I went into the Guardian offices a couple weeks ago out of boredom and stumbled into one of the rooms. The nice people from the business office found three checks for me at about $20 each and I thought to myself, ""Whoa! $60!"" I quickly deposited them into my bank account and treated myself to a Jamba Juice.

But now that I've had some time to reflect on it, if I had no journalistic integrity whatsoever, I could just write random words and get paid for them. Luckily for me, I have no journalistic integrity. I did some quick math calculations and I get paid approximately $0.03 for each word that I write. Now, $0.03 might not seem like a lot of money, but this sentence is worth $0.48. And this paragraph is worth $3.99.

I think the irony is that the people who write letters to the editor about me spend at least as much time as I did writing the columns, if not more, and they don't get paid anything for those.

I don't really think they want to get paid, though. They'd just like their names up there next to their opinion so they can show their friends and say, ""Look, they published my response to that garbage column they printed last week.""

Now you might be thinking to yourself, ""This columnist is just writing a lot of crap because he's getting paid $0.03 a word."" Well, you're right! I couldn't have expressed it better myself (considering I did express it myself, but with the little thought bubble coming out of your head). But now you're really thinking fast, wondering if those parentheses were thrown in at the last minute just to snag an extra quarter. Or even that last sentence.

You might be a bit insulted that I'm wasting your time just for quarters. Well, I need those quarters. I've got bills to pay just like everyone else. I've got a stack of parking tickets on my desk and those things double after 21 days.

If I were you, I'd be expecting a kickback for having to read this column. As luck would have it, I'm not you, and I am getting a kickback. But don't act so surprised. You don't think Bob Dole is talking about erectile dysfunction because he thinks it's an amusing anecdote to share with the world? No, he's doing it because Pfizer is paying him off. And you don't expect Bob Dole to pay you for watching his silly erectile dysfunction commercial, do you? Well, then stop complaining.

Did you think this column would be over by now? Have you stopped reading yet? I think the beauty of the situation is that every single person that picked up the Guardian and was unfortunate enough to stop at this column can stop reading it right now, and I'll still get paid for it. I don't think the advertisers would mind either; chances are, when you stop reading this column, you'll start reading the advertisements near it. That being the case, I could start writing shopping lists of groceries and most people wouldn't mind. Lettuce. Tomatoes. I grilled a hamburger today and I only had relish and mayo. Can you imagine eating a hamburger with only relish and mayo? So, that being the case, I need lettuce, tomatoes, ketchup, pickles and onions. Actually, I don't really need onions, but $0.03 is $0.03. I actually hate onions in my burgers unless they're grilled.

I've also got to buy some bagels and cream cheese as well. Cream cheese is a vital part of bagels; it's almost always a mistake to buy a bagel without also getting cream cheese. Most people understand this idea, but the one everyone usually screws up is the donuts and whole milk combination. Donuts and whole milk together is one of the greatest combinations of food products I can think of. It's right up there with corned beef and cabbage. Or marijuana and In-N-Out.

Whenever I go to In-N-Out, I usually get a Double-Double with cheese and grilled onions, a fries, a drink and a vanilla shake. And a spoon. You can't forget the spoon, otherwise you'll be trying to suck through a straw with a 1 mm diameter. My girlfriend always gets a grilled cheese at In-N-Out. It's not on the menu, but you can request it. It is, quite frankly, one of the stupidest byproducts of the vegetarian revolution. Basically, it's a cheeseburger without the hamburger meat.

I was at Costco yesterday and I was going over my receipt, and they charged me $8.00 for a two-pack of A1 sauce. Can you believe that? As an impulse buyer, I'm very insulted. I can't imagine Ralphs charging me $4.00 for a bottle of A1 sauce. And the sick, sad truth of it all is that I don't even like A1 sauce. I just bought it because I needed a steak sauce. Lea and Perrins used to make a really good steak sauce, but they changed the formula, so it's sweeter now and nowhere near as good. In fact, it's rather bad.

What's good at Costco is smoked oysters. They sell them in packs of three but I finish a pack of three pretty damn fast. They also sell them at Trader Joe's but I'd imagine they're more expensive there. I think Costco is just one big psychological game of buying in bulk. Cans of Coke are sold at Costco in packs of 24, but they're the same price in Ralphs with the Ralphs Club discount. The thing I don't like about Coke is that California Redemption Value thing they tag on you at the last minute -- that's such a load of crap. Because even if I were to take the trouble to recycle my cans, I'm not going to go to one of those machines where I have to manually put in two cans and get a nickel. It's not worth it. It's not even worth it to bring big trash bags to recycling centers and have them pay me by the pound.

But back to Ralphs: What's the deal with stocking every product known to man? How come I can buy a 13-inch TV, a lawn chair, a cordless phone, matzo balls and flowers all in the same store? How many TVs has Ralphs sold, considering there are real appliance stores 100 feet from it?

