There are Olympic tickets in the mail, foreign stocks to monitor, and that statue in the garden whose fingertips need manicuring. Another article on the economy can probably wait until you’ve fed your pony in the attic and re-stabilized the aquarium in the basement.

If you aren’t Mitt Romney, this just might brighten your day: America’s unemployment rate has stumbled to the lowest point it’s been in three years. What’s strange is that some candidates aren’t too happy about it, while many that are have tread lightly.

Their justification isn’t flawed. It all stems from a universal idiom: If it looks like it’s too good to be true, it probably is. The numbers released are not all that glamorous, Ron Paul says.

In any other scenario, the reaction from the eastern hemisphere of the political spectrum would be commonplace. Disregard for the information wouldn’t just be appropriate, it would be expected.

But try repeating those sentiments to the single mother who’s just been employed as a Goodwill associate, or the just-hired law school graduate whose mounting loans has resulted in a cabinet’s worth of prescriptions — they just might change your mind. While some parties might view last week’s data as “just numbers,” it’s important to remember that every decimal represents an actual person with actual problems. The irony in these exchanges is that the gains are being devalued by groups whose own job security is ironclad.

The figures demonstrate not all is lost. The silver lining may not have found its way to everyone’s doorstep, but it’s still out there. The 11 million people who had given up looking for work over the course of the year are right to be apprehensive, as their neighbor’s good news isn’t necessarily their own.

It’s hard enough to find food as a university student, let alone as a fully-integrated member of society with other obligations. But success stories are not far and few between.

As rough as the year’s been for the unemployed, any news should be good news. While it may not be the most attractive idea, the fact remains that our circumstances could just as easily have gotten worse.

We’re obviously not in the clear yet. The country still sports the highest unemployment rate since any “post-war” era. Career outsourcing still hurts. Europe’s philandering can only mean that some sort of downturn is on the horizon.

But if nothing else, these concessions make the light shining on the unemployed a little brighter. It’s the catalyst for a recovery, and although it’s not instantaneous, changes are being made.

One day you really will lease that pony, but the steady improvement of the nation’s job sector will have to do for now.

Bryan Washington is a sociology freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

After dodging bullets for our freedom and watching comrades fall to the perils of war, I believe American soldiers are owed our support and recognition.

The least we could do is welcome our soldiers home with a celebratory event. We hold parades for champions of all major sport leagues. We hold an annual Thanksgiving Day parade. We hold a parade for Mardi Gras.

Why not for our veterans who put their lives in danger in Iraq? The war in Iraq leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many Americans — its end did not come without precious sacrifices — but this is more reason to celebrate the return of our surviving veterans.

On March 19, 2003, just two days after demanding the surrender of Saddam Hussein, America commenced a new preemptive form of defense strategy by invading Iraq.

According to former President George W. Bush, the people of the US would not live at the mercy of a regime holding weapons of mass destruction.

“We will meet that threat now with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities,” Bush said.

This war was not waged without scandal and controversy, including at our previous president’s adherence to the use of torture. Some claim Operation Iraqi Freedom was a war of hegemony — not liberation.

A 2011 Gallop poll showed 75 percent of Americans approved of withdrawing our troops from Iraq. The only remnants of America’s once enormous military presence in Iraq is America’s largest embassy in the world, which employs about 16,000 people.

According to the Washington Post, 4,474 US service members have died in the war in Iraq. The Lone Star State is among the states with the highest amount of casualties. Unfortunately, 417 soldiers from Texas have passed away. Some would argue that a parade is premature because the job in the Middle East is not finished.

We are still in Afghanistan — though the Obama administration has hinted that our presence there will dwindle in the near future.

And there is still a legitimate threat of Pakistan’s volatility and Iran becoming nuclear. That is a weak excuse, though. Why not have a parade at the conclusion of each war?

Highlighting the efforts of our troops will not hinder US keeping an eye on Iran and Pakistan.

In America we have a tendency to whitewash events in our history where the light is not flattering. But the souls of those who died need neither to be forgotten nor marginalized.

As the old adage goes, don’t ever bite the hand that feeds you. I think it is time to rethink the way we treat those who serve and protect this great nation, because we are insulting those who are the most important to our security. It’s not impossible. It’s not even a hard decision.

To our government leaders, just make it happen. That includes Obama and the derelict members of congress that we elected to protect our interests.

Christopher Shelton is a journalism junior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

In the course of a week, one of the most powerful and well-respected cancer foundations in the world has managed to nearly destroy their near-pristine image.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced on Tuesday that they would cease providing grants to Planned Parenthood for cancer screening services. The outrage flared almost instantly.

Many Komen donors threatened to redirect their support to Planned Parenthood, and Komen’s website was hacked the following night.

By Thursday, three high-level Komen employees had resigned, and 26 senators had asked Komen to reconsider their decision. They did by Friday, but the damage had already been done.

The once nigh-untouchable organization is now the subject of Facebook pages like “Defund the Komen Foundation” and affiliates all over the country are losing donors and sponsorships.

Komen Founder Nancy Brinker — sister of late Susan G. Komen, who died of breast cancer in 1980 — announced that the foundation has gone into PR red alert and will ask Ari Fleischer, former Bush administration White House press secretary and previous Komen consultant, to manage the PR crisis. Why did Komen de-funding Planned Parenthood make people so angry?

The Komen grants provided to Planned Parenthood were used to provide cancer screenings and mammogram referrals to women who otherwise would not have access to such preventative care. Komen pulled their grants due to political pressure at the expense of women’s health — the very thing they were supposed to stand for.

Brinker is Republican and donates to Republican candidates, but the Komen Foundation has remained apolitical, at least until recently. Last year, the foundation appointed far-right leaning, former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel to the position of senior vice president of public policy. Handel has publicly voiced her opposition to Planned Parenthood.

Many Komen employees claim that she made the decision to cease the grants to Planned Parenthood, and that Fleischer was heavily involved as well. The Komen foundation claims that the decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood was made because of a new rule created by Handel that would prohibit them from supporting an organization under investigation.

Never mind that Komen is still funding multiple other organizations also under investigation or that the investigation into Planned Parenthood is motivated entirely by politics.

The Hyde Amendment — a rider routinely attached to annual appropriation bills since 1976 — prevents Planned Parenthood from using federal funds for abortion services. Every few years, a Senator decides to inspect Planned Parenthood’s books and make sure that the funds are being used accordingly. So far, none of these investigations have produced anything suspicious, and neither has Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns’ current investigation.

Planned Parenthood provides abortion services, which many people do not agree with, but abortions account for only three percent of the services that Planned Parenthood offers. The rest is preventative care, contraception and OB/GYN care.

The grants that they receive allow them to provide subsidized care to women who otherwise would not have access to health care. The Komen grants were used to provide breast cancer screenings and mammogram referrals.

