It is that time again — we are in a finals state of mind, and in some ways, spring finals are worse than winter finals, what with the siren song of hot beaches, theme parks and water parks tempting us away from our studies. The warm weather invites laziness.

Biology sophomore Ammaar Azeem is hard at work studying in the M.D. Anderson Memorial Library. Pro tip: when studying, try to stay organized, keeping papers and handouts in order for easy access. /Mahnoor Samana/The Daily Cougar

I can practically hear your exasperated groans, wishing that first week of May was done with already. Well I’ve been in college a while, and I have a few tips and tricks you can use to stay focussed through the end of finals.

First, study in segments — do not study in long blocks of time. This is especially true if you prefer to cram, like I do. Cramming does not work for everyone, and the long, eight- to 12-hour cram sessions can be intense if you are not used to it. Pace yourselves. It is very difficult to study for long periods of time without losing focus, and even during my long cram sessions, I schedule a 30-minute break every few hours, just so I can make it through the night.

Divide the time during the last week before finals into blocks for each class, with a longer block the night before your exam so you can get one or two glances of everything, just to refresh your memory. If you are taking a heavy class load, it may be more beneficial to match your studying schedule with your exam schedule — study for your last exams first, then your first exams later so the information is fresh, and then after those first exams, go back and study harder.

Also, get organized — before you start to study, come up with a plan of attack. Every class is different, and the emphasis on what and how you should study can differ between them. Plan ahead to save yourself some time and hone your focus.

Finally, it is best to eat light and keep hydrated. It is a good idea to eat before you study; having some food in your belly can help relax you, but overeating will to make you drowsy. Just eat a sandwich and a small bag of chips. Grab a big bottle of water before you get started. Avoid the temptation to grab energy drinks. They just dehydrate you and tempt you to stop what you’re doing to get another drink. Just sip some water to give your brain a breather and keep hydrated.

If you like these tips and want more tips and tricks on studying or on anything else, send me an email at the address below. I would be happy to take my best stab at anything you can throw at me. In the meantime, good luck on the rest of the year and finals.

Aaron Manuel is a print journalism senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

She was controversial and ground-breaking. She delivered the free market to England and at the same time unemployed millions. She partnered with Ronald Reagan to help end the Cold War and befriended the murderous former Chilean dictator, the late Augusto Pinochet. Margaret Thatcher left little middle ground for anyone to cling to and never looked back.

Margaret Thatcher insecting Bermudian troops in 1990 during the waning days of her premiership. The “Iron Lady,” U.K. Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990, broke ground as the first woman British prime minister, privatized much of the British economy and helped end the Cold War. | Wikimedia Commons

A week ago, former United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died at the age of 87, and in her wake, discussions of her legacy still continue from her conservative politics to the snubbing of the Argentine president from her funeral 30 years after the end of the Falklands War. Thatcher was a tough woman who backed down from no one and was a woman of action in the face of a patriarchal political society in Britain.

“In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman,” Thatcher said.

Amen, sister. 

Thatcher has left a considerable legacy and paved the way for the female politicians of the 21st century, and this “Iron Lady” was no wallflower; she was revered and repulsed by millions. However, it was her enemies that made her relevant; she stood for her beliefs in the face of extreme adversity, and that took extraordinary courage.

She was the former leader of Britain’s Conservative Party and was elected the first female prime minister in 1979, serving three consecutive terms until her resignation from party leadership in November 1990. She was a staunch conservative who supported the reduction of welfare programs, the diminishment of trade union power and privatization. Even during her deepening unpopularity, Thatcher never wavered in her beliefs, as she said in a May 1989 interview for Press Association that compromising your beliefs accomplishes nothing.

“You know, if you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything, wouldn’t you, at any time? And you would achieve nothing!”

Proof of Thatcher’s significance comes from the continuation of her policies in England long after she left office. David Frum of The Daily Beast said despite the that former Prime Minister Tony Blair was of the Labour Party, which the Conservative Party removed from power decades earlier, he still maintained many of Thatcher’s policies.

“(T)he great politicians leave a legacy that is accepted even by their opponents. Blair accepted Thatcher’s changes to Britain’s labor laws. He accepted the end of price controls. He accepted the privatization of industry. He accepted that government spending could not rise indefinitely. He accepted the role of the entrepreneur in the modern economy,” Frum said.

