“I’m sure glad the revolution is alive and well in Houston,” Ron Paul said to thousands of supporters as cheers echoed off the walls of Hofheinz Pavilion.

Hours before Paul’s speech, a line of supporters sporting their favorite Ron Paul T-shirts and buttons snaked around the block, eagerly waiting to hear the man of the hour make his case for liberty. People of all sorts and ages were in attendance, and the mood was lively to say the least.

As you may have expected, throughout his speech Paul carried the same tune he’s been singing since the start, and it seems like nothing is ever going to change that.

His consistency is truly impressive, and as far as I’m concerned, Paul demands and deserves respect, no matter what ideology you have.

It’s a shame that he doesn’t get the proper amount of attention, because while some of his ideas may be out there, a lot of what he says makes sense.

Thanks to a neglectful media, one of Paul’s biggest setbacks has been his inability to connect with undecided crowds that are already skeptical of him. The delivery of his speeches unfortunately doesn’t seem to match the power of his ideas, and for that reason, crowds that aren’t immediately moved by a rehearsed speech sprinkled with key persuasive words refuse to give Paul a shot.

However, Friday, Paul was in his element and moved the crowd with point after point pertaining to a number of his famous issues ranging from “Ending the Fed” to The War on Drugs without changing his stances. He also had a few things to say about The Patriot Act.

“The names of a bill are exactly the opposite of what the bill does,” Paul advised to the crowd, “if (The Patriot Act) had been called the ‘Repeal the Fourth Amendment’ Act, maybe it wouldn’t have gotten so many votes.”

Although his chances of becoming president were never promising, he continues to stay in the race, which some people find foolish. Paul has said he continues to run because there is continued support, and that was undoubtedly proven on-campus last week.

After hearing Paul speak, it seems that he is just as concerned with spreading his message than he is with winning office, and from that perspective, his campaign has been successful.

He continues to bring attention to issues the other candidates avoid and has garnered a strong, committed following on the Internet and among young people.

If lack of recognition has frustrates Paul, he does not show it.

There is something about Paul that emits authenticity and genuineness, and it is evident there is nothing fabricated in what he says. Whether you agree with his policies or not, Paul is a man who stays uncommonly consistent and trustworthy, and at this point in our nation’s politics, those traits are rare and merit more respect than he’s been given.

Lucas Sepulveda is a creative writing and media production junior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

“Salute the rank, not the man.”

The distinction is clear. An officer of the United States military is an honorable and respectable individual, distinguishing him or herself from the rest of the world because of their strict adherence to values.

For instance, a strong sense of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage are all things soldiers must have. A soldier of the U.S. Army knows that his duty is to serve and protect the people and uphold the Constitution.

So it should come as no surprise why the leaders of Fort Knox decided to cancel Ted Nugent’s concert after the right-wing, washed-up guitar hero and gun rights activist made remarks that some have construed to be a threat on the life of a president.

The offensive remarks? Nugent declared at a recent National Rifle Association convention that if President Barack Obama was re-elected, then Nugent will “either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

The remark itself seems inoffensive at first up until the path of common sense leads to the realization that Nugent was alluding to the assassination of an American president, one that he himself might orchestrate.

Nugent has since defended himself after the Secret Service decided to have a civil chat with the rocker, and while the Secret Service have expressed that they will be continuing an investigation into his affairs, Nugent’s fans and Twitter followers have been in an uproar against his concert’s cancellation as well as what some feel to be an encroachment on the First Amendment.

Let’s make things perfectly clear — Nugent in no way represents the thoughts and feelings of all right-leaning Americans, nor does he represent the thoughts and feelings of fellow gun enthusiasts, owners, and activists. Most of us are responsible and sane adults who don’t make a habit of threatening our politicians with violence such as chopping off their heads, as Nugent so eloquently suggested during the same convention that he made the offending remarks.

That being said, Nugent also doesn’t represent what a true American citizen should do and instead represents everything that is wrong with these right-wing celebrity blowhards that think that they can relate to the Republican base.

We’re not stupid. I don’t think a single responsible and intelligent Republican voter would so much as waste their breath on a statement insinuating a threat against an elected public official.

Shooting a 10-point buck is worth more than shooting some unworthy Capitol Hill lobbyist sycophant. At least the deer can do something to put food on the table.

Nugent’s remarks were an absolute threat against the president and the only reason that he wasn’t arrested by the Secret Service is because he weaseled out of it by calling his threat an analogy.

Although provocative, his words weren’t entirely condemning since they were worded so broadly. However, given the context and his past suggestions for Obama to “suck on (his) machine gun,” he hasn’t exactly made a good case for himself.

Nugent is an embarrassment to the American Right, to gun owners across the nation and to every service man and woman who he pretends to represent.

In America, we do not threaten our elected officials.

The US president should be the most respected and feared man on the face of the Earth because he is the leader of the Free World and Commander in Chief of the most effective, lethal and professional military force to ever exist in the history of human civilization.

Obama as a person, and as a politician, might be contemptible — whose only hopes of re-election are the incompetent foul-ups of the GOP and its celebrity supporters — but Obama the president is just that, the President of the United States of America, and so long as he is president, he will be given the proper respect as the privilege of his rank demands.

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

The article begins with the “atheist professor” forcing one of this students to stand so that the professor may tell him all that is wrong with that student’s beliefs. The professor continues to act as not only a horrible teacher, impressing his own views onto students, but also a terrible person in general as he implies that this student is naïve or an idiot.

Suddenly — not so suddenly, really — the tables turn as the cool, calm theist tears down his teacher. The student makes the professor’s so-called illogical disbelief in a deity seem to be the idiotic point of view.

This angers me tremendously. No, this is not because I am not a religious person. It is so tiring to see blatant, exaggerated and false characterizations of these two groups — the theists and the atheists. Just as when atheists make their own propaganda on how stupid they find theists to be, when theists place one horrid person as the representative of an entire group, only hatred breeds.

Have you ever noticed how much death has been caused by trying to impress one’s beliefs onto others? The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Ottoman Empire’s jihad against Europe, the fallout from the Protestant Reformation, the Irish civil war, the current Middle East conflict, Pakistan and India, the oppression of the religious in the USSR — the list goes on and on. From both sides of the never-ending conflict there is a desire to pick the worst of the group to generalize and characterize all the rest.

Has no one ever heard of coexistence? Spreading around propaganda such as that link enrages me not because it comforts those religious after they have dealt with the equally revolting atheist attacks, but because it serves only to perpetuate a stereotype that is simply not true.

Stop circling all the hateful propaganda, and just start accepting how others are — not like you.

Julie Heffler is a biochemistry freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

In a nutshell, the Transportation Security Administration is going to have some counter-terrorism experts conduct random searches with passengers on METRO buses. Hopefully these experts won’t be the same touchy-feely, crotch-groping people the TSA hires at the airport.