More importantly, why doesn't Ralphs sell drugs? Yes, I know they have a pharmacy, but I'm talking about real drugs. Over the counter crack and the like. Don't you wish designer drugs were really designer drugs? Like you could go up to your designer drug dealer and say, ""Hey, man, first I want my entire vision to turn bright orange, and then I want to trip out on the fact that I'm standing up and my feet are touching the ground, and then I want to be able to see and create objects that I imagine in my mind and touch them, and then I want a really cool body high and I want it to be one really long orgasm the whole time.""

$0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. $0.03. = $3.00. Thanks for your support.

On Jan. 26, Diane Whipple was viciously attacked and killed by a pair of dogs in the halls of her San Francisco apartment building as the presa canarios' owner, Marjorie Knoller, looked on. Knoller later told police that she did her best to stop the attack, yet the dogs spent approximately half an hour tearing the victim apart. By the time they were finished, her entire body was ravaged with holes and her throat had been ripped out.

Kenrick Leung
Guardian

Knoller and her husband, Robert Noel, claim the attack was an accident and that they should not face criminal charges. Wrong. Spilling coffee on your keyboard is an accident. Owning two animals of a notoriously vicious breed and watching them take the life of a human being is murder.

Appropriately, the couple has been indicted on charges of manslaughter and of keeping a mischievous animal that has killed a human being. Knoller is also charged with second-degree murder, and I hope the jury convicts this woman and sentences her to life in prison.

Proving that the owner of a killer dog is guilty of second-degree murder can be difficult; the prosecution must prove that the defendant acted with malice or a blatant disregard for human life. It seems obvious to me that anyone who owns such an animal fits both criteria.

The dogs that killed Knoller were previously owned by a pair of Pelican Bay State Prison convicts who trained the dogs to defend criminal operations, such as methamphetamine labs. These dogs were born, bred and trained to kill. The only reason for owning such an animal is for protection or assault. Clearly, these dogs have acted as the latter of the two. Whether the owners had intended for that attack to occur is insignificant; if you own a dog trained to kill, then you should not be surprised if it does so.

Most people do not know just how vicious these dogs are when they attack. They weigh over 100 pounds and are stronger and more ferocious than we could possibly be. There have been incidents in which they have completely destroyed cars trying to reach the people inside.

What makes them especially deadly is their bite. Most dogs will bite and then release. Some, however, do not let go; they will rip their victims to shreds. There are countless horror stories of vicious dogs attacking little children and tossing them around like rag dolls.

Even scarier is that these dogs are so difficult to kill. When one man's cocker spaniel was attacked by a pit bull in my home town of San Mateo, Calif., the man pounded on the pit bull's skull with a hammer for more than 20 minutes before it would let go. When a Baltimore man's daughter was attacked, he spent several minutes clubbing the animal with a baseball bat -- the dog would not release the girl until it was dead.

So what should be done? I don't think banning people from owning possibly vicious dogs is the answer. By nature, I'm leery of banning things outright. Besides, what would be done with the countless ones already existing? Should we set aside a wildlife preserve for them so they can roam free? Sorry, but our federal government is too large and oppressive as it is, and we already pay too much in taxes to support a further swollen bureaucracy charged with overseeing this ludicrous idea.

There are better solutions. First of all, if a dog violently attacks an innocent human being, then it should be put to sleep. Period. If a dog attacks once, there is nothing to prevent it from doing so again. It is a menace to society and it should receive no second chance.

The second, more important solution is stiff punishment for the owners of killer dogs. If someone wants to buy a pit bull, then more power to him. But it better be nailed straight into that person's brain that if that dog attacks a human being, then it will be put to death, and he will be indicted with a minimum charge of second-degree murder and then go to jail for a long, long time -- if not for the rest of his life.

Not prosecuting such individuals to the full extent of the law is condoning such behavior in the legal sense. The trial of the killer dogs occuring right now in San Francisco is garnering national attention; everyone is waiting to see whether Knoller will be convicted of second-degree murder. If she is, then hopefully dog owners nationwide will be more leery of their dogs. If she's exonerated, then they can breathe a sigh of relief and not think twice. Think of all the lives that could be saved.

This is not to say that there are not responsible dog-owners who have tamed their dogs. But then again, who is to say that one of these creatures is perfectly tame? There is no indication other than sustained docility. But it only takes one incident to prove that this is a vicious dog, and by that time, deadly harm may have been inflicted upon a victim, and the owner is on his way to prison. The owner may have been responsible enough to attempt training the dog, but if that training fails, then he is accountable for the actions of an animal he knew to be dangerous when he purchased it.

If any of you own such dogs, please take this article to heart. Hopefully, yours is a truly docile creature trained to not harm a flea. If, however, it is clearly a menacing beast that has, at the very least, attempted to lash out at humans in the past, then you had better do something, because you have a major problem on your hands. Either way, seemingly docile or blatantly dangerous, if your dog attacks, injures, or kills a human being, then you should be held responsible.

Editor:

Regarding the Guardian's recent article against the University of California Student Association and the United States Student Association referendum: The Guardian is entitled to its opinion, but I fundamentally disagree with the assumptions that formed that opinion.

