A great writer of fiction and philosophy, Nikos Kazantzakis wrote in his classic novel, ""Zorba the Greek,"" the meditation, ""The highest point a man can attain is not Knowledge, or Virtue, or Goodness, or Victory, but something even greater, more heroic, and more despairing: Sacred Awe!""

To say it differently, the highest level we can attain as human beings is humility before the creator, whoever or whatever that may be.

This means understanding that the truth about God is utterly impossible for humans to comprehend, and that the best we can do is to humble ourselves before the majesty of the universe.

I try to keep this quote in mind whenever I enter into religious or philosophical discussion.

I am not always successful because, unfortunately, I cling to the idea that I am somehow on the right path to knowing those universal truths which all great thinkers strive to know.

In the end, I am always reminded that I am not a great thinker, and that even if I was, I would not be much closer to understanding the secrets of divine creation.

However, I fear that too few people in this world, especially here on campus, take heed of the necessity for humility in religious life.

I see this tragic phenomenon rearing its ugly head in the interaction between the various religious organizations on campus, and this is a fact that needs to be changed if we are to truly be a successful community of religiously diverse inhabitants.

Of particular interest to me is a seminar that took place recently on campus hosted by the Campus Crusade for Christ.

The leaders of major religious organizations on campus held a panel in which they discussed the differences between their respective religions.

I did not attend this event, but I must say that everything I thought would happen at the discussion actually did.

According to the Guardian article that covered the panel, the speakers came away disappointed.

Each of them recalled that the whole discussion centered around polite ways of not talking about the serious issues facing each and all of the major religions, while ignoring or refusing to talk about the similarities.

That was the point of the event. Each and every organization focused on pressing its particular point of view, on attaining victory and supposed virtue over their rivals, without offending them, of course. Such discussion is obviously lacking in ""sacred awe.""

Rather than engaging in petty talk about how all religions are different, we should engage in serious talk about how we are all ultimately searching for the same thing.

In a future seminar, the audience should be allowed to ask questions of any of the speakers on the panel that would include speakers from every religious organization on campus.

For example, the Campus Crusade for Christ should not be the only organization representing all of Christianity, seeing as there are almost 30 Christian organizations on campus, many of which I am sure have vastly different views than the CCC.

Interfaith discussion should be something we embrace wholeheartedly, not something that we shy away from because controversial ideas may be uttered.

This is a university, a place where ideas are supposed to be exchanged freely and questions are supposed to be asked freely. Religion at a university should be no different.

I would participate in this event, and I think many others would too.

Imagine all of the organizations working in communion with one another to find common ground and seek out ways to utilize their strength in unity to make the campus a better place for worship and prayer.

Above all, in searching for sacred awe of the God we all worship in our own way, we would transcend the petty searches for victory and come to understand our own faith more completely.

I challenge myself and the members of each and every religious organization on campus to work toward attaining great humility with our approach to religion, and to work together for a greater understanding of each other.

Let us all seek to attain a sacred awe of creation together.

Of the three highly popular recreational drugs in America, two are legal, and one is not. We'll call the two legal drugs Drug A and Drug B, and the illegal drug will be called Drug C.

First, we will examine the negative health effects of using these three drugs.

Drug A is the cause of 400,000 deaths in America each year. It is the leading preventable cause of death in America and costs the health industry $50 billion annually. Each year, this drug kills more people than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides and fires, combined.

Drug A causes multiple types of cancer, including lung, throat and mouth cancers. This drug is the direct cause of emphysema, a disease contracted by half a million Americans each year. Emphysema debilitates the respiratory tract, leading to what has been described as ""breathing through a straw.""

The drug also affects other areas of the body, including the heart, brain and bones. It contains toxic chemicals and impairs the immune system. Twice as many people who use Drug A get heart disease than those who do not. Drug A leads to strokes. It also leads to rheumatoid arthritis in women; those who use this drug have double the risk of developing this disease.

Drug A damages fetuses. Mothers who use Drug A are three times as likely to have their babies die of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome than mothers who do not. Infants born to mothers who use Drug A can have reduced lung function for years after they are born, and suffer from deformities of the mouth and palate.

This drug also has a strong relationship with miscarriages. In a New England Journal of Medicine study, 80 percent more miscarriages occurred among women who used Drug A than women who did not. In fact, women who use this drug are twice as likely to have a miscarriage than women who use cocaine.

Moving along, Drug B also has a direct link to various cancers. Seventy-five percent of esophageal cancer is related to use of Drug B, and half of cancers of the mouth and throat are linked to its use.

Drug B has also demonstrated a causal relationship with liver disease, called alcohol-induced liver disease. Cirrhosis of the liver, the term used for alcohol's effect on this organ, is one of the leading causes of death in America.

Like Drug A, this drug has also been linked to birth defects. It has a syndrome named after its effects. When used by pregnant women, Drug B leads to mental retardation, growth deficiencies, central nervous system dysfunction, craniofacial abnormalities and behavioral problems.

Now for the third and illegal drug, Drug C. While Drug C contains carcinogens, a causal relationship between its use and cancer has not been established. Using this drug leads to a greater risk of bronchitis, sore throat and respiratory inflammation. It leads to a short-term drop in hormones that govern development and growth, lowers sperm production in males and can alter the menstrual cycle in women. However, in adults, the latter three health effects are only temporary.

Other negative effects of using this drug include forgetfulness, reduced concentration and anxiety attacks.

Various negative effects have also been attributed to this drug, including birth defects, brain damage, reduced testosterone and increased drug abuse problems. However, recent studies have begun to refute these claims.

Another disputed side effect of using Drug C is reduced hand-eye coordination and motor skills, resulting in poor driving performance and reaction times. In recent studies and reports, using this drug and then driving has proved to be far less of a hazard than when people use Drug B and then drive, however.

In 1990-1991, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration performed a study in seven states, attempting to find a relationship between car accidents and Drugs B and C. Drug B was found to be a factor in 52 percent of crashes, while Drug C was only a factor in 7 percent of them. The report concluded that Drug B was by far the dominant drug-related cause of accidents. It also concluded that there was no relationship between Drug C and fatal automobile accidents.

