AB-540, a measure that would allow illegal aliens who live in California to pay in-state tuition and fees to California State Universities and community colleges, is a transparent attempt to ease relations between the United States and other countries.

The California State Assembly passed the bill Sept. 14. Gov. Gray Davis vetoed the same measure last year, and after its recent approval by the assembly, it now awaits a second decision from the governor.

Though the measure only explicitly applies to CSU schools and community colleges, observers believe that, if implemented as it was in Texas, the UC Regents would quickly follow suit and adopt the bill's points.

We should not be granting benefits to illegal aliens that we do not even grant to U.S. citizens.

If we make a student from Nevada pay out-of-state tuition, we should make people who come illegally from other countries pay the same tuition.

Furthermore, this measure will cost the state money as many undocumented aliens already pay the out-of-state tuition. This is money that would be better used toward state scholarships that would benefit Americans who cannot afford to go to college.

A country should help its taxpaying citizens, of which there are plenty, before it helps illegal aliens.

Also, while the bill addresses the concern of easing the burden of exorbitant out-of-state tuition and fees for undocumented California residents, a problem that even American citizens face, the measure is inherently flawed because it does not address other concerns such as the inability of illegal aliens to work legally in the United States or to receive financial help at either the federal or state level.

Without legal California residency, illegal immigrants cannot apply for financial aid. Many students who already live in California and who are eligible for in-state tuition cannot even afford to attend college, but have the option of applying for and receiving financial aid and working. Without also granting these rights to illegal aliens in addition to lowering their tuition fees, the measure is only half of the already flawed answer to getting underrepresented students to attend California colleges.

The measure assumes that illegal aliens do not have the monetary resources to pay out-of-state tuition. Even if true, there are plenty of underrepresented legal California residents who need help. They should get priority over citizens of foreign countries who are here illegally.

The American economy just finished its worst two-week performance since the stock market crash in 1987. These financial troubles do not seem likely to stop in the near future.

Kenrick Leung
Guardian

First of all, let's assess the damages. Last week, the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 14.3 percent. That was its greatest weekly loss since 1933. In addition, the Nasdaq composite index lost 16.1 percent last week.

Furthermore, the usually robust aviation industry suffered nearly irreparable damage; stocks in the sector fell more than 60 percent since the four hijacked American commercial airliners hit and destroyed two monuments of the American way of life. This is despite a $15 billion government-funded cash- and loan-guarantees package.

Consumers have been absent from malls and theaters since the tumultuous day of Sept. 11, 2001. According to a recent New York Times article, Bloomingdale's and Macy's have encountered sales 20 percent less than forecasted. Auto sales have seen a 33 percent plunge since the attacks. One shouldn't stop to think for a second that the economy hadn't already been heading for a nosedive since President George W. Bush entered office.

In a recent New York Times article, Robert J. Barbara, the chief economist at Hoeing & Company, was quoted as saying that ""there were painful profit pressures in most sectors of the economy in the months leading up to the attack.""

Corporate earnings shrinkage will cut into federal and state corporate tax revenue. In effect, the author of the article, Jonathan Fuerbringer, argued that this means that ""the federal budget will shrink faster, and that will put pressure on states to reduce spending because most of them cannot run deficits.""

Although stocks did spring back considerably Monday, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that the terrorist attacks could delay recovery in the world's top economy by a ""quarter or so."" It would be a broad and dangerous statement to say that the recent tumble of the economy as well as the terrorist attacks could be blamed on an act by a single person.

All the same, I think a very capable argument could be made that Bush's ""hands-off"" policy toward the Middle East since his election has not only strained relations between the United States and its OPEC friends and turned the stock market from a bull to a bear, but it may have also provoked the attacks.

Since his election, President Bush has employed and instructed his subordinates to employ a very isolationist foreign policy toward the Middle East. He has made no effort to facilitate a peace agreement between Yasser Arafat and current Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Consequently, the war has raged on in the Holy Land for a year now. The years of diplomacy efforts made by former president Bill Clinton have been for nothing. The proximity to a peace agreement and establishment of a Palestinian state with Israeli approval, which seemed possible just a year ago, now seem like a century ago.

In addition to his lack of concern for peace in the Holy Land, Bush has recently attempted to use the ""Big Stick"" technique popularized by Theodore Roosevelt. Since the terrorist attacks, he has sent orders and ultimatums daily throughout the Islamic world. This is not a good path to take when one is not showing concern for what is thought to be most important to many in the Middle East: peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. His ""Big Stick"" may become a stick of dynamite for our down-home country president.

I realize now may not be the time to poke fun at Dubya; after all, it is a time of national crisis and he is the one in charge. Nonetheless, the techniques he may have used to order ranch hands around back home will not be as influential in the current situation.

Bush has already declared that anyone harboring terrorists is an enemy of the United States. So far, he has not revealed what military procedures he will use to combat this ""aiding and abetting.""

However, as earlier noted, the president must be very careful. His current nonchalance toward the violence continuing in Israel and Palestine, in addition to the continual U.S. support of Zionism, has already tensed relations between the United States and its OPEC trading partners. In addition to this, many Middle Eastern countries think the United States should drop Iraqi economic sanctions, which have been active since the Persian Gulf War.

There is a deep dislike held by many Persian Gulf countries toward the United States. Neela Banerjee of the New York Times argues that ""many Arabs blame the American thirst for oil for miring them in shaky economies run by corrupt leaders."" Although Arab countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been extremely cooperative with the United States since the attacks, at the same time these governments hold a hidden fear.

Because of their already unstable governments, if these countries align themselves too closely with American anti-terrorist efforts and if Washington targets many Islamic countries in its own efforts for revenge, moderate Arab regimes could be crippled by uprisings.

This is not to mention that these same Arab regimes control two-thirds of the world's oil supply under lock and key. According to the Bush administration, the United States has let the OPEC cartel ""know"" that it would like the output of oil to increase so that prices would drop and counteract the current American economic recession. With such a basic need as oil hanging in the balance, the White House has been carefully analyzing which forms of retribution it will employ in response to the terrorist attacks, keeping in mind, of course, that these actions could affect American oil supplies.

Hopefully the White House will make significant preparations so that the huge backswing of Dubya's big stick does not hit himself, as well as the American economy, in the ass, causing even more domestic turmoil.

It is important to consider that the OPEC cartel had no problem placing an oil embargo on the United States in 1973 in response to American Support of Israel in the Middle East War.