When Komen pulled their funding from Planned Parenthood they showed the world they had become, in effect, a political organization.

Pandora’s box has been opened, and now many other instances of the foundation’s unsavory behavior are coming to light.

For example, Komen officials have been seeking legal action against other charity organizations for using the phrase “for the cure” as well as the color pink — as if cancer awareness is a profitable brand identity to be protected.

In one week, Komen has fallen in the public eye from a model charitable foundation to the evil empire of non-profits. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has garnered an outcry of public support and over $3 million in donations. The country stood up for women’s health, but the victory feels somewhat hollow.

We won a battle last week, but we lost the soul of a great force for women’s health to politics.

Emily Brooks is an economics senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

The Syrian government reacted to the uprisings in the way that only an oppressive, totalitarian regime could despite that practically the entire United Nations was prepared to formally condemn the Syrian government for its heinous actions. Only Russia and China vetoed the UN resolution, spitting in the face of the right to not be murdered by one’s own government.

Despite international outrage at their actions, Moscow and Beijing adamantly stand by their decision to support Assad’s murderous reign. This is even after reports from a state-run Syrian newspaper that promised harsher methods of cracking down on the protests.

It was probably a sense of kinship that caused these two superpowers from the Cold War to support a totalitarian regime. When the first protests, sparked by the wave of uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia early last year, began to break out across Syria, Assad launched a brutal response with tanks and troops to squash the rebellion. It was the Middle East’s own Tiananmen Square. Russia also has economic concerns when vetoing a UN resolution to condemn Syria; Moscow is a major arms dealer to Syria.

What would the resolution have done? In typical UN fashion, the resolution to condemn Syria would have done just that and nothing more — in other words, absolutely nothing. According to British Foreign Secretary William Hague, the resolution “did not impose any sanctions, nor did it authorize military action.” All it would have requested was for Syria to answer the questions: Why are you killing your people? and Can you stop it, pretty please? The Syrian mass-murder apparatus run by Assad has denounced the international call for cessation of violence in his country, claiming it as an outright hostile attack on Syria — undoubtedly emboldened by the backing of his arms dealer on the Security Council.

On a resolution that would have done nothing but call to an end a crackdown that has resulted in at least 6,000 deaths since last year. The Chinese and Russians have sided with a madman, against America and her European allies.

The question comes down to what to do about the killings in Syria. In any other decade, America would probably be rolling in with her guns a-blazin’. C-130s would unleash a bombardment of good old American artillery down on Assad’s head. For those of who believe we went to Iraq for the oil, Syria’s right next door to Iraq. Not mention that by removing them, we would be further protecting our Israeli allies. For those of us who believe we went to Iraq to free the Iraqi people, Assad’s looking very much like Saddam at this point.

Maybe 10 years ago we could have done something like that — maybe 10 years from now. Unfortunately, America is still on the ropes after pulling out of two major wars, and despite recent positive upturns, we are still in danger of tail-spinning into another bout of recession. Most of the world would rather we mind our own business, and for now, that’s just an excuse for us to catch our breath. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization handled itself just fine in the toppling of Gaddafi. Given the situation, Assad should be no different.

If Israel is really looking for a fight, instead of attacking Iran and possibly drawing outrage from the Arab League, Israel should act in support of the Arab League who should push for a stronger condemnation against Syria, including an actual invasion to overthrow Assad.

The Arab League and the Muslim community have both been unfairly mislabeled by some in the West as backwards, freedom-hating terrorists when everyone knows this is clearly not the case. Islam is a peaceful religion and the Arab people are just like any other. As believers in human rights and liberty, the Arab League should do more than just call Syria out on this violent crackdown that has people looking for bodies of loved ones under supervision by snipers on neighboring rooftops.

The Arab League cannot tolerate this type of aggression that would seem to legitimize the negative portrayal of the Middle East to the West. The senseless slaughter of civilians in their own region should be brought to a stop by those closest around them. If more Arab nations could rebel against their destructive leaders like the people of Libya and Egypt did, freedom-hating groups like al-Qaeda and the Taliban would have no place to go.

Arab League, show Syria that sort of activity will no longer be tolerated. Show China and Russia that their vetoes — like UN resolutions in general, frankly -— mean nothing. Support the Syrian protestors and topple Assad. Gather strong international support to come down on Assad like a great hammer of democracy before more people have to suffer.

While the Arab League, the UN and the US all talk about how awful it is for China and Russia to veto a bill against killing innocent people, there are still people getting sniped from rooftops, and that’s what’s truly awful.

James Wang is a history freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

On “Face the Nation” Sunday, Priebus made a condescending statement comparing Obama to Francesco Schettino — the embattled Captain of the Costa Concordia. Schettino abandoned his ship on which 17 people would eventually die.

“We’re going to talk about our own little Captain Schettino, which is President Obama,” Priebus said. “Who is abandoning the ship here in the United States and is more interested in campaigning than doing his job as president.”

Priebus attempted to clarify on Fox News’ “America Live” with Megyn Kelly on Monday afternoon.

“The analogy was made — and it was an analogy of leadership — that in a time of crisis, this president is leaving the White House and campaigning nonstop all the time,” he said.

He continued, accusing those across the aisle of pandering for effect.

“I think it’s pretty clear, but you know, if people out there — especially on the Democratic side — want to try to make hay of it, they’re going to be able to do that.”

“Last Word” host Lawrence O’Donnell lambasted Priebus for his comments. So did Chris Matthews on his show. Both used these quotes to prove that Obama has been egregiously disrespected by the Republican Party.

While it is certainly true that Republicans have attempted to undercut Obama’s authority, this event was not indicative of that.

Was it an apt comparison? No, not at all.

There seems to be both disrespect and a deliberate attempt to discredit that echoes from both the republican establishment and the outliers of the party. This is apparent in the vehement criticism that he has faced since before his first day in the Oval Office.

It began with claims that Obama was a Socialist or Muslim extremist. The cover of The New Yorker in July 2008 makes a prime example.

It continued with birthers’ claims that he was born in Africa. There are still people who refuse to believe that Obama was born in the US, even though he released his birth certificate a year ago.

Congressman Joe Wilson had the audacity to shout “You lie!” in the House of Representatives in September 2009 when Obama denied that health care legislation would provide free coverage for illegal immigrants.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that his number one goal was making sure Obama is a one-term President — not more important issues like the economy and unemployment or the spiraling national deficit.

I recount these events, not to hold a pity party for Obama, but to delve into the mindset of a party that is looking to delegitimize the president in any way possible.

With such overt examples that display a clear pattern of disrespect, it is easy to over-sensationalize any isolated event by blindly throwing darts at similar events and claiming to hit the bull’s-eye.

And sure, I believe that Priebus crossed the line in comparing the president to an accused murderer. But let us not overreact to a bad comparison.

