Editor:

It is both shocking and alarming for any fair-minded student to read amid the pages of our university newspaper, the Guardian, the extremely offensive sort of condemnations that are more akin to rabid, journalistic McCarthyism than the articulate arguments that mark quality collegiate newspapers throughout the United States.

It seems that Ms. Baharian and Mr. Wikner -- for what appears to be a lack of something to write -- must turn to pillorying the U.S. president to fill their columns. It would appear to the reader that both writers accrue to the ""tabloid"" school of journalistic thought ... concerned more with the entertainment of readers than conveyance of meaningful thought and discussion. I speak now of their articles concerning President George W. Bush on Feb. 20, 2001.

Briefly, Baharian condemns Bush for speaking at the infamous Bob Jones University (an institution widely known for its discriminatory policy on interracial dating), and Wikner (apparently never having studied Bush's resume) pillories him as incompetent, decrying his lack of oratorical skills.

I would like to address Wikner's arguments first. Wikner seems to believe that simple oratorical skills are synonymous with competence, and because the president is not as gifted a speaker as his predecessor, his political competence is brought into question. To this, I might direct Wikner to a rather good book, ""I, Cladius,"" written by Robert Graves, which describes a far worse speaker than Bush (Claudius Caeser) who -- despite a speech impediment -- rose to become one of the greatest emperors of Rome.

Wikner seems to neglect the fact that Bush held a gubernatorial role in the United States ... governor of the state of Texas, that he was a graduate of Yale University and is an officer and a pilot of the Air National Guard. Wikner seems to base his entire argument upon rather vague incidents of slips of the tongue.

Now turning to Baharian's article, which describes Bush's speech at Bob Jones University. To her credit, Baharian presents far more research than Wikner, but with far less substance.

Her statement that ""it is clear that a politician must woo Bob Jones' extremists as a rite of passage into conservative power"" is blatantly unfounded and ridiculously broad. If one is to speak of the ""racial intolerance remaining at the core of the Republican party,"" one should first look to former Vice President Al Gore's draconian concepts of ""foreign policy,"" which often entail Perry-esque diplomacy.

It is an unfortunate indictment of The UCSD Guardian, which remains in my mind a good and faithful newspaper, that its pages must be marred by the shallow and unwarranted attacks by the more rabid of gutter journalism. I leave both Baharian and Wikner with words spoken by Gorgias, which I hope may prove useful to them in future journalistic efforts: ""The measure of discourse is not in the speaker, but in the listener.""

-- Kelly Xi Huei

Lalith Ranasinghe

I tried finding something to eat for breakfast today, and I discovered that my newest cereal is an Apple Jacks trial size they sent in the mail last year. Someone had opened it and let it go soft. Now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever actually finished a box of cereal -- it either goes soft or I get really sick of it. The worst are those huge three-packs of cereal at Price Club. You eat one box and then you say, ""I really don't like Frosted Flakes any more. I thought I did, but now I don't.""

Another thing they have at Price Club are those variety packs of cereal, but then someone ends up eating all the good ones, and you wake up one day, and you're deciding between Special K and Cheerios. I tried Grape Nuts once because the people eating Grape Nuts on the commercials seemed to be having a good time, and then I discovered that Grape Nuts has no grape flavor and contains no nuts. I seriously should consult my lawyer about that. It was basically just a bunch of wheat health crap; it tasted horrible. I wouldn't eat another bowl of that if you paid me.

Ever notice how some people don't quite grasp the concept of putting cereal in milk? You go to their house and all they do is eat dry cereal and watch Jerry Springer. ""You want to go see a movie?"" ""Shh, It's `My Girlfriend is a Demonic Star Wars Freak' Return Visit. Have some Golden Grahams.""

My favorite is those people that are convinced that their cereal is good for them: ""I eat Wheaties. One day I'll be able to get into a fight and come out alive!"" One glance at the ingredients would tell them that a bowl fulfills 80 percent of their daily intake of sugar. Take Honey Bunches of Oats, for example. Someone with an IQ under 75 might mistakenly believe that it has some nutritional value. I mean, it tastes pretty good, but I'm not under some delusion that it's any better than Sugar Coated Sugar Cubes.

One cereal I really liked was this one with little ice cream cones. There were actually little ice cream cones with artificial vanilla-flavored ice cream on top. You could only find it at Pic-N-Save though, because the FDA probably pulled it out of the market a week after it came out. I don't remember what it was called, but it probably had ""Product of Mexico"" stamped all over the box.

If you're ever eating Cookie Crisp and you find four or five of those things melted together, don't eat it. I've had very bad experiences with masses of Cookie Crisp. Cookie Crisp is also a very expensive cereal. It's something like $4 for a box. But if I was down at Fedco or wherever it is where they have the generic cereals, I'd still get it over ""Cookie-Like Bits."" It's hilarious -- they have Cheerios right next to ""Oat Loops"", and you know some stupid parent is gonna buy ""Oat Loops"" to save $3, bring it home, and the kid's gonna say, ""Where's the Cheerios? What the hell is this crap? I want Cheerios!""

I never realized how much the cereal companies were ripping me off with the prizes until I was about 17. I remember I'd go down the cereal aisle choosing which prizes I wanted. The cereal didn't matter; I wasn't going to eat half of it anyway. Then we'd get home and I'd open up the box and dig for the prize. It was always at the very bottom and you got all these crumbs all over your hand while you were digging for it. Wow! A Secret Decoder Ring!

