. After living there for seven months, I barely visit the heart of Hillcrest, unless I'm in a carefree or bored mood. There is plenty to look at if you enjoy watching young gay men walking with their butts in the air and looking at their bulging pects, which are hilariously bigger than a lot of lesbians' breasts.

I have a bone to pick with the majority of gay men I see in Hillcrest. Don't worry boys, I sympathize with your sexual orientation and the secondary status we as homosexuals are given in society.

But why? Why, as my friend Suzie would say, are you a ""huge display of nothingness?"" You all dress the same, work out and diet. And you endlessly gossip about one another's sex lives and social lives in a way that is neither interesting nor engaging. Why do you do so many drugs? Why, when society is moving to accept homosexuality for both my and your benefits, do you insist on self-destruction in this process of liberalization?

There is clearly a light at the end of the American Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender civil rights tunnel, and yet you continue on this dangerous path. Why do you embody alcoholism, drug addiction, mass materialism, conspicuous consumption -- all that is bad -- and then at the same time seem to do so much good in society? So many gay men are caring and have so much to give, and at the same time give so little to themselves.

Before it sounds like I'm doing an endless critique of the gay men I see and know in Hillcrest, let me base my analysis on something concrete.

Drug and alcohol overuse is something that I can only perceive or assume happens behind closed doors in the many gay bars and clubs in Hillcrest and the rest of San Diego, or else I have witnessed it in the behavior of my own gay friends. The mass materialism, conspicuous consumption and excessive vanity that I see daily in Hillcrest are what have set off anger toward much of the gay male community.

Why do they all look the same? Why do they flaunt money like it's going out of style? No doubt, the U.S. gay male population is the trend-setter of this country. The spiky-hair look, the ""man bag,"" the artistic facial hair display: These are all becoming widely copied fads today in straight male Americans. It is interesting that some straight males who are a little too stylish or (gasp!) good-looking are often assumed to be gay.

Why must a sector of the gay community thrive and depend on appearance so much? Why is it assumed that all male hair stylists and interior decorators are gay? Does anyone ever question these stereotypes? Growing up, I never did. This emphasis on appearance makes gay men often gorgeous and attractive, leaving much of the American population staring and jealous.

Will gay men continue to be ""huge displays of nothingness"" forever? This ""nothingness"" implies what is truly an emptiness, a lack of character or a lack of desire to have a character in society's view, a consequence of so much time spent putting up walls to avoid thinking about how society perceives them. It is true that this constructed wall has enforced a look of nonchalance from gay men toward society. It has helped the gay male community snap the strings that connected it to mainstream heterosexual society 30 years ago.

However, the situation has changed and gay men are very much on the forefront of American society today. ""Will and Grace"" will soon take over the No. 1 spot in the Nielsen ratings, and ""Queer as Folk"" is returning for its second season on Showtime as its highest-rated show.

With all this success, it is frightening, disheartening and sad to see such a strong and intelligent group of men prefer the maintenance of the material outside over the introspective inside. Perfection on the outside may bring temporary satisfaction, but it probably will not secure long-term happiness and stability. It is sad that a group of mostly upstanding citizens is known by society for its pettiness, quick wit (a defense mechanism), good looks and vanity.

On the whole, I do not relate to many in my own gender, and lately many of my gay guy friends seem to be vying for this same position in my heart. There is no doubt that straight women are catty, petty, often jealous and territorial. It seems that gay men are making a bid for that same personality.

I don't want to end this article leaving a negative taste of the LGBT community in the mouths of readers. In a way, the obsession with looks and appearance was the most ingenious way for gay men to climb out of the closet.

It could be said that they beat conservative America at its own game. They marketed themselves: their looks, wit, singing, dancing -- it's all an act. Gay men are thirst-quenching entertainment for TV-cultured, ad-infected America to drool over instead of taking Ritalin. America can't argue with looks, success or entertainment satisfaction, no matter what bibles ""say.""

Gay men have taken their finesse at appearance to the 'burbs by marketing their fashion and hair designs to young W.A.S.P. boys interested in attracting girls and women in the same way that gay men, with astounding efficiency, attract themselves.

