It only took one second to shatter the normalcy and calm of Sept. 11, 2001.

I walked into the Georgetown Criminal Justice Clinic in Washington, D.C. at 9 a.m. and heard the stunned scream from my attorney: A plane crashed into the World Trade Center in New York.

In a matter of seconds, everyone in the office crowded around its two televisions and watched with growing horror as another plane hit the south tower.

Confusion and dismay gave way to pain, anger and the cold certainty that it was a deliberate terrorist attack. Then, cold fury as one mantra-like phrase stuck in my head: Those bastards!

Thousands must be dead. I didn't know who was responsible, but I hated them as I continued to witness the horrific damage they inflicted.

It only took a second to throw our lives into chaos. But fear and panic did not fully strike us until we heard that the Pentagon was also attacked.

All I could think was: Not here, please God, not here! But the nightmare in New York became terrifying reality in Washington: We were under attack.

Suffocating fear and panic gripped the interns, the attorneys and me. Where would they strike next? Where was safety? Should we stay inside the office? Or should we try going to the underground parking garage, using it as a makeshift bomb shelter?

Outside, the city was in chaos. Capitol Hill, the White House, all federal buildings and most businesses were evacuated. People ran frantically as the police ran in formation down streets. Sirens wailed. From our windows, we could see the smoke billowing from the Pentagon.

We felt that we were under siege. New York was hit twice; now the Pentagon. Where next? The Capitol or the White House? During the first hours of the attack, rumors ran rampant, spread through news stations and word of mouth. They said that car bombs exploded outside the State Department and Capitol Hill. More fear, more panic.

At one point, our building shook hard, further fueling our fear that we -- and other parts of the city -- were targets and under attack.

In fact, we hadn't been hit. But the uncertainty was frightening in itself. The news that the final missing and hijacked plane had crashed in Pennsylvania eased our panic a little. We hoped the attack was over. Then, nearly everyone went home.

Walking to my apartment two blocks southeast of the Capitol, I noticed an eerie calm in the city. The normal bustle of a busy workday at lunchtime was gone. It was silent.

Only police were out, guarding the numerous roadblocks, holding huge guns.

Now and then, a car or a person would appear. Other than that, the city had been transformed into a ghost town. Fear had driven everyone into hiding.

Military aircraft patrolled throughout that horrific day -- we were in a war zone.

With the dawn of the next day, as I wrote this, everything seemed a little more normal but still extremely surreal.

The two blocks around the Capitol were still closed to cars, but open to pedestrians and tourists. There were fewer policemen guarding the roadblocks and they lacked the weapons that were so noticeable the day before.

Nothing is quite the same. It won't be for some time. Our country will forever be scarred by this act of terrorism. But we cannot let terrorism win; we must bounce back.

Last Tuesday brought horror, fear and suffering to our nation, but the sky did not fall.

Yes, they struck terror into the hearts of all Americans, killed and injured thousands of people and shattered some of America's most famous symbols, but neither our nation nor our spirit has been broken.

This national tragedy showed what we are made of. It showed that what we believe in cannot be found in mortar or cement, but in our hearts and in our actions.

As I sign off from Washington, I leave you with this thought: Just as the phoenix rose from the ashes, so too will our country rise from the ashes of hate and terror, stronger and more united than ever before.

Editor's Note: Baharian, a participant in UCSD's Academic Internship Program, is a defense investigator intern at the Criminal Justice Clinic of the Georgetown University Law Center.

It has been a little over five weeks since President George W. Bush unveiled his plan concerning the role of federal funding in stem cell research. The Aug. 9 announcement -- an attempt to sate groups with wildly differing stances on the issue -- can be seen as a partial victory for those who advocate stem cell research for a variety of purposes.

Kenrick Leung
Guardian

However, Bush's proposal will demonstrate, if anything, that more government involvement is necessary -- that what has already been approved is far short of what is required to facilitate any sort of scientific breakthrough. With stringent yet scientifically guided regulation, the benefits of stem cell research can become actuality.

Bush's plan allows for 64 existing lines of stem cells, which are in fertility clinics around the United States in embryos never used for fertilization, to be experimented upon with the use of federal funds. The plan does not permit the use of any stem cell lines that may become available subsequent to the Aug. 9 announcement date; until further notice, 64 is all that scientists in the United States will be able to access.

Even at this point, the Bush plan is fraught with problems. Experts have testified that the quality of embryonic cells deteriorates over time. Subsequently, it can be expected that the 64 existing stem cell lines will be subject to the same problem, leaving scientists with a dwindling and disintegrating supply.

In fact, it appears that 64 is too generous an estimate. Bush's own Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson testified before the Senate last month that only about 25 of the existing embryonic cell lines are robust enough for experimentation.

If that were not enough, the existing cells may also be contaminated because of the way in which they were nourished. All 64 cell lines were supplied with mouse cells for sustenance, which has opened the door to contamination from viruses that these cells might carry. The possibility of contamination makes the existing cell lines unfit for use in human experimentation, thus negating a large part of the potential benefit that could have come from this group of cell lines.

The reasons for a wider approval of stem cell lines in research are numerous and self-apparent. Removing the current limitations that hem in the size of the stock of cell lines would allow the use of embryonic cells that actually have the potential to be of some use to scientists.

The possibilities for human health advancement that stem cell research promises are staggering. Stem cells are the most versatile in the body, capable of evolving into the cells of any organ tissue, given the right genetic triggers. If science can harness this potential, it may become possible to ""grow"" tissue for use in organ replacements.

Further, that tissue may solve two problems with one blow, the second problem being the body's tendency to reject and attack transplant tissue as foreign. Through a process called ""therapeutic cloning"" -- not to be confused with the kind of cloning that results in a second, identical human being -- it may be possible to create stem cells the genetic identity of which is a match to a particular patient, thus overriding the body's impulse to reject transplant tissue.

It should be made clear that U.S. private industry is already experimenting with stem cell research, as are scientists from nations overseas where the research is granted greater scientific license.

The United Kingdom, in particular, has attracted American scientists who feel that they have been unable to produce the desired results within the constraints of the American system. Unless the Bush administration gives a more firm nod to stem cell research, it is likely that other countries will eventually be host to a plethora of expatriate American scientists.

Under the current restrictions, American experimental progress on this technology will likely lag behind that of other countries, and indeed, behind private industry researchers whose companies will be able to patent and restrict the technological breakthroughs they achieve.

Misuse of this technology is certainly a threat, which any proponent of stem cell research will admit. That is where conscientious and scientifically minded legislation comes into play: If properly legislated, many of the doubts and fears regarding the potential for this technology to get out of hand will be alleviated.

We cannot expect stem cell research to develop ethically without the assistance of government, which ought to be the most vocal proponent of a technology that has the potential to help so many. The Bush administration ought not to stymie this potential any longer.

In less than a month, the chiefs of government of the seven most industrialized countries in the world along with Russia's Vladimir Putin - the so-called G8 group - will meet in Genoa, Italy, to talk about the state and future direction of the international economy.