That's why I don't understand how Kix survived. They actually advertise that they don't have a prize. That's almost as stupid as those Sprite commercials. Sprite commercials make fun of all the techniques that their parent company, Coca-Cola, uses. Imagine if they ran both ads in a row.

The biggest rip-off I can remember was the time Wheaties had a $1,000,000 contest. Buying Wheaties was like buying a lottery ticket. And we wonder why America has a gambling addiction.

Another thing I don't like about cereal is how soggy it gets. By the time you finish pouring the milk, half the cereal in it can no longer be classified as crispy. Even Chex gets soggy. I distinctly remember leaving a bowl of Chex for about two minutes and coming back very disappointed. And what's with those people who add sugar to their cereal? That's like adding MSG to Chinese takeout.

The award for worst cereal of all time goes to Shredded Wheat. Don't get me wrong -- Bite-Sized Frosted Shredded Wheat is great -- but Shredded Wheat alone is the stupidest cereal I've ever seen. How can you expect people to break it into spoon-sized pieces? You know some kid is just going to break it in half and choke trying to swallow one of those things. It's just a lawsuit waiting to happen. Maybe all of their sales are based on elementary schools dying it green and making it into really cheesy Christmas tree ornaments.

Cap'n Crunch sticks to your mouth after eating enough of it. The Crunch berries taste really artificial after a certain period of time and you start to wonder what's really in them.

Then there's Raisin Bran. If you live in any normal household, by the time you get to the Raisin Bran, someone has painstakingly taken out all of the Raisins and you're left with crappy bran.

Cocoa Pebbles are pretty good, but after a while you look at your milk and you say, ""This isn't milk. It looks like mud."" And you start thinking about all the Cocoa Pebbles commercials and for all intensive purposes, when Fred and Barney are in the jungle, it is mud. You're drinking mud. That's why I don't eat Cocoa Pebbles, or any cocoa product for that matter.

Is there anyone who actually eats the complete breakfast they always show on the box? On the box, they have eggs and toast and a tall glass of milk. If they're going to be unrealistic, why don't they just put onion soup and escargot and a glass of wine? That would look a whole lot better.

They could seriously brainwash you on the back of those cereal boxes. What do you do when you're eating cereal? What can you do? I always end up reading the back and the sides of the cereal box because I'm too lazy to go find a paperback. I can probably recite the nutrition facts for most Post products.

I think the real problem is that I rarely eat breakfast any more. Or, I couldn't really consider what I eat to be breakfast. I dunno, what's a bowl of cereal, a bagel, a pack of fruit gushers and corned beef brisket at 6 p.m.? That's about as close to breakfast as the carne asada at Cotixan is to actual meat for human consumption.

It is not a war on youth. It is a battle against the immeasurable loss of human life, personal security and wasted human resources. When juvenile court preservationists label youth punishment initiatives as representative of moral bankruptcy and blame disinterested corporations and white, wealthy communities for disenfranchising the youth, people of color and the poor, they fail to put themselves in the position of the daughters whose Dartmouth parents were brutally stabbed in the head and chest by 16- and 17-year-old boys. They forget the pain of the Columbine shootings. They forget to put themselves in the shoes of a parent whose 5-year-old daughter was killed for her bike. They forget that a crime is a crime, regardless of the offender's age. They forget that sometimes, the criminal justice system works harder for the criminal than the victim.

Kenrick Leung
Guardian

Now, don't get me wrong. I do not believe that institutionalization is a solution to America's social problems. I am a strong advocate of rehabilitation and second chances. There has been many a time in my life, as I'm sure there has been in everyone else's, that being given the second chance has made the difference. But I do believe, however trite this may sound, that if you do an adult crime, you do adult time. Minors that commit certain serious crimes should be tried as adults.

Violent, preventable crimes by minors have long plagued America's larger cities but have scarcely been punished because of the age of the perpetrators. Protected by a lenient and highly outdated juvenile justice system, violent youth have taken advantage of such benefits and have run rampant in our cities. High profile slayings are quite the norm on the evening news, and every once in a while, disaster strikes and we lose a large number of lives at the hands of young offenders. And sadly, naive America continues to lose more and more lives at the hands of reckless teens and repeat offenders because we choose to give them as many chances as they need so long as they are not legal adults. Unfortuately, we have to lose and destroy more lives because we refuse to punish.

Many juvenile court sentences have amounted to nothing but a mere slap on the wrist for many young offenders. The juvenile court is no longer capable of providing the individualized attention that it first sought out to do and can no longer easily help at-risk offenders who are threats even after their juvenile sentences. Laws were first created to handle small cases such as truancy, shoplifting and vandalism. These laws are now archaic, as they do not have the ability to handle today's violent crimes. Tougher crimes call for tougher measures. Rehab centers have had little influence on youths. The counselors that deal with our youth are inexperienced and do not have the skills to counteract their behavior. For some violent youths, rehabilitation is the easy way out. Some youths are even known to commit crimes without thought because they know they cannot be tried as adults. Eventually, many young offenders who go through juvenile systems do not end up rehabilitated and, as a result, turn back to crime. In many jurisdictions, a child may have to commit 10 to 15 serious crimes before anything is actually done to him.

Children are killed by children. Teens are killed by teens. And still we refuse to punish them because ""they are too young to understand that what they are doing is wrong."" An excuse most heard from parents, it is also an excuse too often heard after lives are lost and ruined. Without a tougher punishment system, society is left with a high percentage of delinquents and a rising percentage of crime victims.