Houston is the guinea pig for this program known as “BusSafe.” It started in Houston last week but will eventually be implemented in other metropolitan cities.

The TSA counter-terrorism experts will ride the buses citywide, randomly check bags, randomly question passengers, do K-9 sweeps and have plainclothes officers at all the bus stops and rail platforms to keep their eyes peeled for “criminal” behavior.

How about no? My backpack is my backpack, my laptop is my laptop and my pockets are my pockets. Citizens may be in public but the content of their belongings are not.

This program will do little to prevent terrorism, and do more to invade the privacy of innocents while apprehending an occasional marijuana smoker or graffiti artist.

Since the TSA is going all Big Brother on the METRO system, we might as well start wearing black, bulky trench coats, throw on a pair of mirrored sunglasses, carry duffle bags and ride the METRO rail from UH-D to Hermann Park. At least then the counter-terrorism experts will have some probable cause to justify their invasion of privacy other than finding a joint in some kid’s pocket.

The BusSafe press release contained a quote from METRO Police Chief Victor Rodriguez, which highlights the problem with their reasoning on safety and prevention of terrorism:

“We have one of the safest transit systems in the world in Houston. One way we are able to keep it that way is through the use of deterrents such as uniformed and plainclothes officers patrolling our system and aggressively addressing suspicious and criminal activity.”

So people might be safer with TSA agents eyeballing their belongings. Safety shouldn’t be a replacement for freedom. And deterrents are not synonymous with prevention. You don’t prevent the flu by locking up people in clean rooms during the winter.

As low-level as it is to bring in a strawman, people are going to say things like, “Do you want another terrorist attack?” and “The cost of freedom,” blah blah blah.

Let me answer these now: There has not been, nor will there likely be, a terrorist attack on a Houston METRO bus. Why would Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the infamous underwear bomber, want to light his pants on fire on some no-name bus route in the middle of Third Ward? How would that bring down the US capitalist dogs oppressing people of the world? It wouldn’t, but for some reason the TSA thinks it’s likely enough to happen that we need agents on the bus.

This TSA BusSafe program is fascism. That’s an overused buzzword these days, but BusSafe meets the definition. And it’s not the fun kind of fascism like Batman assaulting criminals in alleyways or the Galactic Empire sending the imperial army to kill the rebel alliance. This is the kind of fascism that makes you want to vomit.

METRO already has a tough time as it is selling bus passes and encouraging people not to drive alone in cars. They’re going to have a much tougher time doing so with the TSA breathing down everyone’s necks.

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

This year, Austin became a no-kill city and saved 91 percent of animals from being euthanized unnecessarily.

According to austinpetsalive.org, “A no-kill community is one that doesn’t kill healthy or treatable pets. There are many different interpretations of what ‘healthy and treatable’ could mean, but the communities leading the way have found that at least 90 percent of pets entering the shelter fit into one of these two categories. Thus, communities that are considered no-kill save 90 percent or more of the pets that enter the shelters.”

Austin’s success hinged on crucial legislative victories because of its being a community that values its furry counterparts, but it didn’t happen overnight. It was a three-year process, but hard work paid off. Austin residents can be proud of their animal treatment policies.

In Nov. 2009, Austin’s City Council passed a resolution which directed their city’s staff to work with Austin’s Animal Advisory Commission. The two came together to develop an implementation plan that was released by March 2010. The Commission recommended changes that would get Austin to a save rate of 90 percent.

On March 11, 2010, a bill including the recommendations passed Austin’s City Council with bipartisan support. It was a clean-sweep (7-0) decision. Perhaps the most visible facet of the bill is a moratorium on killing animals if cages are available, which sounds like common sense to me.

Austin Animal Center is Austin’s only facility that kills. They do not turn away any animals, similar to Houston’s Bureau of Animal Regulation and Care (BARC). Before March 2010, if a dog did not meet the qualifications for adoption he was placed on the euthanasia list and was killed the following morning.

According to nokillhouston.org, five shelters in Houston practice the same procedure, including BARC, Harris County Animal Control, Houston SPCA, Houston Humane Society and the Citizens for Animal Protection.

Austin Animal Center helped remedy the problem by no longer producing a euthanasia list. They now produce a “no holds” list. If cage space capacity is reached, the animals on the aforementioned list are euthanized first. Rescue centers work in accordance with Austin Animal Center to save many of the condemned pets.

Countless animals have been saved in Austin. In Houston, however, we leave the death of defenseless animals to a business decision.

We have not succumbed to our better angels. As a city which prides itself as a pet-friendly place, we can do better. We should do better. Mayor Annise Parker promised to nudge the city in a direction similar to Austin, in terms of animal treatment.

Parker was given a No Kill questionnaire from then congress person, Jolanda Jones while on the campaign trail. She was asked, “Would you commit to making ‘no kill’ — defined as killing less than 10 percent of pets sheltered at an open-admission shelter — the official policy of Houston and support any laws or policy changes necessary to achieve this goal?”

She answered, “Yes.”

Unfortunately, the reforms have been miniscule and as a consequence, the results are miniscule. Houston is not close to attaining no-kill status. From 2010 to 2011 the kill rate at BARC has only dropped three percent. For March 2012, the kill rate for BARC was 46 percent.

In March alone, 1,009 dogs and cats were euthanized at BARC, according to results BARC releases each month.

Parker’s tenure in office was supposed to close the gap between Houston and Austin’s animal policies, but it remains the same.

But there is no doubt — surveillance cameras are not obsolete. Privacy International estimates that there are more than 25 million closed-circuit television cameras in operation right now. They’re in the gas station at Scott and Elgin. They’re in the cab you took to get to downtown yesterday. They’re on the street corners, albeit deactivated. They’re on campus as well.

The University of Houston Department of Public Safety monitors approximately 500 security cameras. These cameras cover parking lots, inside and outside buildings, corners, high traffic areas and any other nooks and crannies. Frighteningly, they’re only adding more. Why add more? The UHDPS website has an explanation:

“The safety of our campus community is the driving force of UHDPS. Reducing the opportunity for individuals to commit crimes on campus is crucial to providing a safe learning and working environment. This is the primary reason we are implementing a plan to install additional video security cameras in selected areas.”

UHDPS wants to monitor criminals. That’s fine, although monitoring everyone to monitor criminals treads murky water.

UH cameras record 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. UHDPS says the cameras are intended to monitor crime, but they’re also monitoring you as you walk to class, when you pick your nose and when you adjust your bra strap. UH cameras are looking when you sit and smoke a cigarette, but since the cameras are grainy, it might be a joint for all they know.

Are these cameras invading student privacy? UHDPS says the system is not in restrooms, locker rooms, living quarters or the examining areas at the UH Health Center. Since being in public is by definition not private, they’re in the clear.

Security cameras aren’t a problem by themselves. They’re cheap, low-quality and can’t tell who is who through the grainy image that feeds into the 24-hour monitoring room. The problem is in the law and the technology.