At the same time, a number of antiglobalization organizations have announced massive anti-G8 demonstrations. The Italian police expect that around a million people will show up.

The Genoa demonstration will be a good occasion to evaluate the evolving agenda and the political strength of the movement that the European press has already baptized the ""Seattle people,"" after the demonstrations at the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle two years ago.

The Seattle movement is, by its own admission, a loose connection of parts with widely different orientations, but a few general trends are starting to emerge.

First of all, one should understand what is meant by globalization, since the term has several connotations with different economic, political and ethical implications.

On one hand, there is what one might call the ""globalization of awareness."" More and more people are becoming aware of the existence of other cultures, of their habits and differences. This form of globalization is a positive cultural force, even in light of some embarrassing outcomes, like the naive syncretism of most New Age philosophy.

The ""global village,"" to rely on an overused and profoundly misunderstood expression, entails at least that the villagers know each other.

The corruption of cultures by the action of other cultures is also unavoidable and, to some extent, desirable. Cultures can only grow in symbiosis with other cultures, and without such contamination, works such as Spain's Alhambra Palace would not exist, and the majority of humanity would have never known the number zero and the principles of democracy, to name but a few.

The Seattle movement, or at least its most intelligent portion, is not against any of these things.

There is, to be honest, a neo-Luddite fringe component in the antiglobalization movement, but the movement as a whole knows very well that any such position is self-defeating. So much, in fact, that antiglobalization activists make great use of certain new technologies, such as the Internet and cellular phones.

So, what is the essence of the antiglobalization message of the Seattle movement? My interpretation (personal but, I venture, well-founded) is that it is the opposition to the modalities in which globalization is imposed on us, in particular to the corporate control of it, and of the consequent primacy of economy over other areas of human life.

The forces against which these groups are revolting are the arrogant globalization efforts of multinational corporations, and the reduction of all human values to the search for profit. Is the globalization of Nike, which paid endorser Michael Jordan a salary equivalent to that of 22,000 of its Asian workers, not the global cultural horizon by which we know and care about the plight of the Asian workers?

It is a protest against the rhythms and values that corporate globalization is imposing.

The global economy is forcing us -- even we who live in rich countries -- to work longer hours and have less and less of a personal and social life. To guarantee an average income, last year American families had to work the equivalent of seven weeks more than they did in 1990.

The global economy is also convincing us of the unavoidability of this model, and of the need to sacrifice everything to the supreme good of the economy: Only 8 percent of Americans would accept working fewer hours for less pay. Nobody bothered to ask what the good of a strong economy is if our quality of life suffers.

Corporate globalization is also forcing us to look and think the same but, at the same time, to be more alone.

Our jobs look the same wherever we are, and our free time looks the same too: The entertainment industry is also global, and is pushing us toward uniform models of behavior that invariably involve being more and more alone and surrounded by expensive gadgets. Invaluable social skills are lost in the process.

The protest of the Seattle movement is a protest against the trivialization of politics. Crucial decisions about our lives are no longer made by governments of international organisms accountable to voters, but by boards of directors accountable only to shareholders.

In the process, an important pillar of all democracies is lost: the principle that every individual has the same political power (that is, one vote). This principle is being replaced by the principle of concentration of wealth: Political power is directly proportional to the amount of stock owned.

All other human values have to bow to the supremacy of wealth and consumption; those who do not own stock and do not consume are nonentities.

The global economy is convincing us to accept a society in which a few hundred people control half the wealth of the planet, while one-third of the population lives on less than a dollar per day.

In essence, the message of the Seattle movement is more ethical than economic. Its protests go deeper than simple issues of economic strategy, to question the ethical bases of the global economy. It reminds us that economy -- be it global or not -- is just an instrument whose foundations must be ethical.

Maybe the essence of a fair and rational opposition to this brand of globalization is better summarized by the words that the American economist Jeremy Rifkin used to address his Italian audience at a recent pre-G8 debate:

""You Italians have been the first to develop the concept of commerce and were able to sell your culture in the international arena: furniture, silk, glass. Centuries of success, and your culture has never been strangled by commerce. The main reason is that no Italian ever believed that the market was more important than culture.""

[Editor's note: This letter was received June 3, 2001, before the parties named herein resolved their dispute. Please see page 1 for more information.]

Editor:

Last April, UCSD hosted a series of events related to the life and career of union organizer Cesar Chavez. These events marked the first time in the history of UCSD that a campus administration chose to highlight the histories of Chicano/a and Mexican communities and their ongoing struggle for equal rights.

The figure of Chavez was an especially important choice, given his lifetime of sacrifices so that workers could have fair wages, better working conditions, and respect. Now there is even talk of naming the new Sixth College after Chavez or some other prominent Latino/a.

Faced with the absolutely legitimate effort by campus janitors to unionize and receive a living wage, the administration stonewalled and resorted to intimidation and firings.

Given the publicity blitz around the Chavez events and the university's attempt to put on a human face, it is a tragic irony that someone in the UCSD administration chose to call in the Immigration and Naturalization Service in an attempt to destroy the union drive and disperse its leadership.

This is one of the oldest tactics used by reactionary and anti-worker forces against Chicano/a and Mexican workers, dating back to at least the 1930s. With this single act, the corporate mentality, anti-democratic ethos, and anti-Latino/a bias of UCSD's leadership became apparent to the entire Chicano/a and Latino/a community.

Empty acts of symbolism are cheap. The administration's attempt to reap public relations benefits from the Chavez events has now been exposed as little more than cynicism. Were he still alive, Chavez would be the first to denounce this unwarranted and reprehensible action.

-- Dr. Jorge Mariscal

Department of Literature

Ioriginally thought that living in San Diego for the summer would be a good idea. I enjoyed my life so much my first year of college, and I couldn't imagine living under my parents' roof for three months.

I failed to contemplate what I'd actually do with my time. Here I am, two weeks in, and bored out of my skull.

I live in Pepper Canyon, which was probably my first mistake. Had I chosen to sublet, I would have known my roommates beforehand, and possibly had someone to hang out with. Instead, I opted to risk random roommate assignment, and I was dealt the worst hand imaginable: I have no roommates.

Well, I basically have two roommates, but they are so attached at the hip (read: groin) that I only talk to them when strange things happen and I choose to interrupt them. The other person, my actual roommate, never moved in.

On a side note, I think my apartment is haunted. Someone has been rearranging the refrigerator contents, moving the soap, stealing towels and opening doors. It isn't me, my one roommate, nor her boyfriend. The best explanation we've come up with involves the supernatural.

Most of my friends left town for the summer, and those who didn't are working 9-to-5 jobs. Everyone is either too tired or not around to hang out with me.

Not that I spend all my time sitting and sulking. So far I have spent about five hours total on my summer school class, of which four hours and 58 minutes of those were in the lecture hall listening to the professor ramble about his kidney stones.

I have a part-time job as well, which is interesting in its own right. Have you ever really thought about the impact of a game of Barbie Dolls on a person's psyche?

