Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

Negative political campaign advertisements need to become less used during elections, as they strengthen partisanship and have a mixed impact on voter turnout in exchange for increased antagonism between the population and parties. 

According to The Washington Post, antagonistic political campaign advertisements for both parties received a disturbing amount of financial support and have become the main strategy for bolstering voter turnout. 

The trend of utilizing smear campaigns against the other party as a call to action for voters, however, is instead heavily damaging the public’s involvement in the political process. 

In a democracy such as the U.S. that emphasizes healthy dialogue and involvement, utilizing negative political campaign advertisements can prove to be disastrous, as it instead prioritizes bitterness over issues that are more complex than what both parties’ advertisements make them out to be. 

During the 2022 midterm election, the Democratic Party used the Dobbs decision, which ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade, as a way to appeal to voters fighting for abortion rights. 

The controversial ruling made by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court turned out to be a safe way for Democrats to garner votes, with the party spending more than $100 million on advertisements focused on this issue alone. 

Alternatively, the Republican Party’s main spending for their advertisements was focused on taxation, President Joe Biden and inflation. More than $200 million went towards advertisements focusing on these three issues, highlighting the disparaging priority differences between the two parties. 

While it is not detrimental for a party to critique another party’s stance on political issues, the way an opposing party’s agenda and their candidate’s character is presented to viewers is creating a deep rift of partisanship between Americans. 

For example, political campaign advertisements can include flat-out disinformation. 

An NPR soundbite highlights multiple examples of disinformation used in advertisements by political candidates during the 2022 midterm election. 

Among the culprits that used disinformation during the 2022 midterm election was Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake.

Many Americans who are active in political discussion have found antagonistic campaign advertisements to be the most effective way in bolstering voter turnout. 

However, the effects of negative campaign advertisements on voter turnout have had mixed results. 

Recent research suggests that the detrimental impact of negative campaign advertisements is negligent at times, but the impact of positive campaign advertisements is noticeable only when there are no negative messages attached. 

As explained in the study by professor Brett Gordon, there is a phenomenon to be found in negative messages. 

They generally carry more weight and they tend to stick out more than a collective group of positive statements. 

Politicians would rather trade in the noticeable difference of a positive campaign in a close election for a flurry of jabs at their opponent that make their supporters listen more and fence-sitters step aside come election day. 

Negative campaign advertisements in American politics are dissuading a majority of potential voters from participating in elections and instead bolster partisanship between the two major parties and their emboldened supporters. 

The inability for Democrats and Republicans to branch out and try to find a good base for more Americans to vote is what keeps perpetuating a cycle of partisanship that is already having dangerous impacts on the nation’s election process and splintering their respective parties from the inside. 

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly listed Priorities USA as a source of disinformation. It has been updated. 

JJ Caceres is a political science sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Negative political campaign advertisements increase partisanship” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

Botox to some may feel like an elixir of youthful skin but many people have varying opinions over when to start Botox procedures.

While not everyone can and should get Botox, starting sooner can prevent signs of aging like wrinkles. Although Botox doesn’t stop wrinkles from appearing, it hides them from the human eye. 

However, like many things there are positives and negatives to both sides of the procedure.

The FDA approved non-invasive injectable Botox can serve different medical purposes like helping reduce chronic migraines, excessive sweating, crossed eyes and temporarily assist with wrinkle reduction.

Often when the visual of someone getting Botox comes to mind, the image might have been middle-aged individuals getting a ‘tune-up.’

Nowadays, if one were to turn to reality TV shows like “The Real Housewives” or even social media apps, it would be no surprise to see many people of varying ages getting an array of cosmetic procedures, including Botox.

Nonetheless, while it is true younger people can and are starting to get preventative Botox, there seems to be a consensus amongst dermatologists that Botox should really only be administered to those who are at risk for developing deeper lines in the future or premature lines have already appeared.

Therefore, one can assume that the average undergraduate student ranging in age from 17 to 23 would likely not need the procedure depending on severity of lines and their dermatologist’s professional opinion.

