Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

The results of the 47th presidential election left many Americans, particularly those left-leaning, blindsided. Months later, contention remains, sparking heated conversations online.

These conversations have taken an unfortunate turn at points, with some liberal users proposing various forms of voter suppression, not even realizing they’re suggesting fascist ideas. This is part of a larger issue among leftists, with division growing among them by the day.

The growing divide between political parties within recent years has kept tensions high as radicalism has grown among both sides of the spectrum. It’s nearly impossible to scroll social media without encountering a heated debate, whether it sparks meaningful conversations or not.

Within these debates, some have suggested that only those with a college education be allowed to vote.

Though sometimes said as a joke, this idea comes from studies showing that Republican voters are less likely to have a college degree than their Democratic counterparts.

According to the Pew Research Center, those with a bachelor’s degree or more are 13% more likely to lean Democratic as of 2023. This disparity grows when considering postgraduate degrees.

Naturally, this has sparked hostility between parties, as many disparities do. Thus, social media users began to suggest that only those with formal education should be allowed to vote, or that their votes are more valuable.

The unfortunate reality of this idea is that it fails to acknowledge more than the general public. High education is entirely inaccessible to many, and barring the uneducated from voting would end up hurting minorities and working-class people.

While exact percentages vary by study, the racial makeup of college students in the U.S. is largely white. And sure, there has been an increase in enrollment by students of color over the years, but that doesn’t change the fact that as of now, the amount of white students is larger in comparison to any other race.

If only the college-educated were permitted to vote, people of color would ultimately be stuck with the short end of the stick. The same applies to lower-income households that simply can’t afford college.

Sure, these frustrations being put out into the masses may not be serious. One can say they’re tired of the dissenting party and wish to discard their votes without truly meaning it.

However, when leftist ideas are already so often disregarded as unreasonable and naive, it seems counterproductive to make such insensitive “jokes” when they’re bordering on fascism.

It’s also important to keep in mind that while leftists on X are dunking on conservatives for being uneducated, those same conservatives are actively trying to dismantle the Department of Education.

Given this, it’s no wonder sometimes that progressive ideas aren’t taken seriously. While we laugh over photoshopped images of J.D. Vance and shame Elon Musk for his poor attempts at making himself sound like a gamer, the current Republican majority is getting rid of valued education.

The reality is this: Donald Trump is currently in office, signing executive orders left and right that are much more impactful than a post online. DEI programs and the “woke left” are under fire and will continue to be until any sort of tangible change is made.

Considering this, is it really worth it to make a mockery of these pressing issues by simply laughing at conservatives online?

There is no perfect answer to political discussions, nor is there a straightforward course of action to combat conservative anti-intellectualism. It’s impossible to appeal to everyone, especially for leftists as they attempt to break into the media sphere.

However, it is clear that the left needs to find its footing, and not in fascist ideas. No matter how many digs one makes at Donald Trump, real change will not come from tongue-in-cheek posts and ignorant comments.

Parker H-B is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Leftists are playing a losing game” was originally posted on The Cougar

Lily Huynh/The Cougar

On Feb. 13, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was sworn in as the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, despite massive outcry from both sides of the political aisle.

As plenty of President Donald Trump’s choices since the beginning of his second term have, Kennedy’s appointment for this position spells danger for the future of public health.

Even before his nomination, Kennedy had a history of spreading egregious medical misinformation. This includes claims that COVID-19 targets certain races, sparing Jewish and Chinese people, blasting fluoridated water and processed food and a myriad of either misleading or false statements about vaccines.

One of these was brought to question during his Senate confirmation hearing when Sen. Alsobrooks reminded Kennedy of his comments regarding vaccines and race. Kennedy had claimed that Black people should be on different vaccine schedules, citing a study by Greg Poland in 2014.

Not only did this cause an argument with Sen. Alsobrooks, but also brought pushback from medical experts. One expert is Andrea Love, an immunologist who has fought against much of Kennedy’s rhetoric.

“This claim was based on a false manipulation of a study conducted by Greg Poland at Mayo in 2014,” Love said. “Even Dr. Poland has stated RFK Jr’s claims distort his study and have no science to support them.”