I didn't realize until now how little free time I had last year. I don't know what to do with myself without four classes to juggle, the Guardian to work on twice a week, and hundreds of people within yards to visit. I found myself actually hoping for homework the other day. That was when I knew I had hit an all-time low. I don't know what to do with my free time anymore.

Anyway, I do have a point here. I'm bored. I was upset about that until a couple days ago. Then I hit a point of introspection. A calm fell over me, as I realized that I didn't have to be constantly social. For the first time in my life, I was content to lounge on my bed and read a book on a Friday night.

I've since relaxed quite a bit. I have a whole lot of time for everything I want to do. Or at least I will, after this damned issue of the Guardian gets done.

This imminent free time has opened doors for me (just like my apartment's ghost). Suddenly, I have time to read something besides Cal Copy readers. My friend, a literature major, has recommended to me the downtown San Diego City Library, which I'll have to visit. I've dug out the books I started but never finished. And I've heard that somewhere, buried deep inside, Geisel Library actually has books. (So far in my college career, I've utilized the microfilm archives, the film and video library and the scholarly journals section ... woo.)

Also, now that I have a car, I've discovered beaches besides Black's, and I don't miss that hill. I hope to eventually visit Mission Beach, Pacific Beach (hey, did you know there's a beach, not just a bunch of skeezy shops?) and, like, all the other ones.

Much to my friends' glee, I've discovered trance music. I entertain myself with Web sites and new songs. It's a substantial deviation from my normal rock/hard rock musical choices, but the beats strike my fancy, and downloading is yet another thing to fill my summer nights.

Living in Pepper Canyon also has a lot of potential to fill my free time. I didn't think too much beforehand about the appeal of San Diego to nationwide and international students. I've met people in Pepper Canyon from Ohio, Chile, Spain, Kentucky, Massachusetts and France. My new friend from France never ceases to amuse me.

I don't know too many people yet, but I look forward to my remaining eight weeks. The multicultural environment is an awesome one, though I'm not very involved in it.

So even though I'm really bored, I'm actually relaxing, which is rare for me. I'm sure that by the end of the summer, I'll have taken on enough stuff to keep my time filled, but for now, I'm looking out at a summer of new experiences and empty time.

It seems rather ironic that one of the perceived strengths of a possible Bush administration during last fall's presidential campaign would be a strong and capable foreign policy team made up of veteran players such as Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. If world opinion on American foreign policy is anything to go by, this administration has done nothing short of failing miserably on the world stage.

Kenrick Leung
Guardian

The reason is simple. When it comes to international politics, only two opinions about the way you exercise foreign policy matter in the end: the rest of the world's and that of your citizens. One will get you re-elected, but appealing to the former will actually earn you the merit abroad that will acheive concessions from other countries.

The essential problem is that the Bush camp, along with its conservative advocates, is applying domestic rhetoric in the contextually separate realm of international diplomacy. There has been plunging approval for American policies in recent months from peoples abroad -- even within the past week the administration was still needlessly antagonizing foreign friends and foes alike with its absurd, domestically inspired pro-gun stance at a United Nations convention on small arms control.

Perhaps the most visible topic of American obstinacy abroad is the question of human rights. While the Bush administration managed to watch U.S. membership in the U.N. Human Rights Commission slip away, it has yet to regain any sort of confidence in world opinion in recent months that it actually belongs on the commission.

The Western European view on U.S. human rights currently goes something like this: The federal execution of Timothy McVeigh last month brought not applause from foreign leaders, but denouncement that the United States would exercise such an inhuman punishment on its own citizens.

The Bush administration hypocritically dismissed those concerns with a People's Republic of China-like answer: It's internal business -- you have no right to dictate what we do to keep a stable society.

Yet the Bush administration still dares to tell China to stop executing its criminals and withheld funds for Serbian reconstruction until Slobodan Milosevic was brought to trial. The former president of Serbia and the former governor of Texas have both stated that many members of their respective societies have no right to live, yet one sits in our White House in Washington and the other in a prison cell at The Hague.

The problem with the White House's posturing on this matter is that it is applying the rhetoric of domestic policy in a world forum. In the United States, the death penalty is a viable option for punishment, while in Western Europe, the death penalty is an archaic, inhumane punishment. In Europeann minds, our arguments for the death penalty make no sense at all.

The Bush administration tells the world, ""We killed Timothy McVeigh because he was a horrible person and deserved to die, but prisoners in China do not deserve to die because the death penalty is in the hands of a questionable government.""

Western Europe finds this argument as sensible as, ""I shot the dog because he was misbehaving inside instead of outside."" Regardless of where the dog is or what it is doing, there is almost no valid reason to shoot.

America's stubbornness with the fundamental nature of our arguments is leaving our allies breathless -- not out of admiration for our ideals, but at our incomprehensible blindness and stupidity. By taking for granted a world view that shares the same values as American conservative politics, the Bush administration is alienating our allies and driving them into the political arms of our rapidly growing list of foes, which China notably heads.

A more galling example of alack of accommodation for other viewpoints comes from the United States' stance at last week's conference on small arms control. Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary-General, maintains, ""These arms are doing incredible damage in cities and war-torn areas."" The United Nations points out that 80 percent of the 4 million small arms deaths since 1990 are of women and children.

In spite of this fact, the ironically named U.S. Undersecretary for Arms Control had the audacity to say, ""The vast majority of arms transfers in the world are routine and not problematic. Each member state of the United Nations has the right to manufacture and export arms for purposes of national defense.""

Why would the Bush administration take such a stance when arms smuggling is a lucrative business used to fund violent conflicts around the world and kill so many people? If there were a ""human rights"" issue that were black and white, this would be it -- after all, we're talking about the lives of millions of people, not a few thousand political prisoners rotting in Chinese jails.

Perhaps Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., who warned that the conference should not try to ""dictate domestic policy,"" can point out to us why conservatives would not support such measures.

At the core of a worldwide implementation of domestic gun-happy rhetoric are the same forces behind the National Rifle Association, of which Barr is a member. That organization fears ""international meddling"" in the domestic affairs of the United States - precisely because the United States dictates human rights values, along with environmental values, as evidenced by the Bush administration's rejection of the Kyoto protocol.

When the conservatives who back the White House say there are fundamental principles and values that cannot be ignored or bent in international politics, that makes their own behavior susceptible to open judgment by the rest of the world community, unless they can manage through delusion and force to make their own values the popularly held ones.

In such a view of the world, where universal truths are the only things that dictate behavior, there is no room for accommodation - invariably, criticism about the foreign policy judgments of the Bush administration is misguided, and the conservative rhetoric that appeals to U.S. Republicans holds the values the entire world should hold.

What this amounts to is a new brand of moral imperialism powered by a hegemony controlling global economic resources. What is scary, however, is that invariably hard-line, unaccommodating decisions in international politics only diminish a country's influence and economic control in other countries, as alienated leaders seek more amicable markets (take a look at Moscow).

When a country loses economic influence, the only other way to dictate its morals to the world is through big guns.

