When the "Friday the 13th" movie marathon begins at the campus center Friday evening, we will not be in attendance. We will neither share in the audience's fright nor revel in the sadistic pleasure of graphic and gratuitous violence because we believe that sensational and contrived horror is unbecoming of the sacred art of cinematography. We cannot bring ourselves to endorse with our attendance any movie that propounds a message so antithetical and subversive to the ideal of wholesome entertainment at the heart of American culture.

There are many who may express perplexity with our seemingly obtuse declaration. We can easily imagine a colleague saying, "But, dudes, it's a really good movie. Morality is cool and all, but the decapitation scene is wicked scary! Check it out before you diss it, man." We sympathize with such concerns and with the plea for open-mindedness. However, it is precisely America's uncritical embrace of violent cinema that has allowed the "Hollywood agenda" of abhorrent dismemberment to entrench itself within our culture.

Most treasured amongst the American ideals sacrificed at the altar of artistically vapid and grotesque violence is the supreme value of reasoned debate in a democracy. One of the movie's most troubling moments is Crazy Ralph's proclamation that Camp Blood is stricken with a "death curse." At first glance, Crazy Ralph has a point, for there is indeed an unsettling amount of death at Camp Blood. However, to assert that Camp Blood is stricken with any sort of curse is to sully the reputation of that otherwise venerable recreational facility. Obviously, the nature of this screening precludes a substantive exchange of ideas regarding this allegation between Crazy Ralph and those who might believe the deaths at Camp Blood to be the result of a succession of unfortunate coincidences.

 For the above reasons alone (try as we might, this is the best we could do), the following students will stay away:

Jackson reaction is hypocritical

Despite having left the room to watch "Prince of Thieves" because I couldn't stomach sitting through the four-hour Superbowl bonanza, I was a little surprised when I heard about Janet Jackson's breast-baring halftime show. Jackson's "costume malfunction" occurred when Justin Timberlake ripped off her bustier at the end of "Rock Your Body," exposing her right breast in all its glory, save for a star-shaped "nipple shield."

I was not surprised at the almost immediate public outrage following the event, the excuses provided by Jackson and Timberlake and finally the public apology issued by Jackson herself. Coupled with the fact that this probably accidental display of nudity was flashed on the screens of more than 80 million Americans, the public dismay and anger hardly seems stunning.

Fury is inevitable after such an act under these circumstances. But it seems to me that the anger is somewhat hypocritical, considering the circumstances of the display. Consider the nature of the song and its approved presentation: ostensibly nobody at CBS in charge of televising the Superbowl had any problem with the lyrics of "Rock Your Body," including the final words "Bet I'll have you naked by the end of this song".

I must conclude that the sexual effect of the bump-and-grind presented throughout the rest of the song was also deemed appropriate for the wide-ranging nature of the Superbowl's audience. With the apparent acceptance of all these overtly suggestive movements, solicitations and words, why should a nipple be so shocking? Are mammary glands really so much more indicative of sexual decadence and promiscuity than a lascivious Timberlake invitation to "go ahead, girl just do / That ass-shaking thing you do"?

I'm not saying that Jackson's supposedly accidental display of her right breast is appropriate for children, or that we should happily switch our television sets to the Lingerie Bowl during commercials. But in the midst of an event that not only presents one of our most sexual hits with a suggestive, grinding dance, but glorifies a sport in which 300-pound men attempt to crush one another with potentially spleen-shattering effects, if we pretend to hate Jackson's right breast with such a self-righteous passion, shouldn't we use it as an opportunity to look at its surroundings? By ignoring the ubiquitous violence and frequent sensuality of the entire Superbowl spectacle, aren't we just looking for another scapegoat?

No work over shopping period

At the beginning of each semester, students are allowed two weeks to attend a variety of classes and refine their schedules. Unfortunately, as currently administered at Amherst, these two weeks are not fit to be called a "shopping period."

The intent of this period is to allow curious and undecided students to inform themselves of courses' scopes and workloads before finalizing their registrations. However, this freedom to shop is thwarted when professors assign work-and every professor does. I am a second semester senior, and I have never seen a syllabus that does not assign a significant amount of material even the first week. No wonder that most students are too reluctant to fall behind to spend one week, let alone two, sitting in on different classes to decide which they prefer.

This past week, I have kept up with the reading-amounting to over 100 pages from two multiliths and two entire books-for three history classes, of which I know I will end up taking only one. I do this because I haven't taken a history class at Amherst yet and want to carefully choose courses for my last semester.

As professors, both of my parents often wish students had more leisure time to decide on their classes. They also regret having to pack so much material into ever-shortening semesters. If two weeks is too long to expect professors not to move beyond introductory overviews, perhaps a compromise can be reached; the non-committal period could be shortened to one week. But for that one week, the College should ask professors not to give any homework.

Shopping period has a noble intent: provide time and information to make better decisions. It should therefore live up to its advertised claim: no obligation to buy, and no down payments.

Keep Clinton's Roadless Rule

Almost four years ago, I got a job canvassing for U.S. PIRG, the national arm of the State PIRGS. I came in for my first day, and they gave me a speech about how the Bush administration was trying to roll back many of our key environmental protections. First among them was the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, a rule passed by the Clinton administration after more than two million Americans sent comments to the White House. The Roadless Rule protects 58.5 million acres of our nation's last remaining national forests by outlawing logging roads in places that haven't yet been touched.

This rule is desperately needed. Already, more than 60 percent of our national forests are open to logging, mining and drilling companies. There are more miles of roads in these forests than in the Interstate Highway System. The Roadless Rule allows roads for fire prevention and other emergencies, but the Bush Administration has decided this isn't enough. Four years ago, Bush announced that he would repeal the Rule, allowing logging companies access to our last untouched forests.

We have held Bush off for the last four years. But less than a month ago, the Forest Service announced that it would exempt the Tongass National Forest in Alaska from the Roadless Rule. The Tongass is the world's last remaining untouched temperate rainforest, a ten million acre expanse of old-growth forest. Logging it would be a genuine tragedy.

The Tongass is only the first step in Bush's plan to give our public lands away to special interests. In the next few months, he's expected to announce the exemption of several more national forests. Since the public got enraged when it heard about the repeal, Bush is slyly dismantling it piece by piece.

The environment is one of the Bush administration's most sensitive areas. The public overwhelmingly wants to keep our forests protected, and in this election year, he is tiptoeing around the issues. This semester, MassPIRG's Environmental Alert campaign will shine a bright spotlight on Bush's behind-the-scenes sale of our environment. We will make sure the public knows about his rollbacks. You can help out by coming to MassPIRG's general interest meeting today at 7:30 pm in Porter House.