Further, Kennedy’s past statements on vaccines causing autism were brought forth, though this claim is something that has been scientifically disproved time and time again.

This rhetoric calling vaccine safety to question is not a simple game of devil’s advocate. In reality, someone of such high standing making these misinformed claims will only serve to erode trust in vaccines and sow anxiety regarding medical research.

Over time, this means that more parents may refuse to vaccinate their children altogether, resulting in more of the sorts of outbreaks we’ve seen within recent months. Despite vaccines having basically eliminated preventable diseases such as measles and polio, the threat of global outbreak worsens with every lie Kennedy perpetuates.

It’s important to keep in mind that Kennedy’s bizarre claims aren’t just out of a supposed concern for public health. Kennedy actually profits from his fear-mongering, though he lied about earning anything as the chairman of the Children’s Health Defense.

This sort of disingenuous attitude, consistently ignoring scientific studies and delegitimizing medical practices, is going to harm millions in time. Kennedy is not a medical professional, and questioning where his rhetoric is coming from is more than necessary.

“These claims—and RFK Jr. on the whole—are a current and future threat to health of Americans and the planet,” said Love. “I would say RFK Jr. is the most unqualified individual for the role of HHS secretary.”

Kennedy’s appointment as HHS secretary was a mistake. His priorities clearly lie with profit, he has no medical training and his history is a mess of misinformation and conflicting statements.

Public health is no joke, and one can only hope that Kennedy’s legitimacy is questioned at every step.

Parker H-B is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“RFK Jr. should never have been confirmed as HHS secretary” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

On Jan. 30, an Army Black Hawk helicopter collided with a passenger jet in the airspace of Washington, D.C., resulting in the deaths of over 60 people. Since the crash, which has been followed by several others, President Donald Trump has placed blame on diversity initiatives by his predecessors.

It goes without saying that these tragedies are much more nuanced than this outrageous claim. Further, it’s extremely dangerous for someone in office, let alone the President, to hold such sentiments.

In the news conference following the collision, Trump claimed, “I put safety first, Obama, Biden and the Democrats put policy first.” This was in reference to DEI programs instated by the previous presidents.

When pressed on if the crash was a result of diversity hiring, Trump said, “It could have been,” and that where his administration seeks to hire those with high intellect, “Biden went by a standard that seeks the exact opposite.”

This, to put it simply, is absurd. During this conference, the President made several false or misleading claims concerning diversity initiatives, including that people with severe psychological and intellectual disabilities can become air traffic controllers.

These statements singling out disabled workers did nothing but stigmatize people who are more than capable of going through the same training as their non-disabled counterparts. The program he was referring to in listing targeted disabilities was established during his own first term and served to prepare disabled people for careers in air traffic control.

Per the Federal Aviation Administration’s own website, the candidates of this program were to be upheld to the same standards as any other applicants. This includes aptitude tests and medical reviews that every controller must go through, proving that if they are to be hired, they meet the rigorous standards needed for the job.

Trump also stated that some within the FAA determined the workforce was “too white,” which has since been fact-checked and found false. No such statement was ever publicly made.

Despite this, President Trump is free to make these outrageous claims with no consequences, vilifying disabled and other marginalized people as if they’re incapable of qualifying for their chosen careers. This, of course, has led to his own supporters becoming more comfortable with repeating these ideas despite there being no evidence to support them.

Even if cutting diversity initiatives wasn’t a problem in itself, this consistent belittling of minorities feeds into the hatred that many of Trump’s supporters have expressed. This has been an issue since his first term, and it’s not entirely unfounded to say that the spike in hate crimes following it were linked to his supporters growing bold from his own claims.

Trump’s attitude towards a more diverse workforce and minorities as a whole has catered to extreme racist ideologies since day one. To put it simply, it’s fear-mongering. In fueling white grievances that people of color and other marginalized people are “stealing” from the white populace of America, these exact minorities have become more unsafe and at risk of being discriminated against.