For many victims, the juvenile court systems have been a far cry from justice. Families of murder victims, rape targets and victims of other serious crimes have been left abandoned without a sense of closure, a sense of protection. Some feel like their loss was left unacknowledged. Indeed, in such a leniant juvenile system, victims are more often than not left unacknowledged. Most people agree with Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas: ""The only way to treat the victim as a full human being -- to fully honor the memory of the victim -- is to punish the perpetrator ....""

Trying minors as adults will toughen the system and hold someone responsible. Minors must be fully culpable for their behavior if we are to deter future delinquents from committing violent crimes. Setting this example and making it known that our cities will, indeed, be tough on crimes, will serve as a wake-up call. Like the three strikes law, the threat of a harsh sentence will most certainly make children think twice before they commit violent crimes.

Since 1993, at least 43 states have passed laws making it easier for children to be tried as adults. A juvenile justice bill is currently awaiting final Congressional approval and contains similar measures for the federal system. Proposition 21, from last year's California elections, was passed and, although it has stirred much opposition and controversy, it has molded the image that society will have no tolerance for crime. The cost of implementing such measures will never even reach the immeasurable cost of lives lost.

In the words of former California Gov. Pete Wilson, we have to act ""decisively to retake [our] neighborhoods ...."" If we are to sincerely make an effort to keep our cities safer, all of America has to understand that youth may not be adults, but they are certainly capable of committing crimes. The crime that a 16-year-old commits is no different than that of a 60-year-old -- thus, there should be no reason to treat them differently. Second chances will come accordingly, but accountability should come first. It is not about giving children second chances. It is about making them responsible for their actions.

Inauguration Day 2001, when Republicans rejoiced after eight years of Clintonian despotism, wasn't without its problems. An intruder shaking the new president's hand, a protest along Pennsylvania Avenue, biting cold weather, and Ricky Martin all put a damper on the otherwise joyous occasion.

One thing, however, made it especially delightful: Jesse Jackson was nowhere in sight.

Of course, Jackson spent the day ""reconciling with his family in an undisclosed location"" -- i.e. hiding from the media -- because of the child he fathered out of wedlock.

Some people were surprised, and others were shocked, yet some of us already knew that Jackson is human slime. We must go far beyond his affair, to when he was acting as Bill Clinton's ""spiritual advisor,"" for us to see his true colors.

Let's examine his status as ""reverend."" This is a taboo topic, because Jackson has no congregation to speak of and no church to name. His only following is the faceless string of protesters who trail him wherever he wanders. Apparently, he is a self-proclaimed minister who uses his title to immunize himself from all the steep, unfounded allegations he wields like a sword.

The protests and allegations immediately following the presidential election were just the latest examples of Jackson's preposterous behavior. Think about it. Shortly after Al Gore retracted his concession, Jackson arrived in West Palm Beach, Fla. with hundreds of protesters. Whether Jackson and his protesters had been briefed on the object of their protest is unknown; all that is clear is that they were ready for action and eager to cause trouble.

I was shocked when I woke up that morning. It was as though the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse had arrived in Florida. There were protests everywhere, there were citizens who claimed they voted for the wrong candidate, there were minorities angry because they were turned away from polling booths, there were people calling for a revote, and every reporter in the country flocked to participate in that circus. They were also mad about some guy named Chad. It was a nightmare.

George W. Bush won the election fair and square. The voters, the Florida legislature, the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, time and the Constitution have already established that firmly. What I find curious, however, is how Action Jackson and his fan club arrived in Florida so quickly. They had mere hours to mobilize and organize, but they did, and they did it well.

The Democrats were building this storm before any electoral votes had been called for either candidate. With thousands of Floridian Democrats angrily claiming to have voted for Pat Buchanan -- even though most of them had, in fact, voted for Gore -- this was definitely a battleground ripe for the picking for Jesse ""Rent-a-Mob"" Jackson.

That's right: ""Rent-a-Mob"" is my favorite nickname for Jackson. I don't believe he has ever worked a day in his life. All he does is protest. How do you think he supports himself and his family? Through protesting. How can you possibly respect a professional protester? And as I mentioned earlier, he's always ready for action, and he certainly loves publicity. You need an angry mob to protest something? Call Jackson: He's always open for business.

The problem I have with his behavior in Florida is his baseless accusations that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris were responsible for disenfranchising African American and Jewish voters statewide.

I can handle accusations that they favored Bush in the election but I don't believe it had any influence on the outcome of the election. Jackson's claim, however, is simply unbelievable. It just shows that the man has no ethics. Claiming that police were sent to prevent minorities from voting might have been justified in the 1960s, but without some hard evidence this is nothing more than slander, for which Jeb Bush and Harris could file substantial lawsuits against Jackson. Mostly, I wish they would let the issue rest, but part of me wants him sued.

Don't misunderstand me. I advocate civil rights as much as the next guy. I cannot, however, condone Jackson's obviously unacceptable, underhanded methods.

I can't go into much more detail here without a Kenneth Starr-sized report to justify all my claims. What I can tell you, however, is that this man is bad news.

In his youth, Jackson was friends with Martin Luther King, Jr. If you don't remember anything else from this article, remember this: King was a great man who dedicated his life to fighting for civil rights and succeeded, but Jackson leeches off the African American community to serve his personal goals.

Jackson has been out of the spotlight for more than two months now. I can only hope he stays out.

