An eye for an eye. Fight fire with fire. One good turn deserves another. There are countless aphorisms to the effect that every action can and should be reciprocated with an equal counter-reaction.

In reality, things really shouldn't work that way. An eye for an eye makes the world blind. Fighting fire with fire will not get you nearly as far as a reliable bucket of water, and one good turn deserves nothing more than a little acceptance of the fact that sometimes that's just the way the world works.

A pragmatic view of the world understands that such an action-reaction philosophy is doomed. And that is why I do not believe in the death penalty.

Actually, there are lots of reasons, aside from my moral tendencies. Let us look at the facts. In addition to the fact that having the death penalty has not been proven to lower homicide rates, in America, the institution of capital punishment in the United States is both racist and alarmingly inefficient.

The whole point of capital punishment is to keep murderers off the street. To allow us to sleep at night, to feel that our neighborhoods are safe and free of serial killers and psychopaths. Too bad having the death penalty doesn't do that. Authors John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer and James Marquart examined executions in Texas between 1984 and 1997. They speculated that if a deterrent effect were to exist, it would be found in Texas because of the high number of death sentences and executions within the state. (During President George W. Bush's years as governor in Texas, he signed over 100 warrants for the execution of prisoners on death row.)

Using patterns in executions during the study and the relatively steady rate of murders in Texas, the authors found no evidence of a deterrent effect. The study concluded that the number of executions was unrelated to murder rates in general, and that the number of executions was unrelated to felony rates. The death penalty wasn't proven to scare potential murderers into more peaceful pursuits. It doesn't deter crime. It wasn't proven to actually solve anything at all.

Even more disturbing than killing people without achieving anything is taking a long, hard look at just who it is we are killing. It would be one thing if we were unbiased in the practice of killing people who kill people in order to show that killing people is wrong. But not only is the death penalty hypocritical, it is also racist.

The University of North Carolina released a study based on data collected from court records of 502 murder cases from 1993 to 1997 and determined that race plays a disquietingly significant role in who gets the death penalty.

The study found that defendants whose victims are white are 3.5 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those with non-white victims. The odds that race plays a role in sentencing are supposed to be zero. Instead, it turns out that the race of the defendant -- and perhaps even more importantly, the victim -- is a determining factor. Regardless of whether someone supports the death penalty, he or she cannot support a discriminating form of it.

Then there is the fact that we screw up a lot when it comes to putting people on death row. Since 1973, when the death penalty was nationally reinstated, 99 people in 24 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. In the state of Illinois alone there were 13 inmates released from death row based on concrete evidence of their innocence. That number alone caused the state's governor to declare a moratorium. Most of the falsely convicted prisoners were condemned on what later turned out to be forced confessions.

So just to review, we sentence people to death with the idea that we are just giving them a taste of their own medicine. Nevermind that the jury tends to reach a racist conclusion based on faulty evidence. Nevermind that killing them in the name of preventing future murder is a double lie; first, it does not positively lower homicide rates, and second, it involves the murder of the inmate. All the facts and studies aside, what really makes this institution wrong is the fact that we have no right to decide whether someone deserves to live or die. We have no right to determine the value of human life.

Yes, murder is wrong. Yes, it is horrible, lamentable and despicable, and people who commit murder should not be allowed to exist in free society. First, we should make sure that we convict people based not on the color of their skin, but the concrete and indisputable evidence of their guilt. Second, we should not aspire to play God and pretend to know whether someone deserves death. We cannot possibly subscribe to an eye-for-an-eye mentality. If people are guilty, if they have violated someone's right to life, then punish them. Go ahead. Lock them up, make them chop rocks all day, put them someplace where they are surrounded by pictures of their victims, whatever. Punish them all you like. But do not take something that was never yours to give.

The wise men and women of the Academic Senate have harangued the masses.

In an e-mail sent to the UCSD community in December 2001, the Academic Senate explained, ""The Academic Senate Council has agreed with the campus administration that a return to the 10 minute class interval is both necessary and justified. This change will go into effect with the scheduling of classes for the fall quarter of 2002.""

It seems necessary and justified, therefore, to put the Academic Senate's contention to the test that only 2 percent of students will be adversely affected by the change.

Warren and Revelle Colleges regularly house many students for both lectures and laboratories over the course of the day, and it would not be far-fetched to assume that more than 2 percent of the population must travel between the two areas at least once a week in adjacent periods. Many students have complained that 10 minutes would be an insufficient amount of time to go between Warren and Revelle Colleges.

However, since UCSD is an academic institution, such a theory must be put to a scientific test.

I started around 5 p.m. sitting in an empty York Hall 2622, pencil and notebook open, and started my stopwatch.

With a load of about 16 pounds, I set off toward Warren Lecture Hall 2005, another large room in which I have had three classes over the years. At a brisk walking speed, using properly lit and paved paths, the journey took 13 minutes and 22.3 seconds.

The Academic Senate is made of a number of very intelligent and learned people. As a result, I cannot see it imposing a rule that would result in students arriving late and missing three minutes of important instruction time.

Brisk walking, then, must not have been the implied standard. I set off back for York from Warren still carrying 16 pounds, this time using a standard of full-out running. Although my level of physical fitness is probably fairly dismal, I did indeed sprint the full way, at the cost of near nausea, and made it in 8 minutes, 3.4 seconds, well within the 10 minutes set by the Academic Senate.