As members of the media, we hold a responsibility to not over-sensationalize news or create narratives based on our own biases.

Fox News was formed out of the perceived lack of conservative influence in the media. Though the liberal bias in the media is vastly overstated, it does exist. Situations like this prove it.

Let’s save our scathing disapprovals for those who deserve it.

Christopher Shelton is a journalism junior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich needs no introduction, being one of the most scandalized Republican runners. However, he apparently needs a lesson about college.

“Students take fewer classes per semester. They take more years to get through. Why? Because they have free money,” Gingrich said to Republicans in Florida last week.

The quote ended up in the Washington Post and spread to newspapers like the Houston Chronicle. There is no telling how many college students — former and present — read his words on the Internet.

If there were any young college students planning to vote for him prior to the remarks, there should be none afterward. Gingrich must know how wrong his words were. Not wrong in an insensitive or rude sense — wrong as in false.

First, there is “free” money, but there is no such thing as free money. Gingrich should be aware of this thanks to all the campaign contributions he’s received. Free money is as real as unicorns and honest politicians. What most students use to pay tuition is not “free” money: student loans and credit cards. Both of these things students must pay pack with interest.

Secondly, students take fewer classes per semester, true enough. Many students enroll longer and delay graduation. But this is because students have almost no money. With little money, many students take fewer classes and work to pay off their tuition.

The only answer to why Gingrich would alienate himself from young college-bound voters with such insults is that he thinks he does not need the young vote. By insulting the young, he compliments the old.

“I would tell students, ‘Get through as quick as you can. Borrow as little as you can. Have a part-time job.’ But that’s very different from the culture that has grown up in the last 20 years,” Gingrich said.

The only culture differences between now and 20 years ago is the cost of tuition. This may be news to Gingrich who has not attended college in years. He might expect an 18-year-old not to vote, but the average UH undergraduate is 22 years old. The average UH graduate student is 29. We’re not an anomaly, which puts his “culture of 20 years ago” comment out the window.

Age does not entitle him to be rude or ignorant. When he mentioned borrowing little and working part-time, he did not realize these are common steps, that completing college in eight semesters is no easy feat.

Other candidates have yet to show a cold shoulder to young voters. Rick Santorum was quoted saying that President Barack Obama wanted more students in college to “indoctrinate” the young into a “left-wing ideology,” but this isn’t technically insulting students or voters per se.

A 21-year-old in New Hampshire asked Mitt Romney in Dec. 2011 why college students should vote for him. Romney answered bluntly.

“What I can promise you is this: When you get out of college, if I’m president you’ll have a job,” Romney said. “If President Obama is re-elected, you will not be able to get a job.”

Admittedly, Romney was talking to only the one student. The message is still a bit hard to swallow. Will students not be able to get a job if the incumbent is re-elected?

Last but not least, Ron Paul has no trouble getting young voter support nor is he likely to insult them. Although Paul is not the only Republican candidate with a limited-government stance that appeals to young entrepreneurs, Paul won 31 percent of the youth vote (ages 18-29) in the South Carolina exit poll — showing off his popularity with student bodies. Gingrich got second place of that age group, but if he continues to make these insulting remarks about college students, that number might not mean much for long.

Not that it will make a difference if students stay indoors on election day. Some candidates are counting on it.

David Haydon is a political science senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

MegaUpload was raided and shut down earlier this month — and its principals charged — with numerous counts of copyright infringement, racketeering, and money laundering.

Founder Kim Dotcom was arrested in New Zealand in possession of forged travel documents and illegal weapons. He has since been classified as a significant flight risk and denied bail. The indictment alleges that MegaUpload made approximately $175 million last year providing access to copyrighted materials, and was visited by up to 50 million users each day.

MegaUpload did not provide copyrighted materials directly, but rather provided server space for users to upload files and then share a link with others, which would allow them to download the file.

The files were not hosted by users like torrents, which merely facilitate ports for getting in and out of the river of traffic. The site generated profit primarily from advertising and monthly fees for “premium” access, which allowed users space to store their files for sharing with others, as well as priority for downloading others’ files. Free users were given incentives to purchase a premium membership through various annoyances that accompanied every individual download.

MegaUpload executives claim that they did their absolute best to regulate user uploads in conjunction with the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but many of the site’s features revolved around user incentives that were clearly designed to encourage distribution of copyrighted content. A good example of this would be their uploader reward program, which encourages users to distribute links to copyrighted material to as many people as possible in exchange for account credits, which can eventually be redeemed for cash or other rewards.

It’s difficult to believe that Dotcom was unaware what the site was being used for and that its operations were likely illegal. He is no stranger to legal trouble. He has been arrested previously in the ‘90s for stealing calling card numbers and in 2002 for insider trading and embezzlement. Dotcom is a notoriously flamboyant character in the Internet security industry. He owns the most expensive home in New Zealand, as well more than 20 vehicles — including a Rolls Royce Phantom with the vanity plate reading “God.”

He has also occasionally participated in Europe’s Gumball 3000 rally. Dotcom knew exactly what the site was being used for, and he maintained the site because it was quite profitable. The music and film industries want US authorities to make an example out of Kim Dotcom.

A high profile arrest could “change the calculus,” according to MPAA production executive Kevin Suh. But the film and music industries are trying to change the wrong variable. Rather than cracking down on pirating, they should make mainstream purchase less objectionable — iTunes music service has been profitable and popular offering downloads for lower price than the physical disc, as has Amazon’s service.

Providing a cheap, legal alternative to piracy won’t eliminate it entirely, but it will bring over the consumers on the margin. Eventually the loss of those consumers will cause fewer entrepreneurs like Kim Dotcom to enter the market.

A positive incentive, like fixing the problems that led to the growth of piracy will be far more effective than cracking down on file-sharers.

Emily Brooks is an economics senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Graduation time is around the corner for the Spring 2012 class. Time to celebrate. Time to think ahead. Time to go out into workforce.

With student debt piling up and the cost of living rising, is it worth it? For some the answer is yes. Although unemployment rates may be high for certain majors, rest assured you will be ready when opportunity strikes. Having your degree will be essential to landing that dream job. Others feel the “system” has failed. In 2010 the average student incurred between $50,000 to 70,000 worth of debt.

Students must then ask “Did I choose the right major?” An industry that will be in demand. A field of study that is applicable to my degree. Or will the unemployment office be your next interview?

That may not be so easy for some students. A recent study showed that in 2009, 22 percent of college students were unemployed and another 20 percent were working in a field that did not require a degree. Do the math. Nearly half of all college graduates were either unemployed or working in menial positions.

How is this possible? While many students put in a lot time and effort obtaining a degree to only find out the job market is over-saturated. It is imperative that students do their due diligence.

It is also important to choose a career that brings happiness, as well as, financial security.