There is no doubt that the American economy is headed for a deep recession. Conflict abroad has made consumers wary of delving deeper into credit debt. Huge layoffs have been made in both the aviation and technology industries in the last couple weeks.

I myself have even felt the effects of the approaching economic troubles. My roommate, who until recently worked in the real estate industry, just got laid off. Supposedly the real estate business in San Diego is booming. Nonetheless, he and 40 other employees were let go by Commonwealth Land and Title two weeks ago. Obviously, the economic hurt has already begun. Usually the American economy is prosperous during times of war; this time it is quite the opposite.

In order to fight a war we need oil. Unfortunately, oil is strategically placed within many countries the citizens and leaders of which may support our alleged enemy, the Taliban of Afghanistan.

If Bush's reckless yet patriotic political maneuvers continue, there is no doubt that our country is headed for a severe recession and a costly war with an invisible enemy. The effects felt at home could be a combination of Vietnam and the oil embargo of 1973.

COLLEGE STATION, Texas -- Pornography is as hard to find at Texas A&M University as beer and pizza. It is everywhere: in dorm rooms, at Barnes & Noble Booksellers, on computers and at Blockbuster. Many people maintain a ""boys will be boys"" attitude toward pornography. They think it is natural for guys to look at ""dirty magazines"" and that no one is hurt in the process. These people are wrong.

Pornography devalues human life and it is a direct contributor to violence against women.

Of 36 serial murderers interviewed by the FBI in 1985, 81 percent admitted to extensively using pornography.

Pornography plays a major role in many violent offenses, particularly those that are sex-related.

In a laboratory study, sociologist Diana Russell showed the desensitizing effect pornography had on Bundy is common. Russell found that male college students ""were more prone to accept commonly held conceptions like 'a woman really wants to be raped,' and 'yes means no,'"" after being exposed to pornography in which women were depicted as enjoying rape. After repeated exposure for only two weeks, the college males ""found the violent pornography to be less and less violent,"" and some subjects became increasingly aroused by the images.

Pornography often leads to violence because it devalues human life. It strips women of their human characteristics and leaves only two-dimensional objects whose sole purposes are gratifying their users. The fantasies in which users indulge center around themselves and their desires. Men who use pornography eventually stop seeing the women in pornographic images as human. In this way, pornography works as a catalyst in propelling sexual and violent fantasies into reality. As women become less human, they become easier to use, leading, in some cases, to murder.

There is the danger that those who use relatively mild porn, like Playboy, will move on to more explicit pornography. This progression is common because of pornography's addictive nature.

The Internet has made it possible to view limitless numbers of sexually and violently explicit images at any time, in any place, at no cost and with total anonymity.

The United States needs to recognize the dangers that pornography poses to our country. Drunk on our own freedoms, we are more concerned with our perceived right to look at what we choose than with the men rotting in addiction and the women suffering violence because of porn. If we do not take steps to remove it from our communities, we will all pay the price together.

-- Charlton Wimberly

The Battalion

In May 2001, two events spaced 10 days apart effectively framed the status of the U.S. government's attitude toward the burgeoning American rave and club scene.

On May 7, New York City police shut down legendary night club Twilo amid allegations of illegal drug use, overdoses and the owners' operation of the club without proper permits.

On May 17, the U.S. government reached a plea agreement with New Orleans rave promoters Robert and Brian Brunet, who had been prosecuted under the obscure federal ""crack house law."" This was the first instance in which the law was applied to a concert venue -- the State Palace Theater in New Orleans, where the defendants were promoting a rave. Its application targeted the promoters of events where illegal drug use may have occurred, the determination for which was made from an assessment of the presence of items such as pacifiers and glow sticks.

New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's battle to shut down Twilo and other city night spots has been going strong for at least two years, say sources in his administration.

This targeting, and what is almost certainly a misapplication of the crack house law, point to a disturbing government trend: As the rave and club scene has grown more popular in the United States, the government has responded to what it perceives as a threat with the use of strong-armed and often questionable legal tactics.

The government's insistence that it continue to fight its fruitless ""War on Drugs"" has had consequences for activities in the dance music community that would not otherwise have been a concern.

Government officials, eager to thwart even the possibility of creation of zones where drug use might occur, have persisted in shutting down dance festivals and clubs. To throw a party has become a criminal activity: The law thwarts organizers at every turn, denying them the permits and cooperation necessary to hold a safe and legal event. This mentality led to the prosecution of the Brunet brothers under the crack house law.

The Electronic Music Defense & Education Fund monitors government crackdown on dance events and their promoters and assists them in legal battles. It quoted law professor Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee, whose interpretation was that ""the crack house law was directed at people who took over abandoned buildings by force of arms and used them as headquarters for drug dealing.""

The application of the law in the Brunet case is far different. The government based its case on Drug Enforcement Agency surveillance videotape from an event held at the State Palace Theater, in which people were filmed using glow sticks, pacifiers and Vicks VapoRub masks. These items, the prosecutors alleged, were evidence that the promoters were allowing drug use in defiance of the law.

The logical jump that prosecutors made to arrive at that conclusion is staggering. Once everyday items can be taken as evidence for drug use, the government has gone too far in flexing its authority. This does not even consider, of course, that the crack house law was likely misapplied in the first place to serve the interests of the DEA.

The government's zeal in persecuting dance culture will only result in more dangerous, expensive and lower-quality events for the majority of clubgoers who truly love the music.

Events are frequently canceled before they can even get off the ground due to government stonewalling.

The cancellation of British club Cream's massive ""Creamfields"" events -- one in New York, one in Las Vegas -- are believed to have come about in part due to the organizers' inability to secure permits from paranoid and government-intimidated property holders.

UCSD's DJs and Vinylphiles Club has been subject to similar suspicion from campus administrators. After 2000's wildly successful ""Movement"" event, the administration clamped down on the club, limiting the number of people at any event and all but restricting attendees to UCSD students.

Of course, those who have the most to lose in this battle are those caught in the tug-of-war between the government and event organizers -- the clubbers and ravers who populate events.

Before its shutdown, Twilo's management had contracted a private ambulance company to aid in medical emergencies at the club. It did so because 911 calls from a night club -- for whatever reason -- can be used against a club's management as evidence for a disorderly conduct violation.

In a controversial moment for the New York Police Department, ""New York Magazine"" reported that NYPD officers blocked a privately contracted ambulance from leaving Twilo last April until the officers could obtain information about a victim inside. According to some reports, the officers then allowed a New York Daily News photographer access to the ambulance before it could depart for the hospital.

