Juana Garcia/The Cougar

In recent years, the US has seen a massive wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation proposed in various state legislatures. A common refrain from the right is that these bills are needed to protect the safety and innocence of children. But if you look closely at the rhetoric and policies on display, it’s clear to see that the far right cares far more about limiting the rights of the LGBTQ+ community than they do about actually protecting children.

The influence of these policies has grown immensely in the past few years. In Texas alone, proposals were made to restrict drag performances and the teaching of LGBTQ+ issues in schools. While these proposals failed in the end, Senate Bill 14 passed, effectively banning gender-affirming care for trans youth in the state. 

The situation doesn’t look too different in other states, with similar bills being proposed nationwide. Tennessee passed a bill banning “male or female impersonators” from performing near a minor. However, the bill was so broad that it was rejected by a Trump-appointed federal judge on First Amendment grounds.

But for every bill that was rejected, plenty of other similar bills ended up being passed elsewhere. In Arizona, former Governor of Arkansas Asa Hutchinson vetoed a bill banning gender-affirming care for trans youth only for the legislature to overturn the veto the very next day.

While critics of these bills say that they restrict individual freedoms, their proponents maintain that they’re necessary to keep children safe. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis claimed that the law banning classroom discussion of LGBTQ+ issues was made to prevent the sexualization of children. Conservative commentator Matt Walsh, known for his crusade against LGBTQ+ rights, often invokes the safety of children as well. 

When it comes to conservatives using children as a talking point to argue against LGBTQ+ rights, this is by no means a new phenomenon. When Miami passed an ordinance prohibiting sexuality-based discrimination in 1977, singer Anita Bryant created an organization called “Save Our Children” to advocate for repealing it. Bryant claimed that gay people were trying to convert children because they “cannot reproduce, so they must recruit.”

Unfortunately, her efforts helped lead to the ordinance eventually being repealed. This rhetoric was eventually adopted by major conservative religious figures in the 1980s, further fanning the flames of homophobia. These movements ended up being instrumental in electing President Ronald Reagan, whose silence on the AIDS epidemic led to tens of thousands of deaths.

While the crusade against gay rights eventually failed, with the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling of 2015 and the Respect for Marriage Act of 2022 enshrining the right to marriage equality into law, the right has continued using the same rhetoric in the 2020s against transgender people.

In 2022, conservative figures like Chaya Raichik, owner of the Libs of TikTok X (Formerly Twitter) account, accused Boston Children’s Hospital and the Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) of systematically mutilating and castrating children for the sake of transgender healthcare. To back up this claim, conservatives cited a video of a physician discussing gender-affirming hysterectomies.

However, the doctor never mentioned children once in the video and the hospital’s website states that such surgery is only available to those 18 years and older. Of the five gender-affirming surgeries provided to minors since 2018 at Vanderbilt, all patients were over 16 years old, had parental consent and none received surgeries involving the genitals. However these facts did not stop both children’s hospitals from receiving harassment and death threats to staff, with Boston Children’s Hospital receiving three bomb threats following the campaign.

These threats put both the staff and the children themselves in potential danger. But even discounting these incidents, the far right frequently makes it clear how they feel more directly. If children were the primary concern, then it would stand to reason that conservatives like the previously mentioned Walsh would only support policies like banning gender reassignment surgery for minors or banning the depiction of trans people in media aimed at minors. 

However, conservative pundits like Walsh go much further than that. Walsh has affirmed his support for banning transgender care at all ages, as well as expressing admiration for Russia banning gender-affirming care for all citizens regardless of age. Walsh has no interest in protecting kids; him and people like him just use them to advance their own hatred.

Perhaps one could argue that people like Walsh are a fringe group of right-wing extremists. However, the fact that Walsh spoke at the University of Houston last year and drew a crowd of dozens of people seems to imply otherwise. Moreover, this kind of rhetoric leads to real policy being put into place that can have immense consequences.

For example, look at the “Florida Parental Rights in Education Act” also known as the “Don’t Say Gay” law. Governor Ron DeSantis championed the law, claiming that it prevented the sexualization of children. But even from the outset of the law’s passage, the provisions left no doubt as to what the true agenda was.

