""Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."" Thomas Jefferson's words remain as true today as when he said them 225 years ago on the eve of our nation's liberation from tyranny and oppression.

Pat Leung
Guardian

The horrors of Sept. 11 and its consequences -- both good and bad -- have compelled this American, among countless others, to rethink his concept of freedom -- both its value and its price.

The heinous acts of Sept. 11 not only butchered thousands of innocent Americans, but attacked the freedom that is so intrinsic in our everyday lives that we often take it for granted. After all, when was the last time we were forced to question it? Our generation did so during the escalating arms race of the 1980s, but while our parents were walking us to kindergarten, unbeknownst to our generation, President Reagan won a Cold War so we wouldn't have to.

Our parents tell us that growing up in the 1960s involved fear of nuclear annihilation at the hands of the Soviets. We can only thank God our grandparents' generation subverted such a calamity. It is they, moreover, who know better than anyone what it's like when freedom comes into question.

My grandfather landed with thousands of other young Americans on Omaha Beach during the battle that liberated Normandy, France and led to the end of Nazism and Adolf Hitler's conquest of the free world. My grandfather knew as well as his parents that Hitler would not stop with Europe; he would never stop until all of the world fell before his tyranny. My grandfather faced 25 percent survival odds on that beach not because he had to, but because he shared the fierce determination of an entire generation to defend democracy for his unborn children to enjoy.

Sept. 11, 2001 resembled Dec. 7, 1941 more than we would like to believe; just as the attack on Pearl Harbor was the end of the innocence of one generation, the Day of Terror was the end of the innocence of our own. On Sept. 10, we went to bed ready to get up and go to work. The victims of that tragedy did just that: They got up and went to work just like they would on any other day. The rest of us awoke horrified by the sight of the World Trade Center smoking and burning. Untold thousands died before our very eyes. The crumbling of those pillars of freedom was the momentary crumbling of our spirits; we knew the world would never be the same.

For a moment, it was almost conceivable that evil had won. For a moment, America was on its knees. For a moment, Americans panicked and hurriedly bought all the bottled water and canned food they could at the grocery store, just in case. For a moment, gas shot up to $6 per gallon in some places. For a moment, America was incapacitated by fear and grief.

It was, however, only for a moment.

America began to heal. Maybe you've noticed that wherever you shave, be it your face or your legs, the hair grows back thicker, stronger and more resilient. Such is the American spirit. That terrible tragedy has fostered a determination to continue living with a newfound appreciation for the freedom that permits us to do so.

The terrorists wanted us to tremble in fear; they wanted us to be afraid to go to work, go on vacation, fly aboard airplanes, invest in our stock market, and afford ourselves the items of luxury that have marked the triumph of capitalism. Obviously, they failed. Not only are Americans going about their lives just as they had before the vicious attack on their freedom to do so, but they are doing so with resolve and solidarity. Americans are buying flags, banners, pins and stickers right and left -- not because they never loved their country before, but to show they love it now more than ever.

The Taliban, along with other U.S.-hating tyrants hiding behind the name of Islam, spreads its lies to its people, invoking the hatred of an uneducated, third world populace upon the United States.

We, however, see through their propaganda. The terrorists hate us because we ally ourselves with Israel; they hate us because our women are allowed to show their faces in public and enjoy the same civil liberties as men. They hate us because we are taught math, science and liberal arts in school rather than the Koran. They hate us because of the bountiful free market we have established; they hate us because our democracy is based upon freedom, especially the freedom to practice any religion we choose. They claim to hate us because of our vices, but that is a bold-faced lie -- they hate us for our virtues! Moreover, their evil plans will always fail, for they can never succeed in damaging any of these virtues, for each is a pillar of a freedom indivisible by any evil.

As we continue to recover and proceed along the road to success at home, it is clear that we must protect ourselves and our children from the terror that has plagued the rest of the world for decades. Just as our grandparents ensured our freedom, it is time for us to do the same for the sake of our own unborn children and grandchildren.

The absence of a severe military response would have invited countless other terrorist acts against the American people. When your very livelihood is in danger, you must stand up for yourself and the principles that define the standard of living that you want to guarantee for future generations. The Taliban and other criminal regimes would never hand over bin Laden and his cronies through the diplomatic methods some would advocate; this much is obvious because we've been asking the Taliban to extradite him for the past eight years. They've watched our military destroy their bases, kill their soldiers, disrupt their communications and ravage their country, yet they still refuse to hand over bin Laden.

The Taliban is clearly beyond reason, and it's senseless to think they'd ever voluntarily extradite their posterboy of hatred and butchery.

The Pro-America Rally last week at the Price Center demonstrated the loud patriotic voice of the students of an ordinarily apathetic student body. It was a day to celebrate our liberties as Americans, stand vigilantly before the flag that symbolizes them, and emphasize that if we don't support those who protect those rights, they will be lost. Several terrific speakers highlighted the event, including former San Diego mayor and top-rated local talk show host Roger Hedgecock, who subsequently broadcasted his KOGO show live from the Price Center.