It's still unclear how much the government is going to be able to get away with in the realm of dance culture crackdowns. It appears that prosecutors are willing to take the most liberal -- and perhaps unconstitutional -- view of the law to achieve their ends.

Without education and vigilant resistance to these actions, those who love the music may have an increasingly difficult time finding it.

In the aftermath of last week's terrorist acts comes another attack: a nationwide backlash against Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent.

Amid the political leadership's cries for unity and justice, the children of Middle Eastern immigrants are feeling foreign in their own land. It is as if these people are somehow less ""American"" than their peers simply because they adhere to the tenets of Islam and are brown-skinned.

As the child of Indian immigrants, I spent most of my life feeling ""American"" because I was born and raised here.

While I respected and held onto certain facets of Indian culture, I also assimilated into what I consider a diverse and tolerant society.

That is the main reason I am so shocked by the insensitivity some Americans have shown toward Muslims, and particularly people whom they perceive to be from the Middle East.

These bigots compose only a small minority, but they still have the potential to cause catastrophic harm.

Several recent incidents around the United States, including the murders of two men who appeared Middle Eastern to their attackers, highlight this fact.

I am neither Muslim nor of Afghani descent, but in the past few weeks I have experienced what it feels like to be regarded with suspicion and disgust.

On a recent outing with a few of my Iranian friends, during which we were discussing the collapse of the World Trade Center, an older man leaned over to say, ""You guys should have been the ones to die in there.""

Hindsight provided me with a few witty replies, but at the time I was too shocked and dismayed to say anything.

I just stared at him, open-mouthed. I was flabbergasted by how anyone could say something so cruel.

It was not just that incident that showed me that a large, public anti-Muslim and anti-Middle Eastern sentiment is growing.

It is experiences such as that of my cousin, who works in a large New York law firm. A co-worker asked her, ""What is wrong with your people?""

My cousin, incidentally, was born in the United States and spent most of her childhood in New York. Her parents are from India, not the Middle East.

This antagonizing sentiment has also exhibited itself to me in the encounters of friends who feel alienated by the hostile glances of complete strangers.

Even when I attended a memorial vigil -- which quickly turned into expressions of anger against ""enemies of America"" -- I had to leave because of the quizzical glances from people whose eyes all asked the same thing: ""Why are you here?""

As much as I try to blend in, my dark skin and my ethnic background prevent me from doing so.

I feel strange being made to think I don't belong in the country in which I have spent my entire life.

I could drape myself in an American flag, cover my car with red, white and blue, but none of this would erase the suspicious misconceptions others have of me. Ironically, people would think I have more to hide.

I am an American, and I treasure and benefit from all the civil liberties and opportunities the United States has to share.

But what I have experienced recently has made me second-guess the truth of our country's pride in having created a nation with ""liberty and justice for all.""

I don't want to believe that these words are hollow, especially at a time when national solidarity is most important.

I certainly don't want to think that my neighbors, my peers and even my landlord see me as less American than they are.

I believe that most Americans know the difference between a terrorist and a law-abiding citizen. I hope it's just the ignorant few who want to get the Muslims and ""Arabs"" out of this country.

Nevertheless, I believe that as the United States prepares for the possibility of war with Afghanistan and any other nation aiding Osama bin Laden, there is a greater need for tolerance and unity.

I don't want the terrorists to have been successful in destroying both thousands of lives and our notion of security, as well as fracturing the United States from the inside. That will only create an environment in which Americans are pitted against one another.

It may not be time for a mass ""Kumbaya,"" but we do need one another in this crisis.

This is America's litmus test before the world. I hope that we do not fail it.

I was driving on Interstate 5 the other day and some jerk with an American flag on his vehicle cut me off.

At first I thought, ""Hey, maybe the president is in town.""

That really makes me wonder -- you know how AM radio stations have ""traffic reporter Bob,"" who has just won a T-shirt for wasting his cell phone's anytime minutes by calling in yet another overturned truck? Do terrorists then have ""president reporter Abdul?""

I want to be Abdul. It probably pays better than writing columns, and it's something I would enjoy doing. And you know what they always say: Find something that you would enjoy doing even if you weren't getting paid for it. I think that reporting President George W. Bush's whereabouts to terrorists might be a viable position.

All these thoughts were going through my head -- along with the mild irritation that accompanies getting cut off -- and I realized that it wasn't a presidential vehicle that had cut me off.

That could also have been obvious from the fact that the vehicle in question was a Toyota missing the letters ""TO"" and ""TA"" from the back.

I don't really have a problem with people cutting me off. I do have a newly formed irritation with pseudo-patriots, though.

My girlfriend and I were driving to Los Angeles, playing out-of-state license. It is a game in which a spotter, upon seeing a license plate that is indeed from another state, yells the name of the state and then slams his fist into the arm of the person sitting next to him. We simplified the game to use only American flags.

Don't play this game if you are the driver, especially if you plan on driving down long city streets where there is a flag on every street light. You are in for a world of pain.

I noticed the posters that some nice people had made and placed on every freeway overpass for a good 50 miles. My favorite slogan on these posters was, ""A nation in pain is a nation united.""

Just what are the authors implying? Perhaps we should have a national tragedy every week. If we could line up the Oklahoma City bombing, Columbine, Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center bombing all in the same week, we'd be super-united. We'd be the Super-United States of America.

One might say that I don't like flags because I have come to that point through conditioning, having made a psychological connection between pain and flags.

One might also say that I don't like flags because there are so many posers who think that by fishing out their nappy, Old Navy Fourth of July flag T-shirts and putting them on in the morning, they're better people.

These are the same people who eat up the ""5 percent of your purchase goes to the American Red Cross between the hours of 11 p.m. and 11:10 p.m."" when you buy stereo equipment at The Good Guys.

These are the same people who buy the ""Brownie Americaine"" -- which is in French, mind you -- at Extraordinary Desserts. It bears an amazing similarity to the ""Extraordinary Brownie"" from last week, except that it is topped by an American flag on a toothpick.

These are the same people who buy the heart-shaped pillow at Ikea, the proceeds from which go to the American Red Cross -- yet at the same time, Ikea is only offering it so you'll shop there.

Donate blood. Donate money to the American Red Cross. I've done neither, but at the same time, I'm not a poser.

What you shouldn't do is go out and buy an American flag. Wal-Mart's stock of 500,000 American flags sold out last week.