After the Cold War, many believed NATO was dead. After all, the Russians are no longer a threat and the Cold War is over. Many wonder why the alliance is still around and criticize NATO's presence in recent crises in Bosnia and Kosovo. Many say that the alliance is a military organization with no political concerns whatsoever.

NATO has always been misunderstood: The alliance is more important now than ever before. While we no longer have to worry about doomsday scenarios that were the reason for NATO's formation, the alliance is striving to make the ""best case"" scenario.

The purpose of the alliance has always been to maintain the status quo and form solidarity against the Soviet threat. But the status quo is no longer on the agenda; NATO has survived because of its ability to respond to change. This versatility is why the alliance is an important and relevant part of not only Northern European security, but global security as well.

To understand the importance of NATO's presence, one must look at the overall effects of its current operations. But first, the misconceptions of what NATO is and what it stands for must be dispelled.

The most common misunderstanding is that NATO is merely a military alliance. Like the alliances that started wars before NATO's establishment, NATO is seen as a gang of countries that pledge support for each other should any member encounter a hostile situation with a nonmember country. NATO is more than just a military alliance or a counterthreat to warring countries. It is a community of nations, striving to foster security and peace throughout not only its member countries, but other countries as well.

Another myth is that the alliance's purpose is not limited to keeping the status quo. Much to the contrary, NATO's purpose has changed as often as the political climate in most countries has changed. NATO's goals change from defending its member countries against nuclear threats to proactively fostering security.

The most important point in NATO's current agenda is partnership. As a basic element to European stability, NATO has founded the Partnership for Peace Program and Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. Many critics do not know about this council, which boasts 46 member countries. Among them are NATO members, former Warsaw Pact countries and neutral nations. The Partnership for Peace Program allows participating countries to discuss security issues, and train and carry out peacekeeping operations jointly, thus opening communication with countries that have not previously been open to NATO's initiatives. In fostering inclusion and cooperation, NATO has been able to achieve the first step to global security.

NATO is also enhancing security for its existing members. Increased security in unstable countries sets a prime example for those who seek NATO membership. Other countries have seen possible NATO membership as an incentive to organize their country and resolve long-standing social, political or economic conflicts. As a result of NATO's open membership, many bilateral treaties have been signed and border agreements settled.

While the day that Russia joins the alliance is nowhere in sight and the Russia-NATO relationship could be better, NATO-initiated consultations are occurring regularly. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson hopes to establish a NATO information office in Moscow as a step toward better communication and dispelling lingering Cold War sentiments.

NATO's presence in Kosovo has also been under scrutiny. Popular opinion does not consider NATO's war. On the contrary, it is. Defending democracy and peace where diplomacy failed, NATO's presence in Kosovo stands in accordance with NATO's goals. The crisis affected members' security. Indifference to the situation meant supporting ethnic cleansing and martial law. The alliance's presence in Kosovo has proved fruitful as refugees have returned to a more stable country.

NATO affects the overall stability of the continent because, slowly but surely, it is working with countries that were once the source of instability, violence and aggression. It is enhancing European capabilities and relations that will make them better partners with their North American counterparts. Because it is bound by democratic values, NATO will defend the peace for future generations and will be important to global security as long as a need for economic and political assistance exists.

Sometimes I wonder about being an American citizen. I don't always feel the pride that I think I should feel. Hearing the national anthem doesn't fill me with patriotic fervor. I prefer meeting people from other countries rather than my fellow Americans.

I fully appreciate the rights and privileges that I have in America. Yet, sometimes I cringe upon learning of our government's actions.

I am most concerned with our country's role in international affairs. In many instances, I am not educated enough to take a side and may not have a full understanding of the problems, but I know enough to question what goes on. Some problems in this world have no sure, noncontroversial solutions, but it is possible to reduce U.S. involvement.

In a recent article I read, the Bush administration discussed its stance on Iraq. The Bush team was split on strategy and the degree of support the United States should give to forces opposing Saddam Hussein.

Some wanted an aggressive strategy to oust Hussein, while others were for a more moderate strategy of sanctions and limited support for the opposition groups. It seemed it would be a while before a consensus could be reached, but less than a day after the article was published, the United States was leading air strikes against Iraq. Was this the proper decision for us?

The opposition forces wanted and needed the support from us, but should we have given it to them? What position are Americans in now? Air strikes are terrifying. During air strikes on Belgrade, my Yugoslavian friend was in the United States and her family stayed behind, scared and vulnerable. Such fear is unknown to me and most other Americans. Walking around at a posh university, it is difficult to understand the magnitude of the situation.

Regardless, it is understood that decisions must be made by our government that gravely affect the rest of the nation, and the world for that matter. But one must at least question those decisions. It is too idealistic to think dramatic change can come instantly. World peace will not exist tomorrow, but there can be more serious effort to move in that direction.

Does the United States need to be part of every world conflict? There will never be a consensus on any issue involving international affairs, and U.S. involvement may perpetuate the problems. But then the United States also does a lot to support those in need.

The ""world police force"" (the U.S. military) will be called often, but it does not have to respond the same way every time. To what extent will the involvement of the United States help the problem, and to what extent will we add to it?

I don't want the rest of the world to glare at the policemen and mutter ""pig"" when they pass, but it already happens now.

My concern is that our government's decisions are seen by the rest of the world as representative of U.S. citizens, and I hate that. Even if one should think to openly oppose the decisions of the government, the shouts of that citizen are lost in the roar of the governing power.