The three drugs are, in order, tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. The first two are legal, the third is illegal.

After viewing the evidence, it seems that the legality of these three drugs seems to contradict both common sense and medical results. Both tobacco and alcohol are linked to multiple cancers, birth defects, and cost the health industry billions of dollars each year. Marijuana, on the other hand, leads to relatively minor health effects, such as slight respiratory ailments -- yet it is illegal.

Tobacco and alcohol are unquestionably more deadly than marijuana. In fact, both tobacco users and alcohol users are known to cause death to other people. There is no known relationship between marijuana use and death for those around the user.

The force behind this is money. The alcohol and tobacco industries spend millions of dollars each year in contributing to and lobbying Congress. So far in the 2001-2002 election cycle, tobacco companies have made $2.2 million in political contributions.

Since 1997, the tobacco industry has given more than $18 million to Congressional representatives and political parties.

Since 1999, the four largest cigarette companies have spent $44 million in lobbying Congress.

Alcohol companies are no better. In the period between 1987 and 1997, these companies gave $26 million to members of Congress and their political parties.

The most flagrant example of ""buying"" favor in Congress occurred in 1997, when the House Appropriations Committee killed a bill that would use the media to warn young people against the use of alcohol. That year, the members of that committee were given $300,000 by alcohol companies.

Obviously, marijuana growers are not contributing money to Congress. This a factor in the illegality of marijuana. Money buys votes.

The answer to all of this is simple: Make the system fair. Either make all three of these drugs illegal, or make them all legal. Since everyone in America knows how well prohibiting alcohol went, I would suggest the latter option: Legalize pot.

Like drivers who constantly ignore speed limit laws, which resulted in the government raising speed limits on highways, people have ignored the prohibition on marijuana for years. It is time to eliminate this useless law.

The policy on marijuana only results in billions of dollars in costs to our government, from the price of court procedures and imprisoning marijuana users.

It is simple logic here, and it is time the government realized this. Legalize pot and eliminate this problem in America. Doing so will save the government millions of dollars annually, free up jails and stop millions of Americans from having to sneak around in order to enjoy this innocuous drug.

On Nov. 15, the UC Regents passed the ""comprehensive review"" policy, applicable to incoming applicants in fall 2002. Endorsed by the Academic Senate, UC admissions policy will change from being a ""two-tiered"" process to ""comprehensive review,"" which means that all students will now be evaluated holistically on their academic and nonacademic achievements.

Comprehensive review is expected to enhance campus selectivity, diversity and livelihood by changing the makeup of the students admitted.

Many critics say that comprehensive review will lower the standards for academic excellence, and that it is a shameless last grasp for something similar to affirmative action. Both assumptions are wrong and have been made from a surface evaluation of what comprehensive review actually means.

It is important to note that UC President Richard C. Atkinson said the only change that will occur is ""that all the selection criteria will now be available for campuses to use in selecting all their students, rather than a subset of them."" No eligibility requirements or criteria will change. All students have to take the same coursework and be evaluated by the same UC numerical eligibility index.

The UC admissions process is currently two-tiered: Students in the first tier are admitted to a UC school solely on their academic history and achievements alone.

Comprehensive review makes up the other half of the UC admissions process. The second tier of students is evaluated on the basis of 14 other criteria, taking into account aspects such as class rank, quality of education, marked improvements, special talents, awards, etc., in addition to GPA and standardized test scores.

Comprehensive review allows for a more diverse student population in background, experiences and interests -- in addition, of course, to strong academic performance. It aims to fill UC campuses with more well-rounded students, active and dynamic proponents of campus life and representation.

So what if not everyone will have a 4.4 GPA? That doesn't mean that such students will not be strong contributors to the quality of campus life and academics.

According to Atkinson, comprehensive review seeks ""thoroughly qualified students who demonstrate the promise to make great contributions to the university community and to the larger society beyond."" He added, ""We believe this policy sends a strong signal that UC is looking for students who have achieved at high levels and, in doing so, have challenged themselves to the greatest extent possible.""

When admissions officers evaluate an applicant now, not only will they look at grades and scores to predict a student's potential contributions, they will also look at other qualities such as leadership, motivation and initiative. Considering these factors on top of academia has always been a major part of other top schools' admission policies.

Comprehensive review of all incoming applicants is used by many of the country's most elite and selective private and public universities such as Stanford, Harvard and Yale. In that company, comprehensive review cannot be all that bad for setting an academic standard.

If it is equality that concerns people, implementing full comprehensive review for all applications will make the admission process as fair at it has ever been. The old, two-tiered system is, in actuality, unfair: It gauged the achievements of potential students unequally based upon either past academic achievement or criteria such as extracurricular activities and relative achievements.

How can the old system be considered fair when two groups of students are judged on two different sets of criteria -- especially when the student does not know under which set he is being evaluated?

If the current system were left intact, it is obvious that first-tier students would be valued much more than second-tier students, and what would be left would be a caste-like system, unequal as ever.

Under the comprehensive review system, all applicants will be reviewed under one set of criteria. Prospective students and families will have the comfort of knowing that they will be evaluated on everything that they put down on their application, not just parts of it.

While it is of vital concern to most that some students who would have been admitted through the old process will not be admitted in the new, and students who would not have been admitted will now find themselves in the UC system, the odds of that happening are relatively small. According to a study based on a simulation done at UC Berkeley, only 4 percent of would-be admits in the old system would be denied in the new system. Furthermore, the study found that the overall academic strength of the admitted class, as measured by traditional academic criteria, increased under the proposed comprehensive review system.

How would this benefit a school like UCSD? Be honest: How many times have you thought, ""Our campus is too bland, too quiet?"" Under comprehensive review, UCSD would see an influx of students who are more than just their GPAs and S.A.T. scores, and who would have more to offer than boosting UCSD's academic average. UCSD students would not only see an increase in scholastic competitiveness, but also a more diverse campus, a more proactive and enthusiastic student body, and maybe a little more school spirit.