Not only did the law initially ban classroom instruction of sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten to third grade, but it also banned such instruction “in a manner that is not age-appropriate.” This last part leaves room for immense interpretation.

Theoretically, a parent could sue a school district if their 17-year-old child is exposed to LGBTQ+ themes in class in any capacity. This idea became more than just a theory when the law was expanded to an outright ban on such topics from kindergarten to 12th grade by the Florida Board of Education in April of 2023.

In a similar manner to Walsh’s anti-trans rhetoric, the law goes further than what is necessary to protect children and effectively bans discussion of LGBTQ themes in school.

In conclusion, the far right can try all they want to tie anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and policies to the safety of children, but it will not change the fact that such positions are simply anti-LGBTQ+. In many cases, they either actively harm children like with the targeting and harassment children’s hospitals, or they allow their mask to slip enough to expose their broad intentions.

Whatever the case may be, freedom and equality in this nation can only be preserved so long as those anti-LGBTQ+ conservatives who hide their true agenda behind children are kept as far away from power as possible.

Calvin Nguyen is a Journalism sophomore who can be reached at
opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“The far right doesn’t actually care about kids” was originally posted on The Cougar

Gwyneth Gravador/The Cougar

People love thinking about hypothetical situations, especially extreme ones.  Not only are they interesting to think about, but they allow us to think about ethical choices without having to actually handle the consequences. Consider this intense, yet frequently discussed example: If we had the ability to go back in time, would it be an ethical decision to terminate the infamous dictator Adolf Hitler while he was still a baby?

The immediate response to this hypothetical might be something along the lines of: “Well yes, killing Hitler would save the lives of 6 million Jewish people plus countless others.” This is a utilitarian, if not simple, standpoint. In other words, it focuses on prioritizing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. And indeed, if there were no other factors involved, saving 6 million lives would be well worth the cost of one life.

But this scenario might not be as simple as it seems on the surface. If we were to take into the consequences of time traveling, for example, the answer might change because of the potential side effects. Hitler’s death would change the entire timeline in ways that are nearly impossible to accurately predict.

As shocking as it might be, this one death could lead to even more dire scenarios than the Holocaust. Could it be possible that someone else would’ve done the same actions, if not worse, if Hitler hadn’t existed? After all, he was hardly the only person in Germany at the time nursing violent thoughts and ideas. Alternatively, consider how society might have developed differently without the events of World War II.

Much of our military and communication-based technology today has been influenced by World Wars or other major historical events. Without them, we could have been slower to advance in our societal development. Certain inventions would have come into existence later or potentially not at all.

Some have called this theory the Butterfly Effect. Based on the idea that the flap of a butterfly’s wings could set off a chain reaction  ending in a tornado. It stands to reason then that killing Hitler as a baby could cause a ripple effect with an unknowable impact. But even if we didn’t take into account the Butterfly Effect, killing baby Hitler still might not be the best option.  

In his current state, baby Hitler has not yet performed the actions that would eventually lead to the construction of a mass genocide. He has yet to experience the consequences of his actions, nor can he fully take responsibility for them. Even if we knew he would eventually commit these horrendous actions, he remains unaware of this fact.

You could make the argument that because we know he is going to commit a crime with 100% certainty already, then it would be better if he was terminated now rather than later. While this is true, we must also take into account where our values lie and what conditions we are placing on the scenario. 

Since this is a purely hypothetical situation, it can be twisted to best fit the ideals of whoever is debating it. One could argue that it would be ethical to kill baby Hitler if we knew for certain that there wouldn’t be any serious impact on the timeline and that the Holocaust doesn’t happen. However, this still leaves the problem of whether it would be moral to kill someone who has yet to commit a crime. 

Even in this scenario, humans are not divine. We never know when or if someone is going to commit a crime with 100% certainty. This is why we base our legal system on the evidence at hand. In other words, we consider people to be innocent until the moment they are proven guilty.

This idea of “innocent until proven guilty” quickly goes out the window because we do know with 100% certainty that baby Hitler eventually will follow through to mass genocide. This means that legal and ethical restraints are likely to go out the window as well. 

Even aside from the ethical questions, let’s go back to asking whether killing baby Hitler would make a difference in the long run. If we were even capable of such a thing, how could we be assured that his death would not be one little causation in a sea of other causations?