If you had called either the A.S. external office or USSA, you would have discovered that the USSA is not an independent lobbying organization, but a democratically run coalition of college and university students, run by and accountable to its all-student membership. Each year, USSA member schools set the organization's action agenda, elect a president and vice president and an all-student board of directors, which meets every other month to run the organization.

For 53 years, USSA members have worked to expand access to students' lives. In the past year, the organization won a $450 increase to the maximum amount awarded by the Pell Grant, the largest increase in history, and quintupled funding for campus childcare programs. USSA students are currently working to get the interest that recent graduates pay on their student loans declared a tax credit, which would triple savings for the average student. In addition to making college possible for thousands of low-income people, these successes mean money in students' pockets and are well worth 90 cents per academic quarter.

The Guardian's primary reason for supporting a UCSA fee, but not a USSA fee, is that the UC Regents do not officially endorse USSA. I would argue this is actually a point that favors voting yes to USSA membership. Students and regents have different interests, so they should have different organizations working for them.

For example, students have a direct interest in knowing accurate information about violent crimes committed on or near campus. Campus and system administrations, however, may want to suppress this information to maintain a good image. We agree and help each other on issues like increasing federal financial aid, but our separate status only makes it more legitimate when we work together. Large university systems like the University of California pay dues to lobbying groups representing everyone from university presidents to financial aid administrators to admissions officers.

There is one voice that speaks for students. UCSD students should choose to make their voices heard and vote yes on membership in the USSA.

-- Eugene Mahmoud

A.S. Vice President External

Editor:

This letter is in response to the negative endorsement of Amendment One of the A.S. Constitution that students are voting on this week. It scares me that more research was not done on this topic; for instance, by talking to A.S. senators who supported this bill by consensus when it was discussed in the A.S. Senate meeting, or by talking with the author -- me -- who had explicit reasons for writing this amendment.

The currently defined elegibility requirements of senator positions are not being followed, either by the A.S Council or by the colleges. Why? The standards are vague and undefined.

For instance, senators are supposed to be chosen on the number of completed quarters at a university. But the wording does not indicate how many quarters are considered ""freshman,"" ""sophomore,"" etc. So, a fourth-year senior could run for sophomore senator perfectly legally.

I wrote this amendment to leave it up to the colleges to set their standards for selecting their senators. This is for three reasons: First, it implies that the senators represent the colleges, and in A.S. Judicial Board hearings when a college is trying to impeach a college senator with A.S. opposition, this helps define whose senator it really is. Second, with the colleges setting their own standards of senator classification, it allows for each college to determine the representative nature of their senator. Third, appointments of senators would become standardized: With the implementation of this amendment, colleges would make appointments based on a standard, instead of on ambiguous A.S. constitutional outlines which are not followed in the least.

If this amendment fails, I encourage anyone to run in next year's election for any senator position. Even if you are told that elgibility depends on your ""class standing with the university,"" that is not what the current A.S. Constitution states, and that's exactly what I intended to change.

I have previously sent letters to the editor being constructively critical of Guardian reporting, each letter done in fairness, but lazy reporting should be brought to the student body's attention, especially when the Guardian claims it is providing a ""service"" to the student body by affirmatively or negatively endorsing candidates and amendments.

Thank you, and I challenge you to print this letter and let the students decide for themselves.

-- Christina Villegas

Muir College Council and author of Amendment One

Recall about five months ago, a certain change in our history occurred. The United States had an election to find a leader for the world's strongest free country. Do you recall one of the pressing issues, arguably the one that determined the result of the election? Yes, I am talking about health care.

Health care is a pressing issue; one that needs to be dealt with immediately. The state of Florida, which played a large role in determining our president, and which also has a large elderly community, considered health care the foremost issue in the 2000 presidential election. So, the logical question that should come to mind is this: How has one of the biggest issues of the election been handled by our new President?

I am sorry to report that nothing successful has happened, and I fear nothing productive will happen soon. Unfortunately, the administration of President Bush has taken steps to thrust health care into an abyss, destroying what ex-President Clinton attempted to accomplish by modernizing our system of care. In his proposed budget, President Bush eliminates health care funding by 86 percent for programs that assisted ill citizens who lack insurance. The administration cited ""efficiency"" as the reason for the drastic cut in the program that helped the people who need help the most.

Wow! What a drastic action by our president. But we must give him credit for trying, right? Furthermore, he must have a program he will institute that is more efficient and a better system for providing health care. Sorry, I don't think so!

President Bush's administration has cited no plan to alleviate the mounting need for assistance for the millions of people who do not have health insurance in our country. Furthermore, the plans that have been announced seem to mainly help the rich, a recurring theme in the Bush administration. I beg the president to rethink what he plans to do.

Health care is not a privilege -- and it should not be -- although it has become so in our capitalist society. Ultimately, health care relates to the right and ability to live. As I recall, this country was founded on the fact that everyone -- every last human being -- has the right to life. By giving one person a better chance at living than another, one demeans the ethical basis of medical service that each of our doctors vows to accomplish.

