On April 27, the House of Representatives approved ""The Unborn Victims of Violence Act,"" which would make hurting or killing an unborn fetus a federal crime, though it explicitly excludes abortion.

James Pascual
Guardian

Supporters of the bill argue that this is an important step in ensuring that anyone committing a violent crime against mothers and unborn children will be fully prosecuted. Opponents argue that giving unborn children federal protection is the first step in overturning Roe v. Wade, and that the bill is being used by anti-abortion groups to erode abortion rights.

It is no secret that this law has serious political and cultural overtones. It would be ignorant to think otherwise; abortion is a subject that has proven to be one of the most divisive issues in our society. It pits women against men, liberals against conservatives and Christians against just about everyone else.

What makes abortion such an intense issue is that any argument made with the intent to change minds is essentially futile. When it comes down to it, abortion is not an issue that is based on opinions, facts and other quantitative analyses. Instead, it strikes at fundamental feelings and ideologies that cannot be changed through debate. It is a question of beliefs, not one of opinion, and as a result no one side will ever change the mind of the other.

Sadly, American politics dictates that the victor will not be the group that garners the most popular support. Instead, it will be the one that can muster the most political might.

Thus arguing over this recent decision by the House on the basis of abortion will accomplish little. Anti-abortion activists and abortion-rights supporters will simply never come to a consensus on this validity and the intentions of this law. Instead, the bill should be examined as one strictly defining the penalties of violent acts against pregnant women.

In Wisconsin, after beating his nine-months pregnant wife nearly to death and killing the unborn child, an abusive husband walked out of jail after serving time only for assaulting the mother. The fetus must be protected, just as must the rights of the women carrying them.

The holes in our legal system make it too easy for criminals to get off without paying for their crimes. Murderers walk, rapists are let go for good behavior, and child molesters -- over 90 percent of whom are repeat offenders -- live freely in our neighborhoods. This law will send a stern message that law enforcement agencies are taking a stand on violence against women, namely pregnant ones. By adding another victim to such crimes, this law will necessarily punish those who break it more severely.

Another reason this law is important is that improvements in medical science now make it possible for younger fetuses to survive outside the womb. Since a five- or six-month-old fetus would be viable if born prematurely, we must take action to protect it as a life. While this may give rise to a new debate in the abortion arena, we should not use that fact as an excuse to ignore the rights of a viable human being.

We are moving into an age when medical advancements are redefining what we consider human life, and we must start enacting laws to protect all that can be considered as such. We cannot leave it up to Washington bureaucrats to pick and choose only some of us to be protected under the law. Fetal rights is a crucial first step, as advancements in cloning and genetic engineering will provide interesting developments in this field in the future.

One popular argument against this bill is that it is narrow in scope and is thus not important enough to pass. Since it is a federal law, it does not cover instances of domestic abuse, though half of states have adopted equivalent laws to protect fetuses against domestic abuse. The law does, however, specifically target military bases, where domestic abuse and violence against women is certainly an important and -- until now -- unaddressed issue.

Scope is not a valid measure in determining the merit of a law. Look at environmental protection regulations aimed at preserving the habitats of single endangered species -- very narrow in scope but also incredibly important.

In a majority rule form of governing, one must take great pains to protect the few, no matter how few. Until this point, the fetus has gone unprotected. Whether you consider life valid at conception, a few months into pregnancy or birth itself, few would argue that an unborn child is insignificant. Losing an unborn child can be a devastating loss to an expecting mother, and anyone who induces this should be punished as if an infant has been killed. This law will make sure this happens, and ensure the punishment is one that fits this heinous crime.

There is an alarming trend in this country of interpreting electronic means of communication as being nearly as good as face-to-face contact. This only grows stronger with the advent of new technology such as video conferencing and the prevalence of personal computers and Web cams.

The trend began with e-mail, and everybody started getting up in arms about how e-mail was going to destroy the art of letter writing. The whole idea behind that concern is ridiculous. Most e-mails sent to others are concise and to the point, like notes left on someone's door or messages on an answering machine: ""Sorry I couldn't meet you today, how about tomorrow at 1:30? Call me.""

However, e-mails to people whom you are keeping in touch with and whom you are some distance away from tend to be longer and more explanatory, and often take more time to prepare than these short notes. In this way, e-mail does not destroy the art of letter writing, made nearly obsolete by the advent of long-distance telephone service, but actually preserves it to some extent.

What e-mail does threaten are phone conversations. I'm not talking about the conversations people are having with their clients as they hurtle down Interstate 5, but the conversations between friends separated by distance. E-mail is cheaper, quicker, less involved and more reliable in reaching someone than a phone call. I am as guilty of this shortcut communication method as anyone, preferring to hand out my e-mail address rather than my phone number because I am often out of the house but able to access a computer.

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. I have not seen her since winter break, and to hear her voice when I actually do call is a wonderful feeling. Yes, occasionally we ICQ each other; but on ICQ, can you laugh with each another? Of course not, especially when you're not alone in the room. And I know I'm not the only one who types ""lol"" when I'm not really laughing. That doesn't even count.

There is a terrific sense of ""withness"" that you only get when you're actually with someone. Even on the phone, the purity of the withness is fairly low: You talk to someone on the phone; you talk with someone in person.

It's almost like attending a lecture, where the lecturer is distant from you. You can talk to the professor and you'll get an answer, but you are not talking with your professor. Even in the rare occasion that you are invited to the front of the room by a professor, you are only a guest, hovering in a kind of limbo where the professor is forced to pay attention to you, but must still acknowledge the rest of the audience.

Go with a professor to lunch, and you'll experience this weird sensation of being recognized as almost an equal, which is very disconcerting given the previous experience of being the one taught to, taught at, in an audience situation.