There are no concrete solutions to this problem, but that is incentive to delve further into the problems on an individual level. We cannot deny the resources we have, and since it is easier to talk about change the world than actually changing it, why not form an educated opinion?

I do not regret my U.S. citizenship, but I am pessimistic in the midst of the problems involving my country.

For now, it is enough to know that regardless of the situation, I am free to speak and to oppose openly in this country.

Many people realize that the process for admitting students to the University of California discriminates against impoverished students from less-privileged socioeconomic backgrounds or disadvantaged schools.

In an attempt to level the playing field for such students, UC President Richard Atkinson is ready to unveil a plan that will eliminate SAT I scores from UC admissions criteria.

In a day when expensive preparatory courses promise to raise students' scores by hundreds of points, the Guardian feels that Atkinson's move is a smart one that will keep students from buying their way into the UC system. At the very least, his plan will reduce applicants' use of personal finances as a way of developing advantages over students whose financial circumstances do not allow them to enroll in expensive preparatory courses.

In addition, eliminating the outdated standardized exam will allow students who come from below-par high schools to have a better chance at gaining admission to the college of their choice.

Importantly, Atkinson's proposal is not one that eliminates standardized tests altogether. Instead, it proposes that UC admissions boards continue to take into account SAT II test scores, because these are believed to be a better measure of what students have learned in high school.

For example, the SAT II contains diverse subjects such as English, math, history, social studies, science and languages. All of these are areas of study that college students typically encounter in their majors and general education requirements, whereas the SAT I is highly generalized and reflects only two possible subjects. Atkinson has argued that because the SAT II is based on many subjects that are often included in university curricula, it is a better indicator of how a student will perform in college.

The university currently admits 60 percent of its students based solely on grade point averages and SAT scores. The remaining 40 percent are admitted after a review of supplemental information, such as personal statements, letters of recommendation and extracurricular activities.

The Guardian realizes that simply dropping SAT scores will not completely level the playing field for underprivileged students, but we feel that Atkinson's plan is a positive move and deserves our support.

It's been less than a month since Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel in the special elections held Feb. 6, and he has already made a remarkable effort to assemble a unity government. Initially many opponents, especially those on the left and Palestinians, were wary of the old general's intentions and his historically controversial and hawkish actions.

Sharon is head of Israel's Likud party, the more conservative of Israel's two main political parties. Though the Likud want peace just as strongly as their Labor counterparts, they are more determined to keep the Israeli borders in their present form, especially those of Jerusalem.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak is head of the Labor party, which is considered the more liberal of the two main parties, and he is willing to make larger concessions in the name of peace. It is this fundamental difference that brought Sharon to power in the recent election and it is this issue that most stringently divides the people of Israel.

It is also this difference in opinion that makes it so amazing that following the election, Sharon offered an outstretched arm to the defeated Barak, offering him the position of defense minister in his Cabinet. Furthermore, the proposed unity government would have Simon Peres, former prime minister and Labor party leader, as its foreign affairs advisor.

Both are highly coveted and powerful positions in the prime minister's Cabinet. If President George W. Bush had asked Bill Clinton to be his attorney general and Gore to be secretary of state, imagine the implications.

Originally I was staunchly against Sharon becoming prime minister, because Sharon has historically been anti-peace, not to mention he is violently disliked by the Palestinian and Arab communities.

In 1982, Sharon was responsible for sending a group of Christian militiamen into Lebanon, where they went on a rampage and slaughtered as many as 2,000 Palestinians. Sharon was absolved of responsibility for this, but it is clear that he had prior knowledge that the militiamen were capable of such atrocities.

More recently, Sharon visited the Temple Mount, or the al-Haram al-Sharif, as it is known to Muslims. Because of this visit he has been accused of provoking the current uprising. However, since he has been elected, Sharon has taken steps to ensure that his landslide victory will continue to receive the approval of the finicky Israeli constituents.

Mainly, Sharon's decision to form a true unity government has shocked many people worldwide. More importantly, it has impressed everyone. To me, this seems to be the only reasonable option available to the Israeli people. Under Likud rule, the peace process stopped completely, increasing hostility and anger in the region.

On the other hand, Barak offered more land than almost anyone wanted to give, and Arafat still said no. With both sides unsuccessful in solidifying a peace treaty with the Palestinians, and with the Israeli people anxious for peace yet disappointed with the process, perhaps a unified government will be able to produce a peace treaty that can satisfy both the hard-liners and the liberals.

Sharon is hardly a compromising individual to begin with, so any line he draws is sure to be stood behind, which sends the message to the Palestinian and Arab world that Israel is not going to be toyed with anymore.

But by giving Barak and Peres such powerful positions, he has shown a willingness to bring peace to the region, an action that will definitely be noted by Arafat and other Arab leaders. When Sharon won the election, I'm positive that Arafat all but gave up on the peace process. With a unity government peace seems possible, but Arafat will have to play by a new set of rules. It was a slap in the face of every Israeli when Barak conceded so much of Israeli land in the name of peace, and Arafat promptly rejected the offer. Arafat will never get an offer like that again, and he will be forced to rethink some of his more controversial requests.

Logically, I fear that this may lead to an impasse, with Arafat asking for parts of Jerusalem that Barak previously promised, and Sharon unmoving in his decision to keep Jerusalem whole. But I have hope that this election has been a wake-up call to many Palestinians -- a message has been sent that Israel is not going to bend over backward, and results must be shown before any treaty is signed. With Barak, Sharon sends the message that peace is desired, but the rules have changed: Israel will not be pushed around.

