Should the United States pay reparations to African Americans to redress the economic gains of slavery? Conservative activist David Horowitz does not think so. On March 14, Horowitz placed an advertisement in The Brown Herald titled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks - and Racist Too." Whether for or against reparations, intelligent audiences will recognize some of Horowitz’s arguments as credible and compelling, and will reject others as factually questionable and rhetorically unsound, and perhaps even offensive.

Sometimes something that happens to you affects you right away, and then you move on. But sometimes, something that doesn’t bother you much at first only grows in your mind as you begin to absorb what really happened. And from the time that I was hauled away from the Pendleton Building in a forklift to the time I write this article, I have only felt more and more betrayed by the administration of this college–indeed, by all of the administrators.

With much spiritual guidance from Dylan Nachand ’01: Recently there have been complaints regarding the quality of parties at our prestigous college, and rightfully so. Even if it is not in Grooveline, the formula is the same: meet in a designated area, wait in line for beer, watch people dance and try to get drunker (sic). Richard Marie Caperton ’01 has suggested that we take our designated parties to greater and more stately mansions on our campus but I would like to suggest that location is not the problem. In fact, the problem lies in expecting our college to provide parties that are an awesome time and fun to attend. Is this a cruise ship? Are we on Semester at Sea? I think not.

What would be the likely outcome if, at some unspecified time in the future, I were to lead an army of animals against my roommate’s army of clones in bloody, ideological, metaphorically heavy-handed battle?

Well, for this argument to be at all pertinent, worthwhile, and generally on point, a number of issues need to be addressed before the meat of the argument. First, this battle would be taking place at some time in the future, a time in which the majority of humans on Earth had been wiped out by disease, war, and an across the board moratorium on breeding.

Maybe the problem is that George W. Bush has seen one too many westerns. Westerns with Clint Eastwood. Slow, gritty westerns, where the only thing you here is the pre-Lynchian howl of the wind, and sometimes the jingle of Clint’s spurs as he stomps around town. Or maybe it’s just that in that hot, arid state that someone once upon a time dubbed "Texas," where between the heat, the snakes, and the sheriff and his posse, something is always out to get you, people just grow up with a different mentality. Bush seems to come from that mold of so many Texas outlaws before him.

Petroleum is perhaps the most important resource of the twentieth century. We have to appreciate that our food is grown with petroleum products, our clothing is often petroleum based, and most of the energy we have comes from petroleum. Yet, it is very clear that we will run out of petroleum at some point in the near future. Why, then, are we not working on solutions to this? Some groups try to encourage ignorance of our coming petroleum shortage because they benefit from such a myth.