Continuing America's fine tradition of repression and denial, the Mission Beach town council successfully petitioned the city government for a temporary ban on drinking on the beaches, lasting through the summer. A counterpetition signed by over 50,000 registered voters was filed Wednesday by people who do not want the beach drinking ban to go into effect.

Now, it's not like the homeowners in Pacific Beach and Mission Beach are without grounds in their desire to see some restraint on the excess drinking in this area. Although these areas contain less than 5 percent of the city's population, they account for more than 34 percent of all alcohol-related crimes in the entire city of San Diego, according to Michael Davis of the San Diego Police Department's vice unit.

Additionally, an oversaturation of liquor licenses, a repercussion of attempts to revitalize the area, have made alcohol a prime source of revenue for business owners. However, with the bars has come a vast increase in alcohol-related crime.

Ten years ago, the Pacific Beach/Garnet area was suffering from a loss in revenue. City officials reacted by relaxing stringent standards for the issue of liquor licenses. This oversaturation, however, made Pacific Beach a well-known drinking area, much like the Gaslamp district.

The oversaturation of liquor licenses brought with it more money from tourists, students and locals, but homeowners in the area were unhappy. Excess drinking meant an increase in crime and vagrancy, which ultimately means lowered property values.

According to a recent article in The Reader, the debate boils down to the residents of Pacific Beach coming to terms with their own identity. A number of different factions, from older residents who resent the presence of the bars, to students and younger residents who want nothing more than to party, are caught in a deadlock over what should be done.

There has been a reprieve of sorts, however. City officials announced, right before the ban was imposed, that groups of 20 or more could pay a small fee for the right to assemble and drink on the beach. This way, by obtaining a license, the drinking could continue, monitored by city police.

What it really boils down to is making people happy. If you look at the issue, it's not about good versus bad, but rather an attempt to placate puritanical advocates who would attempt to temper any hedonistic behavior on the part of the younger generation.

Were this an issue of good versus evil, city officials would stop drinking in public altogether. It is simply an attempt to impose repressive ideological behaviors on those who do not have the resources to fight it.

Government officials in the United States have a long history of attempting to regulate and ban drugs and alcohol. Everything from prohibition to Ronald Reagan's war on drugs during the 1980s have proven that increased regulation do nothing but cause the proliferation of illegal activity and unnecessary criminal prosecution. And if that isn't proof enough for how ineffective over-regulation of drinking and alcohol is, we can look to other countries for evidence as well.

Despite the fact that the United States heavily regulates the sale of alcohol, controlling everything from who can buy, when they can buy it, and who can sell it, we far exceed international rates of alcoholism.

Although there are exceptions, the most addiction-prone countries in Europe tend to have the most restrictive laws. Whether this is a case of cause, where repression causes citizens to act out, or effect, where the effect of high rates of alcohol abuse lead to increased regulation, are not entirely clear.

One thing is true: The current regulations in Pacific Beach will be ineffective in stopping excess drinking in the area. Alcohol will still be sold in the same quantity in bars, restaurants and retail establishments. Drinking in bars, restaurants and private residences will still take place. Realistically, drinking will still take place in public areas. Only now, rather than taking place in the open, it will be covert, hidden from authority.

The proposed advantages to regulating public drinking are already taken care of. We regulate public intoxication and rowdy behavior to the point that the police can harass beach drinkers at their discretion.

The only thing the beach ban will do is decrease the public's right to drink where they want to drink. It will force subversive behavior, and decrease the effectiveness of police officials. It will also force the police to take on a ""big brother"" role, wasting time that could be spent on real criminal behavior.

We will see a drastic rise in unnecessary criminal prosecution of individuals drinking in public and a decrease in the public's faith in the police system.

Money that could be spent stopping domestic violence, car and property theft, and violence will be wasted on foolish college students just looking for a good time.

In the end, we are simply seeing another example of government overregulation of personal behavior. This ban is going to waste the time of city officials, law enforcement and Pacific Beach residents while denying normally law-abiding citizens a good time.

Last summer, as I counted down the days until I moved out, I saw college merely as an escape, as a way of getting out of my boring town and gaining some independence. It seemed simple to me. I never imagined what this first year of college would hold.

Now, the year is nearly over. I am almost one-quarter of the way through college. I used to hear cliche references to high school as the ""best years of your life,"" but I really think college will be my best years. Though I faced some of the toughest stuff fathomable this year, I felt for the first time like I was living my own life.

Living in the residence halls was definitely an experience. It is something I'm ready to be done with, but something I'll always appreciate.

Never again will my dormmates or I have the opportunity to get to know so many people so fast and so well. Staying up until sunrise doing absolutely nothing substantial was fun. I enjoyed all the time hanging out in my suite, in the lounges, even in Sierra Summit.

Living in a suite with seven fairly random people spiced up my year. I got to know people I probably wouldn't have known otherwise, and I got to witness my suitemates develop all sorts of different lifestyles now that they're on their own.

While we had moments I did not appreciate, I loved my suite and the diversity of personalities in it. It's strange to think that in the future I'll be walking down Library Walk and I'll think, ""There's one of my suitemates from freshman year."" They are all such rocks in my life right now, because I see them every single day. (Well, except for two; one is always out of town and the other just disappears a lot.) It's bizarre to imagine them as simple passers-by.