Aside from shattering the glass ceiling of political power, Thatcher’s social beliefs destroyed the stereotypical outlook toward conservative policies. Thatcher was one of the few conservatives to vote for the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1960.

“She was a pioneer for previously excluded minorities — and for women, no minority at all,” Frum said.

In the U.S., remembrances of the Iron Lady’s courage and firmness may be the push this country needs in forming a future in which the idea of a female president is viable. Painting sophomore Audrye Williams said Thatcher’s success is proof that women can be leaders.

“I would vote for a female president if she shared my beliefs, not just because she is a woman like me,” Williams said. “If she could do it, there’s no reason it couldn’t be done here.”

Contrarily, despite the abundance of women in American politics, women are often dismissed as too weak or fragile to be the leader of the free world. Even Hillary Clinton’s close run against President Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries was often suggested as being due in large part to the popularity of her husband and the idea of getting a two-for-one deal in electing her. MSNBC left-wing news personality Chris Matthews demeaned her success as a politician by claiming her appeal comes from the public’s pity toward her.

“I think the Hillary appeal has always been somewhat about her mix of toughness and sympathy for her,” Matthews said. “Let’s not forget, and I’ll be brutal, the reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around. That’s how she got to be a senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win it on her merit; she won because everybody felt, ‘My God, this woman stood up under humiliation, right? That’s what happened! That’s how it happened.’”

A female president will only be possible when public perception of women ceases to be that of instability and feebleness. Victory must wait until we are no longer considered the inferior sex, something Thatcher helped to change, but not completely abolished.

It is impossible to tell whether we will ever have a female leader like Thatcher; however, if she could do it in England, there is hope that a strong woman in her likeness can one day do it in America.

Sarah Backer is a business sophomore and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

As casino and racetrack supporters made their case Wednesday, the odds of bringing casinos in Texas seemed to lengthen as state Republicans reaffirmed their moral objections and even some Democrats seemed to waver on a proposal many of them support. Still, despite the odds in their favor, casino proponents are eager to turn the issue to a proposed constitutional amendment for the people to vote on.

David Delgado/The Daily Cougar

For that to happen, the proposal must survive two-thirds votes in both the House and Senate. Frankly, state lawmakers should just let the chips fall where they may and let the people vote, and there is considerable pro-gambling support.

A recent Bizjournals.com poll found that 83 percent of Texans would support casino gambling if it would help close the budget gap. An Oct. 9, 2010 WFAA.com poll found 54 percent of Texans support casinos in Texas and 58 percent favor slot machines and video lottery terminals at racetracks. A 2011 survey by Baselice and Associates found that 59 percent of Republican voters, whose representatives are staunch opponents of gambling in general, support allowing the construction of 12 gaming resorts, installation of casino gaming at existing racetracks and on three Indian reservations, while 83 percent believe the people should vote on the measure either way.

If the ideological opposition is warm to the possibilities of casino gambling and more than four in five Republican voters want to see the measure brought to a vote, our representatives have no business blocking something the people want and they recognize the benefits.

Julio Rodriguez of cardplayer.com said states that collect revenue from casino and lottery taxes can bring in up to billions of dollars in revenue. New York collects $3.64 billion in total casino and lottery revenues, and Pennsylvania brings in $1.46 billion in casino revenues alone.

The state would tax gambling revenue at 15 to 20 percent and would mostly use the revenue to reduce property taxes. The city and the county would get the other 15 percent.

Child psychology junior Nicole Napier said introducing casino gambling to Texas would be a big boost to tourism and the economy.

“I think that it could be a great economic boost and tourist attraction,” Napier said. “People are going to gamble regardless. Why not have them come here?”

Tourism is a big part of the state and local economies. According to TripAdvisor.com, three Texas cities — San Antonio, Houston and Austin — were named in its Travelers’ Choice Top 25 Destinations in the United States; however, none are in the top 10, and about half of those cities have casino gambling in or near their vicinity. The ability to visit gambling halls in the cities would improve the tourism profile of our city and increase tourist revenues through the existing hotel taxes along with new local taxes on gambling and slot machines. If Texans don’t gamble here, they will go elsewhere, and if they don’t go elsewhere, they will do it here illegally.