Why are we spending so much on a missile defense system, disobeying an arms control treaty and beefing up our incredibly strong military even more? In reality, are we going to have to invade North Korea or Libya to stop either from invading our shores?

If the Bush administration thinks that by reinforcing America's global military power, European and Asian leaders will again put up with American rhetoric and unilateral decisions as they did during the Cold War, it is sorely mistaken. Last time, those countries had to run to us for defense from the Soviets - this time, there's only one bully left who thinks he's always right on the world stage.

Last weekend, there was a message on my answering machine. It was my friend Sonny, telling me that he had arrived in San Diego after a nine-month absence. I was used to such messages from my high school pals who were trickling in from Berkeley and the state schools, because they finished their finals and consequently their first year of college long before we quarter system students.

However, Sonny didn't spend this year in college. Although he graduated, like me, with honors in June 2000, he chose to take a year off from school and go instead to Oregon, to be a forest ranger. He was the only one of my high school friends who didn't go to a university or a community college.

I called him. I think I was actually nervous, or anxious, or excited in some other way that I couldn't really place. Sonny and I hadn't been especially close in high school -- we were on the staff of the newspaper together, hung with the same crowd and had some classes and interesting conversations together -- but we had exchanged infrequent letters while he was gone.

In the fall, I told him about classes, about the dorms, about all the new situations I was finding myself in. He wrote back, saying this of his routine: ""I chop wood. I burn wood. I cook food. I eat food. I play in the snow (I think they call it work here). I read books. I write letters to all my good-for-nothing friends. I laugh at all of my good-for-nothing friends who are going to college.""

The last sentence he amended: ""I am still looking forward to college and even envy you, despite the content I feel.""

I couldn't imagine why he'd want to trade places with me, when what I wanted right then was to drop out and dash up to Oregon immediately, switching sneakers for skis and studying for hiking through the woods.

He sounded different when we spoke on the phone -- quieter than I had remembered. This was, after all, the guy who had cracked up our journalism class by loosing a blue streak of expletives without provocation at my best friend, and chucking a computer disk directly into the forehead of a staff writer (albeit accidentally). He also ran nude into the Pacific Ocean at a bonfire, but that's another story.

""The year has been ... different,"" he said haltingly. ""I haven't measured it the way you have, with midterms and finals and things.""

I thought I had measured the year more in vacations -- how long until they came, how many hours of relaxation and freedom I could squeeze in between work and family obligations, and how long I'd have until the next release.

When we got together on Monday night, we met where a road dead-ends into a canyon. He had a backpack burdened with supplies: He was going to spend the night in his sleeping bag in the chapparal, and then hike six miles to the beach in the morning. ""Having trouble readjusting to civilization?"" I joked. He stared out into the canyon, mute.

""I'm different,"" he said when I asked how he was doing in general. ""I've changed. I think I've become more left-wing."" By way of explanation, he indicated the houses on the bluff above us, with their marked-off backyards. ""We have all these invisible but very real boundaries. I mean ... all it is is a piece of paper in City Hall.""

But as he told me about his experiences, I realized that his changes were deeper than political.

He independently tackled all manner of job situations, including carrying a man who died from a heart attack on a ski slope and having to assist in identifying him. He climbed mountains with a pick axe and crampons despite a fear of heights.

""You just have to do it,"" he said of clinging to a sheer rock face at thousands of feet of elevation. ""Once you've started, you've got inertia on your side: You've just taken one step, so why can't you take one more?""

I studied him during a pause in our conversation. He looked different. His hair was long and unkempt, and he sported a tuft of a goatee. His face was gaunt. And the way he looked at things, his eyes flitting from surface to surface, then lighting on some distant point, seemed so unlike the other people I interacted with on a daily basis, the college kids and even my parents. I called him a ""wild man of the woods."" It was the ""man"" part that was the truest.

And when he asked me about my year, what could I say? I rattled on about professors and roommates and car trouble. It sounded hollow. I tried to elaborate on what I was saying, embroidering it to make it seem as exciting as his stories, but I still felt that somehow I wasn't measuring up. I knew it wasn't because of Sonny -- he questioned me doggedly about dorm life and classes and updates on all our friends.

Finally, I admitted it, to him and to myself: ""I've been feeling a lot of wanderlust this year."" I told him that I was chafing under the rigidness of my routine, and that what I wanted more than anything was to pack up and disappear for a while, on my own, with nothing to dictate the path I would take except my own whim and naked opportunity. I don't think it was the most comforting thing to tell him, as this fall he heads east to Dartmouth and has hinted at his apprehension.

But he understood, of course. He encouraged me to follow my plan of road-tripping alone in September, between my summer job and the beginning of school. And I said I thought success in college -- meaning enjoyment and fulfillment -- was a mixture of dumb luck and effort.

""You have to get off your ass and get involved,"" I said. ""Look at me: During fall quarter, I sat in my dorm and was really, really lonely and depressed. Then I started getting out, meeting people ... and things are better.""

I didn't tell him that while things are better -- downright good, in fact -- I still feel unfulfilled, unsuccessful. I still feel like the same girl I was in high school, when we graduated together. And I can't help wondering how things would be different if I'd taken his path, how I would be different. Sonny postponed college and became a man. I have a 3.95 GPA at a nationally recognized university, and I wonder when I will become a woman.

Editor:

There is a god. If Sir Isaac Newton said so, then it must be true.

In an article published in the Guardian (Monday, June 4, 2001), Theodore Dokko claimed that the universe was indeed created by God in six literal days, and that physicists and biologists indoctrinate us to believe otherwise from early childhood.

If only we opened our eyes, he claims, we would see evidence all around us for an intelligent designer -- for God. The Big Bang Theory for the creation of the universe and Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection -- so Dokko claims -- are full of gaping holes that can only be filled by the insertion of a supreme being. This reasoning represents a gross misunderstanding of what science is and what the scientific method can and cannot explain.

Science is based on the premise that the natural world can be explained materialistically in terms of testable physical processes. Gaps in understanding are not demonstrations of theistic processes. Rather they are the questions upon which science thrives.

On the other hand, religion is based on the premise that we can only understand the world and our place within it if we acknowledge the existence of a divinity (or divinities). In this world view, not everything is open to materialistic explanation.

The scientific method cannot be used to disprove or prove the existence of God (or gods) because the physical cannot be used to test something that is not physical. Although individual researchers may have their own personal spiritual beliefs, science itself has nothing to say on the matter of God.

Intelligent design theory, on the other hand, purports to use scientific reasoning to prove that God must exist. The theory claims that the world is so immensely complex that ""mere randomness and chance"" cannot explain it.

The beauty and intricacy the natural world, and of the universe in which it resides, invokes wonder in all of us, but this does not prove or disprove the existence of a deity or deities.

Yes, only a minority of stars give the right conditions for life as we know it. But the universe is big -- very big. There is a mind-bogglingly large number of stars out there, and if only a fraction of a fraction of them are similar to our sun, it still leaves a vast number of contenders for life on planets similar to Earth.