Thus, Bush's attempt to cut back the current health care system is a strategy amiss. Clearly, we should realize that Bush's budget cut for health care is directly related to his attempt to pass the largest tax cut in American history. Drastic budget cuts are necessary to implement the tax cut. In this tax cut, what Bush attempts to explain as giving back money to all Americans, one sees clearly that the rich of America will profit more. So, ultimately, Bush's administration takes money from programs to help the poor and gives it to the rich. If only Karl Marx could see us now!

This policy implemented by the president is incredibly misplaced. One should look to the countries whose health care is more successful than ours before implementing any plan that affects our citizens' health.

Australia, with arguably the best health care in the world, is one such country. Australia provides health care to every citizen regardless of their type of insurance, or lack thereof. A true socialistic program, Australia's health care system has been implemented to treat any person, no matter where they may be in the country or what their income is.

Although the taxes in Australia are higher due to the government's economic duties to pay for this program, universal health care helps not only to stimulate economy at lower levels of labor, but also at high-level, white-collar jobs. Also, citizens never have to worry about paying for medical service. Wealth is never an issue in treating the country.

The United States must realize this, and fund such programs, rather than cut them. The class of citizens that mostly suffers from lack of health insurance is that of lower class laborers, who are the basis of our economy and production. By providing for these people, America benefits as a whole.

Proponents of Bush's actions may cite the future as time for Bush to fix our health care system. However, as cited by the White House, future allotments for health care will go mainly to research and training of doctors and nurses. This does nothing for the millions who lack proper health care due to lack of insurance. This is merely to help prevention of diseases, and it is critical to note that citizens without insurance will never benefit from this.

Clinton, who made many strides to mend our health system, realized the basis of health care is tending to the poor. Without realizing this, the health care system is solely another capitalistic company that preys on poor victims who work hard to get through each day.

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

As I casually strolled through the bookstore looking for the endless number of textbooks required for my four very demanding classes this quarter, I nearly had a heart attack.

The prices I came upon for nearly every book were a crock. I don't know about everyone else, but I am a starving college student who simply cannot afford to pay nearly $400 for books that I have not, and will not, use in the near future.

Yes, I agree that books are the key to our education, and reading is fundamental to our future, but couldn't they cost a little bit less than the horrendous, eye-popping, hair pulling prices they have now?

According to studies that I have personally done with friends, roommates and classmates here at UCSD, the average college student with 12 to 18 units has an average book cost of $200 per quarter. This, I may add, includes the cost of so-called ""used"" books.

I myself paid around that much my first quarter, about $50 more my second quarter, and I do not even want to mention how much I will have to pay this quarter, with the 7 books that are required for my classes.

With this financial problem at hand, it is no wonder that many students resort to not taking a particular class because of the high cost of books, or are forced to keep renewing the same book at the library so they don't actually have to buy it. We should even be so lucky most of the time.

It is evident that the book cost on campus seems to get higher and higher as time goes by. While some classes require books that are newly revised and cost around $90, other classes require you to buy five books, which add up to around $100. The amount of money a college student has to pay for books, especially at a quarter-based school where we have to do it three times around, is absolutely absurd.

It seems to me that there is some kind of money-making scheme that the school is planning to profit from books that college students simply can't afford. Where exactly does the rest of our money go when a book priced at $80 is actually worth $40? And why don't professors, booksellers and the school understand the fact that we are students who need as much financial help as possible?

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

Now some may be thinking, ""Well there are always the used books, right?"" Wrong. More and more professors are tossing out the old editions of books and requiring new editions the added features of which, usually, aren't used. Add the fact that when it comes to used books, the early bird catches the worm. Come one day late, and they are probably all gone. With all of these obstacles in place, it is no wonder that most students wind up buying new books at the full price.

Another dilemma comes at the end of the quarter, when we have the opportunity to actually sell back the books we've bought, and for some of us, barely even used.

Yes, we all know that little booth in the Price Center that takes those deadly weapons we call our study tools and gives us back a whole dollar-and-a-half for some textbook that we have spent our life savings on. When it comes to selling back our used books, we are again faced with the fact that the editions we might have bought are going to be replaced the next quarter, and are worth nothing. We are left out of money, and out of a textbook about something we never understood in the first place. Sound familiar?

Whining and bitching aside, it is obvious that we really can't do anything about how the textbooks are priced and how we can make them cheaper. What we can do, however, is resort to other ways of getting our required books without having to spend our savings.

Books are almost always put on reserve in the library by professors, and some are even available on the shelves. You can always check out a book from the library, renew it when you can, and return it whenever you are done.

If you really want the book to be actually yours, you can always go to Web sites such as http://www.half.com where books are often much cheaper than their counterparts at the bookstore. There is also the Co-op, where some books are available for a few bucks cheaper. With these resources at hand, you don't have to pull your hair out every time you step foot in the bookstore.