In such a volatile economy it is sometimes hard, but not impossible to find employment. One could always be more advantageous and seek a higher level of education. Research has shown lower levels of unemployment amongst master’s and doctorate degree holders. For example, a New York Times article mentioned more than 60 percent of those who graduated in the last five years say they will need more formal education to be successful.

Trina Thompson, a student who enrolled in Monroe College in New York (in 2009) is suing the institute because she cannot find a job. She owes $70,000 in school loans. “They have not tried hard enough to help me,” Thompson said in an interview.

Persistence is key. A job at Starbucks or Macy’s may have to pay the bills temporarily. Do what’s necessary as means to an end.

Monroe’s spokesman Gary Axelback said, “This lawsuit is completely without merit.”

Any college graduate would agree. Who sues their institute for lack of employment? If that were the case, some colleges and universities would be shut down. In the long run, students are better off with their degree than without it.

“The college prides itself on the excellent career-development support that we provide to each of our students, and this case does not deserve further consideration,” Axelback said.

Students could always migrate to a state with a better economy. Houstonians wouldn’t have to travel far. Moody’s Economy.com reported the Lone Star State had three out of the 10 cities with the lowest unemployment rates Houston was ranked first, followed by District of Columbia, Minneapolis, Minn. and New York City.

The article also said Houston’s growth was inevitable with its business-friendly environment and abundance of oil-money.

Of course no matter what you do in life it’s always best to have some sort of cash flow. It may not be what you want at first, but if it is, enjoy the icing on your cake.

Kamilah Sage is an economics senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

The theme of the night was jobs, specifically the countless manufacturing jobs overseas in China. It’s high time that these jobs come back to America, and, according to the president, there’s going to be more than enough incentive to come back. He’s planning to take out the tax deductions and tax breaks for companies operating heavily overseas and hand them over to the companies that are creating jobs for Americans.

The president has proposed a basic minimum tax for all multinational companies. Better yet, he’s planning them at a time when, according to the CEO of Master Lock whom the president had spoken to a few weeks prior, “It now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home” due to rising operating costs overseas.

I say “further” because it would be defying common business sense; any American company that continues to base so much of their production overseas with no intention to move back to the United States must be penalized severely for what I see to be as a directly hostile attitude towards the American economy. If they choose to continue operating overseas, they’re actively telling Americans that despite common sense, they’d rather hire Chinese workers instead of American ones. They’re willing to go out of their way to support China.

Continuing with his platform of more jobs for more Americans, Obama has advocated government investments into the natural gas and clean energy industries. As a proud Texan, I’m admittedly and unashamedly biased concerning his idea to open up our natural gas reserves. The Lone Star State will benefit the most out of the rest of the nation.

However, in his address, Obama made the commitment to end subsidies to oil companies, apparently starting with his decision earlier this month to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline that would run from Canada to Texas. It would have created at least 2,000 temporary jobs in the immediate short-term and at least 20,000 permanent jobs in the very near future.

In solidifying his stance against Big Oil, the president is going to endanger our economic growth. True, the point of clean energy is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, but only because that oil is coming from a region that only benefits from our dependence, not share in the neediness. The Keystone XL Pipeline would have been beneficial for us and our northern neighbors, and now there are talks about the Canadians cooperating with the Chinese.

If the president insists on a shift towards clean energy, he’s going to need a growing number of educated workers in those fields. This is especially true considering the fact that the “growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job,” Obama said.

While his intentions are indeed noble, his methods are at odds with reality. He proposes to revoke a student’s ability to drop out of school until they are either 18 or graduated. The president has put an emphasis on giving teachers breathing room to actually teach the material and not the test; however, retaining willing drop-outs will only force them to either be kicked into graduating or force them to stick around a few extra years. Sleeping and texting in class has become the “cool” thing to do nowadays; I doubt keeping the kids longer will do much of anything.

Obama has equally condemned both sides for acting stupidly and stubbornly in a way that I find treasonous considering all that’s at stake. In what has to be my most beloved proposal from Obama, the idea that Senate needs to pass a measure requiring that all judicial and public service nominees receive a simple up-or-down vote within 90 days, the American people are going to get what we’ve been asking for: the ability to get a refund for our elected representative. Some of us would rather elect Mr. Coffee for Senator. Make this a yearly thing, an annual check-up or at the very least something you do when over 75 percent of the country hates an entire branch of government.

Something that hits further to home for us Coogs is that President Obama has “put colleges and universities on notice: If [they] can’t stop tuition from going up, the fund [they] get from taxpayers will go down.” Coogs, this means us. Our tuition is bound to jump thanks to our new Tier One status. It’s inevitable. In order to combat the greater demands put upon us, we need to raise tuition. Yet the president wants to stop federal aid for us wanting to get better.

To wrap up the night, Obama made his pledge for solidarity and unification. Given how livid people have been for the last few years, it’s more than necessary to try and convince us to hang on. The public’s already shown how hard it’ll hit back after the outstanding Internet uprising against SOPA/PIPA.

Like everything else Obama proposed in his State of the Union, these are all but promises of yet another politician. When the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, things barely got passed, if at all. With Republicans and Democrats at all-out civil war, asking for just one of his promises to be fulfilled would be a stretch.

These promises and proposals- — the ones that I do support — I do so fully and whole-heartedly hope as a citizen of the greatest nation on Earth that they are not empty promises. Americans are sick of the false words of hope and change. We’re tired of waiting. America needs the change he promised.

Barack Obama needs to remember that if people are forced to vote for him because of the poor quality of competitors this year, we’ll be expecting even more of him in his second term.

James Wang is a history freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

But in their stead was something more necessary for our country: a politician shining light on both the good and abysmal corridors lining our nation’s establishment. If efficiency was his goal, the man-in-office hit a homer. And rather than any sort of gut-busting revelation, the political sphere could do with some quiet and meaningful introspection.

If you were looking for surprises, you spent an evening on the couch in disappointment. The “food stamp president” highlighted the issues he’s come to identify with as well as those that have risen since he’s been in office. The backlash of globalization on American jobs, the country’s reluctance to utilize its own fuel reserves and the uppercut education has taken in our society’s social spectrum. Rather than innovate with impossible solutions to unsolved problems, Obama chose to readdress the issues at hand with the frankness they deserved and with the methods he proposed for handling them proving even more frank.

Not surprisingly, Congress received a substantial amount of attention — more for what it’s failed to accomplish than its successes. Its successful attempts at piddling with the nation’s financial security were praised for what they were worth. Along with this attention came a reprise of all the error, including the assurance that, following his re-election, the mistakes wouldn’t make a second appearance. If there was any cause for alarm, it would have been the silence surrounding the upcoming election. Obama spent less time dissecting his potential competitors than he did praising President Bush Jr. If not for the date and time positioned at the bottom of the broadcast, one might have thought that they were watching a president speaking to his audience about the most immediate issues at hand.