According to the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, illegal gambling establishments are rampant in Harris County. From 2003 to 2007, Harris County made 219 gambling arrests and confiscated 2,771 illegal gambling machines.

The games are hard to shut down because of the word-of-mouth advertising and security measures owners take. Spinoff criminal activity often occurs because the people who handle the large amounts of cash are easier targets for criminals, mostly being elderly or women. These illegal establishments are bad for Texas and add an undesirable criminal element but are growing and may continue to grow if Texas residents don’t have any options.

Yes, there is an added crime element with legal casino gambling, but that is something the law can police and control. If video slot and poker machines are allowed to operate out in the open, the gambling black market would eventually dissipate.

No one is saying that only positives could come out of casino gambling, but most Texas voters want it and politicians on both sides of the aisle support it, so there is no reason why our politicians shouldn’t roll the dice and go to a popular vote. If it becomes law, it could be a jackpot for Texas in more ways than one.

Jacob Patterson is a management information systems senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Next time you see someone sporting a shirt or anything with the visage of Marxist freedom fighter, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, stop and ask them what they know about this romanticized symbol of revolution.

Clothing stores, like this one in Belfast, Northern Ireland, feature T-shirts with the image of Marxist freedom fighter Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Hollywood and counterculture young adults romanticize the life of a man who executed thousands and said, “the victory of Socialism is worth millions of atomic deaths.” | Wikimedia Commons

Chances are it’s not too much.

Among our generation, there exists a “cult of Che” completely ignorant in their adoration and glorification. Psychology freshman major Kiana Wall said he’s a symbol with a false or misunderstood value.

“As a symbol, Guevara had meaning in the past,” Wall said, “but it seems like those who wear those shirts now are just trying to exaggerate their political radicalism without knowing much about him at all.”

The problem is that many people, particularly the Millennials, are highly influenced by Hollywood more than ever. Steven Soderbergh directed the 2008 movie “Che” in which Benicio del Toro depicted Guevara as a gentle, contemplative hero. The New York Times writer Manohla Darges gives a good description of Soderbergh’s intended portrayal.

“Throughout the movie Mr. Soderbergh mixes the wild beauty of his landscapes with images of Che heroically engaged in battle, thoughtfully scribbling and reading and tending to ailing peasants and soldiers,” Darges said.

Furthermore, Del Toro said Guevara only executed people after they were tried.

“They did not do it blindly; they had trials,” he said. “They found them guilty, and they executed them — that’s capital punishment.”

A brief look at history shows a darker, more accurate side of Guevara.

In 1928, Guevara was born to a middle class family in Rosario, Argentina. He completed his medical studies in 1953, and after traveling around Latin America, decided that the only way to liberate the poor from their degraded existence was through violent warfare. An expert on guerrilla warfare, he was an important figure in the Cuban Revolution and tried to lead Marxist revolts in the Congo and Bolivia, where he was executed in 1967.

Since his death, Guevara has been touted by some on the left as the pop culture hero of anti-imperialism and rebellion. It was in the 1960s when Guevara truly rose to prominence as a symbol of revolution.

Guevara supporters claim he stands for freedom, justice and free-thinking; however, Guevara acted in the Cuban Revolution’s first firing squads and founded Cuba’s “labor camp” system which acted much like concentration camps.

Ironically, Guevara opposed freedom of speech, he campaigned to have homosexuals jailed in labor camps, he opposed free elections, he was a profligate adulterer and he hoped the Cuban missile crisis would lead to atomic war. Guevara’s political beliefs of mass-slaughter and absolute government fly in the face of freedom, social justice or free thought. For instance, take this quote from this 1966 speech by Guevara:

“Hatred is the central element of our struggle! Hatred that is intransigent … hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold-blooded killing machine … We reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow! The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we’ll destroy him! These hyenas are fit only for extermination. We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm! The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!”

Actions speak louder than words. As a Communist totalitarian murderer, Guevara participated in execution of thousands people, not all of which were former members of former Cuban President Fulgencio Batista’s administration.

What we need is for people to break from the confines of popular culture and think for themselves. Just because some actor likes Guevara and I like that actor doesn’t mean I should then like Guevara. The truth is wearing a Guevara shirt is much like sporting a shirt with Hitler’s or Stalin’s face on it. The only difference is that the Guevara shirt is socially acceptable, thanks to the obtuseness of Hollywood.