This indescribable thing, this preconception-shattering feeling, is what I am referring to as ""withness."" And it is this feeling that people need to really bond with one another. It is for lack of this that the many Internet romances cropping up around the world fail so often, despite honesty and yearning for companionship. It is for lack of withness that long-distance relationships so commonly fall apart; that husbands overseas tryst with foreign women when they are so, so faithful at home ... they crave the withness they once had with their counterparts.

And now I see this sickening trend entering the courts -- many judges are allowing divorced parents with custody of their children to move states away from their ex-spouses, regardless of the other parent's relationship with the child. They give the noncustodial parent their minimum entitlement of visitation days and justify their decisions with the fact that the parent can set up video conferencing with their child for the rest of the time.

Video conferencing, with its tantalizing illusion of ""withness,"" cannot and must not be a substitute for actual physical proximity or physical contact. I cannot be the only one who has heard of the study in which infants who received physical, loving contact with another human being had many positive attributes compared to babies who did not. This is not a coincidence. Those poor untouched babies suffered from a lack of withness.

With the media's recent portrayal of young people in the news, our generation seems marked with random and needless violence, with little to offer in the way of making positive changes in our world. I feel that we have been deemed Generation X undeservingly, though.

I would argue that there are many among us who make a valiant effort every day to make a difference. Unfortunately, those who lead the crusade to positively impact their communities, on any level, are not usually the ones to make the nightly news. I was proud to represent UCSD on a recent service project where I felt our campus exemplified the good our generation is capable of.

Last weekend, over 200 UCSD students from all five colleges devoted their Saturday to their surrounding community's need. From cleaning up graffiti to helping to build the foundation for a home for the poor, Hands on San Diego organized 18 service programs for the students to choose from. It was an all-day event, and breakfast was offered to all the students before they departed for their programs, followed by a barbecue and music afterward.

The project was initiated 10 years ago by the Volunteer Connection under the guidance of Ellen Caprio and has grown progressively over the years.

""Hands on San Diego was an effort created to give students a taste of volunteering,"" explained Chad Hicks-Beach of the Volunteer Connection.""It was also made to bring students together.""

The project seemed to attract students with varying backgrounds in volunteering, from the experienced to novices such as myself. That is truly what makes it such a worthwhile project, because by allowing students to ""test the waters"" if you will, they often become hooked, leading them to seek out other ways to get involved. Participating in the project certainly sparked my desire to seek out similar opportunities.

The spirit of volunteerism at UCSD is strong, though it may take a little effort to get involved. Often, projects like Hands on San Diego go unnoticed simply because publicity is difficult and expensive, or the administration fails to take notice of the projects.

A perfect example was the service trip to the Dominican Republic organized by C.O.R.E., Eleanor Roosevelt College's community outreach program over spring break. A commendable project that took nine students and one administrator to the Hogar Escuela Armando Rosenburg orphanage of poverty-stricken Santo Domingo, it regrettably received very little universitywide attention.

In a small presentation for the Eleanor Roosevelt administration, the students were heralded as pioneers by the project's coordinator Lorna Hirae-Reese. Indeed, this was the very first of this type of organized service trip to a foreign country with any UCSD students.

Such a monumental achievement should have received recognition from the entire university. This would have encouraged other students to participate in the next trip or even initiate and plan their own. Personally, hearing of this and other service projects is what led me to find other outlets to volunteer, as I am sure is the same for others.

While taking part in Hands on San Diego, I met many incredible people who strengthened my faith in my generation. They shared with me the good they see on a daily basis from the young people they encounter.

I was fortunate enough to help out on the Habitat for Humanity project, where I worked alongside the future owners of the houses we were building. Rudy Saldivar, one of the owners was a most deserving candidate, and could not have been more appreciative of our help. He shared with us the struggle it has been for him to support his six children while commuting every week from Fresno, Calif.,seeing his family only on weekends for the last four years.

Through meeting him and the others, our purpose became much more real to me and I felt like even my small contribution was valuable. Throughout the day, Saldivar and the other workers continually stopped to thank us for coming, remind us of how little it takes to make a difference, and that we are that difference.

So much of society today is unable to see what these workers and other volunteers at Habitat for Humanity see every day as a new group of young people appear on the construction site, ready and willing to do all they can. Instead, society is only assaulted with the negative influence Generation X is shown to have through the media.

Despite these inaccurate and damaging portrayals, I do see evidence of our generation fighting for change on this campus. UCSD has so many opportunities available for its students to get involved. One merely needs to make an effort to find where they are needed.

Ever been to the UCSD Guardian Web site (https://www.ucsdguardian.org)? Well, if you have, then you know the name of Ben Boychuk. Coincidentally, Ben isn't actually a member of the Guardian staff. He's what I would like to call a Contributing Opinion Writer. He contributes his opinion by writing comments about each and every article we write.

By deductive reasoning, we can thus assume that he reads each and every article we write. I didn't know anybody did that, besides Tom Vu, the opinion editor. Like Tom, he makes suggestions and comments about what we should, and shouldn't write on. So this brings the obvious question: What the hell are we paying Tom for? This man, Ben Boychuk, will read and edit all of our opinion articles for free! He even spell checks letters to the editor.

There are other reasons I like Ben better than Tom. Tom calls me Bertrand or Bert, whereas Ben refers to me as Senior Staff Writer Mr. Fan. Senior Staff Writer Mr. Fan sounds a lot classier than Bert -- that and I don't think Tom is really giving me the whole nine yards.