Although comprehensive review, like most things, will take some adjustment and will undoubtedly gain some critics, it will ultimately gauge incoming students more fairly, making an individual more than just a 1300 or 4-point-something. It will encourage prospective students to branch out of their books and understand that while scores and grades are, indeed, important, they alone will not substantiate a thorough education and college experience.

The University of California's decision demonstrates a definitive stand on the students it wants. It is certainly clear that its administrators believe students with a wide range of gifts to offer are those who will find success in the UC system.

Sometimes, changes are for the better.

The other day, I visited a friend's apartment on the first floor of Black Hall in Earl Warren College. Two years and some time ago, I was a sophomore living in that same apartment. What a difference two years can make!

I was truly taken aback by what I saw when I walked in. The carpets and walls were fresh, and the table and chairs looked like higher-quality furniture.

I know renovation takes care of those things, but the new inhabitants of Black Hall now have comfortable couches the length of the living room wall. That's a 10- to 12-foot sofa that can seat tons of people or be the perfect naptime pal. It's a very nice couch -- it redefines the meaning of watching television. Somebody can lie down in most any position he wants. It's a companion for the true couch potato. The sofa also prevents couch thefts, big as it is. No one would try moving those things in and out, and they would not fit into an elevator, either.

Then I turned my head and saw the kitchen. What a makeover -- new white stoves, a nice, clean white refrigerator and new sinks, countertops and tiled floors. What I noticed most in the cooking area were the cabinets: pine-colored, smooth, classy-looking cabinets with aluminum handles. We used to have ugly, reddish, dirty-looking things. The countertops and pantries match the cabinets, making the new ones stand out ever so much more.

It's hard to describe the good feeling you have when you see these improvements. One would likely have to experience it for himself.

As if all that were not enough, I saw the bedrooms and found they have those nice wooden beds that most of the first-year dorms use. You can adjust the height of the bed frames for your own personal comfort. I had to live a whole year with those nasty steel frames, so I could not believe my eyes at first. Perhaps I'm exaggerating, but those old beds did seem pretty gross.

On the whole, the renovation reflects school policy. This is a notable fact: It means the school cares enough to enhance the life of its students.

A lot of freshmen are probably discontent that they will have to move off campus from now on -- but the ones who can stay at school will be living much better.

Please cherish what the university has done for you. It is a real treat. I am not going to go overboard and shower the UCSD authorities with compliments, but I do realize that an effort has been made to make the students happy.

So when I see all those trays, dishes and silverware from the dining halls lying around, it makes me sick. First of all, because they are not yours, many of you just leave them lying around, ruining the beautiful interior of your apartments.

Second, why the heck are you stealing? Take couch thieving, for example; once I saw with my own eyes people stuffing one into an elevator.

Maybe I am being biased, but the apartments are gorgeous and the campus is visually appealing -- if not wonderful -- so I hope students know what they have before it is gone.

For those guys who deliberately bounce their basketball above my friend's apartment, can you comprehend what it would be like for you if your neighbor from upstairs incessantly thumped a basketball and prevented you from having a moment of peace? Show some concern for your fellow schoolmates, if only to preserve the environment that the school tries to maintain.

The next time you see your friends who are still in high school, tell them that our campus rocks, bar none.

Editor:

Logan Goh's article (""Humans cause ecological harm to Earth,"" Nov. 5) amazed me. Despite Goh's numerous and apparent concerns for the welfare of humanity, he failed to address the consequences of utter ignorance. Far worse than the alleged detriment of environmentalism, in my opinion, is the prospect of being bullied by a horde of unsubstantiated generalizations.

Goh's article claimed that most environmentalists seek ""to bring Earth closer to the time before human civilization spread across the globe,"" demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of the current environmental movement. He asserts that environmentalists are fearmongers who are trying wildly to oppose any and all scientific and technological advancement. He even goes so far as to claim that environmentalists doomed the space program.

To the contrary, it is often environmental groups who push the hardest for the implementation of new technologies. Almost all of the major national environmental groups' agendas include things such as clean, renewable energy sources, solar panels, improved wind power generators and more efficient automobile engine technologies.

I had the opportunity to intern in Washington, D.C. this summer. During a number of Senate and House committee hearings, environmentalists invariably argued for newer, cleaner and safer technologies, while others claimed these solutions would be either too expensive or too difficult to carry out.

It is true that environmental groups do not embrace all new advances with open arms. Genetically engineered crops, one example the author uses, have been shown through scientific study to pose serious health risks -- in fact, the British Medical Association has called for an indefinite moratorium on genetically engineered foods. These crops usually require the increased use of pesticides and can sometimes cause life-threatening allergies in people who were previously able to eat certain foods.

Yet most environmental groups are not calling for these foods to be removed from the market. They are merely pushing for the same testing and labeling that the Food and Drug Administration requires of every other novel substance introduced into our diets.

The problem with generalizations is that, when pressed, the specifics fall apart. Goh may be surprised to find out that our interest in saving the forests doesn't necessarily mean we want to live in the trees.

-- Matthew McFeeley

Revelle College senior

Chair, UCSD CalPIRG

Editor:

As Emily Vizzo notes in her article (""No need to run,"" Nov. 13), this September, Gov. Gray Davis signed into law AB 521, ""The Student Financial Responsibility Act,"" designed to provide students in higher education with relief from the escalating crunch of credit card debt.

Credit in the hands of a young consumer who is uneducated about the personal responsibility associated with credit can lead to financial disaster. This is a growing and very serious problem with younger, college-age consumers.

The act can help stop credit card abuse before financial ruin is inevitable. Among other things, the new law calls on California's three public higher education systems (the University of California, the State College system and community colleges), as well as private and independent colleges, to regulate the marketing practices used on campus by credit card companies.

More important, due to its long-term positive impact, the new law requires that credit card and debt education and counseling sessions become a regular part of campus orientation of new students.