It is sad to say that high school days are long gone -- days in which books came free, and the only money we spent was for the paper bags to cover them with.

For now though, we are forced to pay an astonishing amount of money for textbooks, we have few other choices, since it is part of the package we agreed upon when entering college.

Indeed, there are other options we can take when it comes to books at high prices, but we do need them and they do expand our knowledge. Hopefully, with some miracle, books will be free for us college students someday (and pigs will fly) but until then, open up those wallets and expect to have your very own library!

Our first encounter was four years ago. It was not very personal or intimate, but while watching him on the TV screen, this masked man left me feeling wonder and intrigue. How could one forget such a man? His leadership, his words, his cause, his voice and his eyes were etched in my memory years before I would realize how important he really is. Placed on posters and T-shirts with the faces of leaders such as Emiliano Zapata and Ernesto Guevara, Subcomandante Marcos stands out as a living leader for the indigenous people of Mexico.

An alluring feature of Marcos lies in his mystery. The whole Zorro mystique surrounding the masked man fighting for the people is intriguing. Marcos uses his words rather than a sword to fight, though the mark of the Z now represents the cause and presence of the Zapatistas. And in this case, the mask is not worn by just one, but by all.

Though the brilliance and strategy of Marcos as an individual cannot be denied, one man alone is not enough to change years of oppression and under-representation. It takes the collaborative effort of a group willing to fight and persevere through time for its cause. Though Marcos is viewed as the front man for the Zapatistas, he does not stand alone.

The black mask that Marcos wears, like all Zapatistas, is symbolic of unity. The masking allows for individuals to put aside physical features and to come together on one level, as one face.

The journey of the Zapatistas is not one followed only by indigenous peoples or Mexicans; it possesses an array of international support. The Zapatistas appeal to groups ranging from gay and lesbian activists to feminists. These groups recognize that the fight of the Zapatistas is a fight for all peoples who suffer injustices, discrimination, intolerance and exclusion. The all-encompassing nature of the Zapatistas is amazing and inspiring. There are not many groups that can draw such an mixed crowd of people, a mix that may have its differences but shares a common cause to protest.

Sadly, many readers will be seeing the names of Subcomandante Marcos and the Zapatistas for the first time in this article. Many Americans are ignorant of the happenings in Mexico, despite the recent nature and proximity of the events. Although the Zapatistas have been one of the first groups to use the Internet as a communicative tool, yet many people are still unaware of their struggle.

The recently completed ""Zapatour,"" the trek of the Zapatistas from their base in Chiapas to the capital of Mexico City, went largely unnoticed by U.S. media. It was front page news when the group first embarked on the journey, but it soon disappeared from the news completely.

Was it not entertaining enough for the American public to read about one of the largest grassroots movements in years? This was an event that drew international attention, and it was still not enough to bring proper exposure and explanation of the situation to the American public. It is even more frustrating to think that soon it will be completely out of the ""newsworthy"" category unless it involves death or U.S. intervention.

The United States seems to ignore the problems in Mexico because they might hit a little too close to home. Oppression and mistreatment of indigenous peoples? Certainly that would never happen here in the United States. The plight of the Native Americas in this land is all too similar to that of the indigenous peoples of Mexico.

The public's mild obsession with Marcos is more than justified, as he is a man fighting for a cause and selflessly supporting the people who deserve to be given the rights long overdue to them.

It is humorous to observe that A.S. Council feels it is necessary to give away school-related items designed to get students to come out and meet their elected officers. Only at UCSD would it take free blue books and schedules of classes to get people to care -- which they still really don't.

Though we understand the A.S. Council's motives, the Guardian feels there are better uses for the money spent on these programs.

Blue books cost about a quarter apiece, which is not a lot of money out of one's wallet. When that number is multiplied by a few thousand, the figures begin to add up. In aggregate, the giveaways cost UCSD students $5,000 each year.

Receiving anything for free is nice, but it is not worth wasting A.S. money.

This giveaway is also a waste of money because the A.S. Council should be trying to wean people away from the schedules of classes, not encouraging their sales. The schedule of classes is available online so that students will not have to spend money or waste paper by buying a book.

This promotion only encourages the use of printed matter and demonstrates to the student body that the use of this item is encouraged. The Guardian feels there are better things to give away that would promote more unity among students and the school's elected leaders.

Barbecues like the ones that currently exist are a great expenditure of this allocated money. They promote a way to foster better communication between the students and the school's leaders. The A.S. Council should focus more on events such as these.

Unlike mindlessly passing out papers, barbecues are a lot of fun for all parties involved. Students getting handed little books in passing on Library Walk does not tell them anything about their A.S. representation. Students eating free food given to them by members of the A.S. Council are about as open as possible to socialize with their representatives.

There are other beneficial ways to spend this money. For example, even an additional $3,000 could increase what is offered at festivals like Sun God and Fallfest. More specifically, more daytime activities could be planned for these events as they give each student equal opportunity to have fun. With the current giveaways, only a select few actually benefit.