Sarah Backer is a business sophomore and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

It seems everywhere we turn, a tragedy arises that saddens our spirits and turns our rage to guns and the people who wield them. Horrific massacres such as the theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., the Sikh temple shooting in Oak Creek, Wis., and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., have led us down the path to the gun laws battle going on in Washington, D.C. and in other states. The idea that a gunman or a robber can be anyone is terrifying. Changes in gun control laws and a new assault weapon ban have been proposed as a way to help stop gun-related deaths.

David Delgado/The Daily Cougar

The town of Nelson, Ga., however, has adopted a different way of dealing with gun control.

Instead of banning the use of firearms within the city, Nelson recently passed a law requiring the head of every household to own a gun. The idea behind the Family Protection Ordinance is that the citizens would be able to protect their homes without fear of prosecution.

“In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further, in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore,” the ordinance said.

There are exceptions to the ordinance: Convicts and the physically or mentally disabled are not allowed to own guns. Also, there are religious exemptions that allow people to opt out, which seems confusing. There is no point of making people own guns if they can just hold up the “it’s against my religion” card.

Nelson adopted a law that is requiring every citizen to own a gun — unless they choose not to. Creating a law that has such a large exception rate seems redundant. If Nelson did not have this law, the citizens that wanted to own guns would, and the citizens who did not wish to own guns would not — much like the new law is requiring. This fact makes one wonder what the point of the law is if it allows citizens to do almost exactly what they were already doing.

The ordinance is nothing more than a public statement that Nelson is pro-gun, and is about as asinine as limiting gun magazines. The government should not be allowed to force someone to own a gun just as they should not be allowed to take away the people’s rights to own a gun. While I agree with owning a gun for protection, no one should have to own a gun. The Second Amendment states we have the right to bear arms; the amendment does not state it is a necessity.

Nelson is not the first town to adopt an ordinance like this. In 1982, Kennesaw, Ga., adopted something similar. Kennesaw created this law in retaliation to a 1981 law by the town of Morton Grove, Ill., forbidding guns within the city limits with the exception of law officials.

While surrounding areas chastised Kennesaw, its crime rate dropped for gun-related deaths. Even with the significant population rise since 1982, the crime rate in Kennesaw is reported to have remained lower than the national average.

Between Nelson and Morton Grove, there does not seem to be a middle ground in sight, and communication sophomore Susan Rodriguez said that is because of a lack of understanding and compromise.

“We have people on one side that don’t know much about guns, and they’re making legislations they don’t even fully understand; then we have people on the other side who are against any form of legislation,” Rodriguez said. “We have no one who seems to make smart but respectful decisions on the gun owner’s right to own a gun in self-defense.”

David Delgado/The Daily Cougar

Whether drivers are inching along Interstate 45 going toward downtown or driving through the campus, it’s a common sight to find those who consider their smartphones more interesting than paying attention to the road. All it takes is one second to miss a sudden stop, merger or a wreck happening in front drivers and their cars to become a statistic.

Texting and driving may not seem as dangerous as drinking and driving, but it has become harmful enough for state legislations to pass a ban on texting while driving and enough to make drivers think twice before doodling with their phones.

The Texas House of Representatives has devised a rare, bipartisan bill that would make that happen, yet Gov. Rick Perry won’t budge.

CHB 63, a bill that makes it illegal to text and drive, is inching closer to the House floor for a vote. After years of trying to pass a state-wide ban, it might finally come to fruition and save countless lives. If enacted, reading, writing or sending text messages from a handheld device — be it a phone, tablet or notebook — is punishable by a fine up to $100 and up to $200 on a subsequent offense.

Political science senior Tyler Albarado said the law could help but is skeptical of how many drivers will conform.

“I can see its good and bad points, but I don’t think it’s going to stop anybody,” Albarado said.

The same applies to DWI laws; however, lawmakers saw the merit in punishing those who drove while drunk in 2011 and in punishing those who get behind the wheel and text without any consideration for other drivers. At that time, the state Congress passed HB 242 and sent it to Perry’s office, where he vetoed it.

Perry released a statement on the veto, which can be seen on texastribune.org, on June 17, 2011.