DEI did not cause the plane collision early this year. Nor did it cause any of the others since then, and it’s unbecoming of someone of Trump’s status to so outwardly imply this.

If anything, Trump’s own orders had a hand in these tragedies, as he fired members of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee about a week before the crash on Jan. 29. This committee was charged with finding safety issues among airlines.

And yet, disabled people and democratic administrations are supposedly at fault.

These attacks on DEI have created a looming shadow over every career path, and if the past two months are anything to go by, marginalized people will continue to see the same blame cast upon them.

As the president, Donald Trump has a responsibility to hold himself in a manner befitting of his station. Singling out minorities for supposedly causing disasters helps no one, and will only plunge America deeper into division while hurting those targeted.

Parker H-B is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Trump’s attacks on DEI are dangerous, misleading” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

On Jan. 30, an Army Black Hawk helicopter collided with a passenger jet in the airspace of Washington, D.C., resulting in the deaths of over 60 people. Since the crash, which has been followed by several others, President Donald Trump has placed blame on diversity initiatives by his predecessors.

It goes without saying that these tragedies are much more nuanced than this outrageous claim. Further, it’s extremely dangerous for someone in office, let alone the President, to hold such sentiments.

In the news conference following the collision, Trump claimed, “I put safety first, Obama, Biden and the Democrats put policy first.” This was in reference to DEI programs instated by the previous presidents.

When pressed on if the crash was a result of diversity hiring, Trump said, “It could have been,” and that where his administration seeks to hire those with high intellect, “Biden went by a standard that seeks the exact opposite.”

This, to put it simply, is absurd. During this conference, the President made several false or misleading claims concerning diversity initiatives, including that people with severe psychological and intellectual disabilities can become air traffic controllers.

These statements singling out disabled workers did nothing but stigmatize people who are more than capable of going through the same training as their non-disabled counterparts. The program he was referring to in listing targeted disabilities was established during his own first term and served to prepare disabled people for careers in air traffic control.

Per the Federal Aviation Administration’s own website, the candidates of this program were to be upheld to the same standards as any other applicants. This includes aptitude tests and medical reviews that every controller must go through, proving that if they are to be hired, they meet the rigorous standards needed for the job.

Trump also stated that some within the FAA determined the workforce was “too white,” which has since been fact-checked and found false. No such statement was ever publicly made.

Despite this, President Trump is free to make these outrageous claims with no consequences, vilifying disabled and other marginalized people as if they’re incapable of qualifying for their chosen careers. This, of course, has led to his own supporters becoming more comfortable with repeating these ideas despite there being no evidence to support them.

Even if cutting diversity initiatives wasn’t a problem in itself, this consistent belittling of minorities feeds into the hatred that many of Trump’s supporters have expressed. This has been an issue since his first term, and it’s not entirely unfounded to say that the spike in hate crimes following it were linked to his supporters growing bold from his own claims.

Trump’s attitude towards a more diverse workforce and minorities as a whole has catered to extreme racist ideologies since day one. To put it simply, it’s fear-mongering. In fueling white grievances that people of color and other marginalized people are “stealing” from the white populace of America, these exact minorities have become more unsafe and at risk of being discriminated against.

DEI did not cause the plane collision early this year. Nor did it cause any of the others since then, and it’s unbecoming of someone of Trump’s status to so outwardly imply this.

If anything, Trump’s own orders had a hand in these tragedies, as he fired members of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee about a week before the crash on Jan. 29. This committee was charged with finding safety issues among airlines.

And yet, disabled people and democratic administrations are supposedly at fault.

These attacks on DEI have created a looming shadow over every career path, and if the past two months are anything to go by, marginalized people will continue to see the same blame cast upon them.

As the president, Donald Trump has a responsibility to hold himself in a manner befitting of his station. Singling out minorities for supposedly causing disasters helps no one, and will only plunge America deeper into division while hurting those targeted.

Parker H-B is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Trump’s attacks on DEI are dangerous, misleading” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

On Jan. 30, an Army Black Hawk helicopter collided with a passenger jet in the airspace of Washington, D.C., resulting in the deaths of over 60 people. Since the crash, which has been followed by several others, President Donald Trump has placed blame on diversity initiatives by his predecessors.