In other words, would killing baby Hitler make such a difference in the first place? Adolf Hitler was, after all, only a reflection of that historical era and Germany’s collective anger after the First World War. He was just one of many causes that led to World War Two.  History is not set in stone, and it’s very possible that Hitler being out of the way could even lead to a more brutal leader rising in his place.

When we think about the bigger picture, would removing one singular variable really change history enough to create a more peaceful outcome? Even before there was Hitler, Germany’s anger and embarrassment were exacerbated to create the conditions that inspired him to become such a brutal dictator. 

It is hard to say for certain whether any action one way or another could possibly change an event as deeply tragic as the Holocaust. But maybe the real lesson to take from this hypothetical is that we should not be living with regrets about the past. After all, the only thing we can actually change is the present.

Life is full of surprises, and nothing is ever truly certain. We can learn a lot from studying even the most tragic parts of history, but maybe we shouldn’t spend all our time dwelling on them. Instead, maybe we should focus on the things we can actually change. We should live in the moment, care for those close to us and try to leave this world better than we found it.

HaiAn Hoang is a biology and philosophy junior who can be reached at
opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Butterfly Effect: The ethics of time traveling to kill baby Hitler” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

As your high school years fade away and you embrace the new chapter that is college, you’re likely to face a common struggle. At some point, the odds are good that you will end up with subpar professors who bear down on you with rigid grading and attendance policies. College classes are supposed to foster independence and creative learning, but some professors approach student interactions as if they were still in high school.

While people’s experiences likely vary depending on what school they went to, many students compare their time in high school to that of a prison. While this analogy might seem extreme, it wasn’t inaccurate for many. High school was a place where your time was dictated day in and day out, any small mistake could be punished severely and your autonomy was decreased overall.

College classrooms should be moving away from this kind of environment, not reverting back to it.

For example, consider how strictly some professors emphasize attendance, with policies that actively penalize students who miss even a few classes. When strict attendance rules are enforced, it can be hard to feel like coming to class is anything more than another box to check off rather than a learning opportunity. 

It can be easy to dismiss the idea that a harsh attendance policy would make you less likely to come to class. But consider it like this: One day, you wake up and decide to do the dishes and clean the house independently. But then your mother tells you that you must do it, and you need to repeat the task daily. Many would lose the enthusiasm they had earlier.

You would no longer want to complete the task because it became a chore, something forcefully imposed on you.

People don’t want to complete chores because of the stress associated with the looming responsibility, plus the added stress of having to finish a task on a deadline. That is not to say that deadlines aren’t important, however. In many cases, deadlines can be useful to keep you productive and motivated for other important activities. 

Deadlines really start becoming a problem when professors make them needlessly strict. Some professors refuse to allow makeup if you miss a deadline by even a few minutes. This can make it shockingly easy to receive zeroes in some classes, and can quickly lead to plummeting grades. This stressful process can hinder a student’s ability to enjoy the class and for some, it might cause them to hate the entire subject.

No one wants to feel like a failure, nor should they feel like every small mistake could jeopardize their future. When punishment is prioritized over actually delving into a subject matter — as classes are supposed to encourage —the ones hurt the most are the students because they aren’t able to grow educationally. 

For students to remotely care about the subject they’re taking, the professor needs to do their part by providing an environment where students are able to freely explore and express interest in the subject being taught. Having extensions on assignments if students have reasonable excuses is a great place to start.

Beyond providing extensions, professors can foster a good learning environment by providing various opportunities for students to join in on research outside of class. Holding open-ended discussions with student collaboration on projects in class is another great way to promote further interest and engagement in the material being taught. 

Applying excessively strict academic expectations can give students the impression that completing their classes is simply a means to an end. This pressure can keep them from enjoying the journey towards their career goals. After all, college is one of the last spaces where people are encouraged to show up and learn something new each day.

Beyond the benefits to students, creating a comfortable learning environment can also help professors. If students were given a space to thrive and professors were given the respect they deserve, then everyone wins! In contrast, both parties failing to play their roles inevitably ends poorly. 

Students not showing up to class because of a bad learning environment leads to the professor having to reinforce class rules. Eventually, the professor is likely to become more frustrated at teaching a class of disinterested students, and the environment is only going to get worse. Everyone loses here. 