The coming weeks will be very telling. At the time this article was written, Sharon's coalition with the Labor party had not been solidified and Barak was still prime minister. If Sharon cannot form a unity government with the Labor party, he may resort to forming an alliance with the Shas party, Israel's religious party, which is more adamantly against giving land for peace than the Likud party. This action would most likely bring the progress of the peace process to a snail's pace, if not a complete halt. It would also unintentionally send the message that Israel does not want peace. This would be a terrible setback in the peace process, which has progressed so far in the past half decade.

Sharon has 45 days from the day he was elected to form a government. Under Israeli law, if he has not formed a government, a special election must be called, and a re-vote will occur, setting the peace process even further back. The Likud party, together with the Labor party, would be a veritable yin and yang in the prime minister's office.

As long as Sharon's offer is emblematic of his desire for peace and unity among the Israeli people, there is a possibility of a satisfied Israeli public and a reasonable peace treaty in the coming years. For now, peace is still a dream, and I hope that all parties involved are willing to make compromises and stick by their promises.

We're in college. You may have already realized that. These four (or maybe more) years are some of the best of our lives, as responsibility hasn't fully swept in and fun remains the ultimate goal.

That's where alcohol comes in.

As college students, we accept drinking as a vital part of our social lives, and even as a constituent of our daily lives. For some, it was prominent before arrival at UCSD, and for others, it crept up and surreptitiouslyworked its way into weekly or daily routines.

Alcohol takes root in people's lives in many different forms. For some, it truly is social and it helps them feel more comfortable in situations and allows them to have more fun. But, I ask, is this really what you want? What does it indicate when someone cannot be outgoing or meet people when acting completely for him- or herself? People should work through their inhibitions, rather than push them aside temporarily by being under the influence.

I've seen what alcohol can do to all kinds of relationships. I've seen what it can do to lives. People in college take the term ""alcoholic"" lightly; it should not be taken as such. Depending so completely on anything is detrimental to the human spirit. Alcoholics really do lose their lives because of the substance. Alcoholism apparently grows and breeds during the college years. I don't know what I can say to make those people who drink alone in their rooms for the sake of feeling the effects realize what they do to themselves and others, but I know that I wish there were some way to make them stop.

This year, I received some of the worst news of my life. I was informed that the person I love most in this world was hospitalized for drinking too much. She could have died, the doctors said. Her blood alcohol level was extremely high, especially considering how long ago she'd stopped drinking and how sick she'd been. I didn't, and still don't, know what to say to her to make her realize the impact that had on my life. Less than two months later, I had to watch her come near that level again. I saw her too sick to control herself.

This girl is 15 years old. She has a head start on many of the people I watch grapple with the same issue here at school. Maybe the difference for most is the freedom. Once we're out of the house, we don't have to deal with returning home drunk to face the wrath of Mom or Dad. But, most likely, the cause of the increase in drinkers is the atmosphere. Drinking is so highly valued at every college. (Well, maybe not at certain ones in Utah, but almost every one.)

I fell prey to that pressure. I don't regret it, but I do wonder how I allowed my values to change so drastically. I only hope that other people in the position I was three weeks ago stand firm and don't give in to themselves. (Peer pressure is not what causes most people at this point to start drinking. By the time you're in college, you've refused so many times, that to give in now you must actually make a choice for yourself.)

Why do people indulge in this drug when it has such awful effects at times? I don't think I'll ever understand the appeal of drinking so much that you can't make it to the bathroom to get sick and mess the rug in your suite or the stairs in your apartment. I don't understand how people rationalize the use of drinking as an escape from their lives, when so many drinkers get depressed while under the influence. It feels worse to cry when you're drunk because you lack any sort of control.

Control may be the issue. The only time people can control how out of control they are is while drinking. I still don't understand the appeal of being out of control, even in the slightest. It's never a good idea to spray shaving cream on walls. Why would a person want to place himself at such a level where he would think it is a good idea?

Alcohol is not an escape. It does not help anyone act more suave or seem more appealing in the long run. It's addictive and it screws up entire lives, for the people who overconsume it and all the people around them. I'm not saying don't do it; I know how impossible that is. Just be aware of what it does and does not do.

These are the alleged ""best years of your life."" You do want to remember them, don't you?

Talks of an imminent reunification have been rampant and indeed seem inevitable in light of recent developments in the two Koreas.

First, there were the numerous family reunions among dozens of relatives who had had no communication since the Korean War.

Next came the historic summit last June between leaders of South and North Korea, signaling a new era in Korean political relations. During the summit, the leaders agreed on a number of things, including allowing reunions between war-torn families and promoting closer economic ties, in the hopes that these actions would lead to an eventual reunification. To date, about 7.6 million South Koreans -- 15 percent of the population -- have relatives in the North whom they haven't seen since the end of the war.

Indeed the meeting was unprecedented. A Korean scholar and former Russian diplomat who was posted in Pyongyang in the late '80s called it a ""landmark event in Korean history, tantamount to putting a symbolic end to the Korean War.""

Although reunification appears to be inevitable in the long run, the transition will and should take much longer. In other words, don't expect the two Koreas to become one any time soon.