The 2 percent must refer to the poor souls who must sprint from Galbraith Hall in Revelle to EBU2 in Warren.

I therefore applaud the Academic Senate's decision. This is, no doubt, a thinly veiled attempt to force lethargic college students to exercise strenuously -- perhaps even three times a week -- in light of a report in the December 2001 issue of ""The Economist"" that nearly 40 percent of Americans are overweight. Increasing the overall attractiveness of UCSD's population, especially when the current population is compared to the denizens of schools such as UC Santa Barbara and SDSU, is an admirable goal. This writer, however, fears and predicts that the strategy will backfire when we all decide that we'd rather just stay in bed.

Dec. 13, 2001: Did anyone else notice that day's two big headlines? The first: The White House released its translation of the Osama bin Laden video tape that allegedly serves as proof for Bin Laden's involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Then, stifled under the ""real"" news, Bush formally withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, an agreement that Russia considers a ""cornerstone"" to nuclear arms containment.

In response, the Russians are planning to tip their new missiles with multiple warheads -- a fairly useless measure, but it's as much as they can do. The talk of a new arms race seems rather far-fetched; Russia has no inclination to dump ridiculous amounts of money into fairly useless nuclear weapons when it could be spending money on slaughtering Chechens, and nuclear silos are not on the top of the United States' list, either, when there are tax refunds to be had.

The timing of it all seems rather fishy. If reports are to be believed, the White House probably knew of the tape sometime earlier in the week (Dec. 13 turned out to be a Thursday), and likewise, the previous Monday, Bush informed congressional leaders of his intent to pull out from the treaty.

Funny, then, that the release of the translation of the tape had to be delayed a day from Wednesday to Thursday -- the same day on which Bush announced his withdrawal from the ABM treaty to conveniently smaller headlines.

It seems that the ""moral"" Republicans, foremost among them Bush, who always blasted Clinton's improper use of international warfare and the subsequent release of information to cover his tracks on more lurid activities (read: attacks on Iraq and Serbia conveniently coincided with sex scandals), have taken a page from his book. Except this time, what's at stake isn't a president's sexual credibility. No, this time, we're playing with nuclear weapons.

Last, a proposed resolution to UCSD's fall quarter equivalent to the Chandra Levy story (barely) bears mentioning. Regardless of Koala Editor in Chief George Liddle's insistence that all speech, no matter how galling, must be protected, it seems a massacre of the Koala's funding looms on the horizon.

The Supreme Court shares Liddle's political view on free speech -- unless, of course, one's speech constitutes a threat to national security. In spite of the amount of attention bestowed by the college councils on this ""crisis,"" the matter has yet to reach this degree of levity, but not for lack of trying.

Therefore, in the spirit of the amount of maturity displayed by at least one side in this matter, might it not be wise to allow Liddle and Ernesto Martinez -- who represents an irate student government -- to settle their differences in a time-honored tradition: the boxing ring?

RIMAC Arena provides the perfect venue for such an event, and with the promotional skills of Jeff Dodge, our A.S. president, perhaps enough money could be raised for a decent WinterFest.

While Liddle, leader of the self-professed bastion of testosterone at UCSD, probably holds the upper hand by conventional wisdom, one might enjoy a scenario in which Martinez puts enough permanent dents in Liddle's face that Liddle receives ""relentless mockery of [his] physical deformities"" in the press.

Sadly, lack of humor and accommodation by both sides makes it more likely this battle will be fought in the far more boring venue of a courtroom. Too bad -- with the coming loss of The Koala at UCSD, the campus could use all the excitement it can get. God forbid that students, especially those on the college councils, might actually have to get excited by schoolwork rather than ""politics.""

Sometimes it can be easy to forget where we are: at school.

Especially when living on campus, amid all the fun and games occurring at UCSD -- maybe I am just thinking about sleeping and skipping class -- it's easy to forget that we are at an institution of ""higher learning,"" and that above all it is the classroom education that we are here for.

So, keeping in mind that the top priority at UCSD is supposed to be learning, the recent decision to shorten passing periods between classes from 15 to 10 minutes is not really as big an issue as its detractors make it out to be.

Five minutes is not that much time to lose between classes, but in the big picture, those minutes add up. By tightening the class schedule, UCSD can open up one whole new lecture period, which new professors, classes and students can certainly put to more use than a measly five minutes at a time.

There are undoubtedly other things we could be more concerned about that are happening at our school than the departure of those five minutes.

For the last four years, students have had the luxury of an extra few minutes to stroll between classes, stop to chat with friends or get a quick bite to eat. But the fact is, every other UC campus gets by on a 10-minute passing period.

And in fact, UC Santa Cruz actually has 70 minute class periods, which made me feel a little better about sitting through a 50-minute lecture.

Those extra five minutes are nice, I will admit. But there are plenty of times that I found myself getting out of class at Peterson Hall to head for Solis Hall, only to find that I had an extra 10 minutes to sit around and wait for class to begin.

The reality is, UCSD is in the stages of trying to accommodate more and more students, and changes simply have to be made to alleviate the crunch for space.

According to David Miller, associate vice chancellor of academic planning and resources, UCSD admitted 1,000 more undergraduate students than last year for the fall 2001 quarter, and Miller expects just as many next fall.