Sometimes, Tom will call me up or write to me and say that such and such sentence is ""risque"" or ""inappropriate."" Ben will just straight up call me a damn idiot. It's that sort of constructive criticism that really gets the point across. Tom usually tries to keep his comments cordial regarding the article, but Ben really looks out for my well-being.

For example, Ben advised in his May 3 post, ""Get good grades. Get your degree. Get out. And shut the hell up. You aren't half as clever as you think."" Ben isn't just an editor to me, he's a counselor and a psychologist for my personal life as well -- a journalistic messiah, if you will.

One good thing about Ben is that he is the end-all opinion on everything. I now find it unnecessary to have an opinion about anything because if I ever need the absolute divine truth, I just turn to Ben. I don't subscribe to the theory that Ben is a pedophile who sits at home in his underwear refreshing the Guardian Web page until new articles appear, I think it is simply wonderful that he takes the time out of his busy day to write comments longer than the articles themselves and lecture an entire staff on the ""basic tenets of journalism.""

The fact that he has chosen the Web format of the Guardian over the actual printed newspaper demonstrates his tender embrace of what some would consider an anti-social haven for losers. Such gestures bring a tear to my eye.

Another humble bow should go to Ben, because I don't believe he is even a student at UCSD, from his references to Thurgood Marshall college as Third College. I had no idea that our publication was so popular. I had originally assumed that the only set of people who would read the Guardian outside of students and faculty would be stalkers and crackheads, but it can be clearly seen from Ben's enticing writing skills, this is not the case. We can now extend that set to pseudo-intellectual elitists, who are always needed.

I have always felt that the Guardian was a mere college newspaper to amuse the students during boring college lectures but Ben has taught me that what we write in it is more important than any written work on the planet. What we write affects an entire nation.

In the past, when I wrote columns, I followed a simply strategy. The very first thing I did was determine which groups I would want to offend. I would have a bit of a checklist (e.g. Jews, midgets, feminists, Nazis, feminazis, etc). And then I would check them off. Then, rather subtly, or in some cases not so subtly, I made offensive remarks to those specific groups and inject them into various parts of my column.

But my editors aren't stupid; they would catch most of them. So I was forced to throw as many things as possible at them and hope one or two would go through. Sometimes I would throw in so many that they would just throw out the entire column altogether.

But no more, Ben has shown me the way. From now on, only important issues shall be covered in my column, and I will have no opinion on anything. Some may consider that a news piece, but I direct those ignorant fools to the general direction of Ben Boychuk.

It's OK. I used to be ignorant as well; I used to think it was acceptable to express my opinion on opinion pages. My vote for next year's editor in chief goes not to Jeffrey White or Alison Norris, but to Ben Boychuk, the man who knows everything.

The revolutionary new fertility procedure conceived by New Jersey scientists that spawned the birth of the world's first 15 genetically modified babies is a frightening example of the lengths to which science will go to achieve the miracle of birth.

The technique seems like something from an episode of the ""X-Files."" Doctors take an egg from an infertile woman, an egg from a donor woman and sperm from the infertile woman's mate. The doctors suck out the cytoplasm of the donor egg with a microscopic needle. The cytoplasm is then injected into the infertile woman's egg, along with the sperm, to fertilize it.

The doctors believe the procedure helps women who are unable to conceive because of defects in their eggs. These doctors now have 15 babies to put up on their pedestal of scientific marvels.

But the controversy doesn't end there. The new fertility treatment creates one child who has DNA from two biological mothers. How is this possible? According to Dr. Jacques Cohen, scientific director of assisted reproduction at the institute that produced the embryos, the method can introduce mitochondrial DNA from the female donor's egg into the mix of genetic material from the mother and father. The institute took blood tests and confirmed that two of the 15 babies produced at the institute were carrying genetic material from the birth mother, the father and the woman who donated an egg. While this treatment is a blessing and a miracle for those infertile couples, it warrants a look at the proven and potential consequences.

The most glaring concern expressed by many dissidents is that the procedure is unethical because it leaves a child with three biological parents.

Cohen responded to these criticisms in an interview with Reuters, saying, ""I don't think this is wrong at all. And I think we have to look at the positive part here. I think this did work. These babies wouldn't have been born if we wouldn't have done this.""

Cohen's answer to the critics of the controversial procedure is quite telling and rather surprising. Like a seasoned politician, he deftly side-stepped addressing the critics' concerns and steamrolled to his mantra: ""Look at the positive part here ... this did work.""

The response that ""this did work"" as an excuse for the risky procedure is completely arrogant and reckless, for it reveals the doctor's belief that achieving the end result is all that matters. It is obvious that the doctors had no concern for the fact that they were experimenting with real babies.

Cohen's choice to duck those valid concerns raised by critics begs the question: What are you trying to hide?

The statement that ""these babies wouldn't have been born if we wouldn't have done this"" is shocking. Do the ends justify whatever the means may be? The big picture and ramifications for the future are more important than having those babies at any cost.

Cohen is so shortsighted that he doesn't see what he has created with these genetically modified babies. The tri-genetic code will be passed down to future generations. Though the consequences of playing with and modifying the genetic code of these babies and their future babies are not yet known, it is obvious that the doctors have derailed the course of nature.

Who's to say what the future consequences are for such genetic modification via this fertility procedure? While the world waits for the answer, other doctors in the United States continue to experiment and create genetically modified babies.

However, the concerns about this procedure and the unknown costs are so strong that Britain has banned the fertility procedure.

Britain's Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority has not licensed researchers to use the technique, on the basis that it does not have a proven safety record and could let in germline genetic modification, which would allow for the introduction of deliberate genetic changes into human embryos -- the changes that will be inherited by their offspring when they are conceived.