In high school, college was marketed as a place for education and intellectual stimulation, not somewhere where students spend every waking hour suffering because of grade-related stress and professors who don’t care about their students. The reality has been disappointing to many, but there is room for change. 

If everyone plays their part, we can redefine the college experience. Together, we can make it a place where students engage, professors inspire and both parties learn and discover together.

HaiAn Hoang is a biology and philosophy junior who can be reached at
opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Professors should treat students more like adults” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

For years, Minecraft has stood the test of time and remained a game that is deeply beloved by people of all ages. Over the past several months, however, the company making Minecraft has come under fire from fans on various platforms, especially Tik Tok.

With the Game Awards just around the corner, now might be just the time to take a look back at the infamous Minecraft mob vote fiasco and consider what it says about the relationship between game developers and the community that forms around games.

In the past few years, Mojang studios, the game’s main development head, has been using an innovative and interactive voting system to decide what new creatures, or “mobs,” should be implemented into the game.

The mob vote system was first adopted at the 2017 MINECON Earth event, where it was initially conducted via a Twitter poll. Essentially, players were able to vote for one of several mobs, and Mojang would add the winning option into the game.

In the beginning, this system was met with enthusiasm, and many fans thought it might be a step towards a much stronger player-developer relationship. However, just three years after the first Mob Vote, that enthusiasm quickly soured, eventually leading to a boycott of both the vote and the developers themselves.

Much of the issues fans had with the developer started when certain eagle-eyed viewers started asking questions about how the company handles content updates.

Content updates, like the recent Wild Update have implemented numerous features, including one of the mobs from a previous mob vote. This left many fans asking: Why can’t Mojang simply implement ALL the mobs from the mob vote into the game, albeit at a slower pace?

Mojang has been in the gaming business since 2009 and is now funded by the much bigger company Microsoft after having been acquired by them in 2014. Suffice to say that Mojang has more than enough money to implement new features en masse. 

As an attempt to address fan concerns, Mojang stated recently that the losers of the vote might be implemented later. This was likely referencing a situation where frogs lost the mob vote in 2018 but were still implemented earlier this year in the aforementioned “Wild Update.” 

This claim still does nothing to assuage the hurt felt by many when several of their favorite mobs still have yet to be implemented after several years. The situation gets even messier with some recent allegations of vote-rigging. 

Some players have suggested that certain biomes or mobs were set to win before the votes were even tallied. Much of this speculation surrounded the fact that they lined up conveniently with the proposed next update.

While much of this is just speculation, it’s hard to ignore how certain updates seem to hinge on one option in particular winning the vote. For example, consider the case of the Mountain biome winning just prior to the Caves and Cliffs update, which would have been fundamentally different without that biome. 

One prominent YouTuber, MatPat of Game Theory, proposed the idea that the 2022 vote was held with two intentionally horrible options and one great one. According to this idea, The Tuff Golem and the Rascal were meant to be obvious losers whereas Sniffer seemed the only real option, turning out 55.1% of the vote.

The Tuff Golem and Rascal would have provided minor changes to gameplay, with no real new additions. The Sniffer, however, allowed players to attain ancient seeds by digging them up. This added some mystique to the game as well as playing into an “extinct creature brought back to life” role.

But going back to allegations of the vote being rigged, this new mob seemed eerily convenient at points, considering the next planned update ended up being entirely centered around hidden treasures and archeology.

With allegations of planned winners and a lack of new features despite Mojang proving time and time again that it can implement new features easily, fan’s frustrations started to build against the beloved game developer.

Whether the claims are true or not, it would seem that that for far too many, the dedicated development team at Mojang has dropped the ball. Some fans have outright called for a boycott of the mob vote, but it remains to be seen how much fans will remember this anger as we head into awards season.

Whether these concerns are due to complacency or another underlying issue, transparency with fans is needed if Mojang wants to keep the reputation they’ve built over the years. Minecraft has endured for this long, but a dire change may be needed to prolong the beloved game’s lifespan.

Jaden Smith is a journalism freshman who can be reached at
opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“As awards season looms, don’t forget the Minecraft Mob vote fiasco” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

Protesting for important causes is practically a rite of passage for college students, and UH is no exception. In past years, students have protested over everything from LGBTQ+ rights to abortion access. But in many cases, these movements lack the intensity needed to bring about lasting change.