Houston voters banded together to ban the controversial red-light cameras in a referendum last year. The legal battle took months, and millions of dollars were on the line for both the city and for the company that set up the traffic-violation-trapping lenses. However, these were legally contracted public cameras. The law on hidden cameras varies from state-to-state. Of course criminals and voyeurs don’t care much for following the law, so why would they have scruples about installing a hidden camera inside a dressing room or over an ATM?

The increase in digital technology is just as concerning as the law. Face recognition software is too pricey for UH, but in areas like the UK, closed-circuit television cameras have already gone through the trial version with good success. German airports use the software with ease and the US Department of State has approximately 75 million photos in its face recognition database for processing visas.

The issue of privacy is not trivial. Proponents of cameras say they’re no big deal, and that people who have nothing to hide need not worry. The argument is if you buy a laptop with a camera or own a device with a lens on it, you have no right to worry about surveillance.

Tyler Clementi, the Rutgers University student who jumped to his death two years ago, would probably disagree.  Clementi felt the need to commit suicide after his roommate used iChat messaging software and a pair of webcams to spy on Clementi’s romantic life and then tweet about it.

The Lower Merion School District in Philadelphia issued laptops to students in 2010, which contained pre-installed webcams (in addition to remote-activation software). The school acknowledged that webcams were remotely activated 42 times over 14 months, “to find missing, lost or stolen laptops” since many students took the laptops to and from school. Without student knowledge, the schools remotely accessed the laptops to secretly photograph students, read their chat logs and record which websites the students went to.

The school agreed to pay $610,000 in the resulting class-action lawsuit. The students hopefully learned a lesson about leaving laptops on 24 hours a day.

Still, keeping a webcam off isn’t difficult. What about a hidden camera? With $45 and a debit card you can get a pinhole-sized spy cam off the internet that will easily fit just behind a ventilation shaft, inside a smoke detector or a fake ceiling sprinkler. Not to mention the different software programs that allow remote control of desktop, laptop, smart phone and tablet cameras.This isn’t government-level tech. Spy cams are so readily available even a poor James Bond could afford one.

There’s a good chance a camera is staring you in the face right now. Say cheese.

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

Last week, Priebus insisted the idea that Republican legislators have been pressing legislation directed towards women was media-created “fiction.”

In an interview with Bloomberg TV, he claimed that “If the Democrats said we had a war on caterpillars and every mainstream media outlet talked about the fact that Republicans have a war on caterpillars, then we’d have problems with caterpillars.”

He may be underestimating the American attention span.

After all, the media would have far less to report about if GOP legislators would stop trying to out-do each other with new, more disturbing bills every other day. Even in Ohio — a swing state — more anti-reproductive rights bills have been introduced in this current General Assembly than in the past three combined.

The same day as Priebus’ interview, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed Senate Bill 202, repealing the state’s equal pay law. The bill will make it more difficult for women to take legal action against discriminatory employers.

Walker also signed three more bills that day: One prohibits Wisconsin insurance companies from providing abortion coverage, another increases criminal penalties for physicians providing abortion services and one makes sure as many young Wisconsin women as possible end up needing those services.

This last bill not only puts women at a disadvantage, but girls as well as it replaces Wisconsin’s comprehensive sex education program with an abstinence-based curriculum.

Contraception coverage — a once seemingly benign issue — has become a national debate this year and has produced shocking rhetoric from influential Republicans.

Santorum donor Foster Friess made the nation cringe by joking, “Back in (his) days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.”

No women were allowed to speak at Darryl Issa’s panel on this issue. The the now famous Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke had to speak at a separate Democratic hearing.

For wanting to say her piece, Fluke was called by Rush Limbaugh a “slut” and “a prostitute.” Even more disturbing was that he requested “videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we are getting for our money.”

Limbaugh may only be a shock jock, but he is not alone within the Republican Party. His misogyny is reflected in the current trends in legislation across the country.

Reproductive rights are the favorite target of this sort of legislation. In Mississippi and North Dakota, new waiting periods threaten to close the only safe and legal abortion provider.

Arizona has been one of the worst offenders. Last month, they attempted to pass a bill that would allow doctors to directly lie to patients to prevent the patient from terminating a pregnancy.

The state is now considering a bill that would ban abortion after twenty weeks — with a time period that would start counting up to two weeks before the woman was actually pregnant.

The original draft of a similar bill in Georgia would have required women to carry a non-viable fetus to term — though that section was mercifully amended.

An Idaho bill would require women to go to one of the notoriously deceitful crisis pregnancy centers before seeing an actual physician. This year to date, states have proposed 374 anti-abortion bills, 200 more than last year.

Yet Priebus claims this is all merely conjured in the imaginations of activists or contrived by the media.

Such condescending disregard for women and our autonomy is disappointing to say the least. Women know attacks on their reproductive rights and personal autonomy when they see them.

Republicans should keep in mind that we also vote and make up half of the nation’s population. Even GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney is polling quite badly with women. He can expect this trend to continue as long as many women see the RNC’s platform as a direct threat to their personal privacy and freedom.

And in the end, these are not specifically women’s issues. Whether it’s sex education, contraception or abortion, the right to start your family when you’re ready is important to both sexes just as equal pay is of concern to any working couple.

The Obama campaign is actively and successfully courting the voters that the Republican Party is pushing away. If the RNC wants the votes it needs to win the upcoming election, it needs to stop pretending that issues like equal pay and reproductive rights are not important to women or that these attacks are not happening. We weren’t born yesterday.

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

I was engulfed by the media coverage and attention for Friday’s Mega Millions last week. I gave in to the hype and bought a ticket for the first time in my life.
Now lotto frenzy has come to an end, and if you played, you probably didn’t win.
If it makes you feel better, I didn’t win either.
It’s a heartbreaker, but we can’t be too disappointed, considering the odds of winning the big sum were one in 176 million.
It could’ve been worse though. One Las Vegas man spent $20,000 on lotto tickets, and, you guessed it, he also wasn’t one of the three winners. So looking at it like that, we actually didn’t do too badly.
As the seconds ticked away, and the clock slowly approached the drawing time, people across the country turned on their TVs and computers, hoping that by some miracle, the numbers on their $1 ticket would be announced.
However, we all know this is obviously foolish and didn’t honestly expect to win anything. Yet many of us still bought the ticket, which is curious.
Why is it that so many, including myself, participated in this self-imposed tax that contradicts everything we’ve learned about common sense? Skimming the syllabus of any probability course should be enough to convince us to put our dollar bills back in our wallets. Naysayers have tried to warn Americans not to do it, arguing that the lottery is evil, it’s a fatuous investment of a dollar, and we shouldn’t waste money.
But we still did. I guess this weekend our fantasies just got the best of us.
Although the chances are clearly not in our favor, the lottery is such an extravagant concept that there seems to be a degree of enjoyment in simply talking about it.
It’s nice to fantasize about what you would do with the winnings, especially because in a fantasy, long lost relatives and the Internal Revenue Service don’t exist. It’s your dollar, and even if there are smarter ways to spend your money, I wouldn’t be too hard on yourself for caving in and playing the game.
However, I’m not suggesting everybody go out and spend their paycheck on lotto tickets. It would make for some super crazy fun conversation, but in economic times like these, if you’re already in the hole, it’s in your better interest to keep that dollar for something more necessary.
I’m simply saying that if you want to, and you can afford it, then go ahead.
“You’re wasting your money,” says the guy with the Pepsi in his hand.
It’s not like buying a lotto ticket will damage your health. There are worse things you could do with that dollar.
I’ve never been a regular player of the lottery, every once in a while, spending a buck to entertain a fantasy can be fun, and there doesn’t seem to be too much wrong with that.