Working for Springboard (www.credit.org), an accredited, nonprofit consumer credit counseling agency, I know that real-world, financial education is a must for students. Without it, students can find themselves overwhelmed with not only credit card debt, but student loan debt as well.

Some colleges and universities have some credit counseling in place, but it is imperative that colleges and universities across the state respond quickly to the new law in an effort to provide effective financial literacy education and counseling programs. While credit cards are a fantastic way for students to establish a credit history, many students think that they have all the money in the world to buy pizza, clothes, CDs and spring break trips with their new cards.

Credit counseling organizations such as Springboard stand ready to help students who are in over their heads in credit card debt or just want to learn more about budgeting and how to use credit cards wisely. Through better education in personal finance, students will not only learn how to use credit cards wisely, but also establish a positive credit reputation that will follow them into the future.

-- Dianne Wilkman

President and CEO, Springboard

The applause and cheering subsided just long enough for over 600 students to agree that they had accomplished in a day what should have taken a week.

Pat Leung
Guardian

Then it began again: a slow, paced clapping that accrued momentum, urgency and resonance until the auditorium at UC Berkeley thundered with the hectic slap of synchronized applause.

One weekend ago, more than 600 students from over 45 universities and community colleges, representing a growing anti-war student movement, registered at the West Coast Conference for California Schools Against War, hosted by UC Berkeley.

Approximately 30 San Diego students attended, including 14 students from UCSD. San Diego State University, University of San Diego, San Diego City College and Grossmont College students also attended.

I'm no radical, and I lack the convictions of a political activist. But I was moved by the intellect, idealism and energy of the students that surrounded me last weekend. At times, I was inspired, and at times, I was repelled. Sometimes I found myself, startlingly, both.

We made the nine-hour drive in a rented van, arriving in Oakland, Calif. around 3 a.m. to settle in creaking, lurching bunk beds in a high-ceilinged mansion managed by political activists. Mature eucalyptus trees and a disheveled green garden surround the house, which is approached via a cement length of tall crooked steps distorted by roots and undergrowth.

On Saturday morning, Berkeley was gray and busy. After registering at the door, we waded through a close, warm hallway jammed with folding tables laden with multicolored political pamphlets, and students distributing newspapers. Before the conference began, the seats filled to capacity. Students stood in the aisles, crouched in corners and sat on the stage.

The speakers were quick to inflame the students with harsh condemnations of a war that is, they said, being waged for purely economical reasons at a staggering human price. The students agreed.

""Osama bin Laden isn't the most dangerous man in the world,"" said an Arab speaker to his eager audience. ""The most dangerous man in the world is the president of the United States.""

Before performing his poem, a poet declared, ""The world is dominated by imbecilic assholes."" The poem was a cacophony of shouts, whispers, howls and rants. ""America has never, never been a democracy,"" he concluded. The students loved him. They stood to applaud him as he left the stage.

Did I stand? No. But would I say that I was not moved? No. I wondered at the strength of the group's convictions as I found myself surrounded by up-thrust hands, which ceased to make applause, forming fists instead.

At lunch, we lined up to dish lettuce, brown rice and lentils from plastic buckets onto paper plates, to tuck apples and pomegranates into our pockets, to tear chunks from dense loaves of thick brown bread, protected by crumpled paper sacks.

Beneath the passion and energy lay assuring common sense: Local lawyers gave a presentation on what students should do if arrested. Students attending the conference faced a real risk of being investigated by the government, they say.

And in fact, a Nov. 12 New York Times article reported that over 200 U.S. colleges, including San Diego State University, were approached by federal investigators looking for information on students from the Middle East.

According to the article, students were interviewed by federal agents about ""their views on Osama bin Laden, the names of their favorite restaurants and their plans after graduation.""

This puts innocent people at risk, the lawyers said. They told one student to beware of what he allows to appear on his online bulletin board. They warned an international student fearing deportation to attend all of her classes. ""Be careful,"" they said.

They were careful: Throughout the conference, some students deliberately sat out of view from the cameras, which record faces, conversations and ideas.

I was struck by their bravery. Their convictions forced them past their fears -- if the fears existed. The students did not look alarmed when the lawyers advised them of their legal rights; they listened carefully and took notes; they asked questions.

On Sunday, the auditorium was warm and fully lighted. The students had begun to plan. By 2 p.m., the enormous chalkboard at the front of the room was coated with filmy dust from constant erasing and rewriting. There were lists, ideas: a walkout, a fast, a protest, a march.

And there was an idea conceived and developed two weeks ago in San Diego: an event in December addressing the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. The proposal was voted on at the conference and passed.

The discussion splintered into bickering over procedural points as the afternoon wore on. Several students, enraged at what they called a lack of procedural democracy, left the room to shout in the hallway. Everyone was tired. We began to think about the long drive home.

The students broke into committees to discuss further organization. When to fast? Where to march? When to protest? They promised to stay in contact.

It was dark again, and we drove back to the mansion on our quiet street in Oakland. We stripped our beds, jammed our clothes into backpacks and suitcases, and squeezed into the van.

We promised ourselves a short dinner break and ate our hamburgers and milkshakes in the van, counting the miles to San Diego. It was past 3 a.m. when we returned to UCSD.

I'm no radical, but I was inspired by the intelligence and the fierce idealism of the students I met. I heard their arguments and watched their plans form all weekend.

It is said that 5 to 7 million Afghanis will die of starvation this winter because of the war. In December, as discussed at the conference, universities will hold events protesting this humanitarian crisis. In San Diego, they plan to host rallies, speakers, bands and action.

I have seen a small moment of political movement, and I am attracted. There is seduction in human movement, particularly for those isolated in the warm cocoon of their micro-reality.

I wondered at my own position as self-appointed thinker, self-appointed nonactor. What truths escaped my attempts at objectivity?

I recalled the applause, the fists, the chalkboard caked with dust and ideas. I was quietly moved.