And in all honesty, what was there to say? With four suitors at the door sporting new policies, wives, psychological predispositions and religions on a daily basis, there would have been nothing to pinpoint. It would have been a waste of breath and energy to address even one of them. Knowing this, Obama chose to do just that. Rather than throwing dirt and scuffing shoes, the president talked about his presidency instead. The message served its purpose: a skeleton of how the country is doing at this moment in time. It wasn’t glamorous, but that’s only appropriate. We’ve seen better days. Even still, in the midst of ongoing troubles in state and commerce, it was refreshing to see a politician address every guest in the room, purple elephants and all.

Whether describing the reprieve of the 1 percent, of the consternation of everyone else, that sort of straightforwardness is 100 percent admirable.

Bryan Washington is a sociology freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

There’s nothing scientific about this. There are no formulas, extraneous variables or misleading statistics. Whole countries make their living off of this, and they’ve yet to be ostrisized.

The drive to smoke depends on the individual.

The fact that Alvin succumbs to the weight of his social conscious on a regular basis bears no relation to whether or not Janine will follow suit. She may choose to set up shop on a stoop by the library, or on a bench before a meal. The lighter might be in motion before she’s even left the building.

It’s a social anomaly, and one that’s significantly amplified on the campus of a university. One might think that common consideration for our neighbors — an inclination instilled in us from childhood, hardened by television, the internet and popular radio — would be strong enough to repel Nicotine, but one would be wrong.

So although the University’s Student Government Association acted with the best intentions in mind with the passage of this month’s smoking bill, it’s the smoker’s addiction that’s going to render it ineffective. The bill isn’t intended to “outlaw smoking on campus,” but to “make the environment healthier for non-smoking students.”

Implementing a distance of 25 feet between smokers and the buildings they inhabit would be an ample solution for say, a home for the elderly, or any environment where the locals would be daunted by slight alterations in distance. This obviously isn’t applicable for a college campus.

It’s one thing to dismantle an issue, stripping it of all the variables that make it possible, but it’s completely different to kick it a couple of yards further down the road.

Discontinuing cigarette sales on campus would be a solution.  Regulating public smoking to particular hours would follow the same course. This is not a solution so much as a shift.

But let’s pretend that this bill is actually followed by UH students. Even if their hearts are in the right place, smokers are now just 10 paces further from Cullen than they would have been several weeks ago.

Depending on the location and the time of the day, a smoker may find himself even deeper within a crowd of nonsmoking students.

This isn’t to say that it wasn’t a good idea. Smoking will continue to be a health hazard. It’s not glamorous like the movies would like you to believe, and very few people look good doing it.

It is well within the interests of both the University and its student organizations to attack it as an obstacle head on. But if there’s going to be any leeway made, it’ll have to be approached with every tool at the table — as opposed to an early semester and ineffective trust.

Nicotine is loud. If the SGA hopes to garner any leeway out of this premise, it’s going to have to speak a little louder.

Bryan Washington is a sociology freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Exactly one week ago thousands of websites temporarily blacked out content to protest online piracy bills. The US government seized a popular but dubious website the next day. Internet hacktivists struck soon after. The legislation was paused before the weekend arrived.

That is the quick and dirty version. Even if the legislation and protests should be news to no one, the FBI crackdown and subsequent backlash have yet to go mainstream.

Websites like Wikipedia blocked their own content Wednesday, Jan. 18 to raise awareness of the PROTECT IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act. Most did not return for 24 hours.

Then on Thursday the US Justice Department and FBI shut down the file hosting website Megaupload. Several people who operated Megaupload (including the owner) were arrested and indicted with five charges of copyright infringement and conspiracy.

The FBI seized 18 domain names and an estimated $50 million in assets and servers. Keep in mind this occurred without the assistance of SOPA and PIPA.

Hours after Megaupload was shut down, the internet group Anonymous knocked websites offline via distributed denial of service attacks. Government targets included websites for the FBI, the U.S. Department of Justice and the White House. The websites for Warner Music, Universal Music and the Recording Industry Association of America were also targeted.

The crescendo, however, came on Friday, Jan. 20, when the U.S. House Judiciary Committee postponed plans to draft the SOPA bill and delayed a vote for PIPA.

Perhaps the protests from websites like Wikipedia and Google were to thank for the halt, or maybe it was citizens who overloaded servers and circuit boards as they contacted their government representatives. Or, perhaps it was the low orbit ion cannon DDoS backlash that Anonymous delivered.

Maybe, just maybe, our government representatives realized what a mistake they were making. But this is unlikely. The best argument against SOPA and PIPA — if not most government regulation — is that politicians tend to not understand the subject matter.

There are fundamental ideas about the internet that Texas Representative Lamar Smith did not comprehend when he proposed SOPA. Looking at Smith’s record of copyright legislation, this should come as little surprise.

There will always be Internet pirates to get around IP address blocks and rip copyrighted content — they cannot be legislated away. In addition, allowing media corporations to call the shots on copyright infringement is irresponsible, if not frightening. Most of all, it should be realized that the Internet is regulated without help from SOPA and PIPA.

Even before Megaupload was seized, the website was hit with all kinds of take-down notices and corporate threats.

In December 2011, several music artists collaborated in a promotional ad for Megaupload and the video ad ended up on YouTube. Mere hours after the upload, YouTube received a take-down notice from Universal Media Group. The take-down notice claimed that the ad was a copyright violation of UMG content under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This was incorrect, but Youtube removed the promotional video anyway.

Don’t be confused about the protection of musicians. UMG was against the ad because the video raised awareness about file sharing and piracy. UMG did not even own any content in the ad — unless they think they own the musicians. In essence, a corporate entity bullied a website into taking down content that hurt its feelings without the aid of SOPA or PIPA.

The argument that SOPA and PIPA were meant to protect consumers and producers is absurd. These two bills cater to the overblown entertainment industry and the old media. Sure, the entertainment industry produces money, but so does the technology industry. It should be obvious which of the two uses the Internet to its full potential.

If nothing else, other than outer space, the internet is the final frontier. It needs to stay that way.

A supercomputer would not be able to comprehend what the average Internet user can realize easily. Apparently the average lawmaker cannot realize this simple fact either.

David Haydon is a political science senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Hunched over cell phones, huddled in groups or reflecting inwardly, what you’d find is the widespread mourning of a valued cultural figure, the sort of guy you’d want to have over for dinner, or to feed your dog during a weekend vacation.

There’d be no mention of their attitudes towards the man a few months prior, as word of his detachment from a much less flattering scenario ascended from whispers amongst higher-ups to dinner table debates.