Perhaps the better question is not why is our sun so perfect, but why isn't life evolving all over the place? Who knows? Maybe it is.

And the human eye is indeed an awesome piece of engineering -- something that is well beyond our current technology to replicate -- but does this automatically prove the existence of God?

Dokko would claim that the chance of creating an eye by the random accumulation of its constituent parts is so incredibly small that the only possible explanation is the existence of an intelligent designer. But the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is far more sophisticated than the chance coincidence of particles.

The key behind the evolutionary process is descent with modification. In its simplest terms, it is beneficial modifications, which originally arise through a random process that goes on to be represented in future generations. Future modifications build upon aeons of previous beneficial modifications.

A few photosensitive cells are modified and modified and modified through the process of natural selection until a structure as impressive as the human eye is formed. Its intricacy does not deny a materialistic explanation.

With further aeons of evolution who knows what feats of engineering will be accomplished.

As far as theories go, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by the means of natural selection has stood the test of time remarkably well.

It is a theory that is questioned every day in numerous laboratories and out in the field every single day, and it is yet to be refuted. We see evolution happening all around us.

In a matter of a few years, we have witnessed the evolution of bacteria that are immune to antibiotics, and it is the evolvability of HIV that makes it such a formidable health care crisis.

Evolutionary theory is the only viable testable theory out there explaining the complexity of life. Intelligent design theory cannot be tested empirically and therefore cannot be considered a viable scientific theory. The physical cannot explain the supernatural.

Humans, by nature, have a desire to understand the world in which we reside. When physical explanations are not forthcoming, we each have a choice. We can either look to the spiritual or continue to seek a materialistic understanding.

Scientists can only evaluate the evidence available to them. Evolutionary biology is not in the business of denying the existence of God.

It is a science, like other sciences, that aims to understand the majesty of the natural world. Intelligent design theory cannot prove the existence of God. It is based on faith, not on science.

-- Katrina Lythgoe

""I go to school, I study and I sleep. This repetitious loop races on every day of my life. I say to myself that tomorrow is going to be a new day. Is it ever? Not since I've been at UCSD.""

David Pilz
Guardian

-- Charlie Tran

""Students Are So Busy Getting Good Grades, They Forget to Learn"" Feb. 5, 2001

Leo Der Stepanians
Guardian

""I don't think the number [of sex crimes] we report are an accurate picture of the situation on campus.""

-- Sergeant Robert Jones

""Study Finds UC Crime Reports False"" Oct. 9, 2000

""The Giants' defense will be all over [Jamal Lewis] like Bill Clinton on an intern.""

-- Robert Fulton

""Super Bowl is All About the 'D'"" Jan. 25, 2001

""I think I'm getting carpal tunnel in my hands from jerking so many guys off.""

-- Sasha

""Price of Flesh"" May 31, 2001

""I don't see our whole city jumping up and down to send money to the earthquake victims in El Salvador. I didn't even hear about it on the radio, but I have heard three different DJs whining about the Escondido animals.""

-- Shannon Castle

""Fire Brings Out the Best and Worst in San Diego Citizens"" Jan. 25, 2001

""After years of making painful discoveries, I've come to the conclusion that girls are bitches.""

-- Caroline Song

""Why Female Friends Suck"" April 23, 2001

""If the UCSD admissions is planning to take on an excess of students into the university, then it should also provide them with a place to live on campus for a minimum of two years. It is the responsibility of admissions and housing to collaborate and guarantee housing to students for their freshman and sophomore years.""

-- Parnaz Taheri

""Administration's Failure to Guarantee Housing Worries Apartment Hunter"" Jan. 18, 2001

""It seems that people who ride trains and sleep in hostels are of a different class than those who rush through airports and check into Hiltons. They are often working-class people, and I think that is what makes them interesting. They are not uppity or snobbish. I may travel by myself, but with this crowd, I will never be alone.""

-- Vincent Gragnani

""Dolly in the Snack Car, Okie J.R. Are Memories of Traveling on Amtrak"" April 30, 2001

""Bush's new ban is an underhanded, sneaky way of chipping away at Roe's demand for federal protection of the right to choose.""

-- Alison Norris

""Bush Chips Away at Abortion Rights"" Jan. 25, 2001

""Honestly, I wasn't expecting all 22 of our slate members to win. That is kind of unheard of, but I think it just shows that we are a good group of people and that we are going to do good things for A.S.""

-- Jeff Dodge

""Dodge Next A.S. President"" April 16, 2001

""There were times this year we didn't look like Division II players, but then we were able to gut it out and capture some wins.""

-- Judy Malone

""Basketball Meets the End of the Road"" March 5, 2001

""It is hard to convince others that this solitude is something to be desired. People are a slave to the notion that being alone equals being a loser.""

-- Jennifer Sposito

""Mere Suggestion of Voluntary, Solitary Confinement Is Unthinkable to Many, but Shouldn't Be"" Oct. 16, 2000

""However, no amount of smileys will convey the subtle nuances of a mere phone call, and there are many times I goad myself about not picking up the handset next to my computer and giving my best friend in Davis, Calif., a ring.""

-- Cassandra Pierce

""Human Touch Is Still Needed in This World"" May 14, 2001

""It is up to the rest of us to lend a helping hand to these poor souls in need. It may not be easy, but Geisel Library wasn't built in a day, and a beer here, or a shot there will only help to spur them on their way to a more balanced sanity.""

-- Scott Burroughs

""Shuffling Through the Experience"" March 8, 2001

""All these Guardian editors who are graduating may just sound like names to you, but you really do know them. You know them by seeing the sections they produce week-in and week-out. You know them by the articles they write. You know them by the photos they shoot.""

-- Jeffrey White

""Incoming Editor in Chief Promises Continued Excellence for the Paper,"" June 4, 2001

""Graduating. I never thought I would be saying -- well, typing -- that word in this regard. Not to sound macho or anything, but there are few things that freak me out; truthfully, this is one of the few things that does.""

-- Tom Vu

""Approaching Graduation Causes Long Hours of Contemplation on Years Past"" March 12, 2001

""Maybe you have noticed those really ugly bumps all over the ledges and benches at Revelle. No, that wasn't done to make the school look better, obviously; it was done to prevent skateboarders from sliding anywhere.""

-- Dave Pilz

""An Editor Conveys his Frustration with the Continued Mistreatment of Skateboarders"" Oct. 9, 2000

""Review the names and faces of the joyful souls, the fast and firm friends, and the blessings in human guise that make your life worth living.""

-- Jacob Wasserman

""Just Exactly How Sweet Is It to Be Loved by You?"" Jan. 18, 2001

""To be fair, Americans are not inherently stupid; they're only ignorant when it comes to matters that don't pertain to their known universe -- meaning the 50 states.""

-- Caroline Song

""Students Need to Broaden Horizons"" April 2, 2001

""Frankly, I find it pathetic that San Diegans will respond to something out of the ordinary, like a huge fire and a bunch of homeless dogs and cats, but fail to show any of that generosity and compassion on a regular basis.""