My biggest apprehension about coming to college was regarding my roommate. After some confusion, and two weeks with a ""super single,"" my wonderful, considerate roommate moved in. Though I don't feel I know her very well, I've enjoyed living with her.

I worry a lot that I was not nearly as good a roommate to her as she was to me. My roommate made living so easy on me; looking back, the roommate situation was really one of the few aspects of my life that didn't cause me trouble this year.

I've had so many different friends this year. I made friends I think I'll keep through all of college. I made friends who didn't last long at all. I've got tons of acquaintances, people I hope I'll always be able to stop and chat with in future years.

I wrote in my journal in September that ""the caliber of personality here seems higher than that of Castro Valley. I've met a lot of people who seem to think like I do."" I've kept that viewpoint until now. In general, probably because this is such an academic institution, the people here are thoughtful and interesting.

I've found a few bad apples, though. The year has been a lesson in being careful about who I trust.

I've witnessed others going through hell this year. It's been proven to me that there really are assholes out there, that some people are purely bad and don't think twice about hurting innocent people.

I've been to a place in which I never thought I'd set foot. I've escorted a friend back from the edge. This year, I've witnessed more pain than I knew could exist.

I've had my heart broken, too. Relationships are a whole new ballgame in college. Hookups are the norm, and real relationships take exponentially more time and effort than they did in high school. Guys, too, gave me a lesson in the necessity of gauging where I place my trust.

I've gone for things I really wanted, and been denied. I learned the lesson that sometimes my best is just not good enough. I'm getting used to disappointment, as sad as that sounds.

Despite the heavy emotional toll, the year was a blast. Though I never went to TJ, I did the ""freshman girl"" thing and partied quite a bit. I learned that weekends aren't restful in college.

Oh yeah, and I went to class a lot too. I've written about 100 pages of papers this year.

My first year of college held so many surprises, it's almost a relief that it's over. But I did enjoy it. I've grown more emotionally this year than I did in all of high school. With all of this in mind, I have just one thing to say: I can't wait for September.

I used to believe I was a ""master of my own destiny."" I wasted money on self-help books that promised me the ability to control my fate. Now I think it is all one big joke, a sham, because none of us are prepared for how quickly life can unravel; my experience in the past few months is testament to this.

Last December, while I toured India and bought little trinkets for relatives and friends back home, a dear friend of mine was diagnosed with cancer. While I dined on Indian bread and danced at clubs, my friend, a sister to me, was poked and prodded by needles and medical professionals.

None of this was mentioned to me. I was completely unaware of my friend's suffering because friends and relatives thought it was in my best interest that I find out about her diagnosis when I returned home.

In the meantime, oblivious to her condition, I sent her obnoxious e-mails that told her to ""get up and dance"" because she briefly mentioned that she was not feeling that well. It was not until I got back home that I discovered that she was in the hospital. I had no reaction; not a single tear. I thought it was all a mistake.

It was just a small setback that would quickly repair itself. It wasn't until I got to see her -- my friend transformed into a cancer patient -- that I realized that everything was going to change. There would not be any summer trips together, and if there were, they would be short, not extravagant affairs that I secretly planned in my mind. There would be no rollerblading at the beach, no hiking in the mountains, and certainly no investigating ghosts in haunted houses (my idea, not hers).

In the weeks that followed, I struggled to understand what was happening around me. I racked my brain for any possible clues that I may have missed, that would have revealed that she had cancer. I read as much as I could about leukemia and memorized as much information as I could possibly squeeze into my brain. I spent hours talking about how I felt to another friend, who had lovingly taken care of her and greatly helped ease the situation.

Yet, through all of it, I never really sunk under the ice that had replaced emotional fragility and protected me from feeling any pain. I was content to ignore the fact she had a deadly disease and instead focus on dressing her up and taking her out to dinner.

And through it all, I was a marvelous actor. When people asked me how I was doing, I said ""Fine,"" even though I knew that the possibility of having a nervous breakdown was almost certain.

In school, I became blase about my classes. Occasionally, I'd emerge from my daydreams into a world that I observed but was never really a part of. I took notes and wrote papers, but all of them were half-hearted attempts that I am now ashamed of.

Dramatic outbursts at home were frequent. Conversations with my parents turned into arguments about the stupidest things. And I was beginning to think that this nightmare, watching the physical deterioration and emotional changes in my friend, would never be over.

The girl who had spent four years taking care of me; spending hours in the night tutoring me for physics exams, subjecting herself to visual impairment by waxing my hairy body and countless other cruelties had become a shadow of her former self.

In the four years that I had known her, I had always been slightly envious. Watching her change from how I had known her both physically and emotionally made my feelings about what was happening to her all the more unsettling.

In high school, she never failed to amaze me. She was a stellar student, a better writer than I was, and had beauty to match. Not only was she a size 6 (how annoying!) she had facial features that would have put Naomi Campbell to shame. Then, to top it off, she got into the university that I had dreamed of attending and was rejected from.

Intrinsically, I knew her life was set. She was going to become a famous doctor or scientist or child psychologist. And then my vision of the future, hers, all crumbled. And mine quickly followed. It's sad to say that an event like this has made me realize how vulnerable and fragile we all are. And oh yes, how mortal.