Many people view germline engineering as a qualitative shift in the history of human intervention in natural processes that may take us an irrevocable step toward self-creation, or self-destruction. Others see such fears as exaggerated, based on scientific misunderstanding or irrational fears.

Since there is no proof yet, any sort of definite conclusion drawn from these two extreme views will be merely guesswork.

How far will science go in the realm of genetic modifications? How much will they tinker and toy with the future of our very humanity?

If the doctors' objectives are to get the baby born regardless of the consequences, I shudder to think what these scientists have in store for us. Once we allow this new fertility procedure, it will be down the medical ethical slippery slope for us all. Anything and everything will be fair game. Just watch.

Never has the Price Center served such an honorable and worthy purpose, and never have I seen so many students overflow out onto Library Walk, too intrigued to walk on. If you weren't in the Price Center at noon last Tuesday, then you truly missed a show. Not only was Ozomatli amazing, but the purpose behind the gathering, to protest the low wages of janitors, was even more compelling.

The student activism behind the event was incredible, and is hopefully a step that will lead to more events of such nature. The fliers passed out by the activists informed the crowd of what was being protested and the need to ""resist apathy by building our consciousness through social and political education.""

The event brought to light many truths that we as students take for granted, such as the people who keep the campus clean and comfortable for students who don't give a second thought to how it got that way. It was refreshing to see such displays of protest carried out in a constructive yet festive manner.

The incorporation of a band such as Ozomatli was awesome and ingenious. Music is an art form that brings people together; they drop their guards and sing in unison, forgetting their differences and prejudices.

I once asked a group of international students what their definition of a ""World Culture"" is, and a Japanese student answered with the single word: music. There is an unexplainable element of music that can create unity among people. And the artists themselves have the ability to use the microphones to do more than just sing their songs and play their instruments -- they can speak out to an audience that will listen. Though not everyone may agree with what is said, they will still listen.

And to have the attention of such a captive audience will help to ensure that the message will be heard, and that people will act upon what they hear. Since the march with janitors was planned to be after the Ozomatli concert, there were more people willing to join in -- they heard what it was all about. It was good to see such a successful protest carried out on a campus usually void of any collective student action.

It is also necessary to realize that the group that organized the event was the Latino student community, a minority on this campus. Its efforts are more than admirable, and highly commended. If a relatively small group can create such a gathering of students and faculty, imagine what would happen if the majority of the student population put its efforts into something more than events for self-gratification.

Last Tuesday showed me the part of the college experience that many people are missing. Just because this campus is designed to deter large student gatherings and protests, it doesn't mean that they are wrong or impossible. The events of last Tuesday dispelled that myth, and with that barrier broken down, it will hopefully open the floodgates of events.

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 the apathy for something more.

When UCSD students rejected the Campus Life Fee Referendum two weeks ago, they were making a statement to the administration: Students want to decide how their tuition dollars are to be spent, not the administration. The students voted down the option of increasing tuition by $210 to improve student life on campus, which included the expansion of the Price Center.

Regardless, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Joseph Watson felt the expansion was still necessary and he advocated a 10 percent decrease in funding for student services in his budget. The Guardian feels implementing this plan would be disastrous for the administration, because students would erupt over the decrease in services available to them and the lack of control they had over their funds.

We think the administration was correct in its decision to postpone a final decision on how to expand Price Center as the options currently debated fail to satisfactorily solve the problem.

Implementing Watson's idea of decreasing funding to student services comes at no worse time, because our school is in the process of expanding enrollment.

The administration needs to give more money to fund these services and certainly should not take money away. We believe students should not have to suffer from a lack of services so students of the future can have more food options and shorter lines. In addition, the plan would cause staff members from some departments, such as the dean's offices, to be laid off to free up money. That is not right either.

Keeping the budgets of student services the same next year and spending extra time to come up with a solution for the expansion is in the best interest of both the students and the administration. Spending an extra year to decide will give students a chance to propose another fee referendum, if that is what they chose to do, and it will give the administration a chance to derive a better plan that makes all parties happy.

Members of the new A.S. Council have already discussed having a new referendum for next year if they get the support of the student body. The referendum would most likely just include the expansion of the University Centers and therefore would cost considerably less money to students.

The Guardian feels that an increase in tuition by $10 is a lot better than a decrease in student services like Student Health by 10 percent.

Most services are underbudgeted to begin with, and implementing this plan would make problems dramatically worse. More importantly than the University Centers expansion itself, the Guardian believes that funding for all student services under Watson, such as Student Disabilities, Student Organizations and Leadership Opportunities, and Psychological Services should not decrease.

Last week was the final week that Doc Khaleghi served as president of the A.S. Council. Being a senior, I've been through several administrations now, and I must say that this administration, the one headed by Khaleghi, has accomplished much. Khaleghi has been perhaps the most prolific and involved of recent presidents.

I recently sat down with Khaleghi and asked him a few questions about his administration and some campus issues, such as commencement and the future state of parking. After a frank and open discussion, I was convinced that Khaleghi has been a successful A.S. president, involved in many campus issues and able to bring about worthwhile changes to our campus. Here is an abridged transcript of our conversation:

Tom Vu: So how would you rate your tenure here as A.S. president, compared to previous ones?

Doc Khaleghi: Well, compared to previous A.S. presidents, I think I've been able to accomplish a lot more, and that's just because I think my ideas have been new. I've tried new things, looking at things from different perspectives. I've learned that what students want and what the administration wants is not necessarily mutually exclusive.

An example of that would be commencement. In previous years, it's always been sort of a clash -- the administration versus the students. The students want all-campus commencement, but the administration doesn't. It was just an approach from a different perspective this year. It's how commencement can benefit the campus as a whole, including administration. That's why it wasn't as much of a struggle and happened a lot easier.