A few scant protestors tried to spoil the event, but they were paid little attention. If anything, they showed how insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things. They also resent the un-American stigma bestowed upon them, yet several showed their true colors by refusing to stand during the ""Star Spangled Banner,"" which I'd say is not only unpatriotic, but downright distasteful.

If any word could describe how they appeared that day, it would be foolish.

I won't even call these individuals liberals; as California Review editor in chief Terrence Morrissey stated in its last issue, ""They do not contribute constructive dialogue in our cities concerning public policy issues. They maintain no congressional representation.""

I recognize their freedom to speak as candidly as they wish; in turn, I hope they recognize that our servicemen are fighting abroad for the flag that allows them to say this and whatever else pops into their minds. I'm not going to waste any more thought on them for the time being.

Is there any reasonable alternative to war? If so, nobody seems to know what it is. If you come up with answers that share the same divine intervention as ""Demilitarize the Middle East"" or ""Capture bin Laden,"" I suggest you contemplate how to achieve those goals and why you think you're smarter than the military strategists who have made careers out of planning for the dilemmas you just began pondering two months ago.

More than anything, compare your lifestyle to that of those who have suffered under the Taliban and then realize how much your freedom means to you. Above all, be united; terror discriminates against no one. This is an enemy that we must fight and will defeat together.

Editor:

While Matthew E. Crow's article (""Christianity misunderstood by detractors and faithful alike,"" Oct. 25) insinuates that Christians and non-Christians alike are ignorant of one genuine interpretation of Christianity, the reality is that there are as many valid views as there are people.

Though I'm an atheist, I know better than to stereotype Christians. I was raised a Catholic, yet most of my family supports abortion, homosexuality and birth control. I have a firsthand understanding that not all Christians are bigoted, blind adherents to their denominations.

Crow says that people misunderstand Christianity because of the ""injustices"" it has inherited. I assume by this he means such acts as the Crusades, the Inquisition, European imperialism and the historical condemnation of progressives, from Galileo to homosexuals.

Crow suggests that Christianity should be judged on Jesus' message and not on the hypocritical actions of some Christians. Yet how else are we to judge Christianity?

If we accept that religions exist for the purpose of social conditioning, then we must acknowledge that Christianity has largely failed at instilling into its followers the very morals that Crow claims Jesus supported. The negative actions of Christians reflect back on Christianity, and so its ""injustices"" aren't inherited -- they're earned. A bumper sticker reads: ""God, save me from your followers!""

The Christian faith is not defined exclusively by the teachings of Jesus. If it were, there would be no Old Testament. The sad truth is that the Bible is so open to interpretation, anyone can find just about whatever message he seeks.

Economist Ludwig von Mises wrote that ""each epoch has found in the Gospels what it sought to find there, and has overlooked what it wished to overlook."" Though Crow wishes to find in Christianity a spirit of love and compassion, he cannot nullify other views because they are contrary to his.

Jerry Falwell and the Westboro Baptist Church, with its slogan ""God hates fags,"" are biblically justified in their disdain. Leviticus 18:22 says in no uncertain terms that homosexuality is wrong. It is fine if Crow disagrees, but he must recognize that these Christians do not misunderstand their own religion.

The blame for this biblical dissent falls squarely on the Bible itself. If it were not so unorganized and poorly written, there would not be so much argument about its meaning.

The true paradox of modern Christianity is not that the leaders of mainstream denominations are intolerant, but that the god of the Old Testament is a vengeful, violent and selfish god, while the god of the New Testament is a loving father figure. Fundamentalist denominations tend to stress the ""fire and brimstone"" god of the Old Testament, while more liberal denominations focus on the New Testament.

Though things might be better off if Crow's humanistic spin on Christianity were true, he is mistaken. Sadly, Christianity is just about whatever you want it to be.

-- Jonathon Severdia

UCSD student

If you are a tech-oriented upperclassman in college who is thinking about a career, or if you are a recent graduate still hanging around school because you cannot find a job, then this article is written with you in mind.

Before I go any further, I would like to present some statistics. I may not be a math person, and you might be bored by this proposition, but statistics go far in assisting the prognosis and analysis of a problem. So let's check out some unemployment statistics.

According to The San Diego Union-Tribune, local unemployment was around 3.3 percent in June. By July, that had not changed. Even after the Sept. 11 attacks, unemployment in San Diego was around 3.4 percent.

At this point, that sounds pretty ridiculous. The national unemployment rate is higher: 4.9 percent. Studies even show that people will take less pay just to live in San Diego.

In a recent Los Angeles Times article, writer Marc Ballon gave an example that may forecast rough times ahead.

A new Red Robin Gourmet Burgers restaurant owner in Portland, Ore., collected more than 1,700 job applications. The owner, James Bastidas, said that college graduates stood in long lines with laid-off factory workers for only 165 openings, each offering pay of between $6.50 and $9.50 per hour. Bastidas said it ""blew him away.""

Terrorism -- and the fear that is rampant as a result of the Sept. 11 attacks and the anthrax incidents -- is further hurting what was already a deteriorating economy.