If someone doesn’t have serious premature lines or wrinkles, the procedure seems unnecessary.

The purpose of cosmetic Botox, preventative Botox and baby Botox is to reduce lines. However, if there are none or very little, not only is it costly, but debatably an uncomfortable way to live with results typically lasting a few months depending on the deepness of the wrinkles.

With the muscle ‘locked in place’ temporarily, the regular needed upkeep procedures end up costing anywhere from $300 to 600. 

Side effects range from swelling, bruising, headache, eye dryness, drooling and more rarer side effects like trouble speaking, difficulty breathing, involuntary bladder, muscle weakness and vision challenges. 

Additionally, excessive amounts over a period of time can have counter effects on the muscles in the long-run.

It just doesn’t scream ‘worth it’ right now. 

This is not to say never get it or to not start young. If someone genuinely wants it and is at least 18, go for it. 

Just remember sometimes jumping on a fad, following a trend or trying to remain youthful doesn’t necessarily have to mean procedural.

Botox can mostly be safe and effective for some and prove beneficial to prevent aging but one should still consult their doctor first before making any serious decisions. 

Katherine Graves is a junior strategic communications major who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Botox should be considered carefully” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

With how fleeting and non-inclusive fashion trends are, people find themselves wanting to wear the newest fashion trends only to be shamed when the outfits don’t look the same on them as the models that wear them. 

The exclusion of plus-size bodies as well as other body types in fashion creates a lack of understanding of how clothes are meant to fit a person and leaves some of the public unsatisfied with their body. 

Instead, people should aim to wear clothes that fit their body types and make them feel confident rather than forcing themselves into clothes that do not match their physique. 

This is not to say that people should avoid fashion trends entirely or that plus-size bodies or other body types can not be fashionable. In fact, this is to broader a person’s understanding of fashion and what it means to wear clothes that make you feel confident. 

The most common body types people tend to learn about are the fruit and object metaphors. Some people are pear-shaped, others are apple-shaped and some strive to be the hourglass shape that plagues popular culture. 

However, this kind of metaphor creates the notion that there is an ‘ideal’ body type that people should strive for, hence, narrowing a person’s closet and lowering their self-esteem. 

Fashion is an objective art which is why there shouldn’t be a right or wrong when declaring something fashionable. 

A system of body types re-emerged in 2022 when the Kibbe body system introduced the idea of fashion through yin and yang: soft features versus hard features.

Rather than focusing on things like weight or measurements, it focuses on how you balance the sharpness and softness of your features which are depicted through five categories. A sharp jaw or the angular lines of your body would be counted as yang while a rounder face and a soft silhouette would be counted as yin. 

Even so, with any system that categorizes people into boxes, there is an issue with the Kibbe system. A question arises frequently within fashion: Is it really fashion or just clothes for skinny people? 

The subjectiveness of the Kibbe system creates tension. Something considered soft on one person might not translate to the other. 

This has to do with the idea that people do not view fat people as soft, delicate or beautiful. Fatphobia is the main reason plus-size individuals face shame and ridicule for wearing clothes that highlight their body shape. 

Fashion is subjective and it makes no sense to paint one body type as superior to the other. If anything, different body types should be admired as it extends the definition of what is fashionable and beautiful.

When it comes to choosing clothes to wear, people should be able to explore what fits their bodies best and find what’s the most comfortable for them without ridicule from others. 

Whether it’s through the Kibbe system or other mediums used to explore fashion and beauty, there is no limit to what a person can and cannot wear. 

Cindy Rivas Alfaro is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Fashion trends should include all body types” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

Police department funds should be reallocated to de-escalation programs and mental health resources as police brutality continues to plague minority groups across the country. 

It is important to note that many Americans today feel that there is a need to increase funding for police departments, according to a Pew Research Center survey.

However, studies have shown that there is no correlation between police funding and the crime rate. Considering this, even if cities and the federal government spend money to fund police departments, it has neither a negative nor a positive impact on the crime rate. 

This is why funding needs to be reallocated rather than increased to more important factors that contribute to police brutality. 