That’s not to say that these movements don’t have an impact, however. Some protests, like the rallies held after the two tragic suicides that took place at Agnes Arnold Hall, attracted hundreds of students and received coverage from multiple major media outlets.

But despite the initially impressive turnout, the push for more mental health support on campus seems to have completely stalled just a few months later.

The organizers promised a broader movement including more protests, but lack of interest and somewhat unclear demands seem to have brought the fight to a screeching halt. The most the university managed in response was to put up fencing around Agnes Arnold and make some vague structural adjustments.

It can be easy to pin the issue here on lack of specific demands, but even when students have complete clarity in what they’re asking for, results are not guaranteed. For example, consider the “UH Divest” movement, which asked the university to stop investing in companies that manufacture weapons.

After an impressive social media campaign, multiple rallies and a push for the Student Government Association to discuss the issue, the organizers proudly declared a victory. They lauded the movement as an unprecedented success, but unfortunately, their “victory” was arguably meaningless in the long term.

While the organizers were able to convince student government to vote against sending money to arms manufacturers, this did next to nothing in convincing the University administration to actually adjust where the school’s money went to.

SGA resolutions are just that, after all: resolutions. SGA brought the issue before administration and the administration denied it, but the momentum died as if there had been some great victory achieved.

Again, the accomplishments of these organizers is impressive and should be recognized, but if students don’t learn from past mistakes they’re likely to repeat them. Take for example the recent “Free UH” movement that’s formed to protest the closure of the LGBTQ+ Resource Center, among other issues.

Despite a significant leafleting and social media campaign, the proposed “walkout” garnered no more than a few dozen attendees. Supposedly, a large number of students care about LGBTQ+ rights, graduate student pay and the other issues the movement rallied around. So why did so few show up?

For a start, timeliness could be a factor. These protests took place over a month after the LGBTQ+ Resource Center closed, meaning that it was likely not in the forefront of most students’ minds. Media was also less likely to be interested in covering an issue that few readers would be interested in.

But more than anything else, momentum matters when it comes to protest movements. All of these past movements stalled out because students stopped paying attention or organizers simply stopped organizing. The only real way to win lasting change is to continuously place pressure on campus administration.

While the “Free UH” movement has some solid, concrete goals, they should be wary of making the same mistakes their predecessors did. A renewed push surrounding specific, newsworthy goals, combined with action that really pushes administration to take notice is the only path forward.

It only takes a spark to get a fire started, after all. But if you want to keep the fire going, you have to keep turning up the heat.

Malachi Key is a Journalism senior who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

—
“Campus activists need to learn from past mistakes” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez Campelo/The Cougar

It’s spooky season at last! There’s a chill in the air and ghastly winds bringing ominous omens to all. As you start putting together your Halloween costume and hanging fake cobwebs all over your dorm, consider taking this season to the next level with The Cougar’s round-up of 2023 Houston Halloween events.

Get your spook on at a haunted Halloween house

Halloween’s nothing without a couple good scares, and what better way to test the boundaries of your closest relationships than by braving a haunted house together?

Houston’s got a whole selection of great options you can try, including Phobia’s five themed haunted attractions, Creepy Hollow (which has been voted the scariest haunted house in Texas) and the musical whimsy that is Houston Scream Fest are all great options.

And for a bonus, keep an eye on the Student Program Board’s social media, since they frequently have a haunted house or maze on campus that’s completely free for students!

Watch a frightful feature with your Halloween homies

Speaking of holding your loved ones close, the cold weather is a great chance to cower under some blankets with your roommates, family or significant other. Consider hosting a fun little movie night at your dorm or in the movie room at Cougar Place.

Or, you could take the scares outside at one of several fun show screenings around town. Axelrad is hosting scary movie nights every Monday, with one family friendly option at 7:00 and a more mature feature starting at 9:00.

Dig into some devilish delights

Halloween is the best time of year to enjoy some tasty treats! Check out local pumpkin patches for tasty pumpkin snacks and the added bonus of fun photo opportunities. Or check out one of many food-related events such as the Lebanese Student Association’s Hafla Halloween Party.