But that brings me to my main point: People cannot just keep complaining about not having a job and that finding one is so difficult. I am sick of hearing that.

There is no point in saving your dignity, my friends and fellow students. The Red Robin case was one of many that Ballon pointed out. Other restaurants and retail shops are experiencing the same thing. If all those people can suck it up and take lower pay in the meantime, so can you. Think of it as a temporary job.

Cisco is laying off 8,000 employees. SUN Microsystems just slashed 4,000 people from its workforce. Agilent, Lucent and other tech companies are cutting jobs, too.

I know that many UCSD computer science and engineering students long for those jobs. And I know Alan Greenspan has said that the entire country will be hit hard with decline.

How can I be so unmerciful and uncaring? I am not.

I have seen some of you loll through the last year of school with no planning. Sorry, brothas and sistas -- sending out that resume once every two or three weeks does not cut it these days.

I have seen some of you falter at interviews and come back depressed.

Need a job? Dial those numbers, write those e-mails, make those nice resumes.

Can't communicate well? Maybe you need more education, or at the very least, more training in social skills.

Times are tough. Our glorious age of mass consumption has hit a huge roadblock, and it is going to take a while before we clear up the way so we can speed again.

I will not throw any cliches or old-fashioned reprimands at you. I just value hard work and an indomitable spirit.

Kudos to those of you who have a job right now because you are unwilling to let a faltering global economy faze you.

When I first transferred from a junior college to this essentially homogenous university, I was apathetic to student organizations. A year later, I am writing for the Guardian and I am a member of the African American Student Union and the Women of Color Conference Committee. I went from disinterested to hyperinvolved in the span of a year.

Pat Leung
Guardian

I believe that students who try to involve themselves in campus life, especially in race-based organizations, are doing exactly what it takes to get the most out of their college experience.

Ethnicity-based organizations provide an artery for diversity to flow through UCSD. To eliminate such clubs would mean the death of what limited diversity UCSD now has.

A recent conversation with a fellow student forced me to evaluate why I believe these groups are a necessity.

""Why are you in AASU?"" asked Nathan, a Caucasian friend, without a hint of sarcasm. ""Why does there need to be an AASU anyway?""

We engaged in a heated discussion about the need for ethnicity-based student organizations. Nathan adamantly argued that if people in the United States hope to eliminate racial barriers and intermingle successfully with one another, we are obliged to eliminate exclusive groups and move toward cross-cultural unification.

Nathan had a valid point. But then I looked around campus and I thought of 56 good reasons why AASU and other student organizations like it are necessary.

Fifty-six new African-American students enrolled at UCSD for the 2001 school year. This includes transfer and freshman students.

UCSD's total undergraduate enrollment is 21,568. This means that 0.2 percent of the undergraduate population is represented by new black faces.

Do we need AASU? Absolutely.

Ethnic-based organizations are a campus necessity that should be designed, at least in part, to fight the causes that are specific to a particular race. But in addition to that, these groups provide their members with an outlet independent of academics, and a system of friendship found scarcely anywhere else at UCSD.

First, ethnicity-based groups serve as a forum for political activists to champion the views and address the concerns of groups marginalized by society.

I do not feel that white people cannot or should not be involved in causes afflicting other ethnic groups or that, say, Chicanos should not picket on behalf of the Filipino population.

I am, however, saying that social movements are more passionately driven by members directly affected by their outcome. The assistance of every race makes social movements more effective. But, for example, the Chicano members of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano/a de Aztlan would probably be the most forceful in organizing a movement on behalf of Latino janitors.

Similarly, members of AASU would probably be more fervent than a group of white students when arguing for black admission and retention rates at UCSD.

The commonality shared among members of ethnic groups is often a defining characteristic of many of the members' lives. When they fight for causes that pertain specifically to them, the dynamic of group power is amplified.

Another reason to promote ethnic-specific organizations is the camaraderie and sense of family that such groups foster.

Look around UCSD. You see faces furrowed in deep thought -- most likely contemplating the elusive answer to an equation. You see people on Fridays, hurriedly heading toward a shuttle or trying to beat rush hour traffic for their commute home.

What you don't hear is people eagerly talking about the tailgate party for the Friday night football game. You won't regularly hear people chatting about Greek houses at which they are going to make their weekend rounds.

UCSD has a fragmented, antisocial atmosphere. I may be a little biased, as a transfer student who was forced to live off campus my first year, but in general, social life -- well, the lack thereof -- is a serious problem for UCSD students.

Ethnicity-based groups bring people together in a way that elicits feelings -- not only of friendship, but of family. On this campus, that is very difficult to attain.

I am African-American, and AASU has afforded me the opportunity to see faces -- smiling faces, at that -- of people who look like me, sound like me and have endured similar experiences. That we share such an integral commonality eliminates a lot of the preliminaries that precede the development of most friendships.

On that note, the Greek system also provides similar opportunities conducive to the bonding of students who identify ethnically with one another. While I support students who find fellowship in that environment, there are two major differences between race-related Greek organizations and student organizations of the same kind. These differences lead me to the conclusion that race-based student organizations are superior even to their Greek counterparts.