The main contributor to police brutality is the discriminatory power imbalances according to the American Psychological Association which tends to harm Black people at a disproportionate rate.

Several police departments have implemented de-escalation programs, the dispatching of social workers to address matters related to mental health and psychological evaluations for police academies to combat this issue. 

Yet beyond this, nothing is being implemented to ensure long-term change. 

Prospective police officers entering a police academy are required to take an initial psychological evaluation prior to enrollment. But the majority of states, including Texas, do not require additional psychological check-ups on their police officers. 

For a job that is as mentally demanding as being a police officer, it seems state and federal governments, as well as the APA, are not addressing an important aspect of the psychological factor contributing to police brutality which is officers’ mental health. 

Beyond the initial psychological evaluation police officers take prior to entering the police academy, their mental health is never checked on again. 

The political climate that placed a stigma around police, most notably following the death of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020, has placed a heavy mental burden on police. 

The number of retirements and resignations of police officers since 2020 has risen substantially, and hiring has been reduced slightly. Even before 2020, rates of burnout and depression in police officers were going up when compared to the general population. 

Depression, for example, has been found to have a significant correlation with aggressive behavior. 

Placing a heavier emphasis on programs dedicated to officers’ mental health, with continued funding of programs that aid in de-escalating situations involving mental illness are some of the ways that state and federal governments can improve the interaction between police officers and the people they protect. 

JJ Caceres is a political science sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com 

—
“Police funding should be spent differently” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

James Cameron’s “Avatar: The Way of Water” is a gorgeous film but its production and promotions go against the movie’s message of saving the environment and preserving cultures. 

The new Avatar movie has already reached $1.17 billion globally and is predicted to continue bringing in thousands of fans into the box office with its stunning graphics and heart-wrenching story. 

However, as the film continues to get a flurry of praise for its message of the importance of protecting the environment, it also finds itself failing for many environmentalists and Indigenous people. 

While James Cameron is a long-time vegan and climate protecting advocate, some of his production and promotional decisions are getting called out. 

In 2019 Cameron made a message that encouraged people to “wake the f— up” when it comes to the climate crisis. 

Cameron and his wife have long found ways to encourage sustainability, especially in regard to food sources. The pair have been vegan and motivate others to do so as well to decrease carbon emissions. 

This is why so many of Cameron’s supporters were shocked to see the dolphin show for the promotion for the Japan premier of “Avatar: The Way of Water”.  

The act included performers standing on the dolphins’ noses, something considered extremely painful and cruel for the animals. 

To make matters worse, Cameron later claimed that he would like to be in the show and to also ride the dolphin, referring to the experience and show as spectacular.

Another clip can be found with Cameron joking about dolphin captivity, saying “I’m sure everybody asked their permission to be in the show.”

Japan has a long history of dolphin hunting, with many performance spaces often buying the appealing dolphins from hunters and sending the rest to be killed. 

The entire performance has been viewed as hypocritical, as one of the main points of the film revolves around the Tulkun, an animal that resembles that of a whale and dolphin.

In the film, the animals are hunted by the sky-people and killed for the serum within them that provides immortality.

This has caused many viewers to question, then, why Cameron would choose a captive dolphin show for the premier of the film given so much of its meaning. 

The film also faces backlash from Indigenous communities. 

The oceanic Na’vi tribe in the film is based on the Māori, the indigenous Polynesian people in New Zealand. 

However, despite Cameron claiming to base the Na’vi directly on them, he does little to provide accuracy with the facial markings and instead combines traits of other Native American communities.

Many indigenous people say that by combining tribes it promotes the idea that Native people are the same. 

While Cameron claims to have wanted to avoid the white-savior motif that many opposed in the first movie, many say he failed as Jake Sully, the protagonist, is now seen as the leader of the forest Na’vi. 

Other Indigenous people are encouraging people to boycott the film, after finding anti-Indigenous comments made from Cameron in earlier interviews.

Moreover, much of the cast is white, with the movie having zero indigenous actors. 