Next year, we're going to start something completely new. It's going to be like commencement in the beginning of the year: a new student welcoming, all-campus, probably at RIMAC Field. It wasn't something that had to be fought for; it was just something that had to be initiated and shown it could benefit all parties involved.

Another thing we're working on that students really love is moving Plus Card off campus. Again, the administration has a benefit there because they get a certain portion of Plus Card money that's spent. And students have a benefit because there are more places they can use Plus Card money.

But in terms of the potential of the office, I know I could have done more. There was time I had to divert sometimes; I'm applying to med schools right now. Every couple of days I had to go to an interview or I had to fill out an application, so I didn't devote 100 percent of my time to the office. I devoted as much time as I could, though. There could've been more done with the office than I did with it, but I think I accomplished a lot, especially comparing myself with my predecessors.

TV: How did you guys settle on Patch Adams as commencement speaker? I mean, I've heard lots of criticism about how it's only Patch Adams. [Some say] ""Look at what we've had before ...""

DK: Well, we had Bill Clinton before, the president of the United States -- we're never going to match that [again], so you're always going to hear criticism. And the students want a big name, someone they recognize. Well, people like the chancellor want to see someone that represents what UCSD is: intelligence, thinking outside the box.

We came up with a list of names with some top choices and proceeded to contact those top choices, and we were fortunate that Patch Adams agreed. He represents more than just medicine. He is ""thinking outside of the box,"" taking knowledge and using that knowledge to serve your community. And that's the message I want UCSD graduates to receive when they leave. They've gone to this great university, they've gotten all this experience, all this knowledge, and now they have this responsibility to serve, and hopefully Patch Adams will deliver that message.

TV: What's left for the incoming president to take care of?

DK: I think they need to continue to pursue what I've been pursuing regarding housing.

In terms of parking, I've been successful. I've been the first president that's been able to get more yellow spaces, and I've used many arguments to get those spaces. I think we need to keep on continuing with the arguments, especially with the way parking's been.

They need to take the time to discover what students really want and see how they don't necessarily need to vie to get these things accomplished. And once they've realized that, they'll accomplish so much. But if they just pursue the idea that [fighting] politically looks good, in terms of ""I look good when I fight the administration,"" but don't really get anywhere, then I don't think they'll be successful.

TV: It was evident in previous A.S. elections that large amounts of students are apathetic toward elections. Many consider the Associated Students as inconsequential and pointless, more as a resume builder and a popularity contest than anything else. How do you respond?

DK: They are right. The Associated Students, I think, does have a lot of people that are in it for resume building. I think Associated Students is a huge popularity contest. And I think for many people, Associated Students does not have a huge consequence on their life, but that's just because we're not doing our full potential. That's not saying Associated Students does not have the ability; it's just that we're not doing it yet. And we need to, because we have a lot of people in it for the wrong reason. We need to have people who genuinely care and are willing to fight ... or willing to just think and research and put the time in, and come up with the ideas that really help students, and not fight for ambiguous things that could indirectly help the student body, like revising our own constitution or things like that. But things that students can actually feel, like having Plus off campus -- students will actually feel that; they'll notice that. And when those kinds of things happen, people will recognize that Associated Students was consequential in their lives.

TV: So what is going on with the parking situation right now? DK: I'm optimistic ... and I really like some of the things that are going on. We're talking about a lot of new ideas. For people that do fight for parking, they're kind of focusing on ""more yellow spaces, more yellow spaces."" There are more things that we can do than just having more yellow spaces. Some things are going to happen in the next few weeks -- for example, there are safety issues in terms of ""What about people that get to campus late at night?"" What are they going to do? Right now I want to make it so that a person can park in any space on campus until at least 10 in the morning. No more of this ""7:45 a.m., they have to be gone or they're going to get a ticket."" I don't think that's safe; I don't think it's proper.

We're working on new permit systems. We're trying to move to a UCLA system, where other factors are evaluated in terms of where you can park and how much your permit is, so that certain people -- maybe they have off campus jobs, who have to deal with commuting a lot more -- might have better parking privileges than maybe an on-campus resident who maybe moves his car once a month. And you can put that in, and it'll get me blasted by a lot of residents, but it's about doing what's right. Commuters come to this campus every day. People that work off-campus daily, they need access to the heart of the campus more than a resident who doesn't commute very much.

TV: Was it difficult to come into the office after Tesh Khullar? Was it hard to clean up the mess he left behind?

DK: The first two weeks, yeah. I would send campus-wide e-mails and people would reply ""I don't trust Associated Students anymore, screw you,"" those kinds of things. And that's tough. You have an image to clean up. I said, ""You know what, I just have to work as hard as I can. I'm not Tesh, and I'm going to have to show that to people."" You've got to go the extra level.

For example, I have a $500 operating account; I don't think I've spent $50 of it. I want students to trust that I'm not going to waste their money. You've just got to show that you go to work hard and you've got to keep communicating with students. I don't think anyone remembers any more. If they do, they don't associate that with Associated Students in general.

TV: What advice do you have for the incoming officials?

DK: Don't worry about your image. If you care too much about your image, you won't get anything done. There'll always be ideas, plans that you want to do that some people won't like and if you try to please those people, you won't get shit done.

You've got to be able to look bad. I know I've looked bad many times this year `cause of different things, but it's for what I thought was right. Do what you think is right; don't necessarily consider yourself an adversary to anyone. Work with people, and that's the way you'll get the most done. But don't go for popularity; go for accomplishment.

TV: If there were one thing you could change about UCSD with a snap of your finger, what would it be?