First, membership is free in student organizations such as AASU and the Nikkei Student Union. No dues or membership fees are required.

Second, and most importantly, race-based student organizations welcome everyone. You do not need to rush, apply or even be of the ethnicity around which the group is centered, as long as you self-identify.

Race-based student organizations are a convenient way to develop friendships without pretense or restrictions. That is something students would be hard-pressed to find in any other campus activity.

Maybe last year I would have agreed with Nathan. Maybe I would have said, ""America is a melting pot -- we should eliminate these groups that encourage ethnic exclusion."" But after attending UCSD for a year, I realize that we are far from the proverbial ""melting pot"" so commonly used to describe the diversity in this country. In fact, we are so lacking in ethnic variety that it is a misnomer to even classify UCSD's composition as the ""salad bowl"" also frequently referred to.

We are a disjointed, fragmented institution experiencing a diversity crisis and depressingly low student morale. Until these two elements change, our campus needs race-based organizations to fight for social change and nurture camaraderie among its students.

Editor:

The article by Matthew Lepori against general education requirements (""Out with the old rules, in with the new,"" Oct. 22) actually helps to demonstrate the need for such requirements.

Lepori wonders how learning other subjects will make him a better writer. If UCSD were a technical school, such as ITT Tech or one of the many others advertised on daytime television to jobless people, this would be a valid question.

However, UCSD is a university and has a responsibility to educate its students. This educational responsibility is not limited to technical excellence in one field. It includes a broad education in a variety of subjects designed to expand the intellectual capacities of students. Students with a university degree should be expected to have these abilities and to be able to think intelligently about a variety of subjects.

If students do not want this kind of education, I suggest they drop out of UCSD immediately and enroll in one of the many technical schools available. Some of them actually allow one to fulfill all requirements by mail. Just think: In six short weeks, you can be an expert in shoe repair or locksmithing. No general education requirements at all.

On the other hand, if you want a degree from a quality institution, you will be expected to take courses that will make you well-rounded.

The question ""Does knowing how the coastal currents of California work make me a better person?"" seems to be a reference to Earth Sciences 30, a course I am currently enrolled in. In fact, those paying attention in this course (about 50 percent of the students -- the remainder talk all period) are learning about a variety of subjects that will allow them to make more informed decisions on environmental issues. The rest will be easy prey for demagogues on the right and the left who rely upon the public's lack of knowledge to push their agendas on these issues.

One of the reasons the university is striving to offer a quality education is to make its graduates better citizens of our democracy. This is one of the most important jobs of every American citizen -- more important, I would argue, than learning technical skills that are valuable in the job market.

The fact that students are retaining little information from these classes is not the fault of the university but is the fault of a student body whose mantra seems to be ""Cram, regurgitate, forget. Repeat until degree is conferred."" This is an insult to professors, teaching assistants, administrators, students who actually learn the material and to the educational institution itself.

To sum up, if you don't want to learn, leave. There are plenty of people to take your place who might actually want to get a real education.

-- Brinn Belyea

Graduate student

Teacher Education Program

My dad is a great guy. He's one of those people who knows everything -- really. It's kind of spooky. And he's a great dad, too: In 18 years, we've only had one fight. But, oh what a fight it was.

It was about a month before I left for college. He was driving me home from work and he said, ""Jess, there's something I want to talk to you about."" Before I knew it, we'd gotten ourselves into a heated argument over who was going to pay for my next four years of school.

I suppose that arguments with such premises are pretty common between recent high school graduates and their parents during that time of year. But somehow, I doubt that this one fell into the conventional parameters of those arguments.

Since middle school, I have known that I would pay for college. While most kids were still getting allowances, I had a job -- in middle school, mind you, which is actually legal if the job adheres to certain rules about hours and wages -- a monthly budget and a mutual funds account.

I worked anywhere between one and three jobs in high school. During my junior and senior years I held two jobs, working about 35 hours per week. During the summers, it was more like 50 hours.

So there I was, ready to head off to school with two years of tuition, room and board ready and waiting in my account. And it felt so good.

Occasionally, when I tell people about this endeavor, they'll look at me with a vague appearance of disbelief and ask, ""Gee, how did you manage that?""

When people ask me things like that, it's hard not to be defensive. It's hard not to feel like I have a $16,000 chip on my shoulder.

I do my best to understand that for some people, that kind of commitment is unrealistic. Many people have a lot of legitimate obligations to things such as academics, athletics and extracurricular activities.

I'm really not interested in any sort of one-upmanship about who did more in high school because it's not about that. All I know is that if something is important to you, you'll find the time to make it work. Let's just say that maybe because it was so important to me, I managed just fine -- 35 hours of work per week, three advanced placement classes, editor in chief of two school newspapers and, oh yes, a grade point average of 3.8, unweighted.

When my dad told me he wanted to pay for school, I should have been thrilled. It should have meant that I had financial security ahead of me, that I wouldn't have to work in college, that I could enjoy the next four years of my life without worrying about the performance of my stock portfolio.