Editor:

I am writing to you regarding the article by Simone Santini about flag symbolism (""Flag symbolism is complex,"" Nov. 5). In all honesty, this article did not deserve to be printed in the Guardian, and it is an embarassment to you and your staff.

Santini's naive notion that national symbolism and pride are entirely American phenomena is unjust, untrue and offensive. He suggests that France (where Napolean's tomb lists all of his battles but Waterloo, and Charles DeGaulle is regarded as the man responsible for winning World War II) is merely something that ""happened to the French people."" After visiting France, it was more than obvious to me that the French people are rightly proud of France, and have no problems letting you know.

The very idea that the French, Italians, Danes or Spaniards don't ""feel the need to let anybody know"" that they are proud of their nation is ludicrous. Flags were not invented by the Americans. In Europe, heraldry and flag-waving have been around for more than 10,000 years. Wearing, displaying and saluting the flag are not things that Americans thought up; they are traditions deeply rooted in European cultures.

Most odious of the transgressions committed by Santini is the thought -- the idea -- that we have not chosen to be Americans.

No one forces you to be an American. You have the choice to leave this country and go elsewhere. Some people do. Evidently, he does not understand this right. All of us here -- every adult in America -- have chosen to stay here, and be an American. Santini's conclusion is simply too obscene to warrant a response.

The sloppy writing, obvious lack of research, blinding elitism and skewed logic of this article make me ashamed to be a UCSD student. This is the kind of dreg I would expect to find on an obscure Internet messageboard, not in a respected university newspaper.

I urge you to print your opinions -- publish the controversial issues -- but please, do not allow an embarassment such as this to soil your pages again. If you recieve a submission like this from one of your writers again, please foward it to The Koala, where it belongs.

--Brett Goldsmith

UCSD senior

Editor:

As a Marine Corps Gulf War veteran for peace and social justice, I have first-hand experience with the U.S. war machine. I joined the Marines as a young man with the desire to defend democracy. Instead, I was used to defend a dictatorship in the Middle East against another dictatorship in that region, all in the interest of corporate oil. That one-sided war against the people of Iraq continues to this day in the form of weekly bombings and brutal economic sanctions that have claimed the lives of at least a million people.

A National Public Radio report estimates that approximately 50,000 innocent children in Iraq are starving to death each year in direct response to our sanctions there. These bombings and sanctions must end immediately, but I am writing to express my view on something even more urgent. The United States of America's current war on the people of Afghanistan must come to a halt immediately. Many innocents have died as a result of U.S. bombings. Others have lost their homes and livelihood as a direct result of the bombings.

The United Nations and many humanitarian agencies have called upon the United States to at least halt the bombing so that food and aid may reach some of the refugees. This aid stopped because of the bombing and this aid is the only hope for these people. According to all these agencies, if the bombing does not stop immediately, hundreds of thousands -- perhaps millions -- will die of starvation this winter. We are facing the grim reality of genocide being perpetrated by the U.S. government.

As citizens or workers in this nation it is our responsibility to do everything we can to stop this war. If we do not stop this war, we too are culpable in perpetuating genocide. The present war is ethically reprehensible, morally repugnant, categorically indefensible and absolutely unjustified. Even if one lives by some barbaric code or law of vengeance based upon mutual slaughter of innocents, the war has run its course: The score is more than settled.

This, interestingly enough, is one of the only arguments I have heard in favor of the war besides the infantile diatribe of the, ""they started it"" variety or the intellectually stunting, ""we have no choice."" The international terrorist crimes of Sept. 11 are inexcusable, but we may never know who the criminals responsible for the atrocities are.

If we do know who is responsible, the proper course is to bring them to justice in an international court. Slaughter of innocents, genocide by starvation and destruction of nations will not make us safer from future terrorist attacks.

In fact, chances are the current policy is having quite the opposite effect. Write to your senators and representative and to the White House, sign a petition and participate in a demonstration. Above all, educate yourself and organize!

Start by reading the principles of nonviolence and social justice taught and expressed so eloquently by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. War is over (if we want it)!

--Glen Motil

Graduate student, department of literature

Editor:

Mathew Lepori's article (""A Stable Secure Palestine is the Key to Peace,"" Nov. 8) is not only ignorant and misleading but utterly offensive. Following the worst terrorist attack in history in which almost 5,000 Americans were killed -- while the country is still mourning and most of the bodies have not been recovered -- an American student finds it necessary to follow the propaganda line of the killers.

The U.S. government has found a link between the perpetrators of the murderous atrocity and Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization in Afghanistan. As a result, American soldiers at this very moment are risking their lives to root out the terrorists and replace the fundamentalist regimes that protected them.

Yet as far as Lepori is concerned, U.S. policy is completely wrong. According to him, it is not about eliminating the killers and their supporters. As far as he is concerned, ""the importance of finding Osma bin Laden pales in comparison to building a stable and secure Palestine."" How come?

The worst thing that the United States can do is to indicate to the terrorists that it is willing to change its policy -- any policy, anywhere -- because of their threats, killings and lies. Are we to start taking cues from the killers in the caves? Is the Arab Street dictating American policy? Is the United States going to stop supporting the only democracy in the Middle East at the request of a madman and his supporters?

Whoever thinks that the terrorists will be content with a change of policy and that ""Palestine is the key to peace"" did not get the message of Sept. 11. It is not about policy. We were and continue to be a target because we are a beacon of freedom, the promoters of democracy, and individual expression. As such we are the enemy of any religious extremists. It isn't about America's actions as much as America's nature. Even if America would alter its nature and start to follow its enemies' line of logic it will not appease them. To the contrary it will strengthen their will to demand even more.

And what was so wrong, Mr. Lepori, about the ""way the United States government handled its relations in the [Middle East]?"" For years the United States has supported the Oslo Accords. The United States has facilitated negotiations on the final status agreement.

President Clinton stood behind a generous offer proposed to the Palestinians in Camp David 2. The Palestinians rejected the compromise and instead started an armed rebellion.