It goes without saying that these tragedies are much more nuanced than this outrageous claim. Further, it’s extremely dangerous for someone in office, let alone the President, to hold such sentiments.

In the news conference following the collision, Trump claimed, “I put safety first, Obama, Biden and the Democrats put policy first.” This was in reference to DEI programs instated by the previous presidents.

When pressed on if the crash was a result of diversity hiring, Trump said, “It could have been,” and that where his administration seeks to hire those with high intellect, “Biden went by a standard that seeks the exact opposite.”

This, to put it simply, is absurd. During this conference, the President made several false or misleading claims concerning diversity initiatives, including that people with severe psychological and intellectual disabilities can become air traffic controllers.

These statements singling out disabled workers did nothing but stigmatize people who are more than capable of going through the same training as their non-disabled counterparts. The program he was referring to in listing targeted disabilities was established during his own first term and served to prepare disabled people for careers in air traffic control.

Per the Federal Aviation Administration’s own website, the candidates of this program were to be upheld to the same standards as any other applicants. This includes aptitude tests and medical reviews that every controller must go through, proving that if they are to be hired, they meet the rigorous standards needed for the job.

Trump also stated that some within the FAA determined the workforce was “too white,” which has since been fact-checked and found false. No such statement was ever publicly made.

Despite this, President Trump is free to make these outrageous claims with no consequences, vilifying disabled and other marginalized people as if they’re incapable of qualifying for their chosen careers. This, of course, has led to his own supporters becoming more comfortable with repeating these ideas despite there being no evidence to support them.

Even if cutting diversity initiatives wasn’t a problem in itself, this consistent belittling of minorities feeds into the hatred that many of Trump’s supporters have expressed. This has been an issue since his first term, and it’s not entirely unfounded to say that the spike in hate crimes following it were linked to his supporters growing bold from his own claims.

Trump’s attitude towards a more diverse workforce and minorities as a whole has catered to extreme racist ideologies since day one. To put it simply, it’s fear-mongering. In fueling white grievances that people of color and other marginalized people are “stealing” from the white populace of America, these exact minorities have become more unsafe and at risk of being discriminated against.

DEI did not cause the plane collision early this year. Nor did it cause any of the others since then, and it’s unbecoming of someone of Trump’s status to so outwardly imply this.

If anything, Trump’s own orders had a hand in these tragedies, as he fired members of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee about a week before the crash on Jan. 29. This committee was charged with finding safety issues among airlines.

And yet, disabled people and democratic administrations are supposedly at fault.

These attacks on DEI have created a looming shadow over every career path, and if the past two months are anything to go by, marginalized people will continue to see the same blame cast upon them.

As the president, Donald Trump has a responsibility to hold himself in a manner befitting of his station. Singling out minorities for supposedly causing disasters helps no one, and will only plunge America deeper into division while hurting those targeted.

Parker H-B is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Trump’s attacks on DEI are dangerous, misleading” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

On Jan. 30, an Army Black Hawk helicopter collided with a passenger jet in the airspace of Washington, D.C., resulting in the deaths of over 60 people. Since the crash, which has been followed by several others, President Donald Trump has placed blame on diversity initiatives by his predecessors.

It goes without saying that these tragedies are much more nuanced than this outrageous claim. Further, it’s extremely dangerous for someone in office, let alone the President, to hold such sentiments.

In the news conference following the collision, Trump claimed, “I put safety first, Obama, Biden and the Democrats put policy first.” This was in reference to DEI programs instated by the previous presidents.

When pressed on if the crash was a result of diversity hiring, Trump said, “It could have been,” and that where his administration seeks to hire those with high intellect, “Biden went by a standard that seeks the exact opposite.”

This, to put it simply, is absurd. During this conference, the President made several false or misleading claims concerning diversity initiatives, including that people with severe psychological and intellectual disabilities can become air traffic controllers.