This illustrates how the conspicuous consumption and excessive vanity of gay men has removed barriers; many young men, especially in urban, white California, resemble gay men three to five years ago in fashion and hair sense. I have often witnessed young W.A.S.P. men dressed neatly, clean-cut, with spiky hair and Abercrombied-out, using ""fag"" in a derogatory way when, in reality, they themselves resemble the ""fags"" of a few minutes ago.

American boys beware! How can you have permanent animosity toward a group of people you yearn to be like?

UCSD Housing and Dining Services needs half a billion dollars. To raise this money, it is considering an overhaul of undergraduate on-campus housing rates that would create a single, universal rate for all single-occupancy rooms, and one for all double-occupancy rooms on campus. The rate would apply to residence halls and apartments, and would require all undergraduate students living on campus to purchase a meal plan.

One Rate, as the proposal is called, would make living in the apartments and living in the residence halls the same price.

According to HDS, the pricing overhaul would bring in needed cashflow to improve current facilities, and fund over half a billion dollars in planned construction over the next 10 years to accommodate the ever-growing demand for housing and dining facilities.

Because HDS is required to be self-sufficient, it is in somewhat of a bind. However, eliminating so much student choice in on-campus services is not the only solution to its financial crisis.

Under the current system, a student in a double-occupancy room in an on-campus apartment is projected to pay $4,687 for the 2002-2003 school year, with the option of buying a meal plan. If One Rate were enacted, this same student would be required to purchase a meal plan, and the cost would jump to $7,100 -- the same price that a student in a double-occupancy room in the residence halls would pay. In addition to the meal plan, the student living in the apartment would also be purchasing a mandatory weekly maid service.

Though the price of living in the residence halls would decrease by about $1,100 for the year, this is no excuse to force apartment residents to buy maid service and a meal plan. True, the lowered residence halls rate will probably make UCSD more attractive to incoming freshmen, but these students will not get a better deal -- they will just pay for it their second year when they live in the apartments, if they are lucky enough to even get one.

It may appear that students living in the residence halls would be seeing all the benefits of One Rate. However, this is not the case. Residence halls have fewer amenities and they close during the breaks -- yet they will be paying the same amount as residents of on-campus apartments. To charge them the same price as for an apartment -- which is open for more than a month longer and has more amenities -- is a sham.

Current on-campus apartment residents pay about $485 per month for rent, cable and utilities. This is quite low compared to the San Diego housing market. Raising this price to something that better reflects the going rate in the area would be better than shoving extra services down the throats of on-campus apartment residents to generate extra income.

The Guardian recognizes that UCSD Housing and Dining Services needs a lot of money, and that it can only raise it by somehow increasing cashflow. Sadly, this must mean raising prices. However, One Rate's strategy of generating the extra revenues through a program that masks higher prices with the illusion of more services is misguided. The fair solution is to base future price adjustments on the value of the services provided, while still providing students who wish to live on campus the options they currently enjoy.

If you think you could save a lot on rent by moving out of La Jolla, you're right. But if you think that by doing that, you could save a lot overall, think again.

Everyone knows that rent in La Jolla is expensive, but you're paying for a prime location. You may have already noticed that the UCSD area is much prettier than, for example, El Cajon.

Rent is usually a person's biggest monthly expense, so many assume that a lower housing cost equals a lower cost of living overall. On the surface, cheap rent can look like a great deal. In reality, it may be an expensive mistake.

It's easy to be lured to an area because it has rock bottom rent. Most people have a psychological fear of spending a large amount of money at one time. Given a choice, most people would rather spend $300 instead of $700 at once, if the apparent item -- in this instance, an apartment -- were the same. But you need to look at more than just rent to know if you are living as cheaply as you think you are. You need to look at time as money, and vice versa.

When you live farther away from La Jolla, rent becomes less expensive, but driving here gets more expensive. Everything else -- groceries, entertainment, clothing -- costs about the same no matter where you live, so we only need to look at the factors with the biggest differences: rent and transportation. For the sake of simplicity, the transportation costs only include the cost of driving to and from school, not your trips to the store, to work or to the mall.

A typical three-bedroom apartment in La Jolla goes for $2,100 per month. If you want your own room, you pay $700 per month. You then drive about four miles round-trip to campus each day, or about 80 miles per month. At 50 cents per mile -- accounting for maintenance, insurance, fuel and car payments -- you pay about $40 per month to drive to school and $50 per month to park there. Your total cost for rent and transportation in La Jolla: $790 per month.