If you’re feeling crafty, consider making some sweet treats yourself! Themed cookies with fun Halloween shapes and some frosted googly eyes or fun drinks in decorated cups can be a great way to spice up any party.

Party ’til the dead rise

There’s lots of fun haunts to check out around Halloween weekend, including events at Numbers, a themed seance bar at Pop Fancy and even a spooky circus themed bar at Shoeshine Charlie’s Big Top Lounge.

While the Cougar firmly advocates for drinking legally and responsibly, there’s lots of ways to turn up safely on Halloween weekend even if you’re not the drinking type.

Consider going to on campus events like Anime no Kai’s Halloween party, which will feature a costume contest, or the Animation Club’s Spooky Painting Social for a more lowkey vibe!

Whatever you choose to do, make sure you stay safe, stay spooky and make the best of the season. After all, Halloween only comes once a year!

Malachi Key is a journalism senior who can be reached at
opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Halloween events to get into the spirit of the season” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

Marvel’s multi-film cinematic universe has risen over the years to become an immensely popular franchise. But not all students are die-hard Marvel fans. Some argue that Marvel’s characters are “flat” in comparison to the heroes associated with DC comics.

Many DC fans have fond childhood memories of being exposed to its world through the universe’s many animated shows. DC has an impressive collection of high quality content including shows like Justice League Unlimited, Static Shock, Green Lantern, Young Justice, Teen Titans and many more.

But while many students nowadays have grown up loving Marvel films, they might just change their minds after being exposed to the multiple compelling characters DC has to offer. 

For just one example, consider the Joker. Known as the “clown prince of crime,” his chilling smile and cheerful yet sinister persona are enough to give even DC’s greatest heroes nightmares.

Joker’s villainy goes beyond just simple tricks, though. His actions shocked the comic book world when he shot and paralyzed Batman’s ally Barbara Gordon, AKA Batgirl. His villainous deeds had long-lasting impact too, as they forced Barbara to adopt a completely new identity as the “girl in the chair” Oracle.

The Joker has been a well-known villain for decades and has received multiple adaptations, but villains from the Marvel Universe have had more trouble becoming well known until recently. 

For example, Iron Man has had three major movies in recent years, but many fans would likely struggle to name even Iron Man’s biggest antagonist. Some might say Thanos, but despite becoming more iconic in recent years, he’s more well known as an Avengers villain.

Not only do DC characters have more depth, but many of them actually provided inspiration for their Marvel counterparts. For example, Superman was created in 1938 while Captain America didn’t come to life until 1941. 

Captain America is not a complete carbon copy of Superman, but they definitely have similar roles and personalities. In the same way, one can easily draw comparisons between each universe’s emotionally detached, non-powered billionaire crime-fighters — Iron Man and Batman.

This is not to say that there haven’t been good storylines revolving around Black Widow, Captain America and Iron Man, but DC comics have particularly unique stories. Their stories tackle difficult topics and can be especially relatable for those who are struggling with addiction, anxiety and relationship issues. 

One example would be the character Arsenal from DC’s “Justice League” show. He got addicted to painkillers as a young  superhero, which led to him being kicked out of the league. This sudden shock forced him to venture out on his own, creating a heartwarming journey about him eventually getting clean.

DC’s animated films are also full of surprisingly relatable stories, such as the tale of Jessica Cruz, the first female Green Lantern from Earth. 

After she witnessed a murder and the death of her friends, Jessica was given power through an extraterrestrial ring. But unlike other heroes, she struggles with severe anxiety and even spends a good portion of the film regularly attending therapy.

DC’s characters inspire audiences with their heroic feats, but they also provide compelling stories of overcoming struggles that any of their viewers could relate to. Part of their journey to become a hero is about discovering their own inner power and showing the audience how they can too.

Even though Marvel is great, many are missing out by ignoring the greatness that is the DC Universe. So if you’re looking for a change of pace from Marvel’s narratives, consider trying out some new heroes for a change. 

Alena Thomas is a history sophomore who can be reached at
opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Batman rules, Iron Man drools: Why DC Comics deserve a chance” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

Earlier this year, the Human Rights Campaign declared a state of emergency for LGBTQ+ people in the United States, citing an onslaught of anti-LGBTQ legislation across the country. These pieces of legislation are more than just headlines — they have a severe impact on people’s livelihoods. 