""Somewhere, we must therefore find about 8,000 new seats, distributed among all sizes of lecture rooms at all hours,"" Miller said. ""The 10 minute walk provides some immediate relief by utilizing some existing seats more often.""

UCSD's total undergraduate student enrollment was 16,496 in 2000 and continues to grow. Ultimately, the growth means either making room for new students, or having to turn away more applicants.

In order to fill the new classroom space provided by the extra lecture periods, UCSD will also have to provide new professors to teach the expanding student body, and Miller said that new staff will be provided to accommodate the needs of students.

""The primary goal is to make sure that students can get the classes that they need, and are not just all placed into larger courses,"" Miller said. ""New sections should be opened up.""

Shortening the passing periods to 10 minutes is not just a way to torture students by making us walk faster between classes; there is an academic purpose to the change.

Miller stressed that the schedule change is only one of several administrative actions planned to increase classroom availability. Construction of more lecture halls is a possible future addition.

But in the mean time, the added lecture period will provide more flexibility, and the shortened passing time between classes is one of many sacrifices that have to be made.

Unfortunately for a lot of us, getting the classes we need also means having classes very early or late. But it hardly makes sense to have empty lecture halls sitting around for so much time when they could be used to house a larger number of classes.

""There has been a sharp rise in utilization of lecture halls at 8 a.m. and between 5 and 6 p.m. in just the past two years,"" Miller said. ""I think we will approach 80 to 100 percent utilization of some of these lecture halls at these times very soon.""

UCSD is a rapidly growing school and there are a number of predicted problems resulting from increased enrollment, such as the shortages in parking and housing.

Education should be the top priority at any school, however.

Losing five minutes between classes means not being able to stay after class to chat with professors, but that is what office hours are for.

Although we may pay the price for convenience, what we gain is a wider array of classes from which to choose and a fuller, richer and more physically fit student body.

How can we blame The Koala?

No one should be attempting to shut The Koala down. No one. The Koala should have the right and the power to publish unstifled opinions and ideas as a publication explicitly protected under the provisions of the First Amendment. The First Amendment is designed to protect speech that is unpopular in our society, for if every word spoken or printed were favorable, there would be no need for the protection of free speech at all. The Koala, with all of its racially insensitive epithets, absolutely qualifies for such protection.

I am not condoning the hate speech spewed within the pages of The Koala. In fact, I find the content within the newspaper disgusting, and as an African American, quite offensive. But just as the Guardian has a right to go to press, likewise for the Muir Quarterly and all other student publications, The Koala staff has a right to put into print whatever its derogatory and racists hearts desire (oops, did I let that slip?).

My problem is not with The Koala. My problem is not with The Koala editor in chief George Liddle, either. My problem is with the thousands of UCSD students who claim to not be racist but laugh at the denigrating filth that permeates throughout The Koala. On Nov. 30, The Koala staff distributed what seemed to be a million copies of their paper around campus. That Friday, I spotted students of various ethnicities giggling to themselves. A few students were holding up their copies to their friends exclaiming, ""Read this!"" with generic smiles plastered across their faces. Now, it goes without saying The Koala is racist. They have refuted this claim extensively, but anyone with half a brain can see that the socially constructed institution of racism is upheld on The Koala's pages. That said, if you were one of those people whom I spotted around campus laughing, giggling -- even mustering a pathetic smile -- ask yourself this question: ""Am I a racist, too?""

Before you answer with the popular answer, ""Hell no!,"" think about a few things.

If you happened upon a Ku Klux Klan rally and caught yourself cheering at the racist utterances of an Imperial Wizard, are you in agreement with the KKK? If you happened upon an issue of The Koala and caught yourself laughing at the racist rants of Liddle, are you in agreement with The Koala? Now try again: ""Am I a racist, too?"" The popular answer should not be quite so easy to mutter this time.

If no one attends Klan rallies, then soon enough even the hate-preaching Imperial Wizard has no foundation on which to stand. Similarly, if no one reads The Koala, then the student organizations for civil rights would not have to contend with its attacks due to lack of readership -- The Koala would be forced to shut down. But if, on the other hand, you read and shamelessly grin at the contents of The Koala, then racism -- however humorous it may seem -- has found an active participant in you.

The Koala has every right under the Constitution to print and distribute its hateful content. The UCSD student body should not attempt to constrain or revoke its First Amendment right of free speech.

But the student body should voice a counter-opinion of its own that dilutes the power behind The Koala's message. Our student body needs to stop straddling the fence whenever diversity is concerned and take an active stance to welcome and celebrate its underrepresented population.

All students -- whites included -- need to ensure that the The Koala feels the rejection it has earned because racism cuts away at the core of human rights, not just civil rights.

When The Koala distributors are around campus handing out the latest edition of steaming garbage, turn them down.

When you see abandoned Koalas lying around campus, put them in a recycling bin so that others who do not seek such offensive material do not inadvertently happen upon a copy. Better yet, set up barbecues on Library Walk and invite people to torch their copy alongside you.

But if you are not racist -- and you probably claim not to be -- then don't laugh at racist speech. Don't snicker at sexist suggestions. Don't support a publication that openly embraces ethnic denigration and gender stereotyping if you do not share these beliefs.

The Koala is not the problem -- everyone who claims to be offended by its content out of one side of their face but laughs about it out of the other side are the real problems at this school.