The lowest price you'll find for a single bedroom in El Cajon is about $300 -- many places are more expensive than that, but very few are cheaper -- in a $900 per month three-bedroom residence. Here, you drive about 40 miles round-trip to campus each day, or about 800 miles per month. At 35 cents per mile (driving gets more economical over longer distances), you pay $280 per month driving to school, and $50 parking. Your total cost in El Cajon: $630 per month. At first glance, this seems nice: You have saved $160 per month by moving to El Cajon.

But at what cost?

If you're lucky and you have a job that pays $10 per hour, you would need to work 79 hours every month (70 of them to pay for rent, nine to pay for your trips to school) to live in La Jolla. Your 80 miles of driving to and from campus takes a total of about seven hours. So you would spend 86 hours every month to live in La Jolla, two miles away from campus.

Working at that same $10 per hour job, you would need to work only 63 hours every month (30 of it to pay rent, 33 to pay for your trips to school) to live in El Cajon. But your 800 miles of driving every month tends to take about 33 more hours of your time. You spend 99 hours every month to live in El Cajon, 20 miles away from campus. By living in El Cajon, you have saved $160 per month at a cost of 13 hours of your time. You are effectively compensated for that extra 13 hours at a rate of $12.31 per hour.

If you hate your job but love sitting in traffic, El Cajon could be right for you. If your job is so great that you actually enjoy working there and would rather not waste 33 hours sitting in traffic, La Jolla might be a better bet.

Let's return to location: La Jolla is close to the beach and its weather is temperate. El Cajon is 20 miles away from the beach and in the desert, where it is often 80 degrees during the day and 40 degrees the same night. If you live in La Jolla, you might go to the beach or just exercise more often, since it's more convenient and comfortable to do so. At the very least, you'll save money on utilities, since you won't be air-conditioning your apartment as often. Your savings can diminish rapidly thanks to extra utility costs.

Some more on location: If you live in El Cajon, you have no practical choice but to drive to UCSD. Even with a car, 20 miles is a long way. If your car breaks down, you can't get to school very easily. Even a die-hard transit rider or bicyclist won't do a 40-mile round-trip to and from campus.

If you live two miles away, you can choose from driving, taking the bus -- UCSD provides a free bus pass for routes near campus -- or riding your bike. You could even walk to the Regents parking shuttle and take that the rest of the way to campus. You could also save $50 per month on a parking permit -- or more, if your car ever gets ticketed -- by walking or bicycling.

What if you forget something important at home or you realize you need to study at Geisel Library on a Saturday? From La Jolla, the extra drive costs you $2; from El Cajon it costs $14. Also, the shorter trip only requires one hour of your time instead of three -- remember that you need to account for the time spent driving and the time you work to pay for the trip.

On environmental impact: Driving those extra 720 miles per month really hurts the environment. We're not just talking about your tree-hugging, dirt-worshipper definition of ""environment"" here. Obviously, more driving creates more pollution. But the extra traffic generated by thousands of people who think it's a great idea to live 20 miles away from work or school also clogs San Diego's streets, creates more noise, devours land for more streets and parking lots, and increases the number of vehicle collisions. In short, when so many people do it, it sharply decreases the city's quality of life.

The earlier examples assumed that you were paying for a single room. If you live in a shared room, slash the rent figures in half so that you pay $350 per month in La Jolla and $150 per month in El Cajon. The rent is cheaper, but the driving costs stay the same.

Living in La Jolla now costs just $440 per month. Get ready for a shock: Living in El Cajon now costs $480 per month. You're not only spending more money to live there, but also spending four extra hours at work and 26 extra hours in traffic to do it. Suddenly, paying $150 a month for rent doesn't look so great.

Living far away for ""cheap rent"" does not always save time or money, often ends up costing you more of both, and always ends up costing society more.

The bottom line is that you really need to do the math before deciding where to live. Calculate all your expenses, not just rent, and calculate the cost to society, not just your own.

I recently took a brief vacation in Mexico City. The visit allowed me to remark on differences between Mexican and American social mores that seemed to emerge in an unfamiliar environment.

One thing I noticed was the large number of couples kissing every which way -- a sight to which I had grown very accustomed during my adolescence in Italy, but as I now live in San Diego it is a sight rare enough to catch my eye when I see it.