As LGBTQ+ people face an unapologetic attempt to diminish their humanity, they need unequivocal sisterhood, brotherhood and especially support. 

While it can be easy to tune out the passing bills like the of ‘Don’t Say Gay’ laws recently introduced in Florida, they should be taken seriously by LGBTQ+ people and allies alike.

The objective of bills like these is to reinforce an archetype that limits individual expression, and it’s imperative that allies recognize this onslaught against queer individuals for what it is: pure bigotry.

When people fail to recognize hatred as what it is, a precedent of discrimination is established. Make no mistake; these legislative actions come from a place of ignorance and prejudice. While it can be easy to respond with anger, support and love are what’s really needed right now.

For many queer individuals, having a supportive family is not always a given. From a young age, many of them have had to fight for acceptance and their own humanity without the support of the people who were supposed to protect them.

Any LGBTQ+ individual will tell you that the road to acceptance is far from easy. For well-meaning allies, it’s important to remember that living authentically as the person you are is a privilege few have. 

For some, coming out is too big of a risk. The potential backlash they might face should they one day choose to live as their authentic selves can be overwhelming and damaging. Especially in times like these, that pressure can lead to tragic consequences.

Data shows that LGBTQ+ youth are four times more likely to attempt suicide than their peers, with almost half of bisexual youth stating that they had seriously considered suicide at some point. Mental health for many LGBTQ+ youth is in crisis, and it’s not going to get better without committed allies.

Some might say that you shouldn’t care whether someone is gay or not. The truth is, you actually should. The ultimate goal of the recent legislation is to silence LGBTQ+ individuals and instill fear upon them. If allies are unwilling to amplify queer voices, they’re likely to end up being silenced. 

In order for allies to truly cultivate a safe space for queer people and those who might be questioning, they need to first acknowledge their queerness. While it might seem obvious, it’s important for them to know that their queerness makes them who they are instead of lessening their worth.

This world will never be perfect, but we should at least try to create a more just society for everyone. It’s crucial that we continue to build safe and affirming spaces for LGBTQ+ individuals both inside and outside UH. 

Safe spaces aren’t just important for LGBTQ+ individuals, though. Remember: gay doesn’t look one way. You never know who might be questioning their sexuality. Creating an area for people to ask questions comfortably could give someone a chance to discover who they are.

Gloria Steinem, an activist known for her contributions to second-wave feminism, once said, “Any woman who chooses to behave like a full human being should be warned that the armies of the status quo will treat her as something of a dirty joke. That’s their natural and first weapon. She will need her sisterhood.” 

Although Steinem’s quote was intended as a message for women and the feminist movement, it’s not hard to see how her ideas could be expanded to include LGBTQ+ individuals. Even if you don’t think you’re doing all that much, your friendship with a queer person might mean the world to them.

So stand strong in your sisterhood and don’t back down when the people you love are under attack. You never know, you might just end up saving their life. 

Jose Acuna Cruz is an English freshman who can be reached at
opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“The LGBTQ+ community needs allies now more than ever” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campello/The Cougar

Despite the wide variety of food options available, the majority of the U.S. grocery market is actually controlled by just 10 companies. In the name of profits, many of these companies include harmful ingredients in the food they produce, so you may want to consider taking a closer look at the labels on your groceries.

While some of these companies have been around for more than a century and market their goods around the globe, selling food and beverage merchandise in the United States requires going through America’s specific regulation procedure.  

In order to sell in the U.S, these companies must abide by the Food and Drug Administration’s standards. The FDA aims to be responsible for protecting the general public’s health by promising safety, efficacy and security of our nation’s food supply. 

But in some cases, the FDA standards aren’t enough to protect consumers from harmful ingredients. PepsiCo, one of the 10 companies previously mentioned, sells a soft drink beloved by consumers across America: Mountain Dew.  

Despite the beverage’s reputation in the U.S., you cannot purchase this soft drink in many parts of Europe because it’s been banned by the European Food Safety Authority. The EFSA banned the drink because it contains the ingredient Bromine, which can cause skin issues, nerve issues and even memory loss. 