-- Shannon Castle

""Fire Brings Out the Best and Worst in San Diego Citizens"" Jan. 25, 2001

""My motivation was to beat Doc.""

Chancellor Robert C. Dynes

""Chancellor's 5K Challenge Raises Funds for Scholarships"" Oct. 30, 2000

""David: Anything you won't do for money? Sasha: Blow jobs. Because I have to do them without rubbers. I like the taste of skin. And I can't do it to everybody, because they have to first meet a certain size criteria. Second, they have to be rock-hard -- otherwise it feels like a big pile of flesh in your mouth. Bleh.""

-- Sasha

""Price of Flesh"" May 31, 2001

""People need to get active and talk to their politicians and tell them how strongly they feel about this issue. Not many people realize quite how effective this really is.""

-- Kris Krane

""NORML: Keeping Stoners Out of Prison Since 1970"" April 19, 2001

""I just hope [the XFL] isn't too stupid.""

-- Robert Fulton

""XFL Offers More Than Just Football"" Jan. 29, 2001

""Music, art and writing allow people to express themselves outside of the confines of an office. The arts allow people to express feelings about themselves and to comment on society in a vibrant way. I believe that the arts create a well-rounded person, not a selfish, career-oriented person who will step on anyone to reach the top.""

-- Joseph Lee

""The National Endowment for the Arts Is a Worthwhile Program That Should Be Supported"" Oct. 30, 2000

""I feel that these years have been good to me. I can only hope that the next two years here will be as good as the first. One can only hope.""

-- Josh Crouse

""This Year Has Had Many Enriching Experiences That Will Last a Lifetime"" May 21, 2001

""I tried Grape Nuts once because the people eating Grape Nuts on the commercials seemed to be having a good time, and then I discovered that Grape Nuts has no grape flavor and contains no nuts. I seriously should consult my lawyer about that.""

-- Bertrand Fan

""Ceres Would Not Be Happy"" Feb. 26, 2001

""Yet, amid a sea of legitimately sick students, I felt mortified walking up to the receptionist and telling her that my butt had suffered second-degree burns.""

-- Divya Runchal

""Wanna-be Detective Fails Miserably"" March 1, 2001

""Not only would more students bring increased diversity, but the university would have to make a number of administrative changes in order to deal with the influx of students. Some of these changes would include bigger academic departments, more professors, different classes offered and current classes offered more times a year ... with more students added and subsequently more colleges, school spirit will increase.""

-- Valerie Burns

""Filling to the Brim"" Jan. 29, 2001

""Oh my God, this is just wrong.""

-- David Lee

""Co-op Refuses to Sell Cigarettes in Smokeout Day"" Nov. 30, 2000

""I decided to go to The Ataris' release party by myself because I'm afraid of calling girls.""

-- Michael Kaminsky

""The Ataris Shake up the Epicentre"" March 1, 2001

""Arizona will beat Duke in the final.""

-- Robert Fulton

""Get Ready For Some Madness"" March 15, 2001

""Isn't it funny how you can instantly turn an activity into something amusing by doing it naked, much the same way you can make fortune cookie fortunes funny by adding the words 'in bed' to the end of them?""

-- Bertrand Fan

""Nudity Proves to Be Fiscally Fit"" Sept. 25, 2000

""Who really has the time to write a two-page, single-spaced letter when she could be shaving her armpits instead?""

-- Divya Runchal

""Fan Mail Makes for an Interesting Read"" Nov. 16, 2000

""There are four simple reasons Vancouver remains one of the most underscored vacation sites in the world: 1. Canadians don't like to brag about anything but their health care system. 2. The Canadian exchange rate makes an American feel rich. 3. Deceptively, it takes only two days of straight driving or three days at a more leisurely pace to get there from San Diego. 4. The locals are more friendly than your next-door neighbor, and that unnerves the average American.""

-- David Lee

""Vancouver Rising"" March 1, 2001

""I have McDonald's before every game.""

-- Maya Fok

""In Two Directions"" Jan. 8, 2001

""Passive acceptance is no longer sufficient. It's our responsibility to actively challenge our preconceptions and prejudices, however latent, and become a community.""

-- Thomas Bogardus

""LGBTA Hosts 'Out' Rally"" May 10, 2001

""When Clinton belts out an intention, whether it is 'I'm going to run for Senate,' or 'I'm going out for a run,' she leaves the president, fellow Democrats and opposing Republicans alike shivering in their Bruno Magli loafers, nervous to their wits' ends in anticipation of the explosion of ideas that usually result from her actions.""

- Mary-Onelia Estudillo

""The Many Faces of Hilary Clinton"" Jan. 16, 2001

""Nothing ruins my night quicker than four shots of vodka poured in my lap ... especially when accompanied by a fast food teriyaki burger, a large shake and whatever else you downed before coming to my party and puking it back up.""

-- Jacob Wasserman

""An Expert's Guide to Safe and Happy Drinking"" Feb. 15, 2001

""With its distinct odor, marijuana smells less like burning tar and more like a hot night in Texas after good ol' George W. Bush redirects half the state's electric current to Old Sparky.""

-- Ryan Darby

""Cigarettes' Clouds of Smoke Prove to Be Too Aggravating"" Nov. 20, 2000

""The issues of reforming education, healthcare and social security ... can only be solved when a spirit of political unity is formed. A spirit of bipartisanship that transcends party lines must be created.""

-- Parisa Baharian

""A Year of Political Unity"" Jan. 18, 2001

""Before the Internet, when people actually sent letters to each other through the mail, I doubt they drew little emoticons after every sentence. They actually took some time to make sure their letters were worth reading.""

-- Jeffrey White

""E-mails Are Leading to the Degradation of Language Skills Among People in Modern Society"" Nov. 20, 2000

""I would like to propose a mild brain teaser for all the semi-awake, loyal readers out there who are waiting with bated breath to flip to the personals section of this newspaper. Our nation, which has tried time and time again to legislate human morality, is amoral. Believe it: Sex, drugs and violence are still the 'American Way.'""

-- Alison Norris

""Political Zipper Problem Proves Far Better Than the Alternative"" Jan. 22, 2001

""At UCSD, being a liberal arts major is equivalent to being a second-class citizen. The academics at UCSD are weighted toward the sciences, which causes the whole university to sponsor the sciences more than the liberal arts. Countless programs, scholarships and jobs are offered only to science majors.""

-- Valerie Burns

""The Perils of Being a Liberal Arts Major"" May 10, 2001

""At best, this conduct on the part of the university reflects a striking level of incompetence for a world-class institution of higher education. At worst, the university has blatantly defied an order from a federal court.""

-- Jordan Budd, ACLU attorney handling Ben Shapiro's case

""UCSD Bows to ACLU Lawsuit"" Nov. 30, 2000

""I didn't really have expectations ... I just wanted to go out and have fun.""

-- Jennifer Watanabe, after capturing three national titles and setting three school records

April 5, 2001

""The summer started out on an extremely positive note. I came home to a girl and a solid week of partying. Drinking through hangovers became a common practice for me. It was like a week of Sun God. You upperclassmen know what I'm talking about. You freshmen had better ask somebody.""