Every park bench, little wall and piece of lawn was filled with people tightly connected by the tongue, with hands touching places that nobody would dare to touch on American television and unspeakable body parts brushing against each other. Scenes like this are quite common in Latin countries.

I remember seeing a couple in Naples, Italy, decide in the middle of a busy boulevard that it was a good time to kiss. They stopped the car in the middle of the lane and did things that, in the United States, would garner at least a PG-13 rating.

The decision was criticizable from a traffic circulation viewpoint -- traffic is very bad in Naples to begin with -- but heartwarming otherwise.

This explosion of the senses always appeared to me very beautiful and very natural. We are, after all, talking about guys and girls in the middle of adolescence, with hormones raging and all that.

Why aren't displays of this kind seen in San Diego? All external circumstances would conspire to bring lovers together: the mild weather, the beach, the parks ... what happened to San Diego's lovers?

Since nature sends its calls across boundaries to hormones of all countries, it seems logical to assume that the behavioral differences between San Diego teenagers and their Latin counterparts are cultural.

There are indeed two streaks of American culture that could explain this restrained attitude. On the one hand, American culture places a very high value on privacy -- not only in the sense of protection from undue intrusion, but also in the creation of almost impenetrable barriers between one's private lives and one's public life.

Americans are not fond of displaying their private life in public places, but their Latin counterparts do not seem to have a problem with it. The idiom ""public display of affection"" doesn't even have an equivalent in Latin languages -- the practice doesn't constitute a problem.

One can trace the evolution of this attitude in American culture through a survey of structural development -- tracing the progressive reduction and eventual elimination of public areas of social aggregation in the cities.

Most East Coast cities still have plazas and streets designed for strolling and socializing. On most of the West Coast, and especially in newly built areas, walking areas are restricted to privately owned shopping malls and, as such, are subject to the primacy of consumption over socialization. Suburban areas are the triumph of private land over public spaces.

This lack of public life should be added to the well-planted myth of self-reliance, which is on a collision course with displays of affection: Displaying affection entails admitting a break in self-reliance, a need. It entails admitting that one cannot do by himself, but needs an emotional complement, and kissing or caressing on the street means admitting this publicly.

I believe that it is this belief of vulnerability that makes displays of affection hard, especially for men. Men have been assigned the gender role of lonely heroes who do not need anybody. At the end of the movie, the Western hero has to depart alone, leaving broken hearts behind, but never giving up his freedom. This well-ingrained mechanism makes it almost shameful for a man to be affectionate.

To this, we should add a second streak of American culture: its essentially Puritan origin, with the well-known repression of public sexual discourse that comes with it. The influence of this point is so powerful that even curious ideas, such as the fact that schools shouldn't teach sexual education to children, have an almost axiomatic acceptance.

The same attitude prevents public sexual manifestations unless they take place in a strictly coded way. The display of scantily dressed women to advertise a product is well-accepted. The extreme situation in which these displays take place -- on remote beaches, with women conforming so well to the accepted canons that they look almost abstract -- keeps the display of sexuality removed from the sphere of everyday life.

In a sense, the women displayed in the sexually charged display that one sees on TV are not human beings, but sexual products. We know that American culture is accustomed to the role of products in society.

It would be much less accepted if normal people, apart from any act of consumption, displayed sexual behavior in public.

The force preventing people from freely showing their affection is powerful: a cultural heritage dating back hundreds of years. The only defense in these cases is to set the right example in an open and forceful manner. Fortunately, UCSD is full of young people with the right level of hormones for such an operation.

My invitation to them is: Start kissing. Take your favorite public spot on campus and start kissing your girlfriend or boyfriend. Touch each other, walk around campus embracing so tightly that there will be no light between your bodies. Start necking in the Price Center and on Library Walk. Learn that it is pleasant to show the world that you love to stay together.

Just when I thought the ghetto of Beverly Hills couldn't get any sleepier, a drug lord popped into the limelight.

And wouldn't you just know it'd be my father.

Yes, watch your step, for I am the daughter of one of the most renowned drug dealers in Southern California. At least, that was the stance of the Los Angeles Police Department.

One night several years ago, I found myself staring at the clock at 1:15 a.m. Because I had an actual ""bedtime"" of 10 p.m. until the day I left for college (my father is a very strict druggie -- go figure), I was supposed to be asleep.