In addition, this money could also fund more ""Nooners"" and ""TGIFs"" during the week. The attendance at this year's events shows that students like attending the shows. By increasing the number of these events on campus, more students would be able to see free entertainment.

This would also be the best way to get many students to see and meet the A.S. Council. By having councilmembers say a few words before each show, students would be given the chance to actually see who they are and what they do in office. Once again, everyone benefits.

I can't help being anything but appalled by the outrageous spectacle China has orchestrated over the past two weeks. It is absolutely despicable. After one of its fighters slammed into an American surveillance plane, the country had the audacity to hold all 24 crew members hostage and dismantle U.S. military property, refusing to allow anyone to return home unless the United States offered some kind of an apology and claim responsibility for the incident.

I'm sorry, but that is just plain sickening. First of all, China's pilot was blatantly at fault in this collision, which occurred 80 miles off the coast of China, well within international airspace.

Second, the U.S.'s surveillance plane, an EP-3, is the size of a Boeing-737, much slower and less maneuverable than the smaller F-8 fighters the Chinese pilot was flying. They're trying to tell us that this bulky, awkward barge with wings veered into their fast, agile fighter? Not in a million years, especially now that the Pentagon has disclosed that the plane was set on auto pilot.

Furthermore, Chinese pilots have been recorded engaging in such reckless behavior during reconnaissance flights since the Clinton administration. There have even been reports of crew members seeing the other pilots' faces as their fighters have closed to within 30 feet of the spy planes. The arrested American soldiers reportedly told Brigadier General Neal Sealock that the flanking fighter had been flying recklessly and erratically before the collision.

Anyone who knows anything about aircraft knows who caused this collision. One hint: It wasn't the spy plane. But you may be wondering why the United States won't offer a full apology even if it wasn't our fault, simply to prevent this from becoming an international incident. Unfortunately, this already is an international incident. China milked it for all it's worth.

The missing Chinese pilot's parents have been interviewed on Chinese television, vilifying the big, bad Americans. The missing pilot's wife publicly called President Bush a coward. Fellow communists in Vietnam are stepping up to the plate for the Chinese. Their president Jiang Zemin has gone worldwide with his very selective version of the truth, and with several lies to boot.

The Chinese have refused American military assistance in searching for the missing pilot; we big, bad Americans have done enough harm already. The surviving pilot, decked out in full uniform, tried not to look reporters in the eye as he claimed the hulking American plane veered sharply into his helpless, innocent comrade. Too bad the Oscars were handed out last month; he would've been a ringer.

In case you're having trouble reading between the lines, this isn't about a collision. This is about politics; this is Beijing trying to bully its way to a diplomatic victory over a new, unsympathetic White House administration.

We all know about Slick Willy's involvement with the communist Chinese government; they allegedly funded his presidential campaign, and his administration allegedly sold them our most classified nuclear weapons technology and taught them how to use it. Bush, on the other hand, has changed our relationship with China from strategic ally to competitor. It should therefore be no surprise that Beijing wants to secure a diplomatic victory as soon as possible.

China made it clear that there would be no compromise through its hard-line, ""our way or the highway"" negotiations, maintaining until recently, that if we didn't offer a full apology our soldiers and aircraft were not coming home. The White House has been painfully diplomatic here, offering everything short of an apology.

Bush has handled himself reasonably well thus far in his first foreign conflict. He came to the table to compromise; they sought to conquer. After two weeks of speaking to a crimson wall, it is inevitable that our president will take a harder stance in kind. He has several options, after all. He can authorize the selling of arms to Taiwan, which China considers a renegade providence.

The U.S. Navy just released a list of possible ways for us to improve Taiwan's military. After all, the purpose of the ongoing reconnaissance flights is to ensure that China is not preparing to invade Taiwan.

Also, the United States has a very large say in China's foreign trade. Secretary of State Colin Powell has warned that this incident may impact American support for China's entry into the World Trade Organization, which could be ruinous. Looking back at the Soviet Union, we all know that communist nations face uphill economic battles, so they need every ounce of leverage they can obtain.

In light of all this anti-American propaganda being spread worldwide, we have to stand up for what's right. The biggest problem with the Clinton administration was its encouragement of apathy over fortitude.

As long as the economy went well, the majority could remain blissfully unaware that America was no longer the pillar of strength protecting the free world, but rather NATO's puppet, which somehow cast a blind third eye upon the drastic military buildup in China.

War is a terrible thing, and it is caused just as easily by pacifism as it is by aggression.

I'm not worried about this incident erupting into World War III, but how well can we sleep at night knowing that we are at odds with a nation that outnumbers us by a billion and possesses all of our nuclear secrets, the brains to incorporate them, the labor to build them and possibly even the audacity to use them? Given China's morbid human rights record and communist regime, it would be foolish to simply dismiss such a notion.