While some claim it isn’t necessary as everyone is turned into the blue alien race, others claim that the accents that they put on and the mannerisms reflect Natives. 

There is no denying that the new Avatar film is a stunning work of art that provides a call to action to protect the planet; however, there is also no denying that the production and promotions for the film directly promote the narrative the film fights against.

Sarah Elise Shea is a freshman English literature major who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“‘Avatar: The Way of Water’ is contradictory about environmental issues” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

Children born into nepotism, commonly referred to as nepo babies, have taken up the internet by storm as people realize how many of their favorite actors, singers or models have gained fame through their parents.

New York Magazine’s newest cover gained attention as it analyzed how many up and rising celebrities have actually gained success through the parents or family connections.

It’s been common knowledge that it’s ‘who you know rather than what you know’ that makes the world go round. Even if it’s not the case all the time, it’s the case a majority of the time. 

Nepo babies are a unique case. They have the connections at birth – endless possibilities to how their life can end up. Will they follow into their parent’s footsteps or fumble the bag?

Regardless, their bloodline will follow them whether they fail or succeed. Their life is broadcasted to the public for a single post, tweet or selfie. As Nate Jones put it, if they fail at one thing, they have the world’s most comfiest safety pillow to fall back against and then try again.      

“From my experience nepo babies can’t be put into one single category,” said television producer and creative executive Craig Bland who has worked with a handful of nepo babies. “After all, nepo babies are people too.”

“Having worked with a range of famous offspring from the Kardashians to Nicole Richie to Brody Jenner, all I can say is that some are really hard working and others struck me as lazy and entitled,”  Bland said. “But the majority, at least from my experience, were smart enough to work with and build upon what they were given. Are they advantaged? Yes. Are they all the same? No.” 

To be fair, there’s not an issue with needing a helping hand every once in a while but to deny that your connections and upbringing did nothing to contribute to your success is a bit faulty. 

It’s a slap to the face for those that don’t have that safety cusion to fall back on. It also emphasizes the different world that nepo babies live in. 

To criticize nepo babies is a double edged sword. On one hand, their life experiences seem magical, ethereal and absolutely out of reach. Yet, they’re still human. Humans with really rich parents and probably even richer grandparents. 

Sometimes it feels like the criticism of nepo babies stems from jealousy, maybe even resentment for a life only the top 1 percent can have. Or, it’s just a fun way to pass time as celebrities lose that humanity aspect as they stray further and further away from the life of someone in the 99 percentile. 

“I understand they get opportunities a lot of people don’t have but they were brought into a world where they had the talent around them,” said junior English literature major Brandon Moreno. “If they’re talented it can show it but it’s not necessarily a fair thing.” 

Wherever the criticism stems from, it is the very thing that keeps nepo babies relevant besides the fact that they’re children of very famous people. 

Whether you love them or hate them, nepo babies are here to stay. 

Cindy Rivas Alfaro is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com. 

—
“Nepotism babies are the new obsession” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

People should not invest in non-fungible tokens as they harm the environment at an alarming rate just to benefit a small minority. 

Within the investment world, people are always looking for the next big thing to expand their economic portfolios. With NFTs, their distinctive qualities and ability to participate in various markets draw the attention of investors. 

Starting from cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, NFTs are the items you can buy with that cryptocurrency. One of the more common NFTs are pieces of art but almost anything can be turned into an NFT. 

The idea of cryptocurrency is to be able to instantly exchange and receive currency on a worldwide scale without the restraints of currency exchange rates and the time-consuming processes that come with banks. It splits the process among a group rather than a centralized entity like a bank. 

It ultimately changes the way currency flows through the world, but just because it is considered an ‘advancement’ from current times doesn’t mean it is the best way. 

The issue with NFTs is not the item itself but the way they are created and maintained. 

Blockchains are the backbone of cryptocurrency as it’s where NFTs are stored and transferred. However, the energy and resources it takes to create and transfer NFTs on a blockchain are monumentally disastrous to the environment. 