Let's do some math here. Let's say a flag costs $7. That's $3.5 million that could have gone directly to the Red Cross, but 500,000 people were too concerned about ""America Under Attack, America United!"" to figure this out on their own.

Now Wal-Mart has half of your money, and every other clothing store has the other half from unloading its Fourth of July merchandise on you. They were all about to declare that a tax write-off.

So now you're thinking, ""OK, I won't buy a flag, I'll print one out."" That's tacky and stupid. The only thing worse than a poser is a cheap poser.

Cloth flags have certain advantages over paper flags. First of all, real flags are double-sided. When someone sees a real flag from the other side, he sees stars and stripes, not the White States of 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches.

Also, real flags don't crumple. If they get wrinkled, you put them out in the wind where they're supposed to be, instead of your car window, and they iron themselves out.

One of the advantages of paper flags, however, is that I don't see people getting worked up over burning pieces of paper.

Many people burn pieces of paper -- sometimes to light barbecues or fireplaces, or sometimes they burn second-to-last wills and testaments after they find their lovers in bed with a plumber trying to fit something that isn't a crescent wrench into a hole that isn't copper tubing.

Look at all these new concepts we've discovered in the last week: pseudo-patriots, people who think printing out American flags on pieces of paper is a good idea, and so on.

Last on the list is flag theft, which is in the news. Although I can't say I support flag theft, I'm in no way sorry for the last moron who jumped on the flag bandwagon and got his flag stolen.

When is it possible to steal flags at all? At night.

And when are you supposed to take your flag down?

To find out, read the piece of paper that came with your flag. No, not the one that says ""Made in Taiwan.""

That's right: at night.

In times of national crisis, especially war, a lot of trite platitudes about the nobility of sacrifice are bandied about, as if pundits and politicians just discovered a dusty copy of ""Bartlett's Quotations"" on their office shelves.

When a country battles abroad or is besieged, the reasoning goes, certain luxuries to which we are accustomed must be given up. Food may be rationed; travel may be restricted; laws may be tightened; and the allowances we take for granted in our society may be curtailed.

Reviewing such circumstances in U.S. history is a long and redundant process. Obviously, they run the gamut from harmless inconveniences -- for example, the unavailability of ladies' stockings during World War II due to the need for nylon for parachutes -- to gross abuses of human rights, such as the internment of nearly 120,000 Japanese-Americans during the same war. It is the myriad offenses that occur somewhere in between these extremes that Americans must now concern ourselves with.

President George W. Bush and his advisers have made it quite clear that military action is on the immediate horizon, and have from the outset used the word ""war"" to prepare us for a protracted engagement. This will be no hit-and-run, dine-and-dash spurt of air strikes from which America emerges unaffected, unscathed. Indeed, waging a ""war on terrorism"" at all is arguably unwinnable in the first place -- but that's for another debate.

With no clearly defined long-term goals for the lofty campaign, it's safest to assume the worst: We're in for a long and bumpy ride. Eradicating terrorism? Who decides who's a terrorist? How will we ever know if they're all gone?

National leaders have lately been encouraging us to return to our normal lives as much as is possible. They remind us that the nature of the terrorist attack is to inspire fear, to disrupt a community's sense of itself and to cause chaos. They say that if we cannot move on and show our strength, then the terrorists have won.

They would do well to remember these words when considering how to balance the demands of national security and the liberties we all value as Americans.

Lawmakers will face tough calls in the upcoming weeks, months and years, and it all begins now, when they set the tenor for the continuing conflict and its ramifications on the home front.

Although America moves toward an open-ended war, our civil liberties must be preserved at all costs. If we allow our freedom-loving society to be altered, our democracy denigrated, then we have given the haters of the West exactly what they want.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has proposed a wide-ranging package of legislation aimed at making it easier to bring terrorists to justice. The measures are collectively called the ""Mobilization Against Terrorism Act,"" and Ashcroft has repeatedly expressed his desire to push them through Congress with minimal debate and no public hearings.

While Ashcroft's intent is undoubtedly honorable and the immediacy surrounding threats to American citizens is pressing and very real, in the words of a terribly wise forefather, haste makes waste.

It is better to ensure that legislators and the American public are aware of the full ramifications of such laws than to charge ahead blindly and later be stuck with more than we bargained for. Public debate of the proposals is especially crucial when they potentially threaten the most important underpinnings of our society and government.

The measures to be debated vary in their scope from expansions of surveillance abilities for law enforcement to allowances for opening what were once matters of private record.

Ashcroft argues that because of the nature of terrorism, and the essentially different means by which it is organized and executed, the government must keep up with the times and exploit all possible lines of investigation. Some of the provisions are a concern; some are not.

One of the better aspects of the act is the revision of the nation's wiretap policy. Currently, investigators must obtain a judge's approval for a wiretap for a specific phone number, and the review process is not an easy one, involving a high degree of evidence and justification for the wiretap. Investigators must prove not only that the suspect is, indeed, likely involved in illegal acts, but that the suspect uses the phone line to be tapped to conduct the untoward business.

Fifty years ago, when a criminal might only use one phone number to telephone associates and accessories, such a review process was acceptable. Now, however, it is easy for a criminal to maintain several wireless accounts at once, and switch phones and phone numbers on a regular, unpredictable basis, foiling wiretap efforts.

Ashcroft has proposed that wiretaps now be targeted at an individual, and not any specific phone line associated with that individual, allowing investigators to adapt to the suspect's changing means of communication. The review process for the wiretap OK would still be rigorous, and the rights of Americans would be preserved.

An eyebrow-raising aspect of the measure is the power to access previously private educational records of suspected terrorists -- and bear in mind that under this act, a ""terrorist"" is not only the suicide bomber or deranged murderer, but also anyone who knows or should know that an organization he supports in any way is a terrorist organization.

Currently, the only persons able to access one's transcripts and other elements of education files are the individual in question and his parents. Consent from one or the other is required for investigators to view any such records.

Obviously, information contained in these files could provide relevant evidence in pursuing and identifying terrorists, especially in establishing that they had the know-how to craft a certain type of biological weapon or, say, fly a certain kind of commercial airliner.

However, such a power also subjects the sensitive academic histories of Americans to prying eyes. Privacy is a fundamental right in this country, and one we should prize and defend.

If the idea of federal investigators being able to check out students' embarrassing O-chem grades isn't thrilling, consider instead one of the more upsetting provisions under the act.