Whether you wish to accept it, our nations are in competition. Our president says so, as does China's communist hierarchy, if not through words, then certainly through actions. From this perspective, it's tough to blame Republican leaders for scrambling to build a missile defense. But then again, I've always classified Democrats as idealists and Republicans as realists.

Bush's first diplomatic challenge is a difficult one, without a doubt, almost unfair for a rookie. But the ball's in his court; the world is judging his diplomacy, because it was such a question mark during his campaign. I am confident in his skills as a diplomat and a leader, especially in light of his highly experienced cabinet.

Politics aside though, I hope he succeeds because this may, for better or worse, have a significant impact on our relations with China.

Fee Referendum 1 -- No

Fee Referendum Question 1 seeks to increase the A.S. Activities Fee by $2 per quarter for each UCSD student to pay for membership in the United States Student Association and the University of California Student Association.

The Guardian editorial board does not endorse this increase in fees and strongly urges students to vote against it. This referendum basically provides A.S. members and future candidates better resources in terms of money, meetings and conferences to help fund their campaigns and trips to statewide and national conferences.

The disbursement of fees would break down as follows: 19 cents (approximately 10 percent) would stay on campus to help fund A.S. campaigns, 91 cents (approximately 45 percent) would go to membership fees to join the USSA and 90 cents (approximately 45 percent) would go to UCSD membership in UCSA. While this amount seems quite small, summing them together would would place the amount to over $30,000 that would be spent to gain membership into these two organization.

While the Guardian does not see a problem with joining UCSA, which is, as its name implies, associated with the UC system, there are a couple of reasons why the Guardian does not support this fee referendum.

The first is that it requires membership into the USSA, an outside organization and a lobbying group not affiliated with the UC system. UCLA had passed a referendum similar to this, and the chancellor also signed it, but was struck down by the UC Regents for exactly the same reason.

The UCSA lobbies to state and local representatives on issues that directly affect the UC system. On the other hand, the USSA lobbies the federal government, and does not have the University of California's interests specifically in mind.

It is unfortunate and unwise that the sponsors of this referendum chose to include membership to both the USSA and UCSA in the same referendum.

The Guardian would wholeheartedly endorse a small fee increase to pay for membership in the UCSA, but the fact that this membership was linked to the USSA membership prevents us from supporting Fee Referendum Question 1.

Fee Referendum 2 -- Yes

Fee Referendum Question 2 concerns raising the Student Activity Fee by $1 per quarter, effective Fall 2001, for the establishment of the Academic Success Program as an A.S. service.

The Guardian editorial board supports this small increase in fees, as it would tremendously help the student body at UCSD, especially in retaining financially disadvantaged students.

The ASP provides many services to the general student body. The programs include a peer mentorship program, a peer tutoring program, an exam archive and a booklending program.

The most significant service would be the booklending program, by which financially strapped students with financial aid -- but still not enough to buy books -- can borrow books at the beginning at the quarter. The students can then return the books at the end of the quarter, all free of charge.

While the ASP is already providing some of these services, this referendum makes this program a service of the A.S. Council. This means that the council can directly fund the program rather than having to divert funds from other programs, such as club funding and sports. This referendum would keep the ASP program adequately funded while not depriving other programs of their own funds.

Not all students would sympathize with the programs provided by the ASP because not everyone can partake in of its programs, such as the booklending program. However, the direct funding -- which would result in more funds overall -- would allow ASP to reach out to more students over time, making it more inclusive.

The Guardian thinks the ASP is important to students as it provides many peer-to-peer services not offered elsewhere. We feel it is important these programs expand. By making the ASP a service of the A.S., the program can have more funding and be more effective in its goals.

One dollar per quarter is a very small price to pay for these services that could prove to be very effective retention tools.

Amendment 1 -- No

Constitutional Amendment 1 seeks to clarify the classification of A.S. senate candidates as freshman, sophomore, junior or senior. The logic behind this amendment is that with the increase of students entering with many AP units and an increase in transfer students, it is difficult to determine who can run for which senate positions

This amendment would address the ambiguity by taking the decision out of the A.S. Council's hands and leaving the decision up to the individual colleges to formulate their own election regulations. It also seeks to give the colleges more autonomy as to who it can allow to be a senator for each class level.

The Guardian does not support this amendment. We believe it would subvert the interests of students and create more problems.

With individual colleges able to create their own by-laws in choosing their senators, colleges with more lax requirements would be able to attract prospective student leaders to them, depriving the other colleges of this leadership. This may then force colleges to compete for student leaders, relaxing their by-laws too. This could, in turn, cause an imbalance in the quality of leadership at the five colleges, which would directly affect quality of student life.

Secondly, and more generally, the student councils at the colleges are less experienced than the A.S. Council in writing these by-laws.

For these reasons, the Guardian does not endorse this amendment and urges students to vote against it.

Amendment 2 -- Yes

Due to widespread apathy on this campus, the Guardian endorses Constitutional Referendum Question 2. The referendum makes it easier for the A.S Council to amend its constitution, something councilmembers have unsuccessfully tried to do for the past several years.