In reality, it was probably the cruelest thing my parents have ever done. Paying for college was a burden I had already accepted. It was something that I had already worked for. It's something that took many sacrifices. It was the main factor in my choice of college. Hell, I turned down an Ivy League school to come here because UCSD had a price tag that I could afford. And suddenly came the news, ""None of that matters now, because it's not your responsibility after all.""

It is so important to me that I take responsibility for my education. So many people say that what they like best about college is the freedom, the independence. For me, it's not freedom if someone else is paying for it. It's my education, my life, my four years.

I've never understood how my peers can just let people pay for college for them. It sounds rather condescending, I know. And I suppose that just because something is important to me doesn't mean that other people should instantly follow suit. If other people can just accept someone else putting them through school, that's cool, but I can't.

My parents put themselves through school. They didn't have a choice. They say that being able to support me financially means a lot to them, and they understand that financial independence is important to me because it was important to them too.

Eventually my dad and I came to an agreement -- after all, he's a great guy. We decided that I'd pay for whatever I could, and my parents would take care of any debts I had incurred at the end of four years. And though it boggles the mind to consider the non-education-related misdeeds that such an agreement could lead to, I imagine that nothing too outrageous will show up on my parents' bill after four years.

The second week of this quarter, I went off to get a job. I knew that I'd need one in order to make this whole independence thing work. I'm working about 25 hours a week, and I'm loving it.

I'm no scientist, but recent events have led me to conclude that men and women are of completely different species.

Now, because I am someone who thought the term ""homo sapiens"" was a dirty joke until the age of 12, you may think that I am highly unqualified to make this kind of claim. And it's true -- I have absolutely no business talking about the incredibly precise and incredibly boring categorization of organisms. But is that going to stop me from talking about it anyway? Hell no.

Saturday night found me at a San Diego State party with my old friend. Let's call him Warren (that's not his real name). Obviously, as a journalism nerd and all-around lifeless reject, I had no business whatsoever being at such a gathering. Yet there I was, not even attempting to look cool, because really -- what would be the point?

About an hour and clearly several drinks later, Warren (no, really, that isn't his name!) approached me and began (to my still-vivid horror) to confess the fact that he had something of a crush on me.

I won't re-enact the conversation for you, but suffice it to say that Warren sounded like an idiot, and I sounded very confused.

But this is not why I have determined that men and women cannot possibly be members of the same species. What happened later that night was what cinched it.

Around 1:30 a.m., I decided that we were ready to go. I based this decision on the fact that I was tired (I told you I was a nerd) and that Warren (would you please stop thinking that is his real name?) was falling-all-over-himself-and-others drunk.

I walked up to my friend, grabbed his arm to get his attention (and to keep him from falling on me), and said, ""Warren, even though that isn't your real name, let's go."" OK, actually I just said, ""Hey, let's go.""

Now, I want everyone to say that out loud, infusing it with as little inflection and feeling as possible. ""Hey, let's go."" That's what I said.

Warren immediately interpreted that as a pick-up line.

Believe me, there was no come hither look, no unnecessary body contact, nothing to indicate that ""Hey, let's go"" should be taken to mean, ""Hey, I want to take you home and screw your brains out.""

Yet Warren's response was a very slurred version of ""I knew you liked me too,"" while he appeared to try to hug me and lick his own ear at the same time.

I would like to assure you that in no way did I interpret this as a compliment or an indicator of any sex appeal I may possess (trust me, I don't have any). Even journalism nerds start looking good after enough alcohol.

This is my point: Members of a common species are often identified by a common language, and clearly men and women speak languages about as different as Japanese and the sound of a V-6 engine.

No woman would ever think that having a designated driver approach her to say ""Hey, let's go"" could be a come-on. For better or worse, only a man would ever think that.

And you can't blame the alcohol either, because men always think that women are confessing their nonexistent attraction to them through general expressions.

When I was a freshman in high school, I became reacquainted with a friend whom I had not seen since preschool. The fact that Emily actually recognized me was freaky by itself, but not nearly as much as what happened two days later.

We had the same French class. In that class was also a guy who went to preschool with us and whose mother is very good friends with mine. And for some reason, Emily (who I think may be superhuman) recognized Jason, too.

I was there for the conversation. This is exactly what happened:

Emily (giddy with happiness upon having recognized another former playmate, thus being able to show off her memory superpowers): Jason? Oh my gosh, it's me, Emily!

Jason (clearly confused but no less eloquent): What?

Emily (annoyed that she is not as recognizable as she had thought): We went to preschool together!

Jason (either recognizing her, or just feeling stupid and playing along): Holy shit, you're right. Hey.

At this point we had to go to class, so we went our separate ways.

When I got home, my mother informed me that Jason's mom had told her that Jason came home, convinced that Emily would be his girlfriend before the end of the week. Apparently, when she said ""hello"" to him, Jason understood that to mean, ""Take me now, you sex machine."" Why? Because men and women simply do not share a common language.

By the way, those were their real names. I just didn't feel like making up new ones. I still maintain that Warren is an alias, though.

To bridge the language gap somewhat, I will now offer the humble beginnings of a language translator for men.