The difference is polar enough to make you wonder if it’s the same man — but of course it is. The gesture is one of many that have fluctuated in the media over the past few years: That of the people’s hero turned fallen angel turned beloved indebted. We saw it with Amy Winehouse, as news outlets contrasted her “undesirable” status with her genuine ability to light up a room.

It was present with Steve Jobs, whose innate ability was continually marred by his own ubiquity. Michael Jackson’s name still prompts raised eyebrows.

When someone has died, they’re dead. It sounds redundant, something a toddler’s mother might tell her son after an evening of questions at bedtime; but that may be the reason it’s rejected so often. Looking at the way we treat our deceased in the media, our acceptance of this rite isn’t always so certain, and our society’s ongoing practice of tearing someone down only to build them up after their final hours has become an even bigger paradox as of late.

There’s no such thing as an absolute, but complete reversals of thought do shed light on how we’ve come to identify with mortality in our society.

What in our personal belief systems has changed that prompts the distancing or expansion of a persona? It could be that an increased reliance upon our own personal aliases has contributed to the image of an individual on Facebook as opposed to the eccentricities of the individual themselves. And even if technology is playing a role, what’s to say for the sudden inquisitions? People have been dying for years.

So we’re left with a choice to make. Do we acknowledge the mistakes our idols have made after their passing? Or do we let things lie once they’ve drawn their final breaths?

Whatever decision we make probably says more about ourselves as individuals than any sort of greater collective, but it’s still a resolute one. At the very least it serves as a reminder, that with advancements in our lives — both technological and personal — our beliefs shift accordingly in turn. At some point, it’s something we’ll have to put in check.

Then again, maybe we’re not above that either.

Bryan Washington is a sociology freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

According to a new study by the Center for Disease Control, it appears that some teens are not entirely aware of where babies come from.

The study examined use of contraception among five thousand teen mothers in 19 states. About half of the women surveyed said that they used no contraception at the time they became pregnant — of these, one-third said they did not believe that they would become pregnant, another third said their partner refused to use contraception and the remaining third reported they simply “did not mind” becoming pregnant.

The respondents that did use contraception were largely using oral contraceptives, condoms or engaging in less effective methods such as withdrawal or rhythm methods.

According to the CDC, teens that became pregnant likely failed to use the effective methods consistently or properly.

These responses are quite disturbing. Teens are not known for their judgment, but it’s quite a stretch of magical thinking to believe that unprotected sex won’t result in pregnancy. Even more disturbing is the large portion of girls that gave in to their partners’ demands and failed to use contraception. Why haven’t these teens been educated about the proper use of contraception or managing their fertility?

This is not to say progress has not been made. In 2005, the teen birth rate in the United States hit its lowest level in 30 years, but the US still has the highest teen birth rate in the developed world. The highest rates of teen pregnancy occur largely in the southern states, while the lowest rates are concentrated in the Northeast and the West.

Not coincidentally, these geographical areas correspond to different commonly-used methods of sex education. Evidence-based sex education is common in the Northeast and the West, whereas abstinence-based sex education is more popular in the South.

Texas receives more federal funding for abstinence-based sex education than any other state, but is second only to Mississippi in live births to girls aged 15-19. Researchers have shown that even on a school-by-school basis, those that employ abstinence-only programs have consistently higher teen pregnancy rates than those that use evidence-based programs.

Abstinence-only education programs simply do not work.

This is not to say that there is no place for abstinence. It is a 100 percent fool-proof method and an excellent choice for teens to make, but it isn’t always realistic. To expect every teenager in the United States to completely abstain from sexual behavior is simply unreasonable. Abstinence-only programs have also been known resort to scare tactics and patently false information.

I clearly recall my own class being taught during our abstinence-only sex education program that microscopic holes in condoms allowed HIV to pass through them, and thus condoms offered essentially no protection against the transmission of HIV. Such “education” is not only completely and totally false, but dishonest. What justification is there for exposing teens to completely dishonest information that carries with it serious health risks?

And once teens discover that the information is untrue (and they will), the only lesson they learn is to completely ignore everything they are told in school relating sex education.

Many supporters of abstinence-based sex education programs claim that if parents want their children to be taught about proper use of contraception and STI prevention that they should be taught at home. Such a claim totally fails to consider that many of the teens that need this education the most are unlikely to receive it at home.

The parent may also be uneducated about sexual health, disinterested or uncomfortable discussing the subject with their child. That shouldn’t mean that the student shouldn’t be educated about their own biology.

Teaching teens that their bodies and feelings are shameful will only teach the wrong lessons. The women that were surveyed by the CDC did not intend to become pregnant when they did. How many of these pregnancies could have been prevented with proper instruction on the statistical effectiveness of various methods of contraception and how to use them? What if male teens were taught that birth control was just as much their responsibility as their partners’and girls were armed with enough information and self-respect to insist on the use of contraception?

Young people deserve access to quality medical information — not to be shamed or lied to. Sex and sexuality are basic and natural facts of life common to all people. We cannot mitigate the potential negative consequences of sexual behavior by pretending that teenage libido doesn’t exist.

We can only give these young people solid information so that they can make educated choices about when and how they want to start a family — when they are ready.

Emily Brooks is an economics senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Texting has even infiltrated situations where its use can be fatal. 20 percent of injury car accidents in 2009 were a result of distracted driving.

The No. 1 cause of distracted driving is — you guessed it — texting. Last year, some 3,092 roadway fatalities involved distracted drivers. Teens, college students and professionals have all been guilty of texting while driving.

The truth of the matter is that this behavior is very dangerous and puts the lives of others on the road at risk. The website goes on to say that “drivers who use hand-held devices are four-times more likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves.” Robert Sumwalt of the National Safety and Transportation Board (NSTB) has said: “This (distracted driving) is becoming the new DUI. It’s becoming epidemic.”

What is the solution then? In Texas, there is a law that prohibits texting and driving if you are under the age of 18. In last year’s meeting of the Texas state legislature, a bill — one which would have made it illegal to text and drive — passed both houses.

However, Governor Rick Perry vetoed the bill from becoming law. He felt that this was an example of “a government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults.” Different states have different laws regarding this issue.

When HIV was discovered to be the cause of AIDS, various organizations came together to pursue an aggressive educative campaign. Early on, they realized that they could not stop people from having sex, so they focused on education. They taught and provided people with tools for having safe sex.

Finally, after years of this campaign the results have shown that it worked. People are having safer sex. Instead of merely criminalizing texting and driving, perhaps the government should take a page from the HIV-playbook and begin educating the masses on how to text responsibly.

If a national ban on texting were to pass, enforcing it would be nearly impossible. People could be ticketed for merely looking down at their phone. Accidents would surely rise, as people would begin to hold their phones lower than the dashboard to hide the phone from police.

Even when giving their recommendations, the NSTB was quoted in a CNN article as saying: “Cell phone laws alone would not solve the problem but must be accompanied by aggressive educational campaigns.”