DK: It's kind of vague. UCSD is a very beautiful campus, but sometimes that's given priority over other things, and I would change that. Examples of that would [be] housing. We could build lots of cheap housing very quickly, but it wouldn't be that pretty, and so certain groups on campus wouldn't let that happen. We could build much cheaper, bigger parking structures so that it wouldn't cause permit costs to go up so much.

This isn't the fault of the parking [office], this isn't the fault of the housing [office]. There are so many layers of bureaucracy to the campus that it has to [get] through. And I would change that, because sometimes students' needs and students' happiness and students' livability, in terms of costs, is a lot more important than how pretty your place is.

TV: So what's in store for the future of Doc?

DK: I'm applying to med school. I don't know where I'm going yet. Hoping to hear from some good schools that I got in, but I don't know. I'll just sit and wait for a few weeks.

I would like to bring a piece of news to the attention of Chancellor Dynes: Not all UCSD students are science majors. The way the school is being run indicates that no one has told the chancellor.

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.

I'm not stupid -- I'm well aware that UCSD developed out of the research-oriented Scripps Institution of Oceanography. But that was 40 years ago, and it seems as if the liberal arts are still scratching the surface of funding resources, while the science departments are knee-deep in cash.

How does Dynes think this unfair dispersal of funds affects students? Academia is supposed to be the one arena where equality is stressed, where knowledge is cherished, no matter from what discipline. Yet the academic environment at UCSD encourages liberal arts majors (I dare not say nonscience majors) to develop an inferiority complex. I believe this same complex stifles their intellectual growth here at our great research university, helping to form a vicious cycle in which liberal arts majors look upon their major with apathy. It is hard to find a reason to expand academic departments when the students of those majors are not ambitious. But, after all this explanation as to why they are, who could blame them?

I think my strong feelings revolving around this issue arise from my Revelle college student status. I am greatly in the minority here at MCAT -- I mean premed, er uh -- Revelle college. I vividly remember how the first week of school freshman year, there was already a premed forum. How do you think that makes a scared, undeclared freshman feel? And let me assure you, there was no law school forum to complement the premed forum.

Ahh, Revelle -- the renaissance college. There is nothing renaissance about it. The general education requirements consist of a bunch of social science classes, a foreign language requirement, the humanities sequence and premed courses. The one bright light in Revelle is the humanities. I am grateful for the opportunity to break the seal of this sacred canon of books summarizing the events of western civilization.

But even in humanities, there is a lot left to be desired. The professors have been wonderful, the books great, the TAs satisfactory. The students, awful! And they say that the only people at UCSD who can write are Revellians! The quality of writing in humanities is not high. Humanities is Revelle's half-assed attempt to distance itself from the research-minded aspect of the rest of UCSD, when in fact Revelle's own GEs require practically every liberal arts major to fulfill the prebio requirements.

Let me ask those in charge at Revelle college: How does one acquire renaissance status when one simply adds some social science requirements to the prebio GEs? It's not as if these social science requirements are taken seriously. Any informed Revelle student knows he can satisfy any of them either at a community college or at summer school. On the other hand, the science courses cannot be satisfied at a community college. A double standard, maybe? Renaissance, my ass!

Let me pose a question: Why are there science classes for liberal arts majors, but no liberal arts classes for science majors? Are the liberal arts so easy at UCSD that they require no screening at all?

The whole division of science classes seems like a ploy to recruit more science majors to the university. It's equivalent to separating the elite from the masses. Who would right-mindedly choose the masses? I spent my whole first year at Revelle being a science major, when in reality I was undeclared. But I wanted to take all the science courses ""just in case"" I happened to join the elite and become a science major. The same situation I lived through would not exist for potential liberal arts majors.

Personally, I have taken one nonscience class here at UCSD: physics 11A. The academic environment was apathetic. The standards were set so low for this class that it caused riots of laughter among the students. The ease of this class made me smile and puke simultaneously. It was disturbing that I could flunk the quizzes, and with the curve, still get an A. The student apathy for this class was so strong that the professor had no choice but to set the curve extremely low so that nobody would flunk. Why would such a situation occur here at our prestigious university?

The simple fact of how liberal arts majors are addressed at UCSD is disturbing. We are not liberal arts majors, are we? What are we most commonly referred to as? Nonscience majors? So, by contrast, are science majors ever non-liberal arts majors? Is the shift of priorities at UCSD so great that in order for people to understand what you are, you have to say what you're not?

I've been having doubts lately. Maybe my humanities professor is right. Maybe UCSD is ITT Tech. Maybe Revelle is one big premed workshop. With the overt priorities of funding to the sciences, UCSD can do nothing else but create an unhealthy environment, laced with inferiority for liberal arts majors. This situation creates a sense of apathy that will take serious measures to counteract.

Do me a favor as you walk around school today: Count the number of science buildings and liberal arts buildings. Count the number of fliers advertising science activities as opposed to those for the liberal arts. Then tell me I can't feel like a second-class citizen at my own university.

2001 has not been a good year for UCSD elections.

One of the low points occurred on April 10, when the student council ""election"" at Marshall college turned into a disgrace. Due to disqualification, students were left with only one candidate to choose from for each of the eight positions.

Nexus, one out of two slates running in the election, was eliminated due to numerous violations, including posting too many signs and ""dorm storming"" (going into residence halls to solicit votes). As a result, the other slate, Marshall Posse, automatically won all eight positions.

As your average Marshall frshman, at first the whole ordeal just seemed kind of bothersome to me. I was troubled that I didn't get to choose, but who gives a crap about Nexus or Marshall Posse? Someone's just going to come in and go through the motions.

However, the more I looked into the issue, the more it alarmed me. And the more I looked at Nexus, the more I understood the positive messages it has for UCSD.