Editor:

In regards to The Koala Volume 58, Issue 2, page 7: I am Jewish. I hold no official position in the Jewish community or represent a Jewish organization.

The Koala's character of a Jew is anti-Semitic and racist. The creature is disgraceful. Wearing a wide-rimmed hat with long, curly sideburns as if he is an Orthodox Jew inappropriately juxtaposes a great tradition. This juvenile part of the cartoon is little compared to the perversion of the Menorah and the Magen David (Star of David). Priests used the menorah in temple worship in ancient Israel. In modern times, it is common in synagogues and used in observance of Chanukah. Depicting this symbol as an instrument of violence shows a complete lack of respect of the Jewish people, and even if not intended, anti-Semitism.

The Star of David has taken several meanings and connotations in Judaism. During World War II and the Holocaust, Jews were forced to wear badges with the Star of David so that the Nazis could identify and isolate Jews from the rest of society. The Zionist movement adopted it in 1897; and now it is on the Israeli flag. The Star of David functions to simplify the image of the beast as Jewish because the symbol is commonly identifiable.

The cartoon depicts Jews as beast-like, and consequently subhuman. The fundamental element of racism is the belief that one human is less human than another is. I would like to believe that this is not the intention of The Koala.

I would like to believe that propaganda would stop by tapping my feet. But I am not in Kansas anymore, and I don't have a pair of ruby slippers to get me out. What I do have is 4,000 years of history telling me that perversion of sacred symbols and racist cartoons depicting me as subhuman cannot be ignored.

-- Joseph Sherman Villafane

Junior, Warren College,

ethnic studies major

Earlier this year, Chancellor Robert C. Dynes decided to discontinue the all-campus commencement ceremony offered since 1997 to UCSD graduates. The first two years of the all-campus commencement were wild successes - then-President Bill Clinton spoke at the first one, and then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich spoke at the next one.

The problems the commencement committees faced the next two years are well-known: Since Gingrich spoke, the process by which the speakers were found has been mired by cancellations and lackluster interest. The last two years' speakers have been San Diego tech-mogul Irwin Jacobs and inspirational speaker Patch Adams, who was made famous by a biographical Robin Williams movie.

Though the ceremony has not attracted speakers of the same caliber as the first two, we at the Guardian think the ceremony should have been kept and made permanent. In his announcement Dynes stated that the separate ceremonies at the individual colleges are intended to allow new UCSD graduates to ""celebrate with their classmates and loved ones."" However, these ceremonies exclude about five-sixths of our classmates.

In a time of explosive enrollment increases at UCSD, the five colleges are no longer the tight-knit communities they once may have been. Lower-classmen are often housed at colleges other than their own, and now second-year students are not even guaranteed on-campus housing. Each year, the campus is becoming more and more a single community. This is not necessarily problematic, but it is a shame that commencement will no longer represent this aspect of UCSD.

Virtually all students have friends outside their colleges, and some may even dislike the nature of their own college's ceremony. For example, Thurgood Marshall College allows students to bring their parents across the stage with them. This can present problems for students, perhaps making them feel obliged to bring their parents to the stage with them, or for students who have nontraditional nuclear families or separated parents. To some, the small nature of their college's ceremony may seem just that -- small. A traditional all-campus ceremony provides all graduates with an alternative.

There are so many ways that we as students come in contact with each other besides at our colleges. We make friends in our classes, student organizations, churches, sports teams -- in countless ways.

It is a shame that some have placed the importance of the commencement speaker before the importance of students who wish to graduate with their classmates of choice. The Guardian urges Chancellor Dynes to reconsider his decision to cancel this valuable opportunity for us to share our graduation experience with all of our fellow classmates. We hope that at the very least, the money and resources that would have gone to the all-campus commencement ceremony will be given to the individual colleges so that their ceremonies will not seem so, well, small.

Various campus groups came together during fall quarter in the Price Center to rally in support of race-based preferences, asking for the reinstatement of the race factor in UC admissions policy in order to increase minority enrollment.

They were wrong in doing so.

Attempting to justify their position, the groups hung a banner making the self-contradictory claim ""Race must be a factor because racism is a factor.""

Racism, however, is not a factor in UC admissions policy because the current policy has been colorblind since the passage of Proposition 209. If race were again to become a factor in the admissions process, as they propose, then racism (defined as granting preferential treatment based solely on race) would ""be a factor."" Racism cannot exist in a process in which race is not a consideration.

The approximately 85 participating students nodded knowingly when a speaker proclaimed that the voices of affirmative action supporters and people of color ""are not heard in class or administrative meetings."" The speaker then refuted her own claim when she introduced Ross Frank of UCSD's ethnic studies department -- the chair of the administrative Committee of Affirmative Action and Diversity, which reports directly to the chancellor. With such a clear link to Chancellor Dynes, it is folly to argue that the administration ignores affirmative action supporters. Indeed, if any voices are ignored by the administration, they are the voices of affirmative action opponents.

As for the assertion that people of color are ignored on this campus, one may be directed to the Cross Cultural Center, the African American Student Union, MeCha, Kaibigang Philippino or one of the dozens of other ethnic and cultural clubs and organizations. The very existence of a pro-affirmative action rally, sponsored by the Student Affirmative Action Coalition (in which many cultural groups participate), proves that their voices are indeed heard loud and clear.

The voices of the crowd were definitely heard when they booed the words of one presenter who enumerated some of the criticisms made by those who oppose giving free rides to certain racial groups.