During this, countless acts of terrorism were committed against Israel by organizations operating from within the Palestinian territories.

This is part of a long war that Israel has been fighting. Our war against terrorism might be a long one as well. This conflict will be fought not only with bombs and clandestine operations but with words and ideas. Information can be used as a weapon and history will be a strategic asset or a liability. We cannot afford to be ignorant and naive about what we are facing and who the real enemy is.

An independent and safe Palestinian state is one solution to the current conflict. However, as President Bush said in his speech to the United Nations on Nov. 10, ""We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorists friends, will know the consequences.""

Only after the Palestinians clearly demonstrate that they understand this principle should they get the support of the United Nations, the United States or students at UCSD.

Mr. Lepori, isn't the current effort about trying to eliminate terrorist states, not create them?

--Shira Landau

UCSD student

At a time when UC officials have repeatedly made references to a tight budget, the UC system is looking to give its executive vice chancellors and engineering deans raises of as much as 25 percent -- this while faculty and staff can expect raises only in the range of 0.5 to 2 percent. The UC Board of Regents will consider the management raises during its Thursday meeting at the Laurel Heights campus of UC San Francisco.

While the Guardian acknowledges that paying top officials is a good business practice, the intrinsic inequity in the proposed plan will cause more harm than good.

UC spokesman Paul Schwartz has tried to justify the move by stating that the salaries the UC system pays its senior managers have fallen behind what other universities offer. He said that ""preserving top-caliber leadership, especially during these extremely challenging economic times, is critical to maintaining UC's competitiveness and institutional quality.""

This is a noble goal set forth by the UC system. It would keep the salaries of the system's top people competitive with those of other universities, enabling the system to attract the top talent and preserve the quality that people have come to expect from the University of California.

The problem with the proposal is that the large discrepancy between what the top chancellors would be given and what the professors would be given is inexcusable. It has the distinct possibility of creating a lot of disgruntled professors. While it is the senior management that ultimately is responsible for the overall quality of the UC system, it is the professors who are in constant contact with the students. They educate the students and are directly responsible for the quality of education that UC students receive.

We feel that even a 2 percent increase of professors' salaries -- the most optimistic for professors under the new proposal -- would simply not be enough in light of the 25 percent increase that the executive vice chancellors and engineering deans would receive. According to the proposal, only one-third of UC professors would get the 2 percent raise. The remainder would only be getting a 0.5 percent cost-of-living increase.

With so much being made of economic hardship of late, we simply cannot support a move like this by the University of California.

If money is tight, then we urge the UC system to not spend what money it does have on large raises for its top brass while leaving professors -- the ones directly responsible for our education -- with small raises that are scarcely above normal cost-of-living increases.

We urge the UC Board of Regents to reject this proposal. We acknowledge the good intentions of the proposal but cite its blatant inequality as well as the current times of economic hardship as reasons enough not to enact such large raises for the senior managers of the UC system.

While many members of the international community are focused on the latest developments in Afghanistan, another region in the Middle East is host to an issue that could have an immense impact on much of the world.

At stake are perhaps thousands of lives that will no doubt be affected by a recent agreement reached at the World Trade Organization summit in Daha, Qatar. Although negotiations were tense, a resolution was reached between developing nations such as Brazil and India as well as industrialized ones such as the United States on the matter of easing restrictions on patented drugs. Unfortunately, it is unclear how successful implementation of this plan will be.

For many years, critics have alleged that wealthier nations have put profit above human life by opposing plans for developing nations to find alternatives to expensive drugs that the majority of their citizens cannot afford. Both Brazil and India, suffering from the social and economic burdens of millions of citizens infected with malaria and AIDS, have sought to import or make generic drugs that could be widely distributed in their countries. Yet they have consistently been stonewalled by the massive efforts of the pharmaceutical industry and the United States, both of which oppose their plans.

Thousands of lives could have been saved -- or at the very least prolonged -- in the process.

One has to wonder why an industry garnering about $300 billion a year is worried about the potential effects generic drugs would have on the market. On Nov. 8, CNN reported on its Web site that the ""provision of cut-price medicines in poorer countries will hardly put a dent on the ... industry."" Yet the pharmaceutical industry still fears that future research will be jeopardized by ""over-riding patents."" It is clear that this immensely powerful industry is worried more about the potential loss of profits than the well-being of citizens of so-called ""third world"" countries.

Unfortunately, the United States has been one of the most effective and vocal opponents of the fight to suppress developing nations' claims to easier access to life-saving drugs. In the past, the United States has consistently charged that Brazil and India's desire for a waiver to a rule that ""guarantee[s] 20-year patents on medicines"" will threaten the pharmaceutical industry.

At the same time, however, the United States' hypocrisy on this issue has been exposed. On Nov. 8 CNN noted in its Web site that the United States, after a series of anthrax scares following the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., ""threatened to use generic versions of the patented drug"" Cipro because Cipro is so expensive. Although anthrax is a serious and potentially life-threatening illness, it is dwarfed by the horrific effects of being infected with malaria or AIDS -- especially when many in a poor nation simply cannot afford potentially life-saving medical treatment. It is unethical for the United States to criticize other nations who are clearly acting in the best interests of their citizenry when it is unable to follow the same rules that it forces upon others.

Although the agreement reached by both sides in Qatar leaves many optimistic about the future of public health in developing nations, it is hoped that a quick and effective enforcement of the resolution will be enacted. Yet it may not be wise to be optimistic about the agreement just yet. While CNN reported on its Web site Tuesday that the ""deal is believed to give developing nations more flexibility in over-riding patent rules on public health grounds,"" delegates have not yet released the details of the plan and it is too early for any of them to know if it is completely feasible.

Further complicating matters is the apparent reluctance of industrialized nations to enforce the deal. Shockingly, the United States delegation has stated that ""the final text should be considered a political statement rather than a legally enforceable document."" This is obviously distressing because it implies that not much will actually change. However, as noted before, it is simply too early to tell whether the plan will work effectively or not. It is hoped that this agreement will effectively set the stage for better relations between rich and poor nations and dispel the idea that wealthier nations care little for their poorer counterparts.