Essentially, an attempt at reunification is an attempt at marrying two very different creatures. Ever since the start of the Korean War on June 25, 1950, the two sides have been at odds with each other. Intense fighting lasted nearly three years between North and South Korea. The three-year fighting between the South, backed by the United Nations, and the North, backed by China and the Soviet Union, cost the lives of approximately 2.4 million Koreans.

Bitter from old wounds and a tenuous truce that ended the war, the two Koreas have maintained their separation for 50 years. In fact, the two are still technically at war: the creation of a guarded demilitarized zone and the fact that each is still heavily armed is a testament to this.

Within the passing of that half century, both countries have taken very different paths. The North embraced a communist dictatorship with Kim Il Sung at the helm. For years, it remained an isolated country, struggling from decades of being cut off from modern technology, only now facing the effects in the form of starvation and poverty. Kim imposed a Korean form of Stalinism that raised his persona to that of cult status, reminiscent of China's Mao Tse-Tung. With the death of Kim, the North has continued to encounter severe economic problems. Put simply, the North needs help.

The South, on the other hand, has enjoyed much greater luck since the great divide. It has evolved into a capitalist democracy that has made its mark as a viable manufacturing force, playing a major role in the new digital economy. The South, in contrast to the North, has enjoyed great prosperity. Yet it has experienced its share of hardship as well. After the war, South Korea suffered two military coups, a series of popular rebellions and years of chaos under authoritarian leaders. Since the financial crisis that hit Asia in 1997, South Korea has struck back as an economic force to be reckoned with.

Many Koreans have conflicting feelings about a quick reunification. I am one of them. The biggest concern would have to be trust. The question lingers -- ""How can two countries, at odds with each other for so long with two completely different ideologies, merge to make one?"" What analysts have deemed the ""Korean shuffle"" becomes appropriate to this question.

With every step forward the two Koreas take, two steps back always seem to follow. For instance, both sides worked tirelessly at an agreement on improving relations, only to have then-North Korean leader Kim die soon afterward. More recently, in response to the North's dire poverty, the South provided aid to famine victims. Its philanthropic mood was quickly spoiled, however, when it was discovered that a North Korean spy was watching the South from southern waters.

The answer may lie in other precedents, such as the reunification of the two Germanys late last century. If the present is any indication of the uphill struggle the process entails, you don't need to look any further than Germany and all the difficulties it has faced after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Easing tensions between the two Koreas will not be easy. Although reunification is an obvious step in the right direction, the process should take time.

At one of the reunions, one woman's dilemma of reconciling her love for her long-estranged sister with her differing core beliefs served as an apt metaphor for the same challenge South and North Korea will no doubt face if reunification is ever to occur.

During the meeting, emotions were high as the two embraced after decades of complete isolation. It only took a few hours, however, before both siblings were at odds with each another. The sister from the South could not believe how ""brainwashed"" her sister from the North had become, in her profession of utter devotion to communism and her abhorrence of democracy. Indeed, it was hard for both of them to realize how different each had become and how hard it would be to come to terms with this.

Critics claim that the North's increased openness to the world is motivated purely by economic reasons. They point out how North Korea has concluded that American generosity is beginning to wear thin and that the most attractive alternative is South Korea.

In other words, the North appears to have shifted its focus from the United States to its southern neighbor for economic aid, hence the summits and talks of reunification.

Undoubtedly, this is true because the North is suffering. Just the same, a deeper motivation still exists. Ultimately, unification should be seen as a shared aspiration of all the Korean people. Years from now, a reunification may bridge most of the heavy gaps that prevented all previous attempts before. Economics aside, the two need to reunify, but with one condition -- gradually, without haste. Ten to 20 years down the line will prove to be the best time for Korea to recover the homogeneity of a people that has been lost in 50 years of division.

In last year's presidential election, George W. Bush was quick to say that the Republican Party was filled with compassionate conservatism and was the true party of inclusiveness. Yet, how does the Republican Party reconcile that promise of inclusiveness with their celebrated relationship with Bob Jones University, a university known for its racial and religious intolerance?

That Bush visited and spoke at the university during the presidential race exposes how uncommitted he is to what he preaches, for his mere presence speaks volumes of his acceptance of the university's discriminatory policies.

At the time that Bush visited the Christian fundamentalist university, interracial dating and marriage were explicitly prohibited to Bob Jones students. In addition, Bob Jones University has displayed intolerance toward Catholics and Mormons.

Even with these blatantly racist and intolerant policies, Bush made it a priority to stop at the university during his campaign to give a speech. It was made evident through his mere presence that all his touted beliefs of a new inclusive GOP were nothing more than a facade donned to win the trust of the American people and the coveted office of president.

All of Bush's preaching of a more racially inclusive party is no more than a temporary and superficial face-lift, for racial intolerance still remains at the core of the Republican Party.

The fact that Bob Jones University is a frequent stop for conservative politicians is evidence of this power. For example, when U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft was still a senator, he spoke at the university's commencement ceremony and earned an honorary degree.

It is clear that a politician must woo Bob Jones' extremists as a rite of passage of acceptance into conservative power. So the question that remains is this: Just how inclusive is the Republican Party if they readily embrace their relationship with Bob Jones University?

We can only deem the actions of President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft as an acceptance of the university's bigoted policies.

To be fair to Bush, he did apologize for not taking the opportunity while speaking at the university to address his difference of opinion with the school's policy toward racial and religious intolerance.

In a letter to Cardinal O'Connor, Bush wrote that his appearance at Bob Jones University was a ""missed opportunity causing needless offense, which I deeply regret.""