Among the offending statements: ""People say we must work harder!""

Heaven forbid anyone should engage in hard work.

Another orator strangely departed from the prevailing theme of ""hooray for affirmative action"" and instead condemned the Price Center's architecture. He remarked that the Price Center's layout does not promote community -- nay, it promotes the twin evils of a totalitarian ""police state"" and capitalism. It is unfortunate that the speaker decided to lump capitalism, the free system under which he prospers, with a ""police state,"" a system that he has likely never experienced. If he wishes to experience a police state for himself, perhaps to strengthen his resolve against the evil capitalists who built the Price Center, he may want to visit one of Earth's few remaining police states -- Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea or China are excellent choices -- which are, coincidentally, not capitalist.

It is an honorable goal to increase UCSD's diversity. But racial preferences are not a fair means of accomplishing this. Granting preferential treatment to a certain racial group serves only to foster cynicism among members of other races. If any racial discord exists, such programs will only deepen the divide.

What should be done to increase diversity is community outreach and the expansion of the ""4 percent plan.""

Poverty-stricken schools with poor teachers are unsuitable learning environments because students are put at an academic disadvantage. Applicants from these schools don't have the benefit of padded GPAs from AP courses or the help of S.A.T. preparation classes, so they can't hope to compete against students in high-income neighborhoods. If the top 4 percent of every California high school were guaranteed admittance to a university, minority enrollment would increase without discriminating against anyone.

UC personnel should strive to make poor high school students aware of the possibility of UC enrollment. Many high-achieving, low-income minorities don't bother to apply to the University of California believing they have no chance of acceptance or no hope of affording tuition. They may not know about the 4 percent plan, or they could be ignorant of the scholarships and financial aid available. Outreach to these high school students would increase the diversity of qualified UC applicants, thereby increasing the diversity of UC students.

The protesters at the rally had good intentions -- increasing diversity and providing educational opportunities for minorities -- but they were going about it the wrong way. Full of contradictions, half-truths and logical fallacies, the pro-affirmative action rally succeeded only in making the participants look naive and uninformed. Flinging haphazard condemnations at the administration, capitalism, the Price Center and hard work is not the way to convince everyone of affirmative action's glory.

Raising children is a complicated and esoteric process that challenges every parent who undertakes it. A huge industry is based on telling people how to parent: From Dr. Spock to the ""Baby Whisperer,"" plenty of people think they know how to raise healthy babies into healthy adults better than you do -- and every one of them has different tricks, tips and techniques.

But there are common threads. Loving parents are clearly important in helping children to grow, and children must have a sense of security; continuity and stability are often named as conditions conducive to productive parenting.

These elements can be and are present in many different kinds of families, such as single-parent households, blended families and children who live with grandparents or other extended family members. And yes, children can grow and learn with same-sex parents, and these families should be protected and encouraged.

The issue of gay parenting is one that has been perplexing the nation for decades. Some states, such as California, have no specific provisions to allow, for example, a lesbian to adopt the biological child of her partner. However, many couples achieved the goal of creating a more unified family by using ""second-parent"" adoptions.

In this procedure, the biological parent allows someone to whom they are not married to adopt his or her child while retaining his or her own parental rights. Adoption law generally requires the biological parent to relinquish parental rights, but the ""second-parent"" adoptions had been informally recognized because they represented the wish of the parent, which was valued higher than rigid adherence to the letter of the law.

This procedure, however, was challenged and subsequently struck down in the 4th District Court of Appeal right here in San Diego. Judges ruled that these adoptions were based on too liberal an interpretation of the law.

A panic ensued among gay parents because of wording in the ruling that suggested the adoptions that had already been performed were illegal and invalid.

Although this language was later removed from the ruling, leaving existing ""second-parent"" adoptions intact but future ones prohibited, the incident brings to light the tenuous state of gay families.

Unfortunately, legislators are often hesitant to make official what is not only common (gay rights organizations estimate that between 10,000 and 20,000 gay couples in California have used the ""second-parent"" adoption procedure, and thousands more live in unofficial families with children), but also as legitimate and beneficial to children as any heterosexual parenting could be.

Their fear is driven by the protestations of a very vocal minority that believes children raised by homosexuals will be somehow damaged by having two parents of the same sex. Indeed, California Sen. William Knight, sponsor of 2000's Proposition 22, which banned gay marriage in California, claimed, ""Two people of the same sex are not a family. They're not normal.""

Both of these statements are ridiculous. A family is not defined by the genders or sexual preferences of its members, but by the love and care that binds them. And to say that gay couples are not ""normal"" implies that there is some state that is; however, families and people come in all shapes, sizes and configurations. Indeed, what Knight probably considers to be normal -- one man, one woman and 2.5 children -- is on the wane.

California is taking steps to recognize the legitimacy of gay families. September's domestic partners bill, which went into effect on Jan. 1, allows same-sex couples to register with the state as domestic partners, and are then eligible for many of the benefits afforded to married couple. Included among these benefits is access to stepparent adoption, which has long been a way for nonbiological parents to become legally recognized.

There are, however, shortcomings to this plan. Because the adoption is contingent upon the couple being registered as domestic partners, its legality may not be recognized in other states. This would leave families moving away from California vulnerable. Also, gay activists have expressed concern that the plan does not provide for instances in which the biological parent dies or the relationship ends.