Today, the United States has a unique opportunity to demonstrate to the world that lives are more important than the profit margins of corporations.

It is our responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to life-saving drugs and it is morally irresponsible for us to ignore the millions of lives that depend on unrestricted access to effective medical treatments.

We have demonstrated our military prowess in the Middle East -- let's hope we can demonstrate our prudence and our compassion in the rest of the world.

Death has always been and will always be with us: It is a fundamental part of human existence. Since the dawn of humankind, death has struck indiscriminately at rich and poor, famous and unknown, good and bad alike. It is perhaps this inevitable and unpredictable nature that makes death so terrifying to many people, especially those who put a heavy weight on being in control of their own existence.

But other societies have learned to deal better with the reality of death than we seem to do. It is unlikely that any group has ever welcomed death's invasion of life, but there are others who have effectively incorporated the expectation of death into their epistemology of life.

In American society, the subject of death is avoided, ignored and denied. It is most likely because death reminds us of our human vulnerability in spite of all our technological superiority.

Although it happens all the time, we pretend not to see it. When a person dies, he is whisked away in a blink; a magical vanishing act does away with the evidence before it can upset anyone.

American adults routinely shelter children from death and dying because they believe that it is a way to protect their children from irreparable harm. By making death a taboo subject for children, we are denying the reality of its existence. It is apparent that we are, in truth, doing children a disservice by depriving them of the experience. We create fear that need not be there by separating the leaders of tomorrow from people who are dying or have died.

When a person dies, we ""assist"" their loved ones by doing things for them, by pretending to be cheerful, by putting make-up and materialistic items on the dead so the individual looks ""natural"" and alive. Again, this so-called assistance merely consists of acts of denial and apprehension.

Even American hospitals, a place where most deaths occur, consider death in some way one of their own unmentionables. In the hospital, patients do not die -- they ""expire."" Patients do not die in the operation room; rather, the patient is ""lost on the table."" The hospital staff's inability to simply say the word ""death"" suggests a refusal to believe and acknowledge its essence.

We abhor and reject the moment when we will face our death. Death is a casual matter when we read about it in a book or discuss it philosophically in the coffeehouse. The problem of death, on the whole, does not strike us in the heart.

Only when it is one's own imminent death, or that of a loved one, do people feel the desire for life. We make a frantic fight to hold onto life while slipping over the edge to death. This is reality in battle with the fairy tale misconception of an eternal life. The solid possibility of our own death is so unimaginable that, by instinct, we deny the fact.

Instead of hiding death behind the sanitary walls of the hospital and the cosmetic disguise of the funeral home, we should recognize and accept death. Only by acknowledging its existence can we progress as human beings.

As strange as it may sound, one of the most prolific formulas for growth is found through the experiences of death. Individuals who have been lucky enough to share in the death of someone who understood its meaning seem better able to live and grow because of their experience. Those who have been wrapped up in the disaster of death during wartime and who have faced it with dignity without allowing their feelings to become numbed and nonchalant have come out from their experiences with growth and humanity greater than that accomplished through almost any other means.

Even when we have come to accept death as a vital part of life, dying is difficult. Dying means giving up life on Earth.

But if we can adapt a different perspective on death, to reintroduce it into our lives so that is comes not a dreaded enemy but an expected friend, then we will be able to live our lives with significance -- with true appreciation of our momentary existence, and of the restriction on our time in this world.

As a college student, federal law requires that I spent at least 40 hours every week procrastinating, wasting time and just generally fucking around.

Overachiever that I am, I have discovered the perfect way to accomplish this: online personality tests.

Clearly, these quizzes are an unparalleled waste of time, and that is a good thing. But there still remains one almost imperceptible problem: They are total crap.

Of course, I base this conclusion on the fact that according to one such personality test, I am 53 percent bitch. This is just plain offensive, and anyone who knows me will immediately realize why: I am clearly 100 percent, grade-A, top-choice bitch.

Obviously there are inaccuracies in these quizzes that must be rectified. But until they are, I have altruistically taken it upon myself to compile a list of only five questions that will undoubtedly reveal your true personality. (Perhaps it's nice shit like this that makes me only 53 percent bitch.)

At this point, I would like to insert a disclaimer before you take my better-than-any-other-test-of-its-kind personality quiz.

Disclaimer: This quiz was manufactured to reveal your inner character -- I take no responsibility for the results. So if you turn out to be a total loser, a serial killer or Al Gore, this is clearly your fault and not the test's. Also, if you have repeatedly been told that you have no personality, please refrain from even attempting to take this test and wasting everyone's time.

OK, here it is. Circle the letter of the answer that you feel is the most accurate, and at the end, you will have my assessment of your personality.

1. Are you male or female?

(a) Female.

(b) Male.

(c) The doctors haven't decided yet.

2. Do you know your own name?

(a) No. I call myself the Magical It.

(b) Yes (duh). I've known it since I was 14 years old.

(c) Yes. It's Al Gore.

3. If you could be any kind of tree, what would you be?

(a) A palm tree -- it's a So-Cal thing.

(b) A redwood -- it's a Nor-Cal thing.

(c) What do you mean, could be any kind of tree?

4. You prefer social interaction:

(a) In large, booze-friendly environments that can easily be turned into orgies.

(b) In intimate groups that can also be turned into orgies (though perhaps not as easily -- after all, you like a challenge).

(c) One-on-one with the voices in your head (no orgies, but at least you know the conversations will be interesting).

5. To you, the most important part of relationships is:

(a) The fact that you and your friends/lovers are all obsessed with ""Star Trek.""

(b) You all have the same major, so you can share anecdotes about the circuit that wouldn't die.

(c) You all love orgies.

OK, that was it. Still with me? Still think these tests are a waste of time? Still think I am a cracked-out psychopath who has no life? Good! That means you did well!