""Hello"" and all its derivatives: This is a form of greeting or acknowledgment, not to be mistaken with ""I want to fuck you.""

""How are you?"": indication of concern over emotional and/or physical state of being. Not synonymous with ""How would you like to fuck me?""

""Do we have homework?"": quantitative question, not referring to ""Do we have time for sex, or do we have too much homework?""

""Wow, it's been really hot lately,"" or other such weather-related comments: This means we want sex. Duh.

So basically, men everywhere should buy my translator when I complete it. Until then I'm staying home, where there are no drunk people to assault me, unless you count my roommate.

On Oct. 14, Gov. Gray Davis signed into law California Assembly Bill 25. The bill was one of hundreds given the OK just before the midnight deadline by which Davis had to authorize or veto bills passed by the state legislature this year.

The bill expands domestic partners' rights for same-sex couples, and for opposite-sex couples in which at least one member is over the age of 62. With the enactment of this bill, California moves to the forefront of the national debate over gay rights -- and it is a well-chosen step.

Indeed, such legislation is long overdue. We commend Davis for signing the controversial bill despite protest by many groups.

Under the new legislation, couples registered as domestic partners gain new rights formerly only afforded to married couples. Among these, they will be able to administer each other's estates, inherit property from a deceased partner without a will, sue for wrongful death on behalf of a partner and adopt a partner's child using the step-parent adoption process.

We welcome this legislation because it allows for treatment of committed gay couples in the same ways that married straight couples are. While this law does not legalize gay marriage -- which is expressly prohibited under the California Constitution -- it dodges that thorny issue and still allows for the pragmatic benefits of partnership.

The bill is also appreciated because it acknowledges that homosexuals are entitled to the same basic rights as heterosexuals and because it legally recognizes that their partnerships are as deserving as those of straight couples.

Especially promising is the provision that essentially permits partners to become stepparents, which legitimizes the validity of nontraditional families.

Critics of AB 25 claim that it is in fact a gay marriage bill under a more palatable name, that the legislation condones purportedly immoral behavior and that the bill denigrates the institution of marriage.

It is unfortunate that such bigotry is still present in California. To pass moral judgment on the actions of others is one thing, but to expect the government to make legislation based on these judgments is ridiculous.

Any law that gives equal protection under the law to a disenfranchised group is beneficial to us all.

We can now only hope that legislation such as this will become the rule and not the exception around the country, and that we as a nation will devote ourselves to ensuring the fair and equitable treatment of all our citizens, thus reaffirming the basic values that make United States a beacon of freedom around the world.

In almost every discussion I have ever had about Christianity with someone who was non-Christian or atheist, I have come away with the same level of shock at others' assumptions about my faith -- and about me -- that are presented.

As someone who describes himself as a Christian, I am more often than not automatically a homophobic, ignorant, unthinking individual in others' eyes; one who refuses to see anything other than what the church tells me to see.

Such responses disturb me for many different reasons. Primarily, I am disturbed because this phenomenon reflects not only the misunderstanding of Jesus' message by people with different perspectives on religion. More so, it reflects the misunderstanding of many Christians concerning Jesus of Nazareth.

The source of such problems is obvious. Christianity as a whole is the inheritor of a long history of injustice -- a tradition in which it takes part even today. I cannot blame many people for mistrusting Christianity when, in most of its denominations, women are not allowed to be priests or ministers, Jesus is hailed as a man who will bring eternal flame upon the wicked and homosexuals are banned from participating in any significant manner.

Let me go on the record as stating that such practices are a far cry from the ones that Jesus attempted to instill in his followers at the beginning of the ""common era,"" 2,000 years ago. To understand Jesus and his goal for humanity, we must return to his time and examine the words he spoke and the punishment he received for those words.

At the beginning of the first century, the Roman Empire stood on the brink of its ""Pax Romana,"" the period in which it enjoyed widespread peace and prosperity. Rome had spread its power throughout Europe, the Middle East and northern Africa.

The Judeans were one of the many peoples who had become subjects of Augustus Caesar against their will, and they lived an impoverished life in what was then called Palestine. Judean high priests enjoyed sickening wealth as puppets of the imperial government, while most Judeans scraped out a meager existence in the city of Jerusalem or in the desert. Women shared their social status with cattle, children were abused, the sick were outcast from society as sinners in the eyes of the Judean God and the poor were labeled as less than fully human.

Radical Judean religious leaders said that God was going to send them a messiah to lead them out of oppression. Militant Judean freedom fighters called Zealots awaited the coming of this warrior prophet and tried to inspire rebellion against Rome. Many of these fighters were subjected to the Roman practice of crucifixion in public places in towns throughout Palestine.

According to the New Testament of the Bible, God heard the cries of the Judeans and sent them Jesus.

It is difficult for us to comprehend the amazement with which people must have reacted to hear that the poor son of a carpenter was to be their liberator. People wanted a giant like Moses and, as Christians believe, they got a pacifist young man who spent his time eating and socializing with prostitutes, tax collectors, the infected, the wounded, the poor and the downtrodden.