Until all of this, I never stopped to seriously consider that I and everyone else around me would someday die. Sure, I pondered it, albeit briefly, but I always figured there would be some devious way in which I could cheat death and pass on the secrets. This was my very pathetic attempt to deal with a depressing topic.

And although I know my friend is strong and has responded to spinal taps, cranial surgeries, and the rest of the hell that accompanies chemotherapy with nothing less than unwavering courage, I wonder how many people would be able to show the same strength. I know I certainly couldn't.

It's strange how drastically things can change in such a short time. Looking back on the past few months has made me realize that I'm a very different person today from the person I was in December. A brief span of only a few months has completely changed my perspective on life.

It's sad to say that it took a situation like this to open my eyes and make me realize that nothing stays the same forever.

I have only recently become aware that our lives can change in a second, a week, a year.

As incredibly corny as this sounds, for the first time, I am aware of how precious the people around me are. I do not think I will ever be as brave as my friend, but I think at last, I'm beginning to understand that it's OK to be scared. And it's OK to hope, as well.

Do you ever feel the need to break free from the mold of conformity and unoriginality? Do you ever get sick of people being so quick to label or fit you into a category?

Well, I've had it. Enough is enough. It's time to deconstruct the labels that have been assigned to me.

It's high time that this insidious societal disease of labeling and classifying people based on assumptions was exposed.

As a writer, I have encountered the frustrating phenomenon of people judging me solely on what I write, taking it upon themselves to label me with certain inaccurate political leanings.

For instance, people automatically assume that because I have written against Bush and his unsavory connections to Bob Jones University that I am an ""evil liberal.""

Wrong.

Another example is that people automatically assume that, because I wrote about the misconception of free speech and related a time when I had battled against the closed minds of so-called open-minded liberal classmates, that I am a hardcore conservative.

Wrong again.

It's time now to deconstruct these false assumptions. First of all, just because I find fault with Bush does not make me a liberal.

It's almost ironic, because at the time I wrote that article, on paper I was still a registered Republican. But I am not a conservative nor a Republican. I am not a liberal nor a Democrat. Nor do I associate myself with the Independent Party or Green Party.

I am me. And those convenient, all-purpose labels cannot accurately describe what I believe.

I have come to realize that our society has become label-happy.

Rather than take the time to get to know people or the record of a political candidate, many find it easier to label one another, no matter whether the label is based on faulty assumptions.

It can be a conscious act, or it can be something that is subconscious.

""Oh, she's pro-life, must be a Republican.""

""She's young and has a couple of kids -- must be a welfare mom.""

""He's black and lives in the ghetto -- must be a gang-banger.""

Don't tell me that some of those labels don't immediately conjure up images of what those people must be like -- there are stigma attached to each.

I could list hundreds of labels and assumptions used every day as if they were the only features or characteristics of a person that are important to know.

However, the transitive property doesn't always apply. Judging a person solely on these assumptions is discriminating and unfair.

How would you liked to be judged on one random aspect of yourself?

Or how about single labels such as, ""He's gay,"" or ""She's Mormon""?

Some people carelessly say such things as if those labels should explain everything about a person -- when they most definitely cannot. Why is it that we are so quick to label people based on their appearance, social level, ethnicity or political ideology? Why has our society become so obsessed with labeling everyone and everything in sight?

I believe the answer is that it is so much easier to use a label to classify and categorize instead of taking the time to find out who that person really is.

Yet this is getting out of control.

Ever notice when watching CNN or C-SPAN that without fail every politician is immediately identified by party classification? It's almost as if they don't trust you to make your own judgment of the truth or the validity of a political person's point of view without knowing from the onset what party that person is associated with.

I believe that this automatic labeling scheme is a clever way to keep the party faithful brainwashed -- to keep us from questioning what our political loyalist says.

Party labeling inspires blind loyalty and instant dislike and hatred toward the opposition. It doesn't matter what the truth is or who is right; all that matters is ensuring that the all-important label is there so that the conservative or liberal flock does not stray from party lines.

I am absolutely convinced that labeling is used to divide us and to incite feelings of hatred or dislike based on those who do not have the same labels.

I have seen people face each other for the first time and hate each other based solely on their party affiliation. I have seen people instantly hate politicians solely because of their party labels.

Labeling does not bring our society together, instead it emphasizes old hatreds and discriminations and serves only to divide us.

What are you? A Democrat or Republican? What are you? Persian, German or Caucasian? If you don't choose, then you're a wishy-washy person who is indecisive and stupid!

I give up. I will not adopt those divisive, discriminating and demeaning labels. I will not conform. Above all, I will not label myself. Sorry to disappoint those who are label-happy, but you won't be able to shove me into a box and then slap a label on me as if that is all that it takes to describe me.

There is no label that will predict my behavior or beliefs on any issue. Expect contradictions and confusion. I urge my fellow students not to worry so much about categorizing, labeling and fitting every person into a neat little package. Take the time to look deeper beneath the surface. Take the plunge and rise above the quicksand of conformity. Above all, question, question, question.

Dare to be different. Dare to be a nonconformist. Dare to be yourself.

The UCSD Guardian applauds the A.S. Council's approval of the 2001-2002 executive budget last week and agrees with most of the changes made in the new budget's allocations.

Primarily, the Guardian applauds A.S. President Jeff Dodge for spearheading the effort to eliminate the line-item allocation given to the Committee for World Democracy in past budgets.