Now look at the letters you circled most often. Judging from the letter you picked most often -- and that alone -- I will now pigeon-hole your personality into a category that is probably both inaccurate and offensive. Fear not: This is the sign of a good test.

If you picked A's: You are an extroverted people-person who likes long walks on the beach and killing brain cells (preferably at the same time). This is based on nothing more than the fact that this is a standard personality test determination that goes with the letter A.

If you picked B's: You are a self-reliant introvert who has a good imagination and works best alone at a computer. Again, this is not based on facts, or even on the answers you picked, really.

If you picked C's: Like the last part of question No. 10 implies, you are an Al Gore clone who likes orgies just a little too much more than the average UCSD student. Scary to some, sexy to others. Either way, stay the hell away from me.

So basically, I have proven that these tests are not only crap, but amazing wastes of time. Seriously, how much of your professor's lecture were you able to ignore while doing this? You can thank me later.

Whose image pops into your mind when you envision shiny gold front teeth, baggy clothes and marijuana? Who else -- the typical black man.

Not only does this black man sport the attire that fits the description of all other black men in this country, but he also speaks the ""black"" dialect -- slang-peppered Ebonics.

He holds the typical black occupation, or rather lack thereof, and he has an acrimonious attitude, hell-bent on putting ""Whitey"" in his place.

To accompany his other attributes deemed necessary to legitimize his status as truly black, this figure is lumped into the same category as all the other prison-bound, shiftless, misogynistic black men just like him.

Are you offended yet? Good, because so am I.

Last Tuesday night, I reluctantly attended the free screening of Universal Studios' soon-to-be-released motion picture ""How High.""

The film turned my stomach as I sat squirming in my seat. Even more disturbing to me than the stereotypical depiction of my fellow African-Americans on the screen was the amount of laughter bubbling up from some 500 students in Mandeville Auditorium. They laughed through the scenes featuring African-Americans evading employment or having no ambition. They laughed through the scenes featuring African-American men slapping two unsuspecting women. Even when blacks were shown as the thieves that they are expected to be by society, the audience laughed.

Something is wrong with this picture. I am disgusted with the generalized Hollywood portrayal of black culture, and I am even more upset by the level of acceptance this denigrating representation meets amongst the public. I attended the free screening not for recreation, but specifically to address this issue of immeasurable importance.

Tinseltown would have all Americans believe that African-Americans are entertaining by nature, and that black and drugs, black and sex, or black and ignorance are always mutually inclusive. ""How High"" was a production that trumpeted these themes consistently, so for those people who attended and had a good chuckle, and for those moviegoers who plan on shelling out $8 when it is released in December, let me illustrate how low the movie really is.

Every time I see the ubiquitous marijuana leaf adorning a T-shirt or baseball cap, I wince. I am painfully aware that the marketers of those items are specifically addressing youth, hip-hop culture and blacks. Countless numbers of black entertainers don the emblem as though it were the insignia of the African-American lifestyle. Weed was not a staple in my household when I was a young child, nor was drug usage a tacitly understood practice.

Where are the images of African-Americans who do not use marijuana on a regular basis? ""The Cosby Show?"" Maybe ""The Fresh Prince of Bel Air?"" Keep going -- or can you?

Every black artist's video on MTV's ""Total Request Live"" promotes the stereotype that black men have no greater ambition than to blaze up each and every day of the year. While these people certainly exist, they are in no way the majority, but with movies such as ""How High,"" Americans are hard-pressed to form alternate conclusions.

To the black man, women are sexual objects: pawns to be played like a game of chess. And of course, black women do not mind being objectified and mistreated by being called hoes and bitches as if they were not given any other name at birth. This is all true and quite funny, right?

If you are shaking your head in disagreement, then you must not have been in Mandeville Auditorium last Tuesday night, because it seemed as if almost everyone in the audience thought these were extremely humorous assertions.

However, I sat back with my jaw open at the film's message, which can be summated in one statement: All black men and women have an insatiable sexual appetite and they will go to any means, endure any treatment and surmount any obstacle to get sex. Black women in clingy pants made of gold lame strutted across the screen throughout ""How High,"" perpetuating every stereotype concerning the exotification of women of color that we have so passionately been trying to dispel.

The main characters were black men who, despite their perpetually altered state, could single out a sexy woman from hundreds of yards away. Depicting black women as whores and black men as studs is an antiquated assumption that debases the loving and nurturing relationships that the majority of black people engage in.

We do not run panting like dogs in heat after members of the opposite sex, which movies such as ""How To Be a Player"" and ""Booty Call"" would have our society believe. ""How High"" is just another movie that shines a negative light on black people who are struggling to erode damaging stereotypes.

Another prevailing theme in ""How High"" is the disassociation of African-Americans from school. Education is not the enemy to black people -- the poverty that hinders their performance in school is. The socially constructed racism that maintains sticky floors and glass ceilings is the enemy as well.

But young black people, when given the tools and the resources to excel, meet the challenges of a good education. They do not disrupt the classroom, smoke their way through exams and run around wreaking mayhem on the educational system, as did the characters in ""How High."" The two main characters in ""How High"" never gave viewers any indication that it was acceptable to be black and smart simultaneously.

One character refers to a well-spoken black man, saying he was ""black like a polar bear."" Does articulate speech equal white, and slang and broken English equal black? The popular depiction in Hollywood mistakenly suggests this is true.

We are all at fault every time we laugh at a joke made at the expense of ethnicity. The black actors and entertainers who denigrate their own race for capitalistic gains are accountable. Just because they are of the ethnicity they negatively portray does not justify the practice. The film industry and music executives who produce these movies and videos that strip integrity from black culture are equally responsible.

But the level at which we can effect change is in our own personal entertainment selections. If consumers are not willing to shell out money for movies and videos that are deprecating and generalizing, then material with more positive content will flourish.

I will not refute that there are some blacks who reflect the ignoramuses in ""How High,"" but there are also many other blacks who do not remotely favor the main characters or their lifestyles.

Americans have infinite power as consumers. Until we invest our money away from movies such as ""How High,"" society will suffer.