Americans are fortunate in that we have a well-regulated set of checks and balances within our legal system. These checks and balances lessen the number of abuses that can be committed (obviously abuses still occur, and it's safe to assume that plenty go unpunished).

However, many other countries in our global community afford no such consideration to their citizens, and are not restricted from violating people's rights in order to apprehend suspects or gain information.

Out of some sense of moral duty or common decency, it has been America's policy not to use electronic surveillance information gathered by foreign governments with methods that violate our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Ashcroft would change that.

One assumes that he is trying to foster international cooperation and ensure that intelligence is disseminated without regards to political borders -- a noble goal and certainly useful in fighting terrorism.

However, to accept information that we know could have been gathered in unsavory ways (and no doubt our government is well-acquainted with which countries engage in such practices) is tantamount to condoning the very behavior we have prohibited on our home soil. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

The American Civil Liberties Union identifies perhaps the most threatening provision under Ashcroft's act, which would greatly expand the government's power to detain and deport suspected terrorists without a legal hearing, or indeed evidence.

Also, the time limit on detaining suspected criminals, now 24 hours, would be eliminated for those suspected of terrorism.

This is a total rejection of the judicial standards for which this country has fought and is held up as a model among democratic nations. The ACLU's executive director, Anthony D. Romero, stated, ""Without a legal hearing, there would be no opportunity to contest the Attorney General's decision to scrutinize the criteria upon which the decision was made.""

Clearly, this vests entirely too much power in the hands of one government agency and provides no check on that considerable power.

Juliette Kayyem, the director of a counterterrorism project at Harvard University, explained to The Boston Globe, ""Based on suspicion and innuendo, people are going to be able to be detained indefinitely.""

The enactment of this measure has the potential to become a major setback to justice in this country, and should be completely dropped from consideration.

Many advocates of the act have suggested a so-called ""sunset clause,"" whereby the act has an expiration date of sorts, upon which the legislation must be re-evaluated. If Congress then decides it is no longer necessary as we are no longer at war, they can simply let it expire. However, as stated above, the very nature of this ""war on terrorism"" is indefinite, with no clear end in sight, and so we must carefully consider what could effectively become permanent legislation.

Throughout the mounting discussion surrounding the Mobilization Against Terrorism Act, the act's proponents have consistently said they are dedicated to protecting Americans' civil liberties while acknowledging the sacrifices necessary in striving for improved national security.

It is a difficult balance to strike, and care must be taken. Some of the Act hits the right notes, while others ought to be dropped altogether.

Ashcroft himself said it well on Sept. 20 in his speech at the Pennsylvania crash site of United Airlines flight 193. He explained that the terrorists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11 tried to ""disrupt America's life of freedom and liberty,"" and that we cannot let them achieve this goal.

If we give up the liberties and freedoms that make America what it is, then they have won.

In times of international crisis, it has become traditional for Americans to drop political differences and unwaveringly support whoever is in the White House at the time.

Tuesday's events were no exception to history's rule. Days after the multiple terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, special inserts were included in newspapers across the country such as the San Diego Union-Tribune and Washington Post: a newspaper page-sized American flag, on the back of which was printed quotes from our current chief executive.

The History Channel was running a television advertisement that flashed vintage quotes, first from Lincoln's Gettysburg address, then Roosevelt's ""Day of Infamy"" speech, and finally, President George W. Bush's speech from last Tuesday.

The implicit message, of course, was that these were trying times, and indeed, the leaders' quotes had risen to the occasion with memorable words that inspired the nation.

Bush, however, does not belong in this pantheon. His words and actions last Tuesday spoke more of fear than leadership.

His words, spoken from his concealment in the Oval Office and sanitized by the medium of television cameras, seemed uncompassionate and unfeeling.

Indeed, while Bush's support levels remain unalterably high due to the symbolic nature of his office, he has missed an opportunity to focus efforts on rebuilding public confidence, instead taking a vague rhetorical route promising retribution that only increases the crisis atmosphere.

What went wrong with Bush's behavior? First of all, Bush's early response, voiced with schoolchildren behind him (as the Washington Post scoffed, ""Did he think this was some sort of photo op?"") was an inadequate promise to find those responsible and punish them. Minutes later, a plane went into the Pentagon.

When one steps back from the events of last Tuesday, one wonders what Bush was doing making ineffectual comments when there were still airliners in American skies. Instead of making hasty, ill-prepared comments, shouldn't he have been assessing the situation?

About an hour later, he again appeared to make some hasty comments, but then started flying around the country like some sort of scared animal, first from Florida to an air base in the South, then to Omaha, Neb., then finally back to the Capitol in the late afternoon once it was clear that the danger was past.

Yes, the president of the United States is a likely terrorist target. But under such pressure, what Americans need to see is a leader of confidence, willing to take the risk of attack in Washington.

In staying away from an above-ground target such as the White House until commercial air traffic was cleared and the building itself was cleared, Bush did not decisively return to the capital city and take the helm of the country.

This all seems trivial, but the point is that Bush failed to show Americans what needed to be shown the most: that terrorists would not alter the fabric of our lives in this country, and indeed, would not make us afraid.

Our chief executive cowering in hiding from action was a far cry from former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's reaction during a terrorist attack on her life and the lives of her cabinet members.

Less than an hour after an Irish Republican Army bomb went off in a hotel in Brighton, England, where she was staying, Thatcher appeared on television fully dressed and refused to let terrorists alter her schedule.

Although the circumstances are very different -- the attack in England was on the prime minister rather than on hordes of citizens -- it clearly illustrates what Bush lacked: a clear understanding that the aim of terrorists is to scare the populace into believing that their lives are in danger constantly and that their country and leaders are helpless to protect them. The primary message should not have been retribution. The primary message should have been defiance.

Bush's speech later Tuesday night also lacked the fire of defiance that Americans could have drawn on. While Bush had perhaps decided to resort to a minimalist effect, as he has done throughout his short presidency, in times like these the last thing that Americans want is a minimalist president.

What Bush should have and could have done was to seize the opportunity to take the bully pulpit and actually lead the country -- call a joint session of Congress and stand before them to defiantly encourage Americans not only to live their lives out of fear, but also to rebuild.

While retribution no doubt is a necessary and primary part of the message, defiance against terrorists was hardly a focus of Bush's speech.

The closest he got was glossed-over terms about refusing to let terrorists ""destroy freedom"" and practical matters pertaining to the opening of federal offices and stability of our economic system.