Although the CWD's events bring essential messages of global awareness to UCSD, the Guardian acknowledges that it is still only one of hundreds of student organizations and does not deserve the guaranteed, fixed funding sent its way by past budgets.

Forcing the CWD to annually apply for funding through the Student Organization Funding Allocation Board, as all other student organizations must do, will eliminate the unfair financial advantage that the line-item allocation gave to the CWD over other student groups.

The decision to almost double the amount of money set aside for FallFest is another laudable change included in the 2001-2002 executive budget. The recent success of the Sun God Festival proved that the A.S. programming office is capable of organizing well-rounded, lively events in spite of how tame this campus typically may be.

The increase in FallFest funding is also a smart move, considering that bands traditionally tour in fall or spring. This way, there is double the chance that there will be at least one great concert at UCSD next year.

Increasing the FallFest funds from $35,000 to $70,000 (keep in mind that the Sun God Festival, in comparison, receives $75,000) will hopefully boost the programming office's ability to reel in top-notch touring acts for its first major event of the academic year.

Further, using the new funds to put together an impressive FallFest concert could set the mood for an alive and involved student body for the rest of the year.

Finally, although the A.S. Council also deserves praise for passing the executive budget in record time -- the process took only 11 minutes according to A.S. Vice President Internal Jenn Brown -- this fact nonetheless evokes some concern.

Remember that the Unity slate swept A.S. Council elections last quarter, and perhaps the speed with which this budget was ratified proves that this council lacks a diversity of viewpoints.

While diversity could bring legislative gridlock, which certainly would be equally detrimental to the students represented by the A.S. Council, passing a $1,133,400 budget in 11 minutes can only indicate one thing: The Unity candidates who now hold office will get a lot done this year, but maybe only because they are not faced with empowered opposition and viewpoints from other council members.

Sen. James Jeffords' unorthodox decision to drop his loyalty to the Republican Party and jump on the independent bandwagon has understandably brought major heat from GOP leaders.

Such a move is practically unheard of in the American two-party regime, which constantly reinforces party loyalty, and even those who despise politics should recognize the brilliance of this moment in American political history.

Jeffords, until this month, was a 27-year veteran Republican congressman whose moderate ideology has historically shone through the party label he wore. These moderate legislative goals have always distinguished him from other Republicans and inspired his recent move.

For example, the Vermont senator has been devoted to using legislative means to meet the needs of special education. Although it is not fair to argue that Republicans are unconcerned with these needs, it is understandable that Jeffords would be prompted to abandon the Republicans if this is his true purpose in politics -- just consider the assertion made by Sen. Phil Gramm, a Republican from Texas: ""Special education is not a Republican issue.""

Instead of criticizing Jeffords for skipping out on the Republican Party, we should be impressed that he chose to leave a party whose members criticize the causes that he has always advocated. The switch, ultimately, points to Jeffords' loyalty to his goals and ideology, rather than to a traditional party label.

What makes Jeffords' move such a hot topic, however, is not the decision itself; rather it is the political climate in which it was made. The Senate was delicately balanced this year, with 50 Democrats battling 50 Republicans before Jeffords' decision.

Now, the scales have been slightly tipped, with 50 Democrats facing off against 49 Republicans, and Jeffords sits squarely in between as the only independent.

The even split that previously existed and the legislative gridlock that it may have brought with it are gone. The Democrats will undoubtedly make good use of their slight, yet monumental, one-vote lead over the Republicans.

A valid concern about Jeffords' switch is that it could be motivated purely by electoral interests. In other words, it could be that his constituents are increasingly returning moderate, independent results in polls and he is simply worried about being ousted by an independent candidate the next time his seat is up for a vote.

If this is his motive, Jeffords could continue to defect to the Republican side of most issues on the Senate floor even though he has symbolically removed himself from that party. This would maintain the voting balance in the Senate, making his switch an empty gesture that deserves little recognition, and making it more a media spectacle than a noteworthy moment in American political history.

However, Jeffords' move ultimately deserves more credit than this. It is possible that his motivations are based on electoral politics, but one must reason that a lifelong Congressman will not take lightly the Senate's tight balance between Democrats and Republicans. Unless Jeffords has been asleep in the back row all these years, he comprehends the effect of his choice on national policies, which indicates that he is motivated by more than just the opportunity for one more turn in Congress.

Furthermore, the political backlash created by his decision has been widespread, and it is illogical to assume that he would open himself to such criticisms unless motivated by something more than another six years of Senate service during which he would undoubtedly still receive icy treatment from Republicans in Congress.

The greater lesson of Jeffords' moment in the limelight is twofold. First, consider the media attention given to his leap -- while widespread coverage in Vermont would be understandable, this issue is touching all types and branches of media. Such in-depth coverage should indicate to any nonbelievers that this is in fact an important political moment.

Second, the reason this event is being portrayed as important and newsworthy is the unique characteristics of America's current political machine.

The Senate's former 50-50 balance is evidence of the increasingly centrist mentality of voters. As more candidates move toward the ""middle of the road"" on the campaign trail in an effort to accommodate centrist voters, there will be fewer instances of one-party dominance in Congress. In such an environment, losing even one politician to the other side has new importance and new effects on a party's legislative strength.