 
Lucas Sepulveda is a creative writing and media production junior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Even after the second anniversary of its passing, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act remains a magnet for controversy.

Much of the act has yet to go into effect, but as provisions become effective, they enter the cross hairs of pundits and politicians across the nation.

The Supreme Court is deliberating on the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the act — which requires individuals not covered by employer or public health insurance plans to purchase private health insurance policies.

Before that, the 24-hour news cycle erupted over hormonal birth control being considered as preventative care and covered at 100 percent. In the mire of all of these debates, it’s easy to forget what we are already paying for.

According to the Census Bureau, almost 50 million Americans were uninsured last year, including 19 percent of 18- through 24-year-olds. While some of these individuals might be able to afford general care like primary physician visits and, if they are lucky, possibly simple outpatient surgery, emergencies are a whole other story.

An uninsured, seemingly healthy college student can be bankrupted in an instant by a single car accident or an unexpected cancer diagnosis. While those who oppose government regulation of any kind, including health care, might be able to say “let him die,” hospitals are fortunately, legally bound to provide care to those who need it.

In 1986, Congress passed the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which allows individuals who have lost their jobs to maintain their health insurance coverage at a significantly higher price for a certain period of time.

The bill also included the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires hospitals and emergency facilities to treat any patient experiencing an emergency, regardless of insurance or ability to pay. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports that currently, up to 55 percent of US emergency care is entirely uncompensated.

The EMTALA makes no mention of reimbursement for these services. So, how can hospitals afford to treat these patients? Property taxes. A percentage of state property tax revenue goes directly to the support of hospitals, schools and other local organizations. As American taxpayers, we are already paying for the health care of the nation’s uninsured, and we are doing it in the most financially inefficient manner possible.

The scale of this financial inefficiency is easily illustrated by the fact that those without insurance are far more likely to procrastinate treatment. Without the money to see a doctor, a simple and treatable condition such as tonsillitis can become a life-threatening emergency in the form of an airway-blocking abscess.

Now instead of the patient’s care costing no more than an office visit and an antibiotic, the patient must turn to a hospital emergency room for surgery, which must be performed by a specialist.

This is why the Affordable Care Act not only mandates that non-covered individuals purchase their own insurance, but also covers preventative care at 100 percent to incent individuals to seek out care early, when it is less expensive and more effective.

The mandate was originally a conservative idea designed by Bush advisors and conservative Mark Pauly when he was tasked to come up with a free market solution to the problems in our health care system. His solution was a conservative one, rooted in personal responsibility.

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney was, until recently, so proud of the effectiveness and success of the health care program he implemented in Massachusetts precisely because he felt the backbone of the system was a conservative solution — the individual mandate. Successful state health care programs — such as Romney’s in Massachusetts — laid the Affordable Care Act’s foundation.

As a society, Americans have always taken care of one another. As a matter of policy, we do not deny needed health care to those that cannot afford it, and we are not about to start now. The Affordable Care Act, while flawed, at least makes it possible for more US citizens to have access to cost-effective health care and reduces the number of uninsured burdening the system with the costs of delayed care.

No bill is perfect, and it may not be the exact program we wanted to see, but it’s a step in the right direction for patients and taxpayers alike.

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

It’s no secret that some companies search social media networks for the profiles of prospective employees, but recently some companies have even started asking applicants for the usernames and passwords to their profiles.

Where is the line drawn? Facebook is a major subject of concern. It’s my personal opinion that not even parents should ask their children for their usernames or passwords.

Sure, they can force their children to remove posts from their profile or prevent them from logging on by blocking access to the Internet, but forcing them to give up their information amounts to hacking.

Posts on Facebook belong to the user and are therefore his or her property, especially the posts marked as private.

When someone views what the user has decided not to share publicly, it can be deemed an “invasion of privacy.”

The user has an expectation of privacy. In labeling certain photo albums, messages or tweets as private, no contract has been made between the user and Facebook that grants permission for those things to be seen by anyone else.

In a school in Minnewaska, Minn., administrators and a local deputy allegedly coerced a 12-year-old girl to give up her Facebook password so they could check if she was having sexual relations with a boy from another school. They did this without the consent of her parents, who are now suing. Charles Samuelson, executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, whose office is representing the girl, released in a statement, “Students do not shed their First Amendment rights at the school house gate.”

The fear for companies is very real because it only takes a simple tweet or Facebook post to cause a media nightmare.

We’ve all heard the stories of the senator who tweeted an inappropriate picture, or the guy who got fired for calling in sick to work and then posting pictures of the party he attended when he was supposed to be at home. We’ve even heard the story of the serial killer who was caught because he kept updating his Facebook.

Facebook has even brought down a cartel leader. An Italian mobster was caught thanks, in part, to his Moroccan girlfriend because she uploaded a picture in front of a restaurant and unknowingly gave away the location of their hidden mansion.

Social media, like all forms of technology, should be taken with a grain of salt. There are a few things that every user has to remember. A post is not like spoken word. Once it’s posted there’s a record of it, and that can haunt you later on. Be careful what you put on the internet, because it has the memory of an elephant.

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

Pinterest has followed Tumblr and Facebook in editing their terms of service to bar content that encourages self-harm. Though these bans cover cutting or other unhealthy behavior, they were inspired by the deluge of pro-eating disorder blogs and posts. Until quite recently, social media websites made it shockingly easy for a young person, insecure about his or her weight, to find support for disordered eating.

The groups tag themselves as “thinspo,” short for “thinspiration,” and frequently feature images of emaciated models with disturbing captions such as, “You’re not a dog. Don’t reward yourself with food,” or “Whatever you eat in private, you wear in public.”

Once commonly referred to “pro-ana” or “pro-anorexia,” such groups offer instructions for extreme weight loss and provide encouragement to each other in becoming dangerously underweight.

Poor knowledge about nutrition by youths makes them particularly vulnerable. For instance, some ex-members have stated that they honestly believed the less than 500 calorie per day diet advocated by some of these groups were actually not dangerously unhealthy — just very strict.