-- Josh Crouse

""A Humble Offering of Advice From the New Features Editor"" Sept. 19, 2000

""I didn't know that he wouldn't approve it, and I take offense to people suggesting that I did. Why would I waste my time initiating something like this if I thought it wouldn't even reach the chancellor's desk?""

-- Eugene Mahmoud, talking about the USSA fee referendum that UCSD students voted for but Watson refused to sign.

""Watson Refuses to Sign USSA Legislation"" April 23, 2001

""Ever since he committed his heinous crime, McVeigh's existence has been a stain on the fabric of American society. Goodbye and good riddance. The sooner he starts burning in hell, the better.""

-- Tom Vu

""Revisiting Old Wounds: The Tragedy of the Oklahoma City Bombing"" April 19, 2001

""Health care should not be a privilege only certain men and women can have. Rather, our president should realize that it is a necessity to make America the great country that it is. His actions should be to foster programs to help the poor, and not to cut their legs out from under them.""

-- Vishal Patel

""Stealing Health From the Poor"" April 12, 2001

""While I agree with the notion that students should be judged by their own merits, I also recognize that we do not live in a perfect world -- that is, judging students on an even playing field, the fact of the matter is that everyone is not on an even playing field. To assume that would be a naive and misguided attempt to ignore all the inequality that exists in our society today. This is where the case against affirmative action is weakest.""

-- Alex J. Lee

""For Better or Worse: Breaking Down the Barriers"" Jan. 8, 2001

""As if tuition and room and board were not bad enough, the cost of books has given us added financial pressure that we really do not need. It is sad that we have to pay so much and be cheated from an institution that we greatly depend on for a higher education.""

- Parnaz Taheri

""High Cost of Books Hits Wallets Hard"" April 12, 2001

""There is so much more to education than books and exams. There are events around the world and right in our face that crave attention, and activism waiting to be embraced by those students who can easily shed their apathy for something more.""

-- Angela Carrier

""Music Brings Us All Together"" May 10, 2001

""This bill is clearly a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is anti-abortion legislation hidden in the thin disguise of anti-crime measures.""

-- Mary-Onelia Estudillo

""Protecting Whose Rights?"" May 14, 2001

While I sit in my swivel chair in a posh downtown La Jolla salon, I flip through some fashion magazines, trying to pass the time until my foil highlights are done. For most of the time that I invest in typical women's magazines, I'll usually read things such as ""Who's Hot in Hollywood,"" sift through ""One Hundred Fashions for Under $100,"" read about ""What Drives Men Wild in Bed"" and figure out ""How to Lose 10 Pounds in Just 10 Days.""

But this time, as I go through the pages, an article catches my eye. It's about women's rights. No, not about abortion issues, sexual harassment cases or any other issue we have come to associate with women's liberation, but about basic human rights that have been denied to women all around the world.

While women in America have won voting and reproductive rights, the average American woman forgets that, while she may be currently fighting for equal pay for equal work, her international counterparts are still suffering physical abuse under archaic laws and traditions that give omnipotence to male authority.

Today, women all around the world still generally earn less than men, cannot own property (in some cases, they are even considered property), do not have access to education, health care or legal help, and are still being brutally raped, enslaved and even murdered without so much as a blink from their governments. Women make up two-thirds of the world's 1 million illiterate people. Statistically, there are more women living in poverty than men. In some countries, women have to struggle to support and care for their families in the midst of civil wars and armed conflicts.

In China, newborn girls are carelessly discarded on the street like cigarette butts thrown out of a car only to lie dead, naked and covered with dirt and trash on the side of the curb (see this month's issue of ""Marie Claire"" magazine and you'll know that I'm not embellishing). In parts of Africa, female genital mutilations are widely practiced and accepted procedures. In parts of Asia and even in territories under the governance of the United States, women are being held in sweatshops, where they make a mere two cents per hour, packed 20 to a room.

In countries where strict interpretations of Islam are observed, such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, premarital and extramarital sex (only on the woman's part) are legally punishable by flogging or stoning, usually until death. Not to mention the other abuses that are socially mandated by customs: A woman who rejects a man's advice is likely to get acid thrown in her face to disfigure her for life, while a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant is likely to be sentenced to 100 lashes. According to an article in ""Glamour"" magazine, 6,600 women are murdered each year in incidents such as these in India alone.

American women sit in relative comfort compared to their international counterparts. Although we are far from what we would call equality, women around the world are farther from it.

The good news is that we can all do something to help. The United States was one of 80 countries that ratified the United Nations' ""Protocol to Prevent"" last December.

Contact your elected representatives and demand that they ratify the United Nations' Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and Children. Petitions can be found on Web sites such as the Human Rights Watch Web site, http://hrw.org, and Amnesty International's Web site, www.amnesty.org.

These women's cries should not go unheard.

Since elementary school, we students have had evolution ingrained into our minds.

As we studied in our science classes through high school and college, our teachers and professors taught us that facts proved that human beings and everything around them had evolved from nothing. The idea of an infinite creator creating everything was completely laughable. Scientific evidence proved that God could not have possibly created the universe in six literal days, as the biblical book of Genesis states he did. Only those who have not looked at the data or are purposely oblivious to it could possibly cling to the ancient belief of creation.

Our society and some scientists may seek to portray creation as an age-old idea to be discarded by our modern world. The evidence, however unwilling evolutionists are to admit it, paints quite another picture. It casts a large shadow of doubt over an atheistic view of the origins of the universe. A simple glance at our everyday life will show that the world we live in is a world of immense complexity and intelligent design; mere randomness and chance cannot explain this.

If we step outside and look to the skies, we cannot help but be struck by the intricacy that is present. In 1686, a prominent scientist wrote, ""This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. This being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as lord over all, and on account of his dominion, he is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.""

That scientist was none other than Sir Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics and possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived. Newton attributed the creation of the natural world to God because of its intricacy, and the same intricacy that Newton saw in his day is quite evident to us today.

Thinking of the sun, we can imagine the complexity that Newton was writing about. Scientific research shows that the sun is quite out of the ordinary. To begin with, it is the only star in this solar system. Though this is taken for granted when we wake up every morning and see it rise, most other stars belong to multiple star systems. If that were true of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, Earth and the other planets would suffer from extreme temperature fluctuations.

Not only is the sun special in its quality but also in its size, which helps it to sustain life on earth. If our sun were as big as a red giant, then it would be so large that it would engulf all of the inner planets through gravitational pull. If our sun were as big as a blue-white giant, it would be 25,000 times as bright as it currently is and would thus emit too much high-frequency radiation.

On the other hand, if the sun were smaller, the energy it would emit would be insufficient to sustain any type of life -- unless, of course, the planets were much closer to the sun, which would dangerously affect Earth's ocean's tides.