Ultimately, Jeffords' choice is commendable in that it sets aside the traditional party loyalty mentality that dominates American politics.

In fact, the former 50-50 balance in the Senate prompts acknowledgment that the American electorate is perhaps doing away with these loyalties as well. If so, Jeffords' decision is even more praiseworthy, as it represents one politician's effort to stay aligned with those he represents.

One can only hope that this effort is not motivated purely by electoral interests, but that it reflects Jefford's desire to pursue the legislative solutions that he promised to constituents.

One day, historians will take one of two recent and almost-unnoticed events and use them to mark the end of the ""Pax Americana,"" the prominence of the United States in the international arena that characterized at least half of the 20th century.

The two events are almost trivial: In the last three weeks the United States has been excluded, for the first time ever, from the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and from the U.N. Commission on Illegal Drugs.

The immediate and conscious reason for these decisions is probably just to send a signal to the Bush administration. During his first 100 days in office, President George W. Bush has shown that his consideration for the international community is minimal, that his concept of alliances is hierarchical, with the United States at the top, and that he is willing to do anything to favor the penetration of U.S. business in willing or unwilling markets.

The first signal has been sent strongly through the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. The second came through the decision to go on with his defense initiative in the face of serious doubts from allies. The third came in his use of the World Trade Organization to bypass international legislation aimed at protecting small and local businesses, and to impose an American economic model on other countries.

These immediate reasons could be dismissed as a fight for political territory; normal at a time when one of the most influential administrations in the world has changed, but the U.N. decisions reveal a more serious and long-term distancing between the United States and the rest of the Western world.

The decision to exclude the United States from the human rights commission, for instance, comes after years of concerns about our nation's human rights record.

The rest of the Western world considers the death penalty a violation of human rights, especially when applied to minors, a practice used only by the United States and Iran.

Lack of prosecution of police abuses, relatively common in the United States, is also widely regarded as a violation of human rights. Police abuse is considered normal criminal activity, but it is a violation of human rights when it systematically goes unpunished.

The decision to exclude the United States from the commission on illegal drugs comes from an increasing divergence of the ""zero tolerance"" policies, the ""war on drugs,"" and policies in the rest of the West, which are more inclined toward partial legalization and social intervention, and opposed to jailing drug users.

There is, in other words, the impression that during the last 20 years, the social and political paths of the United States and the rest of the West have diverged considerably.

During the Reagan years, the threat of the Soviet Union kept the West together, but during the last 10 years, the differences have been more evident. Further, Europe has been less willing to follow the United States and has been more prone to finding its own political identity.

Ultimately, the divergence is about the ethical foundation of government. The ultraliberal position of the U.S. economy has replaced the value system on which Western democracies are based, with an economic absolutism in which freedom of economic forces is the only surviving value. Other rights that were considered necessary for a human society are now subject to the domination of economic necessities.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have been scaled down from inalienable rights to common goods. The new mantra of keeping government small and out of one's life effectively transfers power from a democratically elected body to large international financial holdings whose operation are in large measure hidden from view and out of the public control.

The ironic aspect of the situation is that the pre-eminence of the market is supported by the same conservative forces that show a greater propensity for nationalism, without noticing that their economic views are generating global financial powers that are reducing nations to an empty shell. I will not be the one to cry the end of nationalism, but the shift from a democratic entity to an essentially undemocratic supernational power worries me. After all, the idea of democracy is that Bill Gates and I have the same power -- one man, one vote -- while the idea of financial trading is that power goes with the largest pile of money.

Europe is trying to answer the need to conciliate markets and democracy with two principles. First, there are values that are considered too important to be subject to the market and that qualify as ""common goods."" Education and health care, to name only two, fall into this category. Second, the government should exert a proactive and strong action to guarantee that the market mechanisms work to the benefit of society at large and do not degenerate into large concentrations of power that is out of democratic control. This is the fundamental difference that is dividing the West in two.

Additionally, a fundamentalist view of religion that Western Europe is slowly abandoning after the bitter lessons of centuries of war, is having a comeback in the United States, united to a radicalization of the Calvinist aspects of reformed Christianity. The appeals of the pope against unrestricted capitalism, against the death penalty, and on the use of human dignity as an ethical measure of a society, would be unthinkable coming from the mouth of any religious leader in the United States.

Even more fundamentally, many cultural differences in the West appear to derive from a single point: The United States is adopting the free market as an ethical model not only in economy but in politics, sociology and religion, and is trying to impose it on the rest of the world.

Europe is taking a more restricted approach, endorsing the free market as an useful instrument for certain aspects of production but shying away from it as a model for other aspects of society. That is, Europe is not taking the market as an ethical model, but is trying, sometimes unsuccessfully, to base it on pre-existing values.

The difference is deep, and two political circumstances make it difficult to open a debate about it: the divisiveness and weakness of Europe as a political entity, and the new isolationism and delirium of omnipotence of the United States.

Western civilization is certainly changing. Only time will tell what direction it will go and whether it will still exist as a unique concept.

The other day, someone called me the laziest person he had ever met. Really, who's the lazy person in that situation? I make significant efforts to meet people lazier than me so I can learn from them and make my life that much easier than it is. This is partly why I decided to write this: to help you lead a happier, less productive life.