There was no talk of helping to rebuild New York's buildings and people, no words encouraging Americans to have faith that the air traffic system will be reconstructed in spite of terrorist attacks.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had the right idea -- he and other military leaders held a press conference in the shattered Pentagon, demonstrating that the building would not be shut down.

Bush needed to drive home the same point for civilians, encouraging people to return to work and school, but instead perpetuated the air of crisis by emphasizing that the military was on alert to guarantee our security.

What the administration failed to realize is that terrorism is not a war against our military forces. This has been a blindside of this young administration already -- domestic policy is shaped by international rhetoric, a mingling that tries to drag the usual solidarity of American overseas rhetoric back home to support domestic aims.

Indeed, while most of Bush's focus had first been on victims, it then turned to war and military engagement. This is all well and good, and compassionate and caring for the victims, but it allows the terrorists to achieve exactly what they wanted -- an air of crisis that decreases American confidence in transportation networks and public places.

Yes, broad increased security measures must be taken. Yes, the dead and lost should be respectfully mourned. But in a war against the public, Bush needed to remind the public that it would have to stand defiant as soldiers against a threat that wants it to cower back in fear for its members' daily lives. Bush couldn't even muster that courage for himself.

There is one issue that I do not like to talk about, despite the fact that I feel strongly about it. I always fear that in explaining the reasons behind my actions, I will unwittingly turn people off by appearing to be too preachy. And so, for the most part, I have kept my mouth shut.

Despite my reluctance, over the years I have become more assertive. I find the issue relevant and yet so absent from our daily discussions. What is this taboo topic, the very mention of which I fear may incite an outpouring of angry responses? Animal rights, of course.

A dirty phrase for many, a perplexity for others, animal rights always seems to get a bad rap. Many arguments in support of it remain the same trite and overly emotional cliches such as, ""Don't eat meat, you're murdering innocent lives,"" or ""Animals are more important than humans,"" which usually turn people off instead of piquing their curiosity.

I support the struggle of these people, but not their methods. In my experience, this kind of language usually fails miserably and only makes the most fervent skeptics more skeptical.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the largest animal rights organization in the United States, defines animal rights as consideration for an animal's best interests regardless of whether the animal is cute, useful to humans or an endangered species, and regardless of whether any human cares about it at all -- just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he is not cute, useful or universally liked.

While I acknowledge that everyone is entitled to his opinion and that imposing one's beliefs on others is both rude and self-righteous, I also remember an insightful quote that challenges this notion. It says, ""Freedom of thought does not always imply freedom of action.""

In other words, ""You are free to believe whatever you want as long as you don't hurt others. You may believe that animals should be killed, that black people should be enslaved, or that women should be beaten, but you don't always have the right to put your beliefs into practice.""

Besides, is a person not doing the exact same thing when telling others they have no right to tell other people what to do?

I have friends who ask me, ""Why are you a vegetarian? What difference does it make?"" For a long time, I used to wonder the same myself. Only after researching the issue on my own did I realize how significant my actions are.

Whatever angle you take, be it global or personal, expanding one's ethics to include the welfare of animals just makes sense.

According to PETA, the meat industry causes more water pollution in the United States than any other industry because the animals raised for food produce 130 times more excrement than the entire human population -- 86,600 pounds per second.

Additionally, raising animals for food consumes more than half of all the water used in the United States -- it takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of meat, versus 25 gallons of water to produce one pound of wheat.

One pamphlet reads, ""Think you can be a meat-eating environmentalist? Think again."" Many who whine about rainforests being destroyed fail to realize that much of that land is destroyed to create space for animals to graze. In fact, 55 square feet of land are consumed for every quarter-pound fast food burger made of rainforest beef.

Many doctors and nutritionists agree that a vegetarian diet is healthier. For instance, Cornell University nutritional biochemist T. Colin Campbell supervised the largest, most in-depth nutritional epidemiological study of its kind ever performed. He concluded, ""We're basically a vegetarian species and should be eating a wide variety of plant foods and minimizing our intake of animal foods.""

Carnivorous animals have curved fangs, claws and a short digestive tract. Humans have evolved without these traits. Our so-called ""canine"" teeth are minuscule in comparison. We have flat molars and a long digestive tract that are more suited for a diet of vegetables, fruits and grains.

Campbell has said also that in the next 10 years the public will begin to hear that animal protein is in fact a toxic compound. A connection between cholesterol from meat consumption and heart disease -- does that sound familiar?

Getting enough protein is a concern for some, but according to Campbell's study and those of other professionals in the field, excess animal protein has been linked to osteoporosis, kidney diseases and cancer. It has been shown that Americans typically have three to four times as much protein in their diet as is necessary.

Finally, there is the ethical argument against animal exploitation. Those who are religious may argue that God put animals on Earth for us to use. ""Dominion over animals"" is not the same as tyranny, however. Nothing in the Bible would justify our modern-day policies and practices of destroying the earth, eradicating entire species of wildlife and subjecting billions of animals each year to pain and suffering.

What kind of suffering? For starters, in the lucrative chicken industry, farmers slice off baby birds' beaks with a hot blade, sometimes removing part of their tongues or faces.

At the slaughterhouse, some cows have their ears, udders and feet cut off while they are still fully conscious. Most dairy cows are confined their entire, brief lives in narrow concrete stalls.

To ensure continual lactation, most are constantly impregnated through artificial insemination and are immediately separated from their calves. After only six or seven years in the dairy industry -- less than one-third of their possible life expectancy -- most cows are spent and will be sold for low-grade beef.

The most alarming fact about the meat industry is its size. Nearly 9 billion animals per year are crammed into tiny cages on ""factory farms,"" where they never see the sun, breathe fresh air or feel grass beneath their feet, only to be slaughtered shortly after birth.

Expanding one's ethics to include the welfare of animals has unique problems. Most frustrating is the question of where to draw the line. My favorite answer to this comes from the book ""We can't stop all suffering, but that does not mean we shouldn't stop any.""

Even Albert Schweitzer, the famous humanitarian, would take time to stoop down and move a worm scorching in the sun to cool earth. He had an apt response to this ethical dilemma as well.

""[We must] live daily from judgment to judgment, deciding each case as it arises, as wisely and mercifully as we can,"" he said.