One transaction via a proof-of-work blockchain produces over 1600 pounds of carbon dioxide which is equivalent to 1.7 million Visa transactions or over 120,000 hours of watching YouTube, according to Investopedia. 

This is because a blockchain is focused on creating a unique token that leaves a transparent digital footprint in the world. A block is created and once that block is filled with information, a new one follows it in a chain which is where the name originates from. 

These blockchains are essentially irreversible which makes them difficult to alter or hack. If someone were to attempt to alter the information in a blockchain, people will notice quickly as blockchains have a strictly chronological order to them and are shared on a network. 

Some blockchain developers are aware of the harm that NFTs cause to the environment and have created a different blockchain process called proof-of-stake which allows one transaction to produce less than 1 pound of carbon dioxide which is equivalent to 44 Visa transactions or three hours of watching YouTube. 

However, even if the amount of carbon dioxide released into the environment is lessened, it doesn’t eliminate the effects it has already created on the environment. 

With so many people getting on the NFT train, a majority of them only care about the monetary gain and turn a blind eye to the environmental disasters their actions are contributing to. 

NFTs are considered the future but the irony of that statement is that there might not be a future with the way digital tokens are harming the environment. 

People should do more research to understand the risks of NFTs as they will realize that investing in them will do more harm than good.  

Cindy Rivas Alfaro is a sophomore journalism major who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“NFTs harm the environment, people should not invest” was originally posted on The Cougar

Juana Garcia/The Cougar

The model minority myth only encourages casual racism against Asian Americans and belittles the racism they face in life. 

The controversy around describing Asian Americans as a model minority has existed long before this article, but not many people know why it is a myth and why it is harmful.

In an article by Philip Kasinitz, the sociologist shares that the concept of the “model minority” is based on a 1966 finding by sociologist William Petersen, in which he wrote that the Japanese American way of life allowed them to “overcome the discrimination and achieve a measure of success in the United States.” 

According to Kasinitz, the myth is derived from the fact that, in the current day, the success of a few Asian American groups has caused people to deem all Asian Americans as successful. 

However, assuming the status of an Asian American person to be successful is untrue to some Asian Americans. 

The harm of the myth extends beyond an incorrect assumption of status and continues to plague current society.

In an article from the Berkeley Political Review, Yoojin Shin writes that the Johnson Administration, and a few after, utilized the model minority myth in their favor—subtly attempting to demonstrate that a minority’s lack of success was not systematic, but rather rooted in the mindset of the minority group.

To the Johnson Administration, success can be achieved through more efforts dedicated to education but they failed to recognize the systematic restraints that kept minorities from achieving this goal. 

Moreover, the myth was a plan to put Asian Americans and Black Americans against each other during one of the most pivotal moments of the Civil Rights Movement as the government over-saturated the media with the success of Asian Americans. They wanted to show that success for minorities was possible—some just weren’t trying hard enough.  

All of this gave Asian Americans an “apolitical presence in America” as Shin would put it since what was shown to the public was not the reality Asian Americans faced. 

By believing that all Asian Americans are successful, the discrimination is boiled down to an inconvenience rather than a constant belittlement at their personhood and experiences. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Asian Americans were facing an increase of hate crimes that rarely led to convictions. A majority of times, the community would have to fight to get justice for the crimes carried out against their elders. 

To put it simply, the model minority myth contributes to the ongoing abundant anti-Asian racism by portraying Asians as agreeable, with a lack of presence –especially political– and makes a racist feel like expressing hate toward Asian-Americans is “not as bad” or “controversial” as it may be to other minority groups. 

The model minority myth should be left in the past as it only enables further racism and discrimination against Asian Americans. 

Angela Jardina is an English junior who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Model minority myth is harmful toward Asian Americans” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

Despite users urging Archive of Our Own to build its own app, the idea should never be fulfilled as the app store guidelines would eliminate the foundations the organization was built on.

Archive of Our Own is one of the largest sites that hold over 10 million works of fan fiction from hundreds of fandoms. 