It is important that legislators make the issue of gay adoptions a priority. In California, input from couples and children must be taken into account and the kinks should be worked out of the adoption process in order to provide maximum protection and stability for families.

All this work in our state will come to full fruition only when adoptions by gay couples are recognized throughout the country. Then we can truly say we live in a country that values the family and encourages healthy environments for children.

Gay parenting and gay adoption should be encouraged. After all, gays become parents by choice (tell me about two gay men having an ""accident"" and I'll hand you the rights for the TV movie). And to want to raise and nurture a child, informed of the responsibilities and challenges that face all parents, is a noble and much-needed desire.

Last year, my then-boyfriend's sister, Suzie, out of the goodness of her heart, bought me a fantastic gift for Christmas. She smiled a warm 1,000-kilowatt smile as she handed me the beautifully wrapped package and on Christmas day, as my cup runneth over, I thought about the warmth she exuded when she handed me the special gift. I opened it slowly with my family members huddled around in anticipation, and that's when I pulled out a package of socks.

That's right -- socks.

I don't think that I had ever brandished a holey pair of socks in front of her. I don't think that we had ever exchanged misty, if-I- only-had-another-pair stories prior to this random show of, er, affection. In fact, to my recollection, I had never expressed an affinity for foot-warming apparel at any time. Therefore, I cannot understand why on Earth Suzie felt the need to buy me a package of plain white athletic tube socks. I would rather have received nothing at all.

Now, please don't misunderstand me. Anytime someone reaches into their pocket to buy something for me, I am appreciative. I am eternally grateful for extensions of time, energy or money when they are genuine and sincere. Using Christmas as a time to say ""I love you"" waters down the sentiment as it is, but buying gifts out of obligation carries no warm sentiments at all. Buying pointless gifts for people who do not mean enough to you to put a little thought into the purchase is a waste of everyone's time. Thus, I did not appreciate the socks.

Once again, people turned out in droves to the shopping malls the day after Thanksgiving. The post-holiday sales had consumers tripping over themselves (quite literally when a woman was nearly trampled to death over the holiday weekend while shopping) to get that perfect something for that special someone. Spare me. The last time I checked, K-Mart doesn't market a hug my size.

It seems a little rhetorical to say outright, but here it goes: Meaning cannot be found in a box.

Every year, I marvel at the billions of dollars spent by Americans desperately trying to make up for the neglect they show their loved ones the other 364 days of the year. And then, as soon as the lights are packed away, so is the loving consideration that came out of the attic with them. With the vanishing act the holiday bird always pulls, also quick to disappear is the reconciliation of family differences that surfaces every holiday season.

Wal-Mart reported record single-day sales of $1.25 billion on the day-after-Thanksgiving sales bonanza, and I am sure many people enthralled with rock-bottom prices forgot about those they were shopping for (if they ever really had them in mind to begin with). At the risk of sounding trite, I would rather be constantly loved and appreciated than momentarily spoiled with impersonal wares and subsequently forgotten.

I have raised this argument to a number of friends, and each time it usually ends with them spewing, ""Fine, I guess this year you're not getting anything then."" Well, fine -- have it your way. Because if you haven't called me in two months, then chances are I wouldn't miss your gift anyway. And if you could easily cross my name off of the present in a gift-exchanging emergency and present it to another person without any loss of meaning, then I don't want your miniscule token of affection anyway.

Another friend fired, ""I haven't seen you refuse anything lately!"" This is only because it is easier to toss things under my bed or in the back of my closet than brave the hellacious after-Christmas crowds. Thanks, but no thanks. If I don't like to battle with venomous shoppers before Christmas, you definitely won't catch me out after the blessed event. (And to that friend: I still have the Vanilla Bean bath-and-body lotion you gave me from last year. You didn't bother to ask if I like vanilla -- yuck -- and I haven't used a drop.)

Another important rebuttal that was made concerned our new-found patriotic duty to shop. It is true that consumerism is deeply woven into the American fabric, and to halt consumption would surely be to our own detriment. The economy would probably collapse if all Americans collectively decided to boycott the shopping malls, and I would never make such a foolish suggestion. I would advise, however, thinking about the person you are buying for (if your sense of nationalism has called you to shopping duty) before making the decision to buy.

Does the person already have a pair of slippers with huge ducks staring at each other? Does the person have an aversion to ducks? Ask yourself relevant questions concerning your loved one's personality and likes before you splurge on recyclable gifts.

This year, my family is not getting anything from me. First, they know that I am broke as a joke and a pocketful of gumballs from the quarter machines is asking too much. But secondly, and most importantly, I do not buy into the hype that advertisers assert. ""Nothing says they're special like (our product here)"" is simply not going to work on me this year.

Despite my resolution to avoid the malls, I have compiled a small list to assist your Christmas shopping. Do not buy your friends and family:

1. Fruitcake (or nuts, popcorn tins and other preserved edibles -- unless they absolutely love them).

2. Slippers (unless their favorite pair is talking back to them).

3. Underwear (unless they are the sexy variety, and then if you know someone this well you should be doing better than this!)

4. Socks (of any kind).

Sorry, Suzie. But it had to be said.

Editor:

In Emily Vizzo's recent article, ""Protesting for Peace"" (Nov. 19), she describes her trip up to our campus to attend an antiwar conference. We would like to applaud her for accurately representing the views of these people, yet also scold her for so misrepresenting their motivations and goals.