These statements singling out disabled workers did nothing but stigmatize people who are more than capable of going through the same training as their non-disabled counterparts. The program he was referring to in listing targeted disabilities was established during his own first term and served to prepare disabled people for careers in air traffic control.

Per the Federal Aviation Administration’s own website, the candidates of this program were to be upheld to the same standards as any other applicants. This includes aptitude tests and medical reviews that every controller must go through, proving that if they are to be hired, they meet the rigorous standards needed for the job.

Trump also stated that some within the FAA determined the workforce was “too white,” which has since been fact-checked and found false. No such statement was ever publicly made.

Despite this, President Trump is free to make these outrageous claims with no consequences, vilifying disabled and other marginalized people as if they’re incapable of qualifying for their chosen careers. This, of course, has led to his own supporters becoming more comfortable with repeating these ideas despite there being no evidence to support them.

Even if cutting diversity initiatives wasn’t a problem in itself, this consistent belittling of minorities feeds into the hatred that many of Trump’s supporters have expressed. This has been an issue since his first term, and it’s not entirely unfounded to say that the spike in hate crimes following it were linked to his supporters growing bold from his own claims.

Trump’s attitude towards a more diverse workforce and minorities as a whole has catered to extreme racist ideologies since day one. To put it simply, it’s fear-mongering. In fueling white grievances that people of color and other marginalized people are “stealing” from the white populace of America, these exact minorities have become more unsafe and at risk of being discriminated against.

DEI did not cause the plane collision early this year. Nor did it cause any of the others since then, and it’s unbecoming of someone of Trump’s status to so outwardly imply this.

If anything, Trump’s own orders had a hand in these tragedies, as he fired members of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee about a week before the crash on Jan. 29. This committee was charged with finding safety issues among airlines.

And yet, disabled people and democratic administrations are supposedly at fault.

These attacks on DEI have created a looming shadow over every career path, and if the past two months are anything to go by, marginalized people will continue to see the same blame cast upon them.

As the president, Donald Trump has a responsibility to hold himself in a manner befitting of his station. Singling out minorities for supposedly causing disasters helps no one, and will only plunge America deeper into division while hurting those targeted.

Parker H-B is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Trump’s attacks on DEI are dangerous, misleading” was originally posted on The Cougar

Lily Huynh/The Cougar

Since taking office, the Trump administration has made a point of cutting down government spending. From Medicaid to national parks, it seems few organizations are safe from the chopping block.

One of these recent cuts lies with the National Institutes of Health, which announced on Feb. 7 that research grants would be restricted to a mere 15% in indirect funding. This, to put it simply, would be catastrophic for research institutes, and poses a major threat to higher education.

When the NIH issues a federal grant for a project, a certain amount is added on top of the initial grant to cover indirect costs. These costs cover things like equipment, infrastructure and personnel, which would otherwise need to be covered by the research institution.

To put it simply, research can’t be done if there’s no money allocated to keeping the lights on in a lab, or paying workers to maintain the spaces being used. And if the government isn’t paying for it, the affected institutions now lacking funds will have to fill in the gaps.

When it comes to university research, indirect funds can be very costly. Prominent schools such as Harvard and Yale have had indirect rates over 60%, and UH’s current negotiated rates lie at 57%. These funds are integral to their respective institutions.

Knowing this, it’s clear that these sudden slashes in funding will be a major issue for universities, no matter how much Trump’s administration has dismissed the costs. Higher education is not simply a path to a degree, but also a host to innovation and growth that benefits the American people as a whole.

University research programs not only provide students, both graduate and undergraduate, with learning opportunities, but also contribute to important scientific discoveries. Vaccine research is a great example of this, as many vaccine breakthroughs have been made by university researchers funded by the NIH.

These programs are integral in developing our future scientists. If not for educational institutions undertaking the research projects they do, we would not have many of the scientific and technological advancements we do today. In addition, many students would not receive the proper experience needed for their careers.

In 2023, $9 billion of NIH funds went into indirect costs of research grants, out of a $35 billion total. With the proposed 15% cap upheld, this amount would be reduced by about $4 billion.