The question eliminates a requirement that the council produce a petition signed by 15 percent of the student body.

While we support the system of democracy and feel the students should have a voice, student apathy has in the past made it difficult for the council to amend its constitution.

Currently there are two ways to bring a referendum to vote. The first is a direct referendum in which 15 percent of the student body is required to place an issue onto the ballot for a vote or it can be voted on by the A.S. Council, requiring two-thirds majority for passage. Once it goes to the ballot, it then requires a majority vote of the students at UCSD.

A second way bypasses the ballot but requires much more effort. This second way, which is affected by this amendment, requires three-fourths of the A.S. Council, three-fifths of the colleges and 15 percent of UCSD students to sign a petition. This amendment would discard the petition requirement.

When councilmembers have solicited student signatures in the past, they have done so on Library Walk and have offered free blue books. They are present to answer questions, but most students do not take the time to understand what they are signing, they only sign and take their bluebook. This process is meaningless and should be bypassed.

Another aspect this amendment touches on is the required three-fifths of the colleges to vote. Currently there is no requirement to approach all the colleges with a referendum. For example, Tesh Khullar, the A.S. President last year, approached only the required numbers of colleges, completely leaving the others out of the loop. This amendment, beyond merely removing the 15 percent requirement, would require that all colleges need to be approached with a referendum.

The A.S. Council constitution only affects students indirectly, but it affects the council directly. Amendments are usually made to make the council run more efficiently. Therefore we believe the council should make those decisions.

For the position of commissioner of services and enterprises, the Guardian editorial board endorses Colin Parent. Parent distinguishes himself by his experiences and the ideas he wishes to institute if elected. He currently serves as assistant to the present commissioner, Matt Conroy. This experience will be invaluable to him next year.

One idea that Parent would like to implement is to make Soft Reserves a free service that all students could participate in. To supplement the cost of this action, he would like to advertise more vigorously for the rental of miniature refrigerators, another service that is coordinated by this office. Parent says that it makes more sense to rent now because of the lack of a guarantee of on-campus housing for second-year students.

Parent also hopes to increase the boundaries of Triton Taxi to the border. To help stimulate demand for such a service, he hopes to institute a sign-up process that would be done through resident advisors.

One more action that Parent wishes to take is to increase funding to the Academic Success Program and O.A.S.I.S., a worthy goal but something that he may have trouble finding funding for.

Parent distinguishes himself from his opponent, Joseph Sherman-Villafane, primarily because of his experience with the job. He simply has a better grasp of what it takes to run the office. Sherman-Villafane has similar ideas but less of an understanding of how to implement them, and for this reason the Guardian editorial board is endorsing Parent.

The A.S. programmer is a position in which each student should have a vested interest, as the impact of the A.S. programmer's work is felt directly on campus. With that in mind, the Guardian feels confident that incumbent Assistant Co-Programmer Eisha Christian will be able to make the transition to the next level as programmer and end the bad feelings between her office and the student body.

Christian, running of the Unity slate, has worked in the programming office for almost a full year and has experience working with bands, agents and the A.S. Council. She knows what is expected of her and how to accomplish what she needs to accomplish. Now it is only a matter of accomplishing the lofty goals she has set for herself.

The Guardian likes Christian's idea of bringing in corporate sponsors for shows, as it would increase the money that could be offered to the bands. At a school criticized for lack of entertainment on campus, this solution may be the best way to bring an end to this notion. Although the corporate sponsors would advertise their names on campus, the Guardian considers this is a small price to pay for the change in dynamics that more money could bring to any festival or show UCSD holds.

In addition, the Guardian likes how Christian plans to bring bigger names to the UCSD campus. By forming a partnership with other schools in the area, and booking a series of shows so the band plays at each school on consecutive days, a band would be more likely to accept an offer to come play at UCSD at a cheaper fee, knowing that it is able to play many shows in a short time.

By joining forces with area schools such as SDSU, we would be able to allure bigger acts that would not normally play at this school. Because UCSD's programming budget is already small, we need to stretch our dollar as much as possible.This creative idea would allow for just that.

The Guardian also thinks it is important to continue with ""nooners"" on Wednesday afternoons, due to the high turnout for each of the shows this year. Christian plans to continue having these shows and expects to expand them in the future.

Finally, Christian plans to continue with Club Ritmo next year, which could provide the extra social atmosphere that the school is looking for. By working with corporate sponsors, the quality of acts would improve over next year as bigger bands and DJs would agree to play. However, the club lost money this year under Christian, so we will wait to see if it can be successful in its second full year of inception.

Similar to the sentiments expressed by many students over Club Ritmo, the student body over the last few years has become increasingly frustrated over and angry with the quality of acts brought to campus. Though the problems may continue to persist in the short run, at least Christian has the knowledge and the ideas to rework the system so that UCSD's social life can match its academic one.

While her opponents, Matt Bechtel and Derek Baurmann, have good intentions, they lack the experience and practical ideas that Christian has. We therefore endorse Christian for programmer.