This is not to say that there is anything wrong with encouraging healthy weight loss. Obesity is becoming a greater public health issue every day, and the public at large should strive to eat healthier and lead more active lifestyles. However, eating-disorder sites and support groups encourage obsessive-compulsive and self-destructive behaviors.

Rather than encouraging a nutritious diet and an active lifestyle to lose weight, “thinspo” blogs promote extreme methods of weight loss such as starvation and purging. Sufferers of eating disorders often seek others to legitimize their condition — a kind of support they are unlikely to find in their family or friends, but that they can find easily in destructive online communities. These sites “provide community in all the wrong ways,” Claire Mysko of the National Eating Disorders Association said. “It only serves to keep people entrenched in self-destructive behavior.”

Tumblr was very popular with these groups for some time until it changed its terms of service last month to prohibit self-harm content. With the help of the NEDA, Tumblr has devised an elegant system that redirects searches for “thinspo” and similar content to places where eating disorder sufferers can get help.

In response, pro-ana groups moved to Pinterest in droves. According to Mysko, its highly visual and interactive design structure is appealing to the pro-ana community. After an outcry in the media over the deluge of new “thinspo” content on Pinterest, they have announced a change in their terms of service effective April 6.

The new terms will prohibit the posting of content that “creates a risk of harm, loss, physical or mental injury, emotional distress, death, disability, disfigurement or physical or mental illness to yourself, to any other person, or to any animal.”

Now that Pinterest is no longer an option, “thinspo” and pro-ana communities will have to find somewhere else to go. Obviously, removing content that encourages self harm from social media sites will not remove it from the internet entirely and will not stop those actively searching for the information; however, by removing the content from sites that are frequented by young people, it’s possible to keep vulnerable youths from accessing that sort of content and believing that it is a viable or healthy method of weight loss.

These social media companies are privately owned and have every right to restrict the content that can be posted. After all, they all already prohibit pornographic imagery.

If by prohibiting “thinspo” content, they can keep at least a few young people from believing that anorexia is a valid nutritional option, then they have made the right decision.

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

With more than 50 schools nationwide, the program has successfully educated hundreds of underprivileged and minority youth since its founding. As a former student of the original KIPP School in Houston from 2000 to 2004, I am a living testimony to the rigorous yet rewarding educational system. But I am also a witness to an area in which KIPP fell short.

Knowing one of the co-founders and many of the teachers and administrators personally, I am sure the intention wasn’t to alienate the black students. In fact, Fienberg believes that “all instruction must be relevant to the learner, culturally and emotionally.”

However, with its progressive ideas in education, during my years of attendance, KIPP reverted to arguably backwards practices in terms of cultural relevance in relation to the students with darker skin.

Of my graduating class at KIPP, I was one of about 20 black students in a mostly Hispanic population. Being the minority wasn’t easy, and some of the teachers at KIPP didn’t make it any easier. There are a few incidents that vividly stand out to me.

I can still remember “judgment day” as I once called it. It was the day that students would learn their fate in attendance at the end-of-year trip. As an extremely well-behaved and straight-A student, I had no worries about my fate. But something was different in the teachers’ eyes when I met them at the judgment table. They told me that I was not on the list to go on the trip. I was shocked and embarrassed. It was heartbreaking news for a former “Student of the Year.” They explained that I had made an improper comment. As I searched my memory bank for any recollection of anything improper, one of my teachers explained my wrong-doing. The improper comment: “I understand and love learning about Jewish history, and I understand our founders are of Jewish heritage. I was just wondering if we could ever learn about black history or more about Hispanic history, since most of us are black and Hispanic.” I fought back tears as my fate was unveiled. I couldn’t understand what was so wrong about that statement. Did the opinion of a little black girl matter in such a school?

There were many other instances when I felt this intolerance, such as the time we were told our black hair products were a joke, the favoritism Hispanic students received, the lack of information we learned about black history, the fact that we were often targeted for misconduct, and the fact that at least one of the school’s plays was about Hispanic culture and none were about my own. But Judgement Day was by far the most hurtful of all my culturally negative experiences at KIPP.

Some may wonder if this experience was unique to me. I guarantee it wasn’t. Quotes on this topic from fellow black KIPPsters include: “We were always asked why we didn’t mingle with the Hispanic children but the Hispanic children were never asked why they didn’t mingle with us,” and “There were special programs that catered to the Latino students and parents, but we never had that.”

After such negative experiences, I vowed to never express my opinion at KIPP again. In fact, my teachers eventually allowed me to go on the trip. But they threatened that if I ever made remarks like that again, I’d be put on a plane, alone, from California to Houston. It wasn’t until Harriett Ball passed, that I decided to openly voice my opinion again.

In February, I received the monthly newsletter from a KIPP Alumni Association representative and was extremely disappointed with what the newsletter mentioned, or should I say failed to mention. The newsletter highlighted Valentine’s Day and internships among other things, but made absolutely no mention of Black History Month, which as its name states, spans the course of the entire month. I was already disappointed with my recent discovery that the woman who had inspired and mentored the KIPP co-founders, was in fact a black woman. It wasn’t until Ball’s passing, seven years after I had completed my KIPP education, that I would learn anything about her. Don’t you think knowing this would have made a world of difference, created a pool of inspiration, for a little black girl at KIPP? Was it merely an accident or pure neglect that the newsletter failed to mention something so important to black people?

I am not sure if KIPP is culturally the same now as it was then, but the 2012 February newsletter suggests that not much has changed at the original KIPP School. I am happy to say that KIPP schools like Liberation and Voyage have been created in predominantly black areas such as the Third Ward and are orchestrated by those who are familiar with black culture and history.

But what about black students who don’t live in these areas? Should they be at risk to have their culture suppressed or even have their opinions taken away like I did? Should they have to feel less-than, blamed or alienated? Although KIPP is widely-recognized as successful, I urge administrators to survey the cultural satisfaction of minority students in a majority setting.

Although primarily progressive, KIPP can learn something from the positive cultural trends unique to the era of segregation.

Lindsay Gary is a senior history major and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Among the monitored was Adeela Kahn, who’d attended college in Buffalo. After finding a flyer for an upcoming Islamic convention in her inbox, Mrs. Kahn took it upon herself to forward the message to some friends she thought might be interested.

At the time, she probably didn’t think her gesture would catch the eye of a cross-state intelligence analyst. She probably didn’t think that a simple invitation would land her name, with emphasis on the Kahn, in the commissioner’s office. She probably didn’t think that it would all lead to her being listed in an official report, in a file labeled “SECRET” in an office over 300 miles away, but now she knows better.

Eye-opening as it was, her case isn’t exactly special. NYPD has been trailing students in over 13 universities in the Northeast, from Yale to the University of Pennsylvania to Rutgers. While they’ve claimed the groups aren’t chosen because of their religion, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Mormons, Unitarians, and Rastafarians don’t seem to have made the cut. Apparently these spying practices are not only completely legal, but necessary in order to “protect the public.”