If these budget cuts are not corrected, universities will be forced to either shut down research programs or raise tuition to meet financial needs. If not completely halted, institutions would need to offer fewer research positions to students. This would especially affect less wealthy schools with smaller endowment funds.

For now, the future of research institutions is foggy. With lawsuits being filed by many universities and other organizations, it remains unclear if the drastic budget cuts will wind up going through. For the sake of our country’s researchers, one can only hope not.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“The NIH funding cuts will be catastrophic for universities” was originally posted on The Cougar

Lily Huynh/The Cougar

It’s that time of the year again when couples gear up for grand gestures, cute dates, and the seasonal section of every store turns bright pink and red.

While Valentine’s Day is a cute occasion, it also creates a financial incentive for companies to exploit, and consumers shouldn’t fall for it.

Romantic relationships are a very important part of life, and Valentine’s Day provides a good excuse to do something nice for a partner. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, but it’s worth reflecting on the corporate greed surrounding the holiday.

This year, according to the National Retail Federation, Americans are projected to spend a whopping $27.5 billion on Valentine’s festivities. The majority of this money will go towards things like jewelry, flowers and candy.

While these common romantic gestures are a sweet sentiment, sellers often raise their prices on these items to justify stocking special Valentine’s-themed products. This trend has grown since the COVID-19 epidemic, with supply chain disruptions driving costs up every year since.

Compounding the issue is a mass societal pressure among couples to give gifts. Due to this, it’s common to neglect the price tag on an item just for the sake of getting something at all, especially if one waits until the last minute.

Of course, this isn’t to say couples shouldn’t indulge in Valentine’s Day. Small gestures and gifts are a great way to remind someone that they’re cared for, and a night out or a sweet letter can mean just as much as an expensive present.

The real issue lies in the holiday’s commercialization. Beyond the problem of marked-up expenses, companies capitalizing on the holiday creates inauthentic, short-lived gestures that tend to lack meaning.

When given the choice between something like an evening out or a home-cooked meal and a cheap, pink colored box of chocolates, most will choose the option that takes less effort and time.

Again, this isn’t necessarily the buyer’s fault, but it is something that companies feed off of in order to take advantage of the average consumer. Thus, the fees customers are paying for those heart-shaped boxes and bouquets of roses will only continue to rise.

All of this begs the question: What should consumers do to enjoy Valentine’s Day without being preyed upon by corporations?

For starters, reevaluate what romantic gestures should look like. Forgetting until the last minute and grabbing something small on the way home is one thing, but it pays to put time into planning something that would really make a partner happy.

There are a variety of date spots throughout Houston and on campus that couples can spend time at, and even a simple night at home can be very meaningful.

Expressing love for one’s partner comes in many forms, and it’s the thought that counts more than the money put into a gift. A little effort goes a long way, and instead of buying into corporate greed, take a chance this year to find something different.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Valentine’s Day is a scam” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

In 2020, the world found itself shut inside in fear of the Covid-19 epidemic. Boredom running rampant, many of us resorted to our screens, finding refuge in any piece of media we could get our hands on.

One of the most acclaimed shows of this time was Netflix’s “Squid Game“, a gory Korean survival drama that quickly rose to the top of the platform’s rankings.

While season one has been lauded as a masterful creation in just about every aspect, some viewers found themselves disappointed by season two, and with good reason. The 2024 installation of the series fell short in several ways, to the discontent of fans.

To give some background on the first season, it follows the story of Seong Gi-Hun, a divorced father with a gambling problem that has led him to financial ruin. One day he’s approached by a man who offers him a way out of his troubles.

Unfortunately, this is more than Gi-Hun bargained for, and he’s thrust into a battle where players are made to fight through games in order to survive and win a large cash prize. Orchestrated by masked guards and wealthy spectators, the games are gruesome, and the show leaves nothing to the imagination with its consistent bloodshed.

The season was a thrilling political commentary, fit with just the right amount of side stories that made its characters feel truly human, begging the question of whether anyone could truly be labeled “good” or “bad.” It was beloved for its compelling character arcs and riveting narrative that kept viewers emotional and on their toes up until the end.