The argument that vegetarianism is a personal choice that should not be forced upon others seems to be valid. However, our society also argues that from a moral standpoint, actions that harm others are not matters of personal choice. Few would argue today that slavery or child labor is not immoral. However, history has taught us that society encouraged practices at one time that are now widely accepted as wrong.

I once heard that legality is no guarantee for morality. Animal rights is no different, and just because it is legal to abuse and exploit animals, usually with the public completely unaware of it, does not make it right.

All reform movements have initially encountered opposition from people who have wanted to maintain the status quo. However, the shady story behind the meat you ate last night will remain the same.

The meat industry is a business, after all, and like any other, its main objective is to make money. Deceiving the public through fancy ads and pro-meat propaganda to make normal what is so utterly abnormal is just business as usual.

For the sake of the animals themselves, the environment, personal health or just the ethics of it all, I encourage everyone, especially the skeptics, simply to look into the matter.

Research and discover the facts for yourself. Who knows -- in the process, perhaps someone will prove me wrong. I doubt it.

While touring UCSD for the first time a few years ago, I couldn't help but notice the five big stone blocks sitting out in the middle of Marshall field. Confused but intrigued, I asked the equally clueless tour guide what the blocks were supposed to be.

""Some artist, a guy named Stuart or something, makes these weird sculptures all over campus,"" he said. ""I think the blocks are supposed to represent haystacks.""

Trying to salvage his tour guide image, he quickly turned our attention to something he had real knowledge of: those cool ""Andre the Giant Has a Posse"" stickers.

As is the case with much of the Stuart Collection at UCSD, Ian Hamilton Finlay's ""UNDA"" -- or, ""Big Ugly Haystacks,"" as I like to call them -- is underappreciated and misunderstood.

None of the sculptures is produced by a guy named Stuart. The collection is named after the Stuart Foundation, which sponsors the artists.

Despite a bad first impression, I have grown to enjoy the Stuart Collection. I think more students would share this feeling if they took more time to understand the creative expression of the artists who have worked on these outdoor sculptures.

Upon closer examination, ""UNDA"" reveals a much more subtle appeal for those who need more than stone haystacks to be intellectually stimulated. Hopefully, that's you, UCSD students with your average S.A.T. score of 1259.

Each block contains the letters U, N, D and A, but arranged in different order. An s-shaped symbol is placed between letters, which is a proofreader's mark that means ""transpose these letters."" Once all the transposing -- fancy talk for ""discombobulating"" -- is through, each block spells the word UNDA.

After I learned this, it seemed to me that there was more to the Stuart Collection than big ugly haystacks that weren't really haystacks at all. Some of these sculptures might even be cool, I thought.

Another piece that initially baffled me as a new UCSD student was the big blue fence in the forest between Peterson Hall and the Price Center. It looked really weird, but apparently it isn't just any old blue fence, it's ""Two Running Violet V Forms"" by Robert Irwin.

Indeed, there is more to it than it appears at first.

The sculpture consists of two perfectly geometrical ""V"" shapes conforming to the pattern of the trees, revealing that this is a man-made forest planted in rows, but the way the light shimmers blue and violet on the fence speaks to the gloriously random and uncontainable growth and movement of tree branches.

Like Terry Allen's metal-encased ""Trees,"" one of which is fitted with a loudspeaker that allows it to talk, Irwin's piece is an eloquent portrayal of the union between nature and civilization that exists everywhere at UCSD.

It's a far cry from the ""Giraffe Catcher"" label that some students have slapped onto the piece. Maybe ""Big Blue Fence"" was a little hasty as well.

There are too many students, especially incoming freshmen, who are unaware of what the Stuart Collection is. No wonder many people seem to be confused by the presence of stone haystacks and talking metal trees.

Some of the most common sights at UCSD are a part of the storied Stuart Collection: the snake path going to Geisel Library, the neon lights in Warren College displaying the seven vices and virtues, and, of course, the Sun God. It's hard to go anywhere on campus without being immersed in something weird and creative.

Stuart Collection aside, art at UCSD in general seems to be really quirky and interesting, and always worth more than just one look.

Turn on Channel 18 (UCSD-TV) and you can see ballet dancers performing dexterously to The Prodigy's ""Smack My Bitch Up."" Go to a free ""New Music Forum"" and you can see someone playing the radio as a musical instrument.

So next time you see something out-of-the-ordinary on campus such as a giant red shoe or a big ugly haystack, take some time to think and absorb what you see. You may find something really special that will enrich your UCSD lifestyle. Then again, you also might find yourself in front of the Sun God wondering what the heck the university was thinking. I guess not everything can be understood.

Visit http://stuartcollection.ucsd.edu for enlightening information on the collection. I admit that those brilliant interpretations of the sculptures came from the Web site, not my own mind. And you thought I was all cool, didn't you?

My editor recently informed me that ""unda"" is Latin for ""wave"" -- so Finlay transposed the word ""wave"" in a wave-like manner. My head hurts from all the appreciating.

Goodbye, Jesse Helms, hello Elizabeth Dole!

Helms, arguably the most conservative and powerful politician of the last half of the 20th century, is numbering his days on Capitol Hill.

Should we embrace one another in solemn remembrance of him?

Hell no!

Raise your hands to the sky and praise glory that Homophobe No. 1, the man with the hate, the mortal enemy of federal arts funding, is headed home to Raleigh, N.C. In 2003, Helms is leaving to die in the garbage in which he was raised.

It is not hard to explain the reason for this article -- one intended to create mass hatred for a man -- considering I am speaking as the voice of a liberal institution.

Helms is against most of what this university stands for: the implementation of diversity and the openness to give students a liberal education. Over the years, ""Senator No"" has attacked many things that had possible repercussions at UCSD.

In 1984, he was influential in arguing to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts. That year, in Cincinnati, the Coalition for Family Values brought a suit against a museum that planned to show an NEA project by Robert Mapplethorpe. Some of the project's pictures had homosexual and pornographic content. Nonetheless, it was art.

Many believe that Helms, who seems to be influential in the CFV, was trying to curb First Amendment rights. The excuse was that the NEA's money is government money and that its projects should therefore fit a particular ""moral"" character -- according to, well, Helms himself.

The coalition lost the case. Even so, damage had already been done to the NEA. The status of the NEA has been questioned ever since.

Jesse Helms ultimately gave up the fight, in a famous congressional deal that was called ""Corn for Porn."" The NEA was allowed to continue giving its liberal grants while Helms and his conservative peers were appeased with higher corn prices for their farmer constituents.