Commissioner Raymond Kelly has pointed to the student groups as being potential breeding grounds for terrorists, several of which they claimed to have caught as a result of the surveillance. Besides, indiscretion isn’t ground-breaking; watchdogs have been around since the colonies.

It’s one big mess, but it serves as another “opening shot” on a matter we tend to dance around — the reason for all of this snooping. Even though the big question, the morality of it all, is the one that everyone wants to answer, it’s the little ones that really strike a nerve.

By asking which groups should be policed, you’re asking why they’re being policed in the first place. If you address this fear, you’ll have to acknowledge that their difference is what sets them apart. And if we draw this assumption, then you can’t help but wonder if — as a country that’s made it our business to inflict equality upon the world — we’ve reached the threshold that we deem necessary for everyone else. The answer to that one is “no.”

If it sounds like an issue, that’s good, because it is. Each party’s left with one of three options: bending to the pressure, retaliating in spades or cooperating.

The first would be typical, but it’s the last thing we need. The second would only confirm what NYPD has claimed is “obvious.” The third just would be difficult. It’d take time; it’d require concessions from both sides, giving what they can, establishing parameters and putting their feet down once those boundaries have been crossed.

But if we’re willing to make the effort, the payoff would be astronomical with less files in hidden drawers and more discussions towards a viable solution.

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

It’s now been reported that Robert Bales will be charged, and rightly so, with all 17 counts, along with six counts of attempted murder and aggravated assault in the wounding of six others.

However, it won’t take too much time scrolling through the comments section of any American newspaper’s website to find a surprisingly large number of people defending his actions, blaming it on the mind-altering pressures of war which I don’t deny exist.

But just take a moment and imagine if the tables were turned and 17 of our own were the ones killed, including women and children. Add in the idea of Afghan citizens defending the incident, blaming it on the pressures of war. Now, how do you think we would react?

It would be total pandemonium. It would be chaos. Compared to how we would have handled the situation, the Afghans seem to be taking the news relatively mildly. It was wrong; there’s really no other way to put it, and none of those people deserved to die.

However, there’s more to all this than simply a madman who went on a killing spree. The question isn’t, “Should Bales be responsible for the killings or not?” It is, “Who, or what, should be blamed as well?”

This incident is a reminder to everybody of the harsh realities of war. If it’s true that this act was completely out of Bales’ character, as his wife says, then this just goes to show what the war is really doing to the minds of our soldiers, and for what?

Although Bales should be punished, because in no way should anybody from any country get away with the killing of innocent people, that’s just one part of the problem, and in the grand scheme of things, the only way to prevent incidents like this in the future, is obviously ending the war.

The killings have gained media coverage from all around the world, which will hopefully turn out to be a good thing. Although there would be no way of knowing other than being involved in it, I’m sure civilians only hear about a fraction of the horrible incidents that occur throughout war. The fact that this one is getting attention will maybe open up some eyes.

The result of Bales’ case will be an interesting yet sad one, no matter which way it turns out, and the pressure is on America to handle it in a way that satisfies the people of Afghanistan so that any problems that could further damage an already unstable relationship will be hopefully avoided.

Lucas Sepulveda is a creative writing and media production junior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

The food industry favors price over quality, and companies are not afraid to use cheap ingredients and dubious preparation methods. They know consumers would love a one-dollar hamburger. They know most students have no concept of partially-hydrogenated oil and high-fructose corn syrup. The industry knows as long as the food is half its weight in sugar, it tastes delicious.

This status quo is finally being shattered thanks to viral internet pictures and relentless health professionals.

For example, the Food and Drug Administration recently decided to “offer more choices” of ground beef product to the National School Lunch Program. This was only after the majority of the public finally understood the definition of “subsidized lunch.”

For those who don’t know, beef product (AKA pink slime) is mechanically separated leftover meat tissue and sinew mashed together into a glob of bacteria infested feces. They then mix enough ammonium hydroxide and nitrates into the mix to slay an elephant. With E. Coli gone, they treat it with some flavorings and food colorings until it becomes “Mmm Mmm good.”

Pink slime is not only in the school lunches, it’s in every low-price meat item from dollar store jerky to Burger King’s hamburgers. How does the public tell the difference between mouth watering Angus beef and soylent brown? Aside from flavor and price, they cannot. Why do consumers care all of a sudden? Photos of pink slime have been all over the internet for years. Prior to this outburst from concerned parents there were scores of “food crazies” and “health freaks” preaching about the unhealthy nature of the American diet. No one listened. Was it because the FDA allegedly checks our breakfast, lunch and dinner? Was it because consumers don’t have the time to care?

Letter-graded meat product aside, there is a larger issue for consumers, especially among children — sugar.

Gone are the days when you could glance at a food label and know that sugar in the first three ingredients meant a bad choice. A plethora of weasel words mask sugar and they’re peppered throughout the label. The problem is that these sugars add up. Brown sugar, molasses and honey are the more known and arguably more benign forms. Not many consumers can see red flags over maize, rice and wheat. But these simple carbs easily turn into sugar, and yet the industry sees the need to add more.

We’re not talking about cakes and cookies, but instead, food that’s not even meant to taste sweet. Imagine the classic PB&J. The sandwich is two slices of bread riddled with table sugar, with cheap HFCS jelly (the only thing meant to be sugary) and honey-covered peanut butter. Add a soda containing 40mg of HFCS and the average school kid is well on his way to being misdiagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder, not to mention real health problems like diabetes and childhood obesity.

This is why the February issue of the online journal Nature published an article titled “Public health: The toxic truth about sugar.” The authors pointed out that sugar is everywhere, people are consuming way more than they should and, like Rhett Butler, no one seems to give a damn. They also suggested the government needs to step in to regulate sugar since the industry wouldn’t and the consumers couldn’t.

Some people go for low-cal meals and diet sodas that contain a sugar substitute. Think aspartame, stevia, cyclamate, saccharin and sucralose. But these have their own health issues. Some concerns are unfounded, and some are swept under the rug of willful ignorance.

You’d have to be Sherlock Holmes these days just to make sure you’re not nibbling processed cheese from a bovine growth hormone-injected cow, sipping an insulin shock of sweet-tasting tooth-rotting soda or chomping down a genetically-modified apple from who-knows-where sprayed with who-knows-what. Since most people have school, jobs and families to raise, it’s amazing they manage to eat at all.

Still, it’s good to know that the food industry is not immune from whistle-blowers, even if the public response is slow. Like it or not, it’s time to wake up and smell the pesticide-filled coffee.

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

The 1964 act requires that counties or states with a history of discriminating against minorities in their voting laws — that includes Texas — obtain pre-clearance from the DOJ before their voting laws can be changed. The burden lies upon the states to prove that the proposed law does not have a discriminatory effect on voters.