There is more intricate design evidenced by the position of the sun. The orbit of our sun within the galaxy is fairly circular. Because of its orbit, the sun doesn't get too close to the inner galaxy, where supernovae (extremely energetic star explosions) are more common. Our sun is also at an ideal distance from the galactic center, called the co-rotational radius. Only here does a star's orbital speed match that of the spiral arms.

A final look at the sun will show that it is immensely stable. It is true that the sun does infrequently eject huge flares. When these flares occur, they wreak havoc on modern life, disturbing power grids and satellites. One such flare disabled a power grid in northern Canada in 1989.

However, the stability of our sun is shown when we compare it to other stars similar in luminosity, size and composition. Comparable stars are known to erupt in super flares every 100 years, on average. Super flares, true to their description, are much more potent than regular ones, 100 to 100 million times stronger than the 1989 flare that disabled the power grid. If such a super flare were to be directed toward Earth, the ozone layer would be completely destroyed.

A careful look at the size, position and stability of the sun will show that it's all part of a complex design that chance cannot account for. The design can only be attributed to ""the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being,"" in Newton's words. The self-evident design undeniably gives credence to the ancient view that God said, ""Let there be light,"" and there was light. In addition, the uniqueness of our sun shows that the ""Heavens are telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the works of his hands"" (Psalm 19:1).

Evidence of design and a designer does not merely stop at the heavens. Our own human bodies are probably the greatest evidence of a creator. The human body is, by all accounts, a masterpiece. The degree to which our bodies are efficient and precise is frankly mind-boggling. Looking at any aspect of our bodies reveals convincing evidence of a creator.

An investigation of the human eye will cause the observer to note how intricate and complex it is. There are three imperceptible movements that the eye makes.

The first is a tremor, which is the tiniest of the movements. The tremor continuously and rapidly revolves the human eye around its center. The diameter of that movement is approximately one one-thousandth of a millimeter. In a matter of about six hours, the eye muscles that cause the tremors revolve the eye more than a million revolutions. If the eye were not able to make these revolutions, the light-sensing cells in the eye would quickly stabilize and cease to give information to the brain. This would cause the images perceived by the eye become blurry and gray in a matter of seconds. A very intelligent creator has evidently provided us with vision through the use of these tremors.

The wonder of the human eye does not stop with tremors. The next two eye movements are closely related. The muscles of the eye not only allow for it to tremor but also to drift and saccade. During a drift, the eye drifts relatively slowly and smoothly off the target until it reaches an angle equal to about 12 times the size of a tremor.

At this time, the eye automatically jerks, via a ""saccade,"" back to its original position. Saccades, which happen up to several times a second, are very quick, jerk-type movements that are used to correct whatever drifts are occurring. The saccade allows for the human eye to read. When reading lines of text, the alignment of a person's two eyes is synchronized by a saccade.

The investigation of the human eye shows that it would be nearly impossible for only a relatively intelligent being, such as a person, to create such a mechanism. When noting the complexity of the eye alone, it is quite easy to understand why the Psalmist wrote, ""I will give thanks to you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are your works, and my soul knows it very well"" (Psalm 139:14).

The nature of this complexity reveals that there must be some intelligent design behind both the sun and the eye. Both a design and designer are clearly evident. The evolutionist, on the other hand, has a gaping hole in his theory, which is left by the design of the human eye and the sun. Evolutionists refrain from mentioning the innumerable other aspects of our natural world that vividly show design and a creator.

This article marks the end of my short-lived career as an opinion columnist. I can almost hear a few cheers (certainly I will read them in the comment section of the Guardian Web site), but I hope that there will be one or two readers who will be sad to see me go.

I suppose that I am expected to reflect upon my five years at UCSD and to find something positive to take with me as I move forward in my life. In doing so, I shall make you, gentle reader, reflect upon your own years at UCSD, be they one or five or seven.

Well, actually, I won't. There will be no pats on the back distributed in this column. We'll all get at least five hours of those at the various commencement ceremonies we will endure on Sunday, June 17. There's a reason why this column is called ""Jaded and Faded,"" and here it is: I'm not so proud of myself.

Sure, I studied somewhat hard to earn this degree. But I'm a literature major -- for God's sake, how hard can it be? I've never slaved away in a bioengineering lab for eight hours at a time. I worked my way through college, but they were mindless jobs: cashier, photocopying, data entry, writing for the Guardian. I've yet to earn more than $10 an hour.

Meanwhile, my younger, engineering major brother makes $20 an hour at Jet Propulsion Laboratories doing something my feeble mind couldn't possibly comprehend. But all is not lost. I did manage to get my sorry ass into law school, so my parents haven't completely lost face.

But those are not the reasons why I'm not so proud of myself. When I entered UCSD in the fall of 1996, I knew that in four or five years I would walk out with a degree. There was never a doubt in my mind. But along with that degree, I had hoped for the attainment of the equivalent number of years' worth of personal development.

After all, the educational degree is only half of the reason we come to college. The other half is to grow up. And grow up I did, but was it to the extent that I had hoped for?

I am inclined to think that the answer is no. Here I am, 22 years old and writing catty articles about how female friends are bitchy. Haven't I gotten over that yet? Come on, it's been five years -- so what if my best friend in high school screwed me over? Not all girls are like her, yet I still have trouble trusting other women.

How about passing judgment on others before really getting to know them? This is a lesson I've learned more than once, but still I find myself thinking that I've got a person all figured out without ever even talking to her. College is supposed to broaden the mind, but sometimes I find myself feeling a bit shrunken and shriveled.

And the one that gets to me the most is being almost 23 years old and still single. No, I'm not talking about marriage. But lately, I've found myself surrounded by coupled friends. I have several friends who have been with the same girl or guy for three, four, six, even seven years! They're single, but not really. Not that I lament my time and opportunity to play the field a little bit more than they have, but I have yet to pass the one-year mark. At almost 23, that's a little too much time and opportunity to play the field, in my opinion.

But who would want to date a shrew like me, anyway? Correction: Who would want to date a shrew like me for more than a year? All the people I meet nowadays tell me they're afraid of pissing me off for fear I will write about them in my column. At first I scoffed at this, but then I considered it. Maybe I am a vindictive bitch.

I think most of us here take for granted that we will earn our bachelor's degrees. All of our lives, we have been bred to choose a goal and work for it, and it naturally follows that we will achieve it if we work hard enough. But the same cannot be said for personal development.

I've always had some foggy idea of the person who I want to be, but choosing a path to reach that goal has not been so easy. There are no counselors, no catalogs of courses. We have friends and family who will flunk us if we do something wrong, but not always in a manner constructive enough to help us learn the correct lesson. Not to say that this is their fault -- they are all muddling through their own personal development educations.

In the end, we are our own issuers of the personal development degree. I do not feel that in the last five years I've earned my bachelor's degree. Perhaps that's a good sign. Perhaps if I did feel that I had earned it, it would indicate my ignorance of just how much I still have yet to learn. That's the optimist's way; the new-age, spiritual, self-help guru way of looking at it. And of course, I'm jaded, and I think new-age, spiritual, self-help gurus are full of shit.

But that will be the topic of another article.