Helms took advantage of a situation ripe for controversy. He is ingenious here in that he knew that the NEA was important enough to Democrats that they would engage in collective pork barreling to protect it.

Helms' unease with ""moral"" change is what has defined his career and given him his nickname.

Before entering politics, he was a television broadcaster and an aide for segegrationist senatorial candidate Willis Smith.

Yes, that's right: segregationist. Helms is from the segregationist camp. Segregation is the ultimate fight against change.

During those days, Helms was a conservative Democrat. The party divide that came with President Lyndon B. Johnson in the late 1960s steered Helms into the Republican Party.

He was elected to the Senate in 1972 and has served his North Carolina constituents ever since.

He has been most influential in the last few years of his career. In 1995, he was elected chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and could broadcast his views from that perch. Helms had the power to stall much legislation to satisfy his own agenda.

For example, he helped stall the confirmation vote on openly gay James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg. Hormel was finally sworn in in June 1999 after a November 1997 recommendation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Most recently, Helms helped pass a bill to protect the Boy Scouts of America from being excluded from meeting on public property -- schools and the like -- based on the organization's own discrimination against homosexuals.

Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign, summed up the views of the gay community on Helms' approaching retirement.

""Senator Helms has used his power at every turn to harm the [gay] community and people with AIDS,"" she said. ""His retirement is not unwelcome at all. We hope this is a signal that that generation of anti-gay activism is coming to an end.""

There is much to celebrate. First, the old bat won't be there to combat every liberal bill on the Senate agenda.

The opinion of the political community, and me, is that Helms is not seeking re-election because he was just released from his duties as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman. He has been replaced by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) due to the Senate's political reshuffling, which was caused by Sen. James Jefford's decision to become an independent.

It is not only Helms who will be returning home from Capitol Hill.

Some of his old partners are following his lead. Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas and Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina are also going to throw in the towel.

The reshuffling in the Senate could continue if these senators are not all replaced by Republicans, although Helms' seat has been all but promised to Dole.

2003 will be a year to remember, even if it is still two years away. The country's harshest critics of ""moral indecency"" are marching home to the South.

I've already heard that several organizations in the liberal, gay and artist communities plan to hold ""retirement parties"" for the senators.

I would like to attend.

Welcome to UCSD, freshmen! After four years of arduous study, despotic parents and far too many rules, are you ready to party like there's no tomorrow? Dying to join a beer-guzzling frat straight out of ""Animal House?"" Been dreaming of a sunny San Diego college where the beer flows like a mountain stream and the weed grows like, well, weeds? Are you ready for a school where you can drink and party 24-7 with no repercussions?

Well then, you should've gone to San Diego State.

This is UCSD, and as you'll soon find out, your local resident dean really wasn't kidding: The school will enforce the legal drinking age of 21. Who knew?

Your resident advisor will constantly be on the lookout for parties, and the numerous resident security officers will patrol the campus and scour your suites for alcohol. If caught, you get to book an appointment with your dean, who will in turn reserve a spot for you in an alcohol awareness class.

And frat parties? I hope you have a buddy with a car and low expectations. Unless you want to hitch a ride down to Tijuana every weekend, you'd better learn how to party on campus -- and get away with it.

As tyrannical as the administration is, not only can you enjoy a blissfully impaired partying experience, but you won't get caught in the process. The only resource more useful to you than this article is EDNA, so remember everything you read here, and you'll learn the easy way.

It's simple: If you don't want to get caught, don't get rowdy. The first tip-off to RAs and RSOs is noise. Even if you don't think you're being loud, your noise is still audible from the ground and its origin is easy to trace. You should keep windows and doors shut, and stay off the balcony. It might get a little hot, but it's better than the RSOs breathing down your neck. We all know how loud drunks can be, so use your best judgment and keep them under wraps. Then again, you're going to be drunk too, so what's your best judgment worth, anyway?

Don't rely too much on the lock on your suite door. RSOs and RAs have keys and no qualms about barging in. There will always be some sober people watching out for everyone, so make sure they're also watching the door. If you're really on the ball, you'll have somebody outside to greet the RSOs and RAs as they come to break it up. You'll at least have a little more warning, and valuable time to hide your alcohol.

Remember, to keep the bar in one of the rooms, preferably the one farthest from the suite door. Once there's trouble, you shut the door, hit the lights, and the inhabitants are suddenly ""out of town."" If it's too late to slam the door, make sure there's a place to hide all the alcohol. Even if the people in the suite are busted, at the very least, you won't have to pour all that alcohol down the sink. After all, a good beer is a terrible thing to waste.

Along those lines, make sure everyone drinks from plastic cups. They're pretty blatant, but better that than being caught with a beer bottle in your hand. If there's any time to spare, you can shove the cups into the trash bag you diligently hid in the little space between the wall and the couch.

If you get pinched and are lucky enough to be on the first floor, then you have one other option: Run! I am not suggesting that you should hop a balcony and run from authorities, but odds are that you'd get away. Of course, if you accidentally sprain your ankle in the process, then at least you won't worry about getting caught any more.

You also have to remember that time is a factor. From 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, the RAs will visit every suite, looking for parties. This is the trickiest part, since you know a visit is inevitable. If you're a smart partier, though, it's also the easiest. Hopefully, your RA will visit you nice and early, before your guests even arrive. Otherwise, you need to find a way to keep tabs on them. Once you know an RA is on his way up, make sure all your guests are the upstanding young citizens they're expected to be. You still have to watch for RSOs, but you don't have to worry as much after 3 a.m., once they throw their own coffee and doughnut party over at Earl's Place.

If worst comes to worst, you'll get caught. They'll look at you and ask, ""Who here has been drinking?"" Look them in the eye and honestly tell them, ""It wasn't me!"" Shrugging shoulders and confused facial expressions complement this line well.

Unfortunately, those guys tend to be smarter than we like to think they are, so this might not work. Your best bet may then be just to shut up and cut your losses.

Go chill with the resident advisor, sleep through your alcohol awareness class and write your resident dean a cute paper about what you pretended to learn in that class, and everything will be all but forgotten. Generally, three write-ups is when you're really in trouble. Then again, I have known guys who claim to have been written up as many as seven times and still live on campus.

Hopefully, this will help you make the best of your early experiences here at UC San Quen ... err, San Diego. It took me all of last year to figure most of that out, so maybe you won't get caught as often as I did.

Remember: If an RSO asks if you want to go to detox, the answer is a definite ""no.""