So, why does the FDA, a government agency put in place to protect U.S. citizens, allow these toxic and unsafe ingredients into our diets? To understand the answer to this question, it’s important to understand the difference between these agencies’ administrative processes. 

The FDA often permits newly developed ingredients in foods and beverages unless proven to be “detrimental and damaging” to consumers. In contrast, The EFSA requires food and drink additives to be determined “absolutely safe” before products containing them can be sold. 

Essentially, the ingredients the FDA allows could be harmful long term, but are not banned unless they’re immediately unsafe. After understanding the different philosophies and policies between these agencies, understanding what each one does and does not allow starts to make sense.

The FDA clearly does not enforce the safest standards when compared to other food and drink regulating agencies. They seem to be mainly focused on quantity over quality when it comes to our nation’s food supply, which means consuming cautiously must be taken into our own hands.

Next time you find yourself shopping at the grocery store, consider carefully reading the ingredient list. Along with Bromine, you should try to avoid Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 dyes. Research indicates that these dyes contain carcinogens that could lead to cancer in various parts of the body.

Steering clear of Azodicarbonamide, a chemical bleach found in many breads, frozen dinners and baked goods to whiten flour faster, may also be in your best interest. It has been linked to asthma development.

While the many unhealthy ingredients found in food and beverages seem impossible to avoid, valid alternatives do exist. For example, you could buy your groceries from health-focused stores like Trader Joes.

Trader Joe’s promises their consumers that no artificial colors, flavors or preservatives will be in their products. Their products are also free of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) and bleaching agents. 

Blindly walking into the grocery store and purchasing whatever looks good might sound appealing. Researching ingredients or changing shopping habits takes a lot of time and energy. But at the end of the day, your health could change for the better, and that might just make the effort worth it.

Mackenzie Sills is a journalism junior who can be reached at
opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Your food could be unsafe, check the ingredients” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campello/The Cougar

If you live in Houston, one of your biggest struggles is likely parking. It can leave you spending anxious minutes cruising around your destination looking for a parking space and be a serious drain on your wallet. But even more than just being annoying, demand for parking also contributes to the housing crisis.

America is driven by cars, with a majority of the population owning at least one vehicle. As roads have become clogged, demand has remained steadfast for easily accessible parking spaces that are also located close to popular places.

The imbalance between a high number of cars and not enough space led to the creation of parking minimums. The new system mandated a minimum quantity of parking spaces per building dependent on size and general use.

Parking minimums first began in 1923 in Columbus Ohio, and eventually extended to all types of property. These minimums ended up becoming intricately woven into urban planning, drifting from a conscious choice into a rightful agency. 

The increasing quantity of land allotted to Houston parking has ended up leaving little space for affordable housing near its metropolitan area.

This in turn has fostered suburban sprawl, decreased population density and increased dependency on cars, as city inhabitants are frequently unable to comfortably walk or bike to necessary destinations. 

Aside from the looming housing crisis, parking minimums have brought about venomous environmental costs as green spaces have decreased and carbon emissions increased. As the city exists under a blanket of asphalt, Houstonians have slowly abandoned more environmentally friendly options like walking or biking.

For solutions, Americans should consider the approach of many European countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, who pride themselves on prioritizing pedestrian friendly roads.

The common theme in these countries of limiting and/or banning car access in certain areas promotes a culture of choosing people over businesses, rather than the other way around. But even in America, some cities have taken a different path.

In Fayetteville, Arkansas, thanks to zero parking minimums, once abandoned buildings have been “quickly  purchased, redeveloped, and put into use right now,” according to city planner Quin Thompson.

The quick development of these once vacant areas highlights the availability of potential buyers who may back out considering the excess costs from minimums.

However one views it, parking minimums are a defective method of bridging the gap between people and businesses. The favoring and dependency of cars on the road poses serious harms to society, decreases inclusion and accessibility, and contributes to the loss of a natural environment from the overflow of slab. 

Parking minimums promote a dispersive environment, placing business owners and residents alike further from one another, and overall decrease a sense of connection between neighbors.

Higher costs and an uncertain pedestrian experience characterize the current urban infrastructure of Houston, and with parking minimums intact, a more comfortable future is highly unlikely.  

Ramisa Fariha is a senior Economics major who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Houston’s demand for parking is a serious problem” was originally posted on The Cougar