First, the praise. She is right to quote them as claiming that the most dangerous man in the world is the president of the United States. However, the antiwar protesters do not mean that he is the leader of a nation that has been attacked and is determined to defeat those who have declared war on her own people.

No, rather the protesters were speaking along the lines of ""Bush is the world's greatest terrorist."" They routinely carry signs that read this. On the evening of Sept. 11, at a rally on the UC Berkeley campus, some even proclaimed that the WTC attacks were nearly perfect and would have been totally perfect if only they had succeeded in killing the president. We should know. We were there. Also, she quotes a ""poet"" who declares that ""the world is dominated by imbecilic assholes.""

This is true -- the vast majority of the human race is not made up of angels. What is particularly fitting is that the conference also appears to be dominated by imbecilic assholes, wishing death upon a man (George W. Bush) because they disagree with him, sometimes openly reveling in the carnage in New York and ideologically defending the enemies of their country while at the same time refusing even to praise that country for providing them the opportunity to do so. We should know. We were there.

Now for our blame. First, she quotes the ""five to seven million Afghans will die"" figure. This figure was arrived at before the stunning advance of the Northern Alliance opened up land roads from Uzbekistan and the Bagram airport was seized by British troops, which greatly facilitate food transport to the Afghan people. Indeed, as we write this, 8,000 more tons of food than before arrive in Afghanistan. As the airports are brought into service and overland convoys increase, even more food will find its way into Afghanistan.

If there is any widespread starvation, it will not be due to the United States, but rather the Taliban, and will be confined to Taliban areas, as the previous years' famines in Afghanistan were. As much as she and other antiwar protesters loathe to admit, the United States and Britain are not the bad guys, nor are they sentencing millions of Afghans and tens of thousands of their own soldiers to death. The situation right now is more Paris, 1944 than Vietnam, 1969.

Also, she, perhaps unwittingly, represents these activists as possessing ""fierce idealism."" Nothing could be further from the truth on the Berkeley campus. Rather, these people are professional protesters and activists, often lurking on multi-year graduate student fellowships or taking seven or eight years as an undergraduate. They move from cause to cause like locusts moving from plant to plant. Affirmative Action? Done. Palestinians vs. Israel? Done. Globalization? Done. Election 2000? Done. You get the idea.

If she had wanted to see true bravery and idealism that wasn't backed up by a horde of lawyers or an army of fellow students ready to riot at the moment a single one was arrested, she would have done better to come to a meeting for the Berkeley College Republicans, who have been counterprotesting at the antiwar rallies and staging their own patriotic rallies on campus.

Unlike the antiwar people, they don't have the ACLU protecting our freedom of speech. The campus police stand by idly as our literature is stolen and burned. Reports of assault by the dominant ""idealistic protesters"" go ignored. Yet in spite of all this, they still carry on expressing their ideas, fighting what they see as wrong and refusing to be intimidated by the majority of the campus. Tell me, who are the idealists? Ask us -- we know.

We were there at the book burnings, the assaults, the thefts and the triumphs of patriotism. We are the true idealists, not the cynical and entrenched cadre of students who run the Berkeley Stop the War Coalition.

We would recommend that she truly open her eyes and not be so easily seduced by the ""we're good simply because we're different and we say we're good"" claptrap that comes from the ""progressive"" element of our campus. She misses a lot.

-- Kelso G. Barnett, Chairman & Rory S. Miller, Fellow

Berkeley Conservative Foundation

Editor:

On page three of Nov. 19's (""Muir Quarterly spoofs Koala"") edition of the Guardian, Sharon Lee writes, ""In the last month, both the Thurgood Marshall College Student Council and the Revelle College Council passed resolutions condemning The Koala.""

While I believe that readers should be able to interpret resolutions passed by the Revelle College Council as they see fit, the resolution RCC passed several weeks ago in no way condemns The Koala, even by the most liberal of interpretations.

I would ask that before your writers attempt to interpret what resolutions mean, they read them first. The RCC resolution regarding the controversy surrounding The Koala states that ""the Revelle College Council is opposed to the censure of any speech whatsoever."" Interpret that as you will, but I don't think you can interpret that as condemning The Koala.

-- Mark Stickel

Chair, Revelle College Council

At the heart of Washington, D.C. lies a tangled web of corruption, collusion and injustice.

For the past three months I have worked as a criminal defense investigator for Georgetown Law Center Criminal Justice Clinic, where I have walked in the trenches through the gritty underbelly of crime and punishment in the district.

What I have seen and experienced convinces me that the Metropolitan Police Department and government attorneys have conspired together to form a legal system in the district that is toxic to anyone charged of a crime.

I have seen first-hand how that thin blue line is crossed frequently and indifferently by the police. Jump-outs, unlawful searches and seizures, and police brutality are just a few corrupt tactics employed on a consistent basis by MPD officers.

In a ""jump-out,"" plainclothed MPD officers drive in unmarked cars to the ghettos of the district. Then these officers jump out of their cars, grab and search random people, arresting anyone in possession of illegal substances or objects.

During these jump-outs, the officers show utter disregard for the fourth amendment provision that no person be subjected to unlawful searches and seizures without probable cause. Of course, the officers try to justify their illegal stop, search and seizure by claiming that they either received a tip from a confidential informant or that the area is a known drug area and therefore the jump-out was warranted.