The idea of such a lopsided election at Marshall college is particularly upsetting and ironic, because the school was established in 1970 as a college for students who questioned the messages that society sends, and as an institution that advocated social change.

Whether Marshall college lives up to its role of political activist is in the eye of the beholder. Nexus, however, fits this bill perfectly.

It was just a group of students that wanted to make a difference, to make our time in college more enjoyable -- and above all, to get more students involved in the decision-making process that affects us all.

After meeting with student council chair candidate Adam Sherry, vice chair candidate Brent Nibecker and director of finance candidate Mike Afshar, their good intentions for Marshall college became apparent, as did the full extent of the mistake made in eliminating them.

""The main thing we based this campaign on was the fact that people around us weren't happy,"" Sherry said. ""This school has so much potential that is not realized.""

The problem is, students are not talking loudly enough. How is the school supposed to know what we want or need? There's S.C.O.R.E., a weekly meeting where students can voice complaints. But it is not always the current situation that needs to be remedied; there are new things that can be done to improve our way of life.

Nexus proposed a solution to the problem of miscommunication: Get more students involved in council meetings.

""If we're spending a few thousand dollars, I want more than 20 kids to be involved in it,"" Afshar said.

Nexus' answer is simple and sound. Hold public forums, which students will know about ahead of time, in which student concerns can be addressed. This isn't the same as S.C.O.R.E. -- it's getting students involved in what the student council does. The parliamentary procedure and boring stuff will be left for more official council meetings. Perhaps people might not have shown up anyway, but maybe they would have, and Nexus would have given students a chance to be heard.

Nexus was punished essentially for wanting just that -- to be heard. Sure, maybe it posted more flyers than were allowed, but is that really such a big deal? Its members put their voices out there and tried to make some changes, but they were denied any chance to help the student body.

The circumstances in which Nexus was booted are suspicious. In addition, members of Nexus complain that their punishment -- which included 15 hours of community service and an ethics class -- was too harsh.

First, Marshall Posse was faced with many of the same charges as Nexus, yet went unpunished. Regardless of the parties' guilt, the manner in which the election rules committee handled the situation was unfair. According to Sherry and Afshar, while Marshall Posse was allowed a hearing to contest the allegations, Nexus never had an opportunity to defend itself in front of the rules committee that eliminated it.

How can a college that supposedly advocates social change allow the ideas of these eight students to be barred by trivial rules and regulations? In a school that is lacking student involvement (look at the less than 25 percent voter turnout for the recent A.S. elections), to have candidates turned away from an election is appalling.

Even Marshall college's ""Dimensions of Culture"" sequence emphasizes the idea of procedural vs. substantive justice, or essentially, following the rules vs. trying to get the best result.

Nexus broke the rules. It got kicked out. That's the procedure, that's how we maintain order.

But how can anything ever change if rules aren't broken? If Rosa Parks didn't take a seat at the front of the bus? If Elizabeth I didn't rule England? If America never rebelled against Great Britain?

Nexus was something different, and instead we responded in the same old way. Nobody cared about its radical stance, or knew what to do about it, until it was time to suppress its members' ideas just because of some stupid old rule.

Why are we so afraid to stray from the beaten path? College is not just about classes and diplomas, it's about possibilities and opportunities. This isn't junior high school, where student government candidates feed us empty promises of longer lunch breaks and field trips to Disneyland.

The real world is a place of substance, where following procedure strictly won't always get you where you need to be, and you can't stand still waiting for something -- anything -- to happen. We should all be like Nexus, just a bunch of average college kids, trying to make things happen.

It has been tradition since the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to grade new presidential administrations by what they have accomplished in their first 100 days in office. The media and the rest of the nation decided to follow that tradition, and for the most part, have given our 43rd president good marks. President George W. Bush's approval ratings have gone up, and deservedly so, since he took the oath of office back in January.

Much of the nation felt a bit of unease when they heard that the governor of Texas had failed a pop quiz on world leaders. The fear was that if he could not call to mind who the president of the breakaway republic of Chechnya was, that there would be no way in which he could be expected to deal with international leaders in a meaningful and thoughtful manner.

The president has risen to the occasion as is customary of him. With a cool demeanor and steady hand, Bush negotiated the release of our 24 servicemen and women from their detention on Hainan Island.

When many across the country said that we should apologize to the Chinese when their jet ran into our slow-moving reconnaissance plane, the president knew that the prestige of the nation was at stake. The president knew better than to apologize for an accident caused by the foolish mistakes of a cocky Chinese jet fighter pilot.

Bush also knew that the Chinese had more to lose in this game of international chicken than did the United States. He knew that anti-American hard liners had to be appeased by the government of Jiang Zemin before the crew could be returned home. So the president stood his ground with all of the gravitas becoming of the leader of the free world.

Because of the president's actions, the United States stands a bit taller in the eyes of the world, the Chinese know that they will not be able to bully this president and this country, and our 24 servicemen and women are safely back on American soil enjoying a well-deserved 30-day leave.

On the domestic front, these first 100 days have shown that the president is truly bringing a new tone to our capital. He is ushering in an era of bipartisanship. No longer is Washington, D.C. a place of gridlock and partisan wrangling, it is a place where solutions are found.

Quite soon, the president will be able to sign an economic stimulus package in which the American taxpayer will receive a $1.35 trillion tax cut over the next 11 years. With the support of many moderate Democrats, the administration will be able to push through the promised tax cut.

Admittedly, $1.35 trillion is not as much as the $1.6 trillion that the president initially proposed; however, one can hardly expect to get everything one wants in the world of politics. The $1.35 trillion, of course, is much more than the $600 billion that congressional Democrats proposed late last year. It is easy to see why the president can claim victory for the tax reductions that the American people will receive.