However, it's kind of hard to sleep when the sound of the doorbell, accompanied by very loud male voices in the living room, wake you up.

Now, normally, I would do what any well-trained teen-ager would do: lie in bed and seethe, and then dish out a nice plate of sass in the morning. I could hear the smart-ass remarks already ... ""Well I would go to school, Dad, but someone was making so much noise last night that I couldn't sleep, and I really feel that I need a nice relaxing day in bed now."" Ahh, it would be sweet.

But that night, for some reason, I couldn't wait until morning. My father needed a good excuse for making that much noise, and even if he had one, I was going to ignore it and yell anyway. Get off the tracks, pops, 'cause the Bitch Express is coming through.

Well, needless to say, it kind of threw off my rhythm when I sashayed into the hallway and saw two cops standing there.

At that point, I figured it was not the time to be a typical teen-ager. I mean, I wasn't sure if extreme peskiness was a misdemeanor. You will all be happy to know that it's not.

Anyway, the cops hadn't seen me yet. They were still interrogating my father, saying typical cop stuff such as, ""Sir, this would go a lot smoother if you would just be straight with us,"" and, ""We saw the suspect at your door, so stop acting like you don't know what we're talking about.""

Well, my jaw must have made a pretty loud thud when it hit the floor, because all three men turned and saw me.

So now these men of the law were staring at me in my pajamas, which consisted of sweat pants and a tent-sized T-shirt that probably could have single-handedly saved the entire Midwest from flooding.

Cop (turning to my father very critically): ""Sir, is that your wife?""

Dad (horrified that anyone would think he was married to a 16-year-old): ""No! That is my daughter.""

Now these cops were in trouble. You can accuse my dad of being a drug lord, but nobody calls Arnold Sklar a pedophile.

So my father and the cops were engaged in a glaring contest, which, in my expert opinion, is no way to stay out of jail. Luckily for him, my father turned to look at me.

Dad (not in the mood for the Bitch Express): ""Carrie, go to bed. Now.""

You don't have to tell me twice to obey my father. I was going to go to bed. Well, I was going to go around the corner and eavesdrop; close enough.

By now -- what with the statutory rape accusations and all -- there had been enough commotion to wake my mother. She came downstairs, none too pleased to be awake, and even less pleased to discover policemen in her living room.

Mom (full of feminine composure): ""What the hell is going on here?""

Dad (relieved to see someone he is actually married to): ""These men think they tracked a well-known drug dealer to our door, where he apparently 'made a deal' with someone in this house.""

Well, that cleared that up.

This is the time when all housewives shine. It was one of those rare moments when the house, their domain of power and authority, is in complete disarray, and the wife must step up and take charge before the world as she knows it comes crashing down.

Luckily, my mother was up to the challenge.

Mom (up to the challenge): ""I'm going to the bathroom.""

Whew! We're saved. That should solve everything. Thanks, Mom.

Of course, the cops wouldn't have that particular plan.

Cop (getting up to block my mother's path): ""Ma'am, I can't let you do that.""

Great, now he was in trouble. It's one thing to tell my dad he's a drug lord with a taste for the young ones, but it is quite another to keep my mother out of the bathroom. No one, not even Fidel Castro in his finest hour, can keep a Sklar woman from peeing. This officer is toast. He is vapor. So long, sucker.

Mom (trying to decide how best to kill him): ""Why not?""

Other cop (sensing danger -- smart man): ""It's policy, ma'am. In cases such as these, it's common for suspects to ... er ... flush evidence.""

Well my mom wasn't going to take that. Not from Castro, and certainly not from this cop.

Mom (not taking it): ""And just what makes you think we have drugs here?""

Cop (physically taken aback by her sass -- go Mom!): ""We were staked out on the corner and saw the drug dealer pull into a driveway with a white sport utility vehicle. He went up to the door, and -- ""

Mom (cool beyond words): ""You mean the white SUV parked next door?""

Cop:

Yeah, he was pretty much silent at that point. I mean, when my mom makes you her bitch, you don't do much talking.

You can guess what happened next. The cops got on the radio, called the station to inform them that they were retarded, and went next door to interrogate our neighbors, who definitely like to party from time to time.

So basically, my dad isn't a drug dealer in the most technical of terms. But he bought property next to one, and that's good enough for me.