As this column has noted in the past, Texas Senate Bill 14 fails to meet that requirement. The DOJ decided that the law would disenfranchise Hispanic voters. The proposed bill would oblige voters to show a photo ID in order to cast a ballot. Previously acceptable documents such as a student ID, birth certificate or voter registration card would no longer be adequate. According to the data that Texas itself provided to the  DOJ; Hispanic registered voters are at least 49 percent less likely — and potentially as much as 120 percent less likely — to possess a qualifying ID. Students and the elderly are also statistically less likely to possess the required identification.

Proponents of the legislation say that voter fraud is a serious enough issue that it justifies the discriminatory effects of voter ID laws. However, the only type of voter fraud that could be potentially prevented with stricter ID requirements — impersonating another voter — is so rare that one is more likely to be struck by lightning, according to studies by the NYU School of Law. From 2002 to 2005, there were only 17 convictions for voter impersonation nationwide.

If the Texas legislature is so concerned with election fraud, their efforts would be far better spent ensuring the integrity of voting machines or counting methods, which are much more susceptible to acts of fraud, and wholly unrelated to the issue of photo IDs.

The Voting Rights Act does not simply require that proposed laws have no discriminatory intent, but requires that they have no discriminatory effect as a byproduct of their implementation. The data submitted to the DOJ clearly shows that Senate Bill 14 would have a discriminatory effect on a large number Hispanic registered voters.

Bills like this are the reason pre-clearance is required by the Voting Rights Act in the first place, and makes it clear why the Act was recently renewed. Senate Bill 14 is attempting to stop an extraordinarily rare method of voter fraud by enacting legislation that could disenfranchise more than 600,000 registered voters — and that’s according to the state’s own data. In the years following the passage of the 15th Amendment, many southern states seeking to disenfranchise African-American voters passed laws requiring voters to pay a large poll tax in order to vote. Other states required literacy tests, or forbade an individual from voting if their grandfather had not been able to vote. Even the use of violence and physical intimidation to dissuade potential voters was not uncommon. In 1964, the Voting Rights Act outlawed these practices and required that any changes to voting laws in the states that had used such practices be subject to pre-clearance.

Voting is a constitutional right, and lies at the very core of our democracy. With our country’s woefully low voter turnout, we should be trying to get more voters to the polls, not pushing them away with red tape. Requiring photo ID will keep many from the polls, and will do essentially nothing to prevent voter fraud.

The Department of Justice was right to reject this voter ID bill. Disenfranchising more than 600,000 Texas voters to prevent unlikely and statistically insignificant fraud is just not worth it.

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

To say that Martin’s life came to a tragic end is an understatement. It just should not have happened. What unfolded is antithetical to what any person should be subjected to.

Zimmerman was an overzealous and self-appointed leader of his neighborhood watch, the quixotic protector for his community. However, he was certainly not the protector Martin and his family needed that fateful night.

According to the Miami Herald, “Zimmerman called police 46 times since Jan. 1, 2011 to report disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents. Nine of those times, he saw someone or something suspicious.”

On the night in question, Zimmerman again dialed 911 before approaching Martin.

“Hey, we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy at Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he’s up to no good,” he said.

At this point, the only thing that Zimmerman knew about Martin was his ethnicity. By all accounts, Martin was not causing trouble. His apparent crime was being black and walking down an affluent street at night.

Several citizens called 911 to report the disturbance that followed. The calls were released Friday.

In one of the chilling calls, you can hear a male voice screaming for help in the background as a female neighbor dictates the situation from her home to the 911 operator. It is followed by a gunshot and stoic silence in the background. Then, the wailing for help was over for good. The silence eats you up inside. You realize that you have just listened to Martin’s last 10 seconds of life. You can almost feel his blood on your shirt. You can almost see the blood on Zimmerman’s hands.

Zimmerman stated it was he who was wailing for help and that he acted only in self-defense. Unfortunately, Martin is not here to refute or confirm Zimmerman’s account. The police did not conduct a background check on Zimmerman nor did they test him for drugs or alcohol; however, Martin was tested to determine if he was under the influence. Pressing questions still remain. Why did Zimmerman feel Martin, an unarmed minor, was suspicious?

Many have suggested Martin was racially profiled. It certainly seems so, but we were not there and are not in Zimmerman’s brain.

Why has Zimmerman not been arrested? The police definitely have probable cause for an arrest.

Many African Americans have long sensed an inherent unfairness in the US justice system. This is a system where Mike Vick can be sentenced to 23 months in prison for the slaying of animals. And current NFL player, Plaxico Burress, can be sentenced to two years in prison for shooting himself at a night club. Mind you, no disturbance was caused, and no one was injured in the incident. But kill a minority child and you get sent home without being arrested and your story of self-defense is taken at face value.

Maybe I am speaking in hyperboles here, but the vast majority of Americans must understand how this looks to the black community.

It was announced Tuesday that the case will soon go to a Florida grand jury and that the justice department will begin investigating the possibility of a hate crime.

This is certainly a step in the right direction but is still too little too late.

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

These reports are truly sad, and represent a much bigger issue than just one day’s mistakes. While we like to think our society grows safer and smarter with each year, many of us are actually steadily regressing in ways of responsibility. We don’t realize the dangers of driving drunk until an incident forces us to.
Perhaps learning the hard way is too embedded in human nature to ever expect alcohol-free roads. If that’s the case, humans prove to be much less intelligent than we thought.

It’s time to smarten up. If a man is charged with a DWI, that man shouldn’t think of himself as unlucky — he should be counting his blessings and grateful that his buzz was the only thing killed. It’s surprising how thin the line between misdemeanor and murder charge can be.

As college students, alcohol might be an unavoidable part of the experience and can make for a great time, if consumed correctly. But sometimes, after excessive drinking, we revert back to our childish sense of ignorant invincibility that should have been abandoned long ago. We’re not invincible, not in any sense of the word, and nothing will prove that quicker than getting behind the wheel after a night of drunken festivities.

Sadly, while drunk driving is a big issue amongst younger college students, the problem has proven to be more complicated than that of simple maturity. Drunk driving is a crime that holds no age prejudice, which contributes enormously to its danger and presents difficulty in finding its solution. It is one of the only crimes that can make a 16-year-old kid just as dangerous as a fully-grown adult.

Our society is handling drunk driving completely wrong. While strict penalties are obviously helpful, and may even need to be stricter in some cases, they will never do enough to solve the problem. There will never be a charge so severe that it completely eliminates drunk driving.

The intoxicated person isn’t one to worry about much, and the more drinks consumed, the less worrisome he or she becomes. That drive home starts to look easier and easier with every drink. Before long, any thought the person may have had concerning police is out the window.

Our lawmakers need to realize that it is extremely difficult to scare a drunk person. On top of that, by the time a drunk driver does get convicted, the damage has already been done; the car has been totaled and a person has been killed — the crime has been committed.

The whole process is flawed. We spend too much time focusing on punishment when we should be focusing on prevention.