Technology is a heaven-sent monster whose growth cannot be stopped. Sometimes society and the government lag behind and need to catch up. The simple truth is that modern Americans are ‘wired in’ at all times. It is not just a youth problem now that the private sector is using technology more and more.

The more logical and probable response to this problem is to educate drivers about when it is the appropriate time to check your phone when you’re in the car.

Alejandro Caballero is a creative writing junior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

For these people, the goal of any federal agency may be enough to secure their blessing (The CFPB is supposed to protect consumers against financial predation. Who would be against that?), but for those who live in the real world, the truth is rarely what it seems.

For one, the entirety of the Dodd-Frank bill, creator of the CFPB, fails to address any of the root causes of the financial crisis. It certainly has no effect on the Federal Reserve, whose artificial creation of money and credit throughout the decade fueled a bubble in the housing market that was destined to pop.

There is a similar dearth of action regarding the continued existence of government-sponsored enterprises such as Freddie or Fannie, whose exclusive lines of credit at the Treasury and government-grade credit ratings allowed them to distort the housing market and amass piles of worthless subprime mortgages.

Nor does it address any issues concerning government-created incentives for personal and company use of debt financing over alternative, more reliable sources.

The Obama administration’s tireless line that Dodd-Frank and the CFPB is a necessary response to the financial crisis is untrue and absurd. They would have you believe that opponents of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are defenders of corporations and Wall Street who don’t want their cronies being held liable while they swindle their customers and wreck the economy.

This couldn’t be further from the truth.

This new agency will do nothing but further entrench large financial interests and insulate them from small and decentralized competition. The regulations created by the CFPB and its Dodd-Frank sister agencies will impose fixed costs on the effected businesses.

These fixed costs increase wealth to the wealthy companies, driving out the little guy whose per-unit costs are prohibitively high.

In this way, the newly-created bureau will only do further harm to small and independent businesses and encourage “too big to fail.” UH professor Dr. Craig Pirrong, who regards the CFPB to be “a monstrosity,” stated in October that such policies “favor the big over the small and encourage the big to get bigger and the small to go away.”

Despite the fact that it parades itself as a protector of the consumer, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is nothing of the sort. The average citizen will be no more protected than they were before the bureau was created, and they will now have to pay for a new parasitic bureaucracy that will never be eliminated and whose budget will probably increase when it fails to do its job.

The federal government already has 22 administrations, 9 agencies, 13 boards, 12 bureaus, 5 councils and 23 commissions. What on earth has convinced us that adding one more — and paying for it with borrowed money as the national debt exceeds 100 percent of the gross domestic product — is both necessary and wise?

We cannot afford to continue to be fleeced by the media and politicians in Washington in such a manner. If the last 10 years of American history should have taught us anything, it’s that another government bureau will only make our problems worse.

Steven Christopher is an economics alumnus and graduate finance student in the C.T. Bauer College of Business and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Many are beginning to scratch their heads and wonder how, exactly, Washington D.C. has managed to become the behemoth that it currently is.

Sure, one can point to Social Security and Medicare, who for years have run smoothly thanks to the baby boom generation and pyramidal structure of said entitlements — which is now beginning to become inverted.

But there is another culprit lurking in the halls of the nation’s Capitol, one that has spurred unbelievable growth of the federal government for the past 30 years, exacerbated the entitlement crisis and exploded the federal budget from the inside out. It’s called baseline budgeting.

Baseline budgeting has its origins in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, where big spenders in Congress saw fit to ditch the way budgeting had been done for the country’s near 200-year history. They decided in favor of a method more conducive to the endless growth of government — heaven forbid it ever get smaller year-on-year.

Rather than debating and deciding how much Congress should spend each year and on what it should be spent, this new method consists of calculating the spending level needed to continue the “existing level of government services,” adjusting it for inflation and then spending that much.

Not surprisingly, this new method created a baseline that always increased spending from the previous year, without exception.

It also guaranteed that any newly created social programs and institutions would automatically qualify as new “government services.”

These services could invite their own endless spending projections to be cooked into next year’s baseline — almost guaranteeing that the national government would expand ad infinitum.

Clearly, Washington’s new budgeting scheme was an immensely clever sleight of hand created by advocates of big government, and unfortunately it successfully supplanted itself as the legal and rational norm in Washington.

The worst part is that it destroyed the common language surrounding budget, making it nearly impossible to have a meaningful conversation about the true level of government spending.

This cleverly sows seeds of confusion amongst the general public in regards to the definition of a budget “cut” and provides cover for politicians and their political allies who are intent on growing the central government at all costs.

The result of this seemingly obscure budgeting rule on Capitol Hill is that we are left with the paradox of ever-expanding governmental expenditures while simultaneously being told that our governmental overseers are making tough decisions and scaling back the budget

Big government advocates can scream about austere cuts and advocate more spending.

Meanwhile, advocates of smaller government are denounced for doing so much as lowering the growth rate of spending even as the absolute level continues to rise exponentially.

Back at home in reality, nothing ever changes. Since the enactment of the Budget Control Act of 1974, federal expenditures have tripled. Yes, that’s adjusted for inflation.

There are several winners as a result of this process — and none of them are you.

The spendthrifts in Washington are further empowered to make you work not for your own ends but for theirs, special interests are guaranteed that the gravy train will continue flowing for years to come and holders of government debt here and abroad will continue to reap benefits as they accrue interest on a risk-free basis.

My generation is blessed with the bill.

Given that Congress has already immersed the nation in 100 percent of the GDP’s worth of debt, the idea that our budget’s baseline should automatically increase each year based on the need to continue funding the absurd amount of tasks the government has thus far undertaken would be laughable if the consequences weren’t so painfully ruinous.

The US would be all the better for having the entire concept of baseline budgeting discarded forthright, buried, covered in cement and never spoken of again.

Steven Christopher is an economics alumnus and graduate finance student in the C.T. Bauer College of Business and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Not a day had passed since the last American non-combat troops withdrew when the first bombs went off in Iraq. Shiite and Sunni sectarian violence was back.

A country that had only just started to taste US-like democracy had its hopes dashed in flames and blood.

Why? Violence in Iraq is no real news, especially with insurgent forces threatening the local community, American troops and innocent civilians worldwide.

About 4,500 American troops learned that lesson all too well, as did their grieving families in the United States. However, this violence was brought on by the withdrawal of US troops, like two siblings promising their mother that they’ll behave after she leaves — only to set the cat on fire, flood the kitchen and max out her credit card before she even clears the driveway.

With no strong military presence backing the comparatively inexperienced Iraqi military and police forces, there’s really nothing to stop the fighting.