At the tail end of 2024, season two finally released, picking up right where the first left off. Gi-Hun has survived the games, and as he’s about to move on with his life again, he finds himself caught up in the same sinister plot.

This time, though, he has no intentions of winning. This season’s narrative takes a turn as Gi-Hun hatches a plan to capture the orchestrator of the games. Now, he’s forced to live through a similar nightmare as he does everything he can to get everyone out alive and end the games for good.

A simple, intriguing plot that lends itself space to pull the audience in.

Unfortunately, that space was not utilized as it could’ve been.

Where the previous season achieved endearing character plots that got perfect amounts of screen time, the 2024 installment lacked what made the beginning of the series: Ambiguity.

What season two lacks is the comprehensive characters it began with. There is a clear divide between personalities viewers are meant to sympathize with, and ones they’re meant to hate, completely discarding any humanity certain players could have had. We hardly see anything about what the players are going through this time around, being told smaller snippets of their struggles as our focus remains on Gi-Hun.

The basic premise of the series is a reminder that capital ruins people, making the poor use each other as stepping stones while the rich divide them and treat it as entertainment. Many characters could hardly hold full blame for their actions. They were people who were beat down and disadvantaged, desperate to the point of putting their lives on the line just for a chance at bringing themselves back from the brink.

The real enemy was the people who had taken advantage of their hardships, and this was an incredibly powerful message.

This brings forth another issue with the season, which is its lack of comprehensive concepts. Of course, there’s still the blatant divide between the rich and poor, but the new episodes tend to give more focus to their action and sadistic violence than integral commentary.

Truly, it is difficult to compare the two seasons, as the beginning of the series was something no one expected a perfect follow-up to. However, it can certainly be said that the second edition was not what it could’ve been, and audiences can only hope that the third will find its footing and restore the show to its former glory.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“‘Squid Game’ season two missed the mark” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

As a new year begins, so does the president Donald Trump’s second term. It’s no secret that many Americans, as well as many worldwide, are discontent with his victory, but there are plenty of issues aside from Trump himself.

It’s no secret that Elon Musk has found a place within Trump’s inner circle, but he isn’t the only one. This new administration’s net worth is reportedly around $460 billion, and would still number in the billions even without Musk.

While some may not consider this an issue, others have protested this administration as being far too wealthy to represent the vast majority of our population. Even if one is a fan of Trump, it’s hard to deny that a cabinet that wealthy is bound to be out of touch when it comes to the average working person.

Of course, had the president’s campaign not been so focused on economic improvement, this wouldn’t be as much of a concern. But, considering the constant conversation surrounding grocery prices, it makes sense to be concerned that someone making $54 million a day is now making governmental decisions.

Trump’s campaign promised many things, but the economy is what’s largely on American minds right now, with inflation bringing up costs of living so much that many are worried for their lives.

A large problem with the rich becoming so involved in politics is just how far removed they are from the average American. Wealthy representatives cannot fathom the lives of constituents when they’re making millions of dollars where the average person is making pocket change in comparison.

This is compounded with the fact that other countries are just as troubled by the new administration, with several European leaders making statements slighting Musk and tariff threats beginning between the US and other nations.

Whether constituents view Musk and other cabinet members as likeable or not, one thing is certain: the rich do not share the same concerns as the average person.

Studies have shown very clear policy differences between the wealthy and the general public, from economics, to healthcare and even education. It’s not outlandish to point out that the rich care more about keeping themselves on top than contributing to society, and it’s more than reasonable to reject such an enormous amount of money being what represents our population.

Americans are hurting in many ways right now. Minorities are frightened for their rights, families are being torn apart by mass deportation efforts and our economy is, to put it lightly, less than favorable.

Our government being run by an oligarchy of exorbitantly rich people with no intentions of caring for the general population will not bring the price of eggs down, no matter what Trump promised during debates and rallies. One can only hope the next four years will prove otherwise, but it’s safe to say this administration isn’t very promising for our economy.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“The American people should not be represented by billionaires” was originally posted on The Cougar