Jesus managed to fit all this in while building a career on publicly condemning the Judean and Roman establishments of social class and conservative religious doctrine. He also proclaimed himself to be the Son of God. This did not go over well with the authorities.

Herein lies the paradox of modern Christianity. The leadership of the Catholic and Protestant churches seek to make Christianity a reactionary institution that excludes certain groups of people and silences other views, much like the institution Jesus sought to reject 2,000 years ago.

Jesus sought to build a world where all were included and valued equally as individuals.

Jesus said that those who were first on Earth would be last in heaven, and vice versa. He said that people with terminal illnesses and the poor were the beloved ones of God, not the corpulent priests of the high temples in Jerusalem or the pagan rulers of Rome. He ate at the same table as those who were labeled heretics because he knew that they were not. He conversed with lepers when no one else would, and upheld Samaritans, members of an isolated northern sect of Judaism, and just as loved in God's eyes as the Judeans.

He spoke of forgiveness and love when religious authorities spoke of punishment and banishment, things that are often invoked, tragically and ironically, in the name of Jesus by those who would call themselves Christians. For example, the Rev. Jerry Falwell professes a belief that AIDS is a result of God's wrath at society's inclusion of homosexuals. This is a man who has grossly misunderstood the message of his Lord.

For all of the trouble Jesus dedicated himself to raising, he was sentenced to die on the cross. He died somewhere around A.D. 33 as best we can tell from biblical and Roman sources.

However, from the little-noticed death of one man arose the most influential and powerful religion in the history of the world. The death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth inspired his original followers to endure horrible deaths at the hands of the Romans. In fact, until the fourth century, Christianity was illegal in Rome and anyone accused of being a follower of Christ could be executed.

Many people today, it seems, forget the past too easily. Christianity is a radical religion that has inspired people to do both gloriously wonderful and horribly ugly things for the world. Christians today forget what they are called to do: They are called to love all people and to be willing to die for the belief that God loves all people too.

Today, we live in a world where such idealistic goals seem to be distant dreams. Catholic presbyters tell their congregations that only Roman Catholics can truly be saved. At the funerals of homosexuals, fundamentalist ministers hold up signs that read ""God hates fags.""

All people who claim to be followers of Jesus should understand that such behavior is so far removed from the message of Jesus as to be laughable.

Quite simply, to be a Christian, one must understand the truth of only a few basic ideas: first, that God loves all people regardless of color, gender or creed; second, that God sent Jesus to die on the cross to save humanity from the sin of not loving all people; and finally, that the spirit of Jesus was resurrected and lives on in our daily actions.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is quite simply wrong, and those who would seek to use their faith to exclude others and to harm others are seriously perverting the message of their beloved leader.

This, I must end in saying, is true for all of God's religions on Earth.

Self-recognition and its advanced form, introspection, are two of the defining characteristics that we tend to think of as uniquely human. Yet how many of us actually reflect on the miraculous nature in which we have been formed, be it through creation or evolution?

Perhaps the most excellent example of the miraculous nature of the human form is the human visual-perceptual system. When we open our eyes, we are immediately presented with a three-dimensional representation of the world around us.

We open our eyes and we see, and yet this process is not so simple; it's more complex than we ever imagined. How do we go from light-sensing photoreceptor cells on the retina to a two-dimensional image and from there to a world that has depth, motion and color? How does the visual system ""know"" the boundaries of distinct objects? Why is it that when we see a propeller or a wheel spinning we sometimes see it as spinning in the opposite direction from the direction in which we know it to be moving? Why is it that the leading edge of a moving object is distinct while its motion often blurs the trailing edge?

The answer lies in the various biophysical aspects of the eye, but also more importantly in problem-solving shortcuts or heuristics the brain employs to reduce the computational burden of perception. These computations are so complex that they have befuddled science's best efforts to replicate the visual system. It is perhaps these researchers who, recognizant of the ineptness of their own efforts, appreciate the human visual system most fully and in a way that should impress upon the rest of us the greatness of this gift that we have been given and often take for granted.

And it is not merely a case of vision against a backdrop of blindness by which we should measure our gratitude, but by an entire gradient of vision. People exist who have deficits that disable certain aspects of their vision.

Cortical achromatopsia results in an inability to see color, relegating the perceptual world to shades of gray. Balint's syndrome results in an inability to perceive motion, presenting the world as a series of static snapshots instead of as a continuum. Blindsight results in a loss of visual consciousness so that, though the person has the ability to see, they have lost the ability to perceive that which has been seen.

I have tried to emphasize feelings of awe, humility and gratitude in explaining the visual system, not only because it is appropriate, but also because it is important to reflect outside the realm of graded curves and rote memorization of class material. This reflection will allow us to remind ourselves of the relative insignificance of man's achievements and allow us to regain a more humble and perhaps thoughtful attitude toward the knowledge we acquire and the progress we make.