Over the holidays, I happened to hear this topic being highlighted on a local radio station. Some early morning anchor was making a semi-coherent argument for Ron Paul’s foreign policy which was summarized as returning America to its isolationist roots.

The anchor made the point that if America were to withdraw from foreign affairs for the next four years, the rest of the world would realize how much it needed the US.

As easy as it is to criticize that thought as I did then, the heart of the argument was incredibly poignant.

America needs to draw itself back from the world stage and become an isolationist nation minding its own affairs, not risking the life of its citizens overseas in military or economic gambits, just so that the world will learn its lesson about criticizing the US and labeling its foreign policy as invasion of a country’s sovereignty.

First, it must be made clear: America must never become isolationist. It would be as devastating as a nuclear apocalypse because, for all intents and purposes, America would be removed from the world just as if such a calamity had actually happened.

Take the threat of North Korea. The Chinese, being their Communist allies, have their hands tied if the North Koreans decide that they could take on South Korea with America withdrawn from Asia. South Korea would be severely crippled.

Taiwan, never officially recognized by China as a separate nation, would possibly be the first to go.

China, armed with aircraft carriers, would roll over the nation before even setting its sights on Japan, then wrap up South Korea for the North Koreans. All because America didn’t keep the Cold War going.

Imagine the gap if America were to pull itself out of international affairs. Our states function at the capacity of other nations in the world. For us to leave the world stage would subject the international community to complete turmoil. America’s economy tanking is bad enough to send ripples. To disappear completely is to drop a nuclear weapon into a very small lake.

Unfortunately, this is Ron Paul’s  darkest mark. Despite his favorable stance on many other things, I cannot fully support him.

This is neither a case of American Imperialism or American Exceptionalism. America must intervene in global politics every day because it is necessary to our survival. Though sometimes we overextend ourselves and sometimes we just get plain out of hand, our presence is not to be taken for granted by the international community.

A line needs to be drawn where the US can protect our interests without violating international law and common sense. Until either that line has been drawn or some old line has been found, the rest of the world just needs to sit back and let America enforce the status quo.

James Wang is a history freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Somewhere in the midst of all of the People’s Choice, SAG, Tony Awards, Grammy Awards and Emmys, your average TV viewer is exhausted before the “official” season even begins.

Yet they still manage to draw a crowd. Never mind that award show ratings have been falling for years — the major award shows are still some of the most watched events annually.

Last year, 37 million people tuned in to the Academy Awards and 17 million watched the Golden Globes.

To most of us these numbers are likely surprising — after all, who hasn’t heard the groans when the advertisements begin? Many viewers find awards season tedious and shallow, especially the Golden Globes.

There are some good reasons for this. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the voting body for Golden Globes, lacks the prestige of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

The HFPA has only 90 members selected from journalists and critics outside the US that write about US media and film. By contrast, the Academy is composed of more than 6,000 voters that work or have worked in the film industry.

The Globes have also been accused of voting based on star power rather than in the interest of a specific performance and being open to influence. The most famous scandal occurred in 1981 when little-known actress Pia Zadora won the Newcomer of the Year award, despite that the film for which she was nominated had not been released in the US in time to be considered for the Globes.

Many believed Zadora’s millionaire husband Meshulam Riklis bribed members of the HFPA with lavish parties and trips to Las Vegas in exchange for their votes. Standards for Globe voters are now stricter.

But are the Oscars really that much better? The Academy is criticized every year for voting politically. They tend to prefer prestige films and reward actors for career achievements or perceived previous snubs rather than the nominated performance.

As a result, the more casual Golden Globes sometimes make the better pick. Last year, prestige powerhouse “The King’s Speech” took home the big prize at the Oscars, but “The Social Network,”which was largely considered the better film, won out at the Golden Globes.

In 2005, the same occurred when blatant Oscar-bait “Crash” took home the Oscar while the Ang Lee film “Brokeback Mountain” took home the Globe.

Ultimately, the films that stand the test of time could escape the notice of all the award shows and not to their detriment. These ceremonies do not shape film history and the Globes do not pretend to.

The evening is about entertainment and Rick Gervais offending people, but that doesn’t keep us from watching. Award shows are a fantastic marketing tool for all of the DVDs and resumes stamped “Academy Award Winning.”

They’re also a great showcase for designers and fashion labels to make their name. Yes, award season is long, unnecessary, self-aggrandizing and more than a bit shallow — but it can also be a lot of fun.

If you enjoy the pageantry of the evening or just check the winners later on, enjoy the red carpet without guilt this season. There will be plenty of time for seriousness on Monday morning.

Emily Brooks is an economics senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

There is a parking problem on campus. Cars follow exiting students like sharks. Tow trucks stalk through the lanes looking for vehicles to drag away. UH Parking & Transportation Services enforcers prowl through rows with tickets in hand.

Students who drive to campus already know this, but for the small group of non-commuters, welcome to the UH parking fiasco.

The game is simple: Drive to school hours before class or arrive to the parking lot on time, look for a space and walk to class late.

On the bright side, UH has encouraged students to be eco-friendly commuters by accident — this forces students to park further away from campus.

Congratulations are in order. If more spaces became available, more students would drive, and thus increase greenhouse gas emissions. Luckily, the work-in-progress parking garage near Robertson Stadium is incomplete.

Students park at Wheeler and Scott. Students park near TSU. Students park just a few blocks from I-45.

The reduced emissions would probably be greater if there weren’t so many students sharking their cars through the full parking lots. Patience is a virtue, but stalking a pedestrian until they reach their vehicle only reduces the possible fuel savings. Why not break down and park your vehicle well off campus?

Finding a parking space isn’t the only issue. UH contracts a slew of tow trucks to work with Parking & Transportation Services. You may have already doubled your fees with repeated fines brought on from the tow truck terror.

The solutions to the parking fiasco range from suggesting students show up early, to Metro buses driving through Cullen and other parts of campus — Metro buses don’t stop long enough for tow trucks to sink their teeth in. However, showing up early doesn’t help anyone but the single driver. Showing up early for a game of musical chairs still leaves people without seats.

A false premise is that the newly-arrived freshmen need a few weeks to acclimate to parking and the problems will soon ease. Last semester did not indicate this was true and this semester is unlikely to prove differently.

At least there is nightfall, when most students are gone and late night trips to the library are made easier by open spaces — another false premise.

Occasionally when night falls, the Houston Dynamo arrive at Robertson stadium and student cars become contraband. Heaven forbid students need parking space after 6 p.m.

Sure, things could be worse. Compare not having a place to park to not having water or a place to sleep. Truth be told, UH parking is a first-world problem.

Parking is not just an inconvenience, however. A broken elevator is an inconvenience; there are stairs available.

There is no avoiding driving or parking when attending a commuter school, ergo a commuter school should have adequate parking.

Parking on UH is not an inconvenience then, it is an insult.

David Haydon is a political science senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.