Considering how advanced our technology is these days, it’s shocking that in-car alcohol detection devices aren’t inside every vehicle on the road, preventing the car from functioning if it senses the driver is too drunk.

That would make a difference in the number of drunk drivers. Although the devices would probably be less perfect in actuality than they are as an idea, but I think that’s the direction we need to move in if we want to make a dent in drunk driving. Technology is often criticized as being bad for us — its negatives outweigh the positives. But I think using technology to prevent drunk driving could help reduce a huge social issue more than ever before.

Enjoying yourself is important, especially on holidays. Taking time out to loosen up and relax is crucial, and alcohol is many people’s way of doing so, which I understand. But when it comes to driving, nobody should take a risk. Alcohol has the ability to turn a quick trip home into a tragedy, and it’s been proven time after time.

It’s just not worth it, and it’s unfair to everyone involved. It’s terrifying to imagine possible outcomes of careless drunk driving mistakes.

Some things in life you have to learn the hard way, but this is most certainly not one of them.

Lucas Sepulveda is a creative writing and media production junior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Robert Bales, the accused staff sergeant for the US Army, is suspected of killing at least 16 Afghan civilians.

Obama said he was heartbroken because of the murder of civilians, and that he felt as if our own citizens or children have been murdered.

It is absurd how American soldiers could take lives of innocent people, considering the soldiers are in Afghanistan because of 9/11.

Although brutal terrorists murdered innocent Americans, that does not mean American soldiers should do the same.

Although the militants were fired on an Afghan delegation in the village, there is peace everywhere else.

However, the Afghans have started protesting the shooting.

The American soldiers have upset the president and created tragedy within the country.

Although the troops are always supposed to follow what the commander says, they committed a crime.

Obama has promised to Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, that he is going to get under the attack, wind down the war and bring the troops back to the United States.

“The administration already has withdrawn 10,000 troops from Afghanistan and plans (to return) 23,000 more by the end of the summer,” Obama said.

“Meanwhile, we will continue the work of devastating al-Qaeda’s leadership and denying them a safe haven.”

By bringing back the troops, half of the tension of Afghanistan would be over; the war will finally end.

America’s situation will get better as well.

US troops coming home will bring more international positivity for the country. If done correctly, it will bring peace back to the States and disperse conflict.

Obama has made positive changes before, such as ending the war in Iraq. The president is performing excellently under current conditions and his administration is finally supporting his decisions.

The administration is putting forth much effort in getting to the root of the problem.

Bales attorney expects him to be charged Thursday, but it has still not been confirmed.

Meanwhile, Obama promised nothing like this will ever happen again. Afghans live in fear and our president is trying his best to make the situation better.

The president’s promise to find a solution is still a work in progress, but he will continue to work until he has completely ended the war.

Saniya Maya is an journalism senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Who would have thought that the rodeo, a celebration of rugged Western heritage and the penniless pioneer headed out to strike his fortune in the open plains of the Wild West, was now a product of the one percent?

That’s the easy way to put it, and exactly how most of the Occupy Wall Street protestors now reassembling in Zuccotti Park — with their iPhones and iPads — would put it as well. And of course, they’ll be doing so by furiously posting about corporate greed to their Twitter and Facebook accounts.

It’s very easy to condemn the obviously well-off, imagining all the evil things they must have done to get to their positions.

Hard work hasn’t paid off for the protestors, so the amount of hard work put into a cause or goal by the upper class must be irrelevant. Maybe that’s why Occupy Wall Street still doesn’t have a clear cut goal. No goal means no effort, right?

But there is a hidden one percent in the rodeo circuit. They’re riding in from Reno and Cheyenne and little towns all across the Lone Star State, making the biggest appearances of their lives here in the Bayou City.

They’re the ancestors of a breed that some Americans wish to acknowledge only as a product of Hollywood.

They’re the professional bull riders of America and they’re a part of an even bigger group — the working one percent.

There have been plenty of criticisms about the extravagance of the one percent; I’ll even admit to wanting to make a piñata out of the next CEO who fires an entire branch while accepting a corporate bonus for himself. That’s one of the few things I might agree with Occupy Wall Street protesters. Corporate CEOs shouldn’t pay fewer taxes than people who make three or four times less than they do by writing the budget-cut as an “investment.”

While that might seem a justifiable reason to blast the one percent at full strength, take a few steps back. Forget Mitt Romney and his corporate cronies, and instead, think of Old McDonald, who, provided he was a good enough bull rider or steer wrestler, could have walked away with $100,000 in prize money, making more in one night than what apparently 99 percent of Americans can’t make in a year.

Considering this is only one of many events on the Built Ford Tough professional bull riding circuit, the capacity for that fortune to grow depends completely on the hard work and determination that bull riders put into their work as well as the luck of not getting a bull named “Widowmaker 3000.”

Wait a second. Hard work? A bit of luck? Sounds like the America I knew. One that didn’t depend on social entitlement programs, but just on the amount of sweat you’re willing to pour out and the bit of good luck that’s come your way.

The working one percent of Americans don’t exist because of corporate or government handouts. Small business owners with good business sense are members of the one percent along with these bull riders. And they have to make the same excuse that those Wall Street CEOs make every time someone asks them about taxes — they get away with lower taxes because they have money to invest back into their work.

Coming from a millionaire living on a hill, that might be hard to swallow. But if it was coming from a bronco buster out of Fayetteville, I’m guessing those OWS protestors might change their tone when he said he had investments to make.

Contrary to popular belief, not all people in the one percent are malignant tumors living off the tax code, writing off massive tax breaks as “investments.” — unlike some in the one percent who are just that.

The working one percent, like the cowboys of our Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, must make investments simply so they can stay in business.

It’s called breaking even and the reason they’re allowed to pay less taxes than Warren Buffet’s secretary is because all that prize money goes right back to raising cattle and training themselves to be better ropers and horsemen.

Besides sponsorship deals, their only income comes from rodeo circuit winnings and livestock they manage to sell on the side.

They’re entirely self-sufficient; they make their own money and nobody is paying for them to go anywhere — especially when they’re just starting off. They must pay for travel expenses, health and life insurance, and the cost to transport all their equipment and livestock.

Some steers sell for $250,000 a head, well over the criteria to be taxed straight into the ground by the Buffett Tax. But after calculating all the necessary expenses, which are written off as investments, the prize money needs to be so big because it if weren’t, people would stop riding in the circuit because of the expense. Or in terms relating back to the one percent, they would stop because operating costs would be too high.

So as OWS kicks off another round of guideless rabble-rousing, ranting against the one percent in New York and denouncing their corporate greed, remember the cowboys and cowgirls as they head home safely, some very content with their winnings and others lamenting the fact that they now have to pay for everything out of pocket with no prize money to soften the blow.

Remember them and their urban counterparts; remember the small business owner who must make actual investments to keep themselves afloat but are now being denounced as evil by people who can apparently afford Internet access and little else.

A good and proper investment can make a whole lot of difference between financial security and just scraping by.

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