That, and if I ever get off my ass and head over to the Guardian office, they're presumably going to give me $20. I was actually over there last week, but they wanted me to wait 10 minutes to get my paycheck. Keep in mind they weren't paying me to wait 10 minutes, they just wanted me to wait.

If I really wanted to be lazy, I would have looked up lazy in Webster's and written ""Webster's dictionary defines the word lazy as ...,"" but then I'd actually have to get a dictionary and look up the word. This wonderfully stupid technique was suggested by my 10th grade English teacher as a good introduction to essays.

""Hamlet"" is a good introduction to essays. Take whatever topic you're writing on, and relate it to a character in ""Hamlet"". If I were ever to teach a master class in B.S., that would be lesson No. 1.

B.S. is an important skill for any person trying to succeed in being lazy. It's what separates the run-of-the-mill, white-trash lazy person from the successfully lazy person. White-trash lazy people sit at home and watch television all day. Successfully lazy people sit at home, eat Bon-Bons and watch television on a big screen all day.

The important thing about being lazy is balance. You can't just sit around and do nothing all day. You have to find that happy medium of doing the minimum amount of work to propagate your lifestyle of doing nothing all day. Let's start with everyday problems and work our way up to harder ones.

You're hungry. What do you do? You have a few options. The average lazy person would just order a pizza. But then what? Tomorrow, you'll be hungry again and you might not have enough money for a pizza. Here is where preparation comes in handy. The secret weapon against hunger is the Ralphs' Big Buys section. All the things you need are in that aisle.

At the beginning of the year, I purchased paper plates, paper cups, a big box of ""Crystal Cutlery"" and 40 White Castle hamburgers. Whenever I get hungry, I pop one of those burgers in the microwave, hit ""66"" because typing in ""60"" would require me to move my finger, plop it on a paper plate, and eat. If I'm still hungry, I repeat the process.

But take something more difficult, like a 20-page paper. If you're a girl, you have your work cut out for you. Acquire the syllabus, figure out your professor's office hours, go to them, and then sleep with your professor. If I were a reasonably attractive heterosexual girl, and I had to choose between a 20-page paper and oral sex, there would be no contest.

And if you're a guy, you've also got your work cut out for you. Acquire the syllabus, figure out your professor's office hours, go to them, and then sleep with your professor.

No one said being lazy was easy. Most people assume it is, but it really isn't. It's a state of mind that you have to work at day by day until you have it down. Still with me?

Try a worst-case scenario: You've been caught plagiarizing a 20-page paper and the professor is adamant about you getting expelled. You guessed it, you have to sleep with your professor and the dean of your college. The real difficulty is figuring out the location of the dean's office and whether a threesome is appropriate.

What if you don't want to sleep with anyone? How does laziness work for Mormons? Here's a good alternative to going to class: Find someone who takes good notes. Give her the impression that you will sleep with her and then copy her notes. Suggest that you be ""just friends,"" mention how you're in the never-been-kissed club and are damn proud of it.

Then, just as your friend is reacting, hop in your Suburban, drive over to Disneyland and jump on a trampoline with your nine siblings.

I would write more, but I'm just about hitting the 800-word minimum ... 770 ... not quite ... 773 ... almost there .... 776.

This is a lot like when you're writing a letter to someone and you have nothing to say, so you start writing larger and then put a big fat ""Sincerely"" at the bottom, followed by an even fatter space for your name.

Oh, look, I'm done.

""I can't say it's going to be wonderful, but I can say it will be inevitable,"" said Chancellor Robert Dynes in his March 22 State of the Campus address.

The inevitability is UCSD's anticipated growth over the next 10 years. It is certainly inevitable: The state requires the UC system to serve the top 12.5 percent of California's graduating high school seniors. Nearly 60,000 new students will descend on the UC system's 10 campuses. It is estimated that 10,000 of those bright-eyed high school grads will find their way to La Jolla, bringing with them 450 new faculty members and even more new staff members.

Dynes' ambivalence about the growth reflects the attitudes of many at UCSD, who fear that expansion will degrade academic excellence and quality of life. Although some may be ""losing sleep"" over the issue, as Dynes said he is, it is important not to become overly anxious about UCSD's population explosion.

Far from lowering the bar, the expansion of our campus community will galvanize our campus with new ideas, new opportunities and new challenges that will give us the chance to cement UCSD's reputation as a world-class university.

It is good to educate as many students as possible. People with the skills that a college education can provide, such as a sense of our place in the global community, communication skills, and technical knowledge in specialized fields, are continually in demand. Even in today's slowing job market, college grads are still desired in every sector.

UCSD must share the responsibility of giving new students the chance to succeed in ways that would be impossible or significantly more difficult without a degree. This ""burden"" has many positive aspects that will improve life at UCSD.

A larger student population will bring more points of view to UCSD. With the regents waffling about the future of affirmative action in the UC system, it is unclear whether that population will be more ethnically diverse. It will necessarily represent a diversity of experience, because everyone who comes to the university brings unique backgrounds, opinions, pursuits and ideas.

Diversity creates a vibrant environment where students' preconceptions will be challenged -- another important aspect of the college experience. The more students we have, the more opportunities there are for personal growth.

Conversely, an expanding student body also enhances student life by providing more opportunities for social interaction. UCSD's Web site lists over 60 student organizations, from Cal Animage Beta to the Indonesian Students Association, from Darkstar to the Greek groups.