The Organization for Transformative Works, a non-profit organization, created this site to protect fan fiction from legal and cultural backlash as fan fiction has been dismissed for its impact on fandoms and literature. 

The app store has several restrictions that would censor the works featured in AO3 which would ultimately lead to the removal of hundreds if not thousands of works archived on the site. 

Dead dove fan fiction, works that are sensitive or disturbing, are the most at risk. The whole point of an archive is to include material regardless of its content. 

To add on, the development of an app is not as easy or straightforward as people might think. There need to be constant updates that support IOS, Play Store and other app interfaces. 

Since AO3 is supported by volunteer work and donations, it would be extremely difficult and expensive to have a constant flow of developers working on the app when there is a site that is accessible from every platform. 

The organization’s main concern is to provide a platform where people can post, share and create their fan fiction works without input from third parties and capitalist companies. 

A prominent example of a site choosing to profit off of its users is the other popular fan fiction site, Wattpad. 

Wattpad has introduced subscriptions, paid stories and countless ads that hinder the user experience when it used to be free in the past. 

Ads are shown after every other chapter and with the nature of ads, it affects the user’s experience by pushing an agenda or certain kinds of stories to the front page. 

AO3 strives to keep ads from its website because they want full autonomy over its decisions and content. There are no suggested or recommended stories on the front page. If a reader wants to read a story, they have to use the intensive tagging system to look for a particular story. 

AO3’s tagging system allows users to include or exclude certain topics, rank by most recently updated or likes and even filter through completed and uncompleted works. 

With AO3’s interface, the reader has full control of their experience without the intrusion of ads or other third parties. 

Archive of Our Own is uniquely tailored to each individual and an app would only disrupt the autonomy and foundation of the archive. The website works just as well on computer desktops as mobile browsers so there is no reason to build an app. 

Cindy Rivas Alfaro is a sophomore journalism major who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com 

—
“Archive of Our Own should not have its own app” was originally posted on The Cougar

Cindy Rivas Alfaro/The Cougar

As the year comes to an end, people are rushing to buy the best deals for Black Friday and get their Christmas presents in before the large crowds start to form at the malls. 

The holiday season is all about giving for many people but this can become an issue as the givers end up maxing out their credit cards and the receivers end up never using their gifts.

Because of the pandemic, around half of Americans feel like they have to spend more on gifts to make up for the lost time. 

To add on, 56 percent of people are planning to use the increasingly popular “buy now, pay later” plans offered by companies like Affirm to cover the costs of their gifts. 

Gift-giving is a thoughtful way to make the other person feel loved and cared for, however, it shouldn’t become a stressful process. 

People should be mindful of holiday overspending not only to keep them from accumulating unnecessary debt but to make sure that their gifts are not ending up in landfills. 

The pandemic has caused a lot of people to lose touch and many feel like they no longer know the people close to them as much as they would want. Because of this, some gifts might be returned or not even used.  

In 2020, over 6 billion pounds of waste ended up in landfills as people returned gifts that were never able to be resold. 

Retailers face a challenge as well as the price to process and complete returns are only increasing each year. 

All of this is to say that gift-giving needs to be something that is more planned out rather than guessing what the other person would like or need. 

Instead of feeling like you have to buy the most expensive gift for someone, give yourself a budget. This is extremely helpful for those with large families or a big friend group. 

Spending $100 on each family member will only cause you to pull out a credit card when spending $30 could have been enough. 

If you don’t know what to get someone, ask for a wishlist. There are several websites online aimed toward making it easier for you to buy something for someone that you know will not get returned because they explicitly asked for it on their wishlist. 

It might take the element of surprise out of the exchange but it is worth it to prevent any unnecessary returns. 

As for wanting to add a personal touch to gifts when you feel like they’re too generic, a simple handwritten note goes a long way. 

In the end, you want holiday shopping and gift-giving to make both parties — and your wallet — happy while minimizing the damage to the environment. 

Cindy Rivas Alfaro is a sophomore journalism major who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Be mindful of overspending as you shop for the holidays” was originally posted on The Cougar