Yet interestingly enough, Bush did not apologize for going to the university in the first place. This deafening omission on his part leaves the door open for more visits, thus securing the extremist religious conservative base of the Republican Party.

That is how Bush successfully neutralized John McCain's threat to his candidacy for president last year by securing the all-powerful conservative base.

The old cliche that actions speak louder than words is aptly applied to Bush. He speaks of being racially inclusive, yet he overtly caters to the extremist and bigoted base of his party.

It does not add up. In my mind, Bush is like a little boy who only apologizes for stealing a cookie after he is caught with his hand in the jar. But in Bush's case, he only apologized after he was caught in a blatant case of hypocrisy because of the media frenzy surrounding his visit.

Bush's appearance at Bob Jones University completely drones out his political rhetoric of inclusiveness and ""compassionate conservatism.""

That the Republican Party still cultivates and embraces its connection to Bob Jones University and its extremist base of support is nothing short of political suicide.

Though a fluke made Bush president, the Republican Party's inner fragmentation and hypocrisy toward racial inclusion will be its undoing and political power will be lost.

All it takes is enough fed-up people to force those extremist bigots into extinction, thus severing this unsavory connection with Bob Jones University once and for all.

Don't you off-campus residents love meeting freshmen every year? There's a particular gleam in their eyes, a certain thrilled-to-be-alive voracity as they recount to you their exciting tales of residence hall life in tones dripping with reverence. You listen and smile and nod, but you probably feel smug, because you know that you have the better deal. It's a fact: Those who live off campus may not always have it easier, but they have it better by far in many ways.

James Pascual
Guardian

The one thing that makes everything else easy about living off campus is the ability to choose one's living companions. The importance of this oft-overlooked blessing cannot be understated; if you live with compatible people, nearly everything else will fall into place. Living with the right people makes things fun, relaxing, free from hassle and makes life conducive to studying and productivity, should you choose to engage in such anomalous behavior.

Sometimes I feel quite certain that the colleges' residential life staffs match roommates up by a process whose scientific credibility seems roughly on par with that of Teiresias' reading of bird auguries. Though I have known several people who have met their closest friends through their roommates, I know many more who endured the hell of living with an utterly mismatched personality and turned out all the more scarred for it.

My on-campus housing experience left me with severed friendships, a seething hatred for all Warren college residential life staff and a paralytic, though somewhat founded, fear of being run over by a particular ex-roommate shuttle driver. That, however, is a story for another day.

In all but a few situations, living off campus affords one the freedom to choose one's living companions, the importance of which cannot be underestimated. You will never understand what it can mean to choose the people you room with until you have been assigned to live with a tactless nymphomaniac, a Tijuana-bound partygoer who cannot hold her alcohol, a Limp Bizkit-blasting pothead or -- far worse than any of the above -- someone who steals your toiletries. (And you wondered where all your Pantene was going.)

Surprisingly, if done right, living off campus can be much cheaper than living in the residence halls. In terms of a simple cost-benefit analysis, living off campus opens a window of opportunity that on-campus life simply cannot provide.

It's true that UCSD students do not live in an area known for its student-friendly rent costs and infrastructure. The only worse place to put a college that I can think of is Walnut Creek, Calif. However, those who scour the housing market with diligence will be rewarded. Your housing costs on campus will get you a furnished cubicle, an Ethernet connection slowed by everyone else's Napster downloads and the unique opportunity to experience a variety of tacky, RA-concocted bonding sessions. All this, and you might have to share your 150 square feet with two or three other people.

In contrast, many off-campus residents will tell you they know people living 10 minutes from campus paying less than $500 a month for their own bedrooms. It's true that living off campus means you must cart your own furniture from home or buy it new, but at least you can be guaranteed that your bed was never host to a wild night of body shots during the 1996 Sun God Festival. And, going on the assumption that you are living off campus with people you know and trust relatively well, you can take for granted that your roommate won't bring her new Internet boyfriend home to consecrate your Ikea breakfast nook set.

The most frequent complaint of those who live off campus is about the commute. UCSD has no reliable parking, and San Diego has no reliable public transportation. Well, what were you expecting? If you want to see efficient mass transit in action, you'll need to go to school in someplace like Belgium. Anyone who expects an easy time out of the commute to campus is in for another thought, but anyone not prepared to endure a little hardship needs to be forced to spend a semester at Downtown Barstow College to see how truly paradisiacal a San Diego student has it in nearly all facets of life.

What else do on-campus residents have that I can tear into? The one thing that comes to mind that's hard to contest is their ability to rise and lope to a class 20 minutes before it starts. While that is fun for the first quarter or so, after that it becomes downright decadent. I too enjoyed waking up at 7:55 a.m. to scamper off to that 8 a.m. Warren Writing section, but self-indulgence can only go so far. One of these days, you're going to have a job that starts just as early as the earliest class, and it won't allow you to stay up until 4 a.m. playing networked Age of Empires, only to stumble out five minutes before 8 a.m. in your rubber ducky pajamas with a cowlick that would put Dennis the Menace to shame. Good habits are acquired through practice, not natural genius, and everyone needs to start practicing as soon as possible.

I do not intend to create sour grapes for people enjoying their on-campus living experience. In fact, some of my fondest memories spring from the time I spent on campus. However, I would trade the rocky ups and downs of my freshman year housing term for the more level, more sane, more sanguine days that I have had ever since I severed my ties with the Housing and Dining Administration.