These organizations represent a range of student interests and engage thousands of students, providing interaction and fostering a sense of community. The more people we have participating in these organizations, the more students will feel connected and included.

Adding students will enable many currently marginal interests to organize and bond. While now there may be only a handful of students who, say, enjoy sword swallowing, it is easy to imagine in a student body increased by 50 percent, a Sword Swallowers Student Union forming to give those future carnies a chance to meet others with their interest.

With students often complaining that there is ""nothing to do"" on campus and that it's hard to meet people, student life would be improved by an increased student population

These incoming students will require adding new faculty. A larger faculty has similar benefits to having more students. The university would boast more diversity in its faculty in experience, gender and ethnicity, as female and minority graduate students are increasing in number every year. Opening new faculty positions will enable the professorial ranks to more closely resemble the student body.

Furthermore, the diversity in faculty interests and projects will enable students to find mentors whose specialties match their own. This will provide academic benefit by ensuring that all students have the opportunity to fully explore what ignites their passion, encouraging their achievement and serving their educational needs.

Obviously, this expansion will be challenging. UCSD's already-strained infrastructure will have to be expanded over the next 10 years to provide more housing and dining facilities, meeting places and office space.

We saw the results of administrative efforts to fund this rebuilding: The Campus Life Fee Referendum failed amid controversy over financial aid coverage and support of fast-food corporations in the proposed expanded Price Center.

While students were unwilling to support this increase in fees, that does not mean that a better-written referendum will not pass in the near future. It will be crucial for the expansion to be responsive to students, who understand what works better than some campus officials think they do.

Other critics of expansion claim that more students will decentralize the campus. This problem can be solved with careful planning and thoughtful programs.

Increased funding for student organizations will be a boon to student life. Also, the preservation of the college system will ensure that students have the bonds of a smaller group while enjoying the sense of membership in a vast and exciting community.

It is estimated that UCSD's student population will swell to over 30,000 students by 2010. The challenges associated with this expansion will provide us with the chance to innovate and to emerge as a leader among large universities -- necessity is, after all, the mother of invention.

Thoughtful, responsive growth undertaken with attention to and with respect for students is necessary for our success over the next 10 years. It is necessary to make sure that UCSD reaps the benefits of extending opportunities to thousands of new students and creating new opportunities for students, faculty and the community at large.

Dynes said something else about our impending growth in his State of the Campus address: ""Sometimes I lie awake at night and feel excited, and my mind races about the things that we can do.""

This is the right attitude. All of our minds should be racing with the confidence that we can expand UCSD and create something exciting.

Four days after my first Sun God Festival, I find myself still involuntarily grinding my teeth in recollection of the ecstasy-induced frenzy I spent a substantial portion of that night in.

I suppose my former self, the high school senior who regarded painkillers as an escapist's use of chemicals, would have been aghast. That former self would probably be equal parts shocked and amused that I had my arm curled around the person to my right, and my left hand stroking the leg of the person to my left.

Most galling, however, would be the babbling stream of honesty that gushed forth from my lips. The aloof high school senior who regarded human interaction as fundamentally flawed, his own desire to express affection unwaveringly frustrated, and who could not stand to touch people had become a different person.

Not only that, but I carry the emotional changes to my day-to-day life that were effected the first time I tried ecstasy. This is not to say I'm touching everyone around me now, but it is a nice change to believe that expressing affection is desirable and possible.

""This is a good thing?!"" replied my friend at UC Santa Barbara. I admit that it very well could be a horrible thing.

There is a fundamental difference between recreational drug use and substance use for emotional enlightenment, and the latter could very well be much more dangerous. After all, smoking pot a couple times -- something I still have not tried -- does not often change people's political opinions, the way they relate with others, or the way they carry themselves in public. The most lasting consequences I've seen are a case of the munchies.

But what if a chemical fundamentally changes my perspective on human relationships, my own self-esteem, even elements of my personality?

The vast majority of the American public would regard this as anathema. ""This,"" the barons of the DEA would reply, ""is exactly why we fight against drugs -- because they change the very fabric of good, wholesome people.""

The U.S. Food and Drug Administrations (and the majority of Americans) place ecstasy on its Schedule IV list, a list that bears the designation of substances with ""no redeeming value."" I have to disagree.

Ecstasy, like any other dangerous tool, can be both very good and very bad -- like fire or a knife, you can use it to hurt yourself and others. But the very fact that something is powerful and dangerous does not exclude it from being a very useful tool.

I'm not going to make the ""no objective good"" or ""no objective truth"" argument to justify my drug use here, because it would be hypocritical and side-stepping the issue.

I agree that the alterations of personalities that drugs can effect can be very bad. But it seems unfortunate that I cannot tell many close friends or ordinary people about what drug use has helped me without their immediate disdain and loss of respect. It is rather amusing to me that those who would condemn my drug use for feeling closer to others use alcohol for the very same purpose.

The rhetoric of the drug war may have saved a great many lives from heroin addiction or cocaine overdoses. But at the same time, is it not as harmful that American society must deny a drug more potentially useful than Prozac due to its lasting emotional consequences simply because of that very potential?

Americans were shocked to see gasoline prices shoot up to $2 per gallon, and they were more shocked to hear that those prices might rise to $3 per gallon.