During campaign 2000, Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore contended that a Bush tax cut would be risky for the country because it would cause our spending deficits and our national debt to rise. A tax cut would leave less revenue in the government's coffers, he argued.

The president once again proved his opponents wrong. By reducing the rate of growth on the government's spending from a gargantuan 8 percent a year to a lower and more acceptable rate of 4.9 percent, we as a nation will be able to enjoy the benefits of a tax cut and not have to suffer greater increases in our deficit. Bush proved his leadership in this area by also bringing moderate Democrats to the negotiating table so that a bipartisan agreement could be reached. The agreement leaves all Americans better off than when they were overtaxed and their government was spending too much.

In addition to the tax cut, Congress is working on the president's education reform package. Much like how the president negotiated his tax package, he is asking for help from members on the other side of the aisle, namely Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy. The legislation that will soon arrive on the president's desk will include national testing for all students and flexibility for local districts as to how they spend their money. Both the testing and flexibility measures were proposed during the campaign by then- Gov. Bush and will soon become the law of the land. Both measures will allow for this great nation to leave ""no child behind"" and will allow for the American dream to become a reality for so many more students across this country.

These first 100 days of Bush's administration have been a stunning success. We as a nation, under the president's leadership, have gained in prestige around the world. In addition, a new day has arrived in our nation's capital. This Republican president has shown that he can and he will work with Democratic leaders to find common ground so that our nation will be better off. We are well underway in getting out from under the overbearing taxes that are assessed to all Americans. We are also well underway in giving our teachers, parents, and educators the tools they need to make our classrooms places of learning once again.

All of this has occurred in a mere 100 days of the Bush presidency. It will be a wonder to see what is to come in the remaining 1,360 days.

On Tuesday, April 24, the Supreme Court upheld the strength of the Fourth Amendment by declaring that police may arrest individuals for minor traffic offenses or other misdemeanors, usually punished only by a fine. Affected infractions include unbuckled seat belts, jaywalking and public littering.

Laura Chao
Guardian

The issue was raised when Gail Atwater, an upstanding Texan mother, was arrested for riding in her truck while neither she nor her two small children wore safety belts. At issue is the power and authority of police offers enforcing laws and the individual rights of those breaking them.

While even the court admitted that Atwater probably should not have been arrested for her minor infraction, Justice David Souter declared that disallowing such police actions would ""turn many ordinary arrests into occasions for constitutional litigation."" The Fourth Amendment is in place to allow police officers a framework to properly perform their duties, not to protect people who get arrested and don't like it.

Let us take as an example our responsible, upstanding Atwater, who decided that it was not necessary to buckle up her 3-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter. After her arrest, Atwater filed a lawsuit against the police officer that arrested her, the city and the police chief, alleging they had violated her constitutional rights.

It has become clear that breaking the law is not something to be taken seriously, and that laws are simply in place to provide opportunities for frivolous lawsuits. We have a case of an irresponsible mother not looking after her children -- even putting her children's lives in danger -- and now she is the victim?

I must admit that the public outcry over this decision in favor of Atwater does not surprise me. The American Civil Liberties Union publicly announced that ""the Court has turned back the clock on three decades of civil rights enforcement."" The current popular liberal consensus (what we are supposed to think) tells us that regardless of our actions, our civil liberties and rights must be upheld at all costs. In the end, what matters most is not justice, and it is certainly not the safety of those around us. Instead, the most self-serving and outright selfish route must be chosen. The well-being of Atwater's children has been all but ignored as the rights of an irresponsible, law-breaking mother have taken center stage.

Unfortunately, this type of incident is all too common, and it is high time the Court took action to prevent such lawsuits, as a seemingly obvious issue has been left out of the discussion: lawlessness.

Laws are put in place by governments to protect its citizens and their personal property. Traffic laws such as seat belt requirements, jaywalking and other seemingly insignificant laws are in place to protect, not to inhibit. If the breaking of these laws is ignored, what then is the point of having the law in the first place? Just as police officers do not have the right to discriminate when making arrests, we as citizens do not have the right to pick and choose which infractions we get caught for. When we break laws, we voluntarily place ourselves at the mercy of the law enforcement authorities.

Why, then, has it become so popular to seek rewards for stupidity and the blatant disregard for the very laws that protect us? While I place a great deal of blame on the legal system for tolerating such ridiculous lawsuits, that is a subject for another time. A more important point is the fact that this case even made it to court, and what that shows about our society as a whole. I see this as a painful example of overly opportunistic and self-interested people fueled by greed and getting their way because no one will stand up for those who choose to actually obey the law.

What ever happened to consequences? What happened to taking responsibility for our actions and teaching our children that breaking the rules carries with it punishments, end of story? If asked what they have learned from their mother's situation, it seems likely that Atwater's children would respond, ""Mommy broke the rules, so she whined. And lots of people think it doesn't matter that she broke the rules, just that she whines a lot."" I don't see this as a very positive example to set for children.

Many of us were taught long ago that if you break the rules, you will get in trouble. Today, I see that this simple cause-and-effect relationship has lost its place in America. Instances such as the Atwater case, and others where the guilty have been hailed as heroes, prove that breaking laws is now a secondary offense to actually enforcing them.

If we are to solve the criminal problems in this country, we must first reaffirm the principle that breaking laws carries a punishment. It may not always be the most convenient punishment, and it may not always be the nicest and the friendliest one. The simple answer is that if you get caught breaking a law, the rules do apply to you. By protecting police officers' power to protect the innocent, the Supreme Court has not sacrificed civil liberties, but has instead acted for the well-being of many and not the benefit of one.