It is especially important for this to occur here at UCSD because of our position as a research school. Science has often given humanity powerful tools --tools that allow for great benefits, but also great abuses. The most recent and obvious example of this being chemical and biological weaponry, but there have also been more historical abuses. The idea of eugenics -- the prohibition of people with genetic ""flaws"" to reproduce in order to ""improve"" the gene pool -- resulted from a misapplication of our understanding of human genetic heretability. The unethical, inhumane experiments of Nazi scientists were carried out in the name of science ,and the list is long and unfortunate.

There will be times when the issues will not be as clear, such as stem cell research and genetically modified foods, and at these times approaching them with appropriate humility and reflection as to the consequences of the research is of paramount importance.

The recognition that although we possess the ability to do something, we should not always do it, should remain ubiquitous in the researcher's mind.

In conclusion, let us use our vision and our intellect, which is ultimately the source of our perception, for the betterment of ourselves as individuals, as a community and as members of humanity, so we may improve the human condition.

""The lightning all but snatches away their sight; every time the light [helps] them, they walk therein, and when the darkness grows on them, they stand still. And if God willed, He could take away their faculty of hearing and seeing; for God hath power over all things,"" reads the Quran in al-Baqarah 2:20.8.

Editor:

How dare you condemn The Koala for potentially ""becoming a platform for racism at UCSD""! On the very same page of that story (Opinion, Oct. 4), you ran a cartoon with a father suggesting to his son to solve a problem with a school bully by taking a gun to school. The father informs the son, ""Cuz when you get caught up in the moment, the words just won't come out.""

From your lofty pulpit of morality and virtue you champion the cause of racism but choose to promote the use of violence, not just violence but potentially capital violence to solve problems with school bullies.

Am I mistaken or is the Guardian promoting gun-toting vigilante justice in our schools? I was shocked and appalled that such a quick-to-judge publication would support such a cause; a cause that has deeply affected this country in recent years and in my humble opinion demands serious attention.

As I sat there dismayed, I began recounting all the tragic shootings at our schools and realized I was deeply offended and confused. But suddenly I had an epiphany.

I realized that I cannot take everything I read or see seriously. That although the Guardian is willing to print such disgustingly and blatantly offensive cartoons that is its right. If it chooses to (and obviously so) support violence in our schools and be labeled by that choice, that is its right, that is any American's right. I salute the Guardian for taking such a socially dangerous stand. But that does not mean I or any one else must agree with it.

So I would like to warn Mr. Liddle or any other member of The Koala -- beware of pissing off the Guardian. It may be packing serious heat and as we have seen in their drab and ridiculously mundane paper, sometimes words don't work for it.

--Jordan Cross

ERC second year

Why is there a need for so much ""general education""?

Eleanor Roosevelt College requires its undergraduates to take 19 general education courses, or 76 units. You know what that means for the student? Nineteen courses of subjects that we could not care less about.

I have heard the arguments for having a comprehensive GE course setup. It gives students a broad education. It makes sure they have some understanding in a variety of areas. After taking the GE course lineup, students will not have deficiencies in certain fields of their education.

Like communism, this theory works better on paper than in practice. Just because students are required to take certain courses does not mean students will attend the lectures or attempt to learn the information.

People say that GE classes such as Making of the Modern World, the ERC humanities course, result in well-rounded students. Well, how well-rounded are these students when they learn so little in these classes?

Students learn what they want to learn -- nothing more. They will do what is necessary to garner themselves a decent grade. The grade is what is important in these classes, not the material.

After going through two years of MMW, I can safely say that the majority of students there did not want to be taking the course. Many students regularly skipped classes. Many did not study or do the reading at all, relying instead on cram sessions before midterms and finals.

The result of this? These students were not truly learning anything. They actually retained very little information.

Now, I am certainly not calling for attendance rolls or weekly tests on the material to ensure that students are studying. Doing so would only antagonize students further.

College should be about learning the subject or subjects that interest you most. It should not be about learning material that some committee of administrators thinks is good for you. Forcing students to study in areas other than what they are interested in often results in disinterest and dissatisfaction among the student body.

I did not come to this school to study sciences, math or non-Western fine arts. I do not have any great desire to learn about these subjects.

Many students have similar attitudes. Want proof? Look at how many students would like to transfer to Muir College, the one with the fewest GE requirements.

What is there to do about these classes? Simply tone them down. If GE courses must be in place, require two courses in math or science, two in literature and two in fine arts or language. Students can then get these courses out of the way quickly and focus on the material that actually interests them. Your computer science and engineering friend could actually graduate in four years with you.

By not having to take two years of garbage, I would not have had to take courses such as astronomy or oceanography, which have little value toward my writing skills. Does knowing how many moons Jupiter has makes me a better writer? No. Does knowing how the coastal currents near California work make me a better person? No.

Reducing GEs will result in happier students and even happier professors, who no longer would have to teach so many disinterested people. In some of these courses, it is obvious that the instructors do not want to be there. While they probably will not admit to this boredom, it is clearly present. What does this do to the students, seeing their professors look as listless as they feel? Not much good.

Do a favor to the students and professors. Eliminate these outdated requirements. Give students more freedom and variety in the classes they can choose. Let the professors teach people who actually want to be there. The more freedom and flexibility, the better.