People across the country, especially in California, are subject to rising electricity bills and are being threatened with potential blackouts during the summer.

A frank assessment of the situation will show that our nation is in an energy crisis. We are paying more and more to fulfill our energy needs, and these higher prices could very well knock our floundering economy into a recession.

While it is easy for us to pass the buck and blame other people for this problem, we honestly have no one to blame but ourselves.

The administrations of Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. each turned a blind eye to our energy needs during the combined 12 years of their administrations. During that time, not a single oil refinery was built in this country.

We have neglected to build pipelines to deliver gasoline, natural gas and both crude and refined oil to the places where these resources are needed. At the same time, we have allowed our nation to become more dependent upon foreign oil and less invested in domestic oil production possibilities.

In order to deal with this situation, President George W. Bush recently released a plan with 105 proposals to help alleviate our energy woes. The proposals are a balanced approach to the crisis we face, since they deal with both the economics of our energy needs and the need for the encouragement of conservation.

The president's plan, though criticized by such groups as the Sierra Club for not doing anything for conservation, actually seeks to encourage it.

One of the recommendations is for the government to raise the fuel efficiency standards of sport utility vehicles from 20 miles per gallon to 27 miles per gallon. These efficiency standards have not been changed since the Carter administration, when this nation was going through another energy crisis.

Another of Bush's proposals would give a tax credit to those Americans who decide to buy cars that run on alternative energy, such as electricity.

All in all, nearly half of the 105 proposals seek to encourage American citizens to conserve energy via various incentives and government standards.

On the other hand, it would be completely naive to believe that this country can crawl out of its current state of crisis by simply conserving.

We must note that California is the most energy-efficient state in the union, yet it faces a daunting summer of rolling blackouts that will cause the temporary shutdown of many major businesses.

The president's plan seeks ways to increase our nation's energy supply through ""common sense"" means. This excludes nuclear energy as a possible solution, though we haven't considered such a possibility for over 20 years.

France, which has not fallen victim to an energy crisis, derives 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy. It is also important to note that the only byproduct released into the atmosphere from nuclear power is steam.

Democrats are screaming that the president is not doing anything to help in the short term. They point to previous presidents and say that the current administration should follow their lead. Their solutions include temporarily halting federal gasoline taxes and releasing the strategic oil reserve.

Such proposals are only temporary fixes that do not address our needs. Clinton did not halt the federal gas taxes and there is no reason for Bush to do so. However, Clinton did release the strategic oil reserve, which resulted in lower prices. Clearly, that was a mistake. Clinton did not understand that the reserve was created for real emergencies when our national security is at stake -- emergencies such as war.

Clinton released the reserve because he interpreted the situation as a real emergency. As a result, gas prices dropped, only to rise again to even higher levels.

Such quick fixes do nothing to address our nation's real needs. In addition, economic analysts predict that gasoline prices will fall after Memorial Day weekend and will continue to stabilize without the help of the Strategic Oil Reserve.

Our nation is clearly in the throes of an energy crisis. The president has done the right thing in releasing proposals that seek to address our long-term needs through both conservation and a supply increase.

Ever got the feeling that you've been cheated?"" Sex Pistols singer Johnny Rotten asked as he ended a concert. This question sums up how life feels sometimes.

It is the little things in life that seem to cheat or disappoint -- like getting a free sample tape of Weezer's new album, putting it in the stereo, all pumped up, only to find that it is five 20-second snippets -- just one big tease. Or like running to use the bathroom in your apartment only to find that there is no toilet paper left in the entire house and running for a back-up roll in the laundry room and discovering that they are all gone, too. Or sitting down on the couch to watch some quality CNN, only to find that the lead story is about how much the New York mayor thinks ferrets are dirty, unfit animals to keep as pets. These were just the little things in one afternoon; the list really has no end.

Maybe those examples are too minor and trivial, though. It is more like the cheated feeling when you write a check to the dreaded UC Regents, and then another, and another and another. Or when you cannot find a single parking space even with the $300 parking permit you bought, and then you get a ticket for parking and paying at a meter that expired only minutes before you returned to your car. Or getting your tax return from the State of California for one whopping dollar. Why do they even bother?

Why is it that we obsess with the little bothers instead of being satisfied with the moments of happiness? Maybe it's because the perpetually cheerful people's happiness is more sickening than contagious, and the internally disgruntled people usually seem more mysterious or interesting. Maybe it is just more fun to be overly dramatic about little bothers; they bring a little more excitement to a mundane day.

But why dwell in the pessimistic world that leads only to frustration or suicide? How could we possibly enjoy the good things in life if it weren't for the bad things? And anyway, the good things really do outweigh the little moments of being cheated; it is only that we let them fade from our memory too soon.

Besides, upper-middle-class students really don't have much to complain about in life. Maybe if more people read the New York Times best seller ""Tuesdays with Morrie,"" there would be a greater appreciation for the little things in life that make it so good. Or if everyone traveled to a third-world country for a month and saw firsthand how much we are spoiled and really just self-centered idiots.

But if the feeling of being cheated or disappointed persists, it can always be diminished with the crooning voice of Coldplay's Chris Martin, singing ""We live in a beautiful world, yes we do, yes we do ...."" And if all else fails, in attempting to overcome petty disappointing times, just develop the pictures of your friends at the Sun God Festival.