But those reasons do not justify the officers' sidestepping of the fourth amendment. Especially in light of the fact that these jump-outs are tactics targeted solely toward those who live in the ghettos and lower income housing -- minorities and the poor. If the MPD officers dared to conduct a jump-out in a middle or upper class neighborhood, all legal bloody hell would break loose and a newsworthy civil rights drama would be created.

A set of laws for the fortunate and the less fortunate does not ensure ""equal protection"" under the law as our constitution guarantees; thus the use of police jump-outs must be outlawed.

Moving on to police brutality.

Some of the police officers I've spoken to in the sixth and seventh districts of Washington will readily admit that, ""You could police different across the river,"" meaning that in that area of Anacostia, the city's poorest and most drug-ridden neighborhoods, a cop could get away with ""working it rough."" And ""working it rough"" is code for the unnecessary use of excessive force, a.k.a. police brutality.

The cops know how to work the system to their favor when faced with a tense situation that spirals out of control, leaving the cop with a bloody and beaten perpetrator. The cop promptly files a disorderly conduct arrest and, like magic, worry over an internal affairs investigation vanishes.

But the magic isn't really magic at all, because filing the disorderly conduct arrest makes the alleged victim of police brutality a defendant. And who cares about defendants? Certainly not most cops, their supervisors or prosecuting attorneys. Therefore, the cops are off the hook.

This rampant police corruption has distorted and blurred the thin blue line between what is considered acceptable and unacceptable police conduct beyond recognition, leaving people's civil rights lying like abandoned road kill beside the edge of the road.

I have personally seen government attorneys use questionable and downright unlawfullyobtained evidence to charge and seek a conviction. For instance, when a person is arrested because they were in possession of drugs seized in an unconstitutional jump-out, the government attorneys proceed full steam ahead and charge that person.

The Georgetown Criminal Justice Clinic defends many defendants who have been victims of jump-outs and are being charged because of it. Many times, these search and seizures are thrown out in court as unconstitutional, but for the most part, they are not. It really depends on the judge's mood. Thus, the practice continues while the civil rights of the city's minority and poor are trampled down to mere dust.

The fact that government attorneys prosecute cases in which the key evidence has been illegally obtained is a travesty, not only because it is a blow to our justice system but because it sanctions the illegal actions of the police who obtained that evidence. And thus the cycle of police and prosecution corruption continues unchecked.

I think what is forgotten most and what must be reiterated time and time again is the fact that a person is innocent until proven guilty. We are all innocent until proven guilty, no matter if we are rich or poor, Latino or white.

The ironic thing is that while the district is viewed as the perfect model of democracy, justice and liberty for our country and the entire world, deep in its heart lies a quagmire of corruption, collusion and injustice.

It is high time for the district to redeem itself in the eyes of its people and of the world. It must rid itself of the corrupt police and prosecutor practices that run the legal system.

Because once equality and fairness under the law are lost, there is no turning back. It's down the slippery slope for the entire country, taking our constitutional guarantees sliding down with it.

The recession into which the nation is sinking is hitting home in a big way for Californians; even our seemingly impervious boom times have busted, as unemployment is rising and the state's tax revenues are down. In light of the declining state economy, the state is considering measures to tighten California's belt.

Gov. Gray Davis' proposed cuts for state spending in 2001-2002 take chunks from programs across the board -- rail projects, cancer research, arts grants and health programs face reduction, elimination or delay.

Also suffering is education, both K-12 and institutions of higher learning such as the University of California.

The Guardian believes that while tough times necessitate hard choices, cuts to education should be a last resort, implemented only after all other options have been exhausted.

The cuts that Davis has proposed would undo many of the steps taken recently to improve education in California.

Much of the money appropriated under the Proposition 98 General Fund, which guarantees a set amount of money for K-12 schools, would be reverted to the state.

This would preempt an expansion of Healthy Start programs, take money away from charter schools in low-income neighborhoods, delay implementation of much-needed before- and after-school programs, reduce bonuses to teachers whose students show improvement on statewide tests, take away money set aside to assist schools with rising energy costs and deny schools a $12-per-pupil grant from the state.

The University of California will also feel the pinch. Davis has asked the regents to cut their budget by as much as 15 percent -- this in the face of ever-growing waves of students.

Because the fiscal future for the university is uncertain, UC President Richard C. Atkinson has unfortunately had to put planned raises for staff and faculty on hold. Also in jeopardy are state-subsidized summer programs at UC Berkeley and UCLA, which are needed to accomodate rising numbers of students.

The budget busts even have the regents in discussion about sending some of the top 12.5 percent of graduating California seniors who are guaranteed admission to the university to community colleges, undermining the success with which the university can serve Californians.

Before taking money away from necessary and helpful programs such as those above, we suggest that the governor resort to temporary tax hikes to try to recoup some of the declining tax revenues.

We admire Davis' commitment to California's economic health and his willingness to make politically unpopular spending reductions in an election cycle. However, it would be more commendable to make the strong statement that investments in our state and nation's future are worth more money from taxpayers' pockets.

Californians have repeatedly named education as their top concern; indeed, Davis campaigned on promises to strengthen California's ailing public schools and provide improved support to our top-notch public universities.

We hope that Davis remembers the value Californians place upon education, and the long-term benefits that quality education will bring our state.