“I support measures that make our roads safer for everyone, but House Bill 242 is a government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults,” Perry said.

“Current law already prohibits drivers under the age of 18 from texting or using a cell phone while driving. I believe there is a distinction between the overreach of House Bill 242, and the government’s legitimate role in establishing laws for teenage drivers who are more easily distracted and laws providing further protection to children in school zones.”

That was two years ago and nothing has changed. A bill is being presented to the governor to create a statewide standard on banning texting while driving, and the governor is being as obstinate as ever.

Lucy Nasheed, spokesperson for Perry, released a statement to statesman.com on Feb. 26 reaffirming the governor’s belief that education and not legislation should be the key to stopping adults from texting and driving.

“Gov. Perry continues to believe texting while driving is reckless and irresponsible, and as he noted last session, current law already prohibits drivers under the age of 18 from texting or using a cell phone while driving,” Nasheed said.

“The key to dissuading drivers from texting while driving is information and education, not government micromanagement.”

Unlike last time, however, Perry is in the minority opinion this time because Rep. Tom Craddick, R-Midland, the author of the bill, has heralded HB 63 as “the big bipartisan bill of the session.” It has 27 sponsors with considerable representation from both parties.

According to the Texas Coalition for Affordable Insurance Solutions, of the 3,048 traffic fatalities statewide in 2011, 13.4 percent — equivalent to around 408 deaths — were because of “distracted driving.” Legislation like this could force drivers to think twice about fiddling with their phones, saving their lives. It could even save the drivers of other cars who would otherwise have to pay the price for the other driver’s negligence.

According to the Governors Highway Safety Association Statesman, at least 39 states and Washington D.C. have banned texting and driving. Mayor Annise Parker has even promised to back an ordinance in Houston if HB 63 fails or is vetoed.

Laws are meant to curb the dangerous behaviors of its citizens, so for Perry to say that a law such as this is a “government overreach” is a complete farce. For example, it’s against the law to do certain drugs because it hurts public health, regardless of whether the individual or even the public wants to do them. Laws limiting speed are a “government overreach” because they also “micromanage the behaviors of adults,” forcing drivers to drive at safe speeds, despite the fact no one wants to when they have some place they urgently need to be. It’s a slippery slope and a very libertarian argument that Perry makes.

Perry is only right one regard: Education and information about the issue are important. However, it must be followed up by a consequence. A person is more likely to think twice about texting and driving if they know that reading a text will cause them to have to cough up a Benjamin or two.

Alex Caballero is a creative writing senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Waking up at an early hour may not seem pleasant for many college students, but imagine all of the benefits it has.

You could find an open parking spot in less than a minute; enjoy a stress-free workout at the Campus Recreation and Wellness Center, not having to wait to use any equipment; or perhaps study a bit in the M.D. Anderson Memorial Library, absolutely silent from the lack of students. Afterward, you can grab a bite from Einstein Bros Bagels without waiting forever in line and then go on to class with a feeling of accomplishment without feeling groggy.

This scenario is no pipe dream for kinesiology senior Nicholas Levine, who wakes up most mornings at 4:30 a.m.

“It’s better because you can finish your classwork early on,” he said. “You can (also) get a parking space early. It really frees up the rest of the day.”

It doesn’t take waking up as early as Levine to find parking, as there still many parking spaces available around 8 a.m., but the earlier you arrive, the better your chances at a good space. Also, during that time, the gym is generally less crowded, allowing for a better chance of an uninterrupted workout. People haven’t started filing in en masse, making finding a good spot to study without too much noise simpler. Still, the longer you wait, the more crowds you have to deal with, as everything is pretty busy by 9 or 10 a.m.

It helps some students so much that not getting up early throws a wrench in the day’s works. Kinesiology senior Chelsea Fowler said that not getting up early has a negative impact on her day.

“If I wake up early, it forces me to start up sooner,” she said.

Yes, waking up early means getting out of your comfortable bed with not as much sleep as you would like and starting the day slow and groggy for a while, but mechanical engineering sophomore Mery Arce said the early mornings are totally worth it.

“When I wake up, I don’t feel great, but as the day goes on, I get excited because I feel like I can accomplish more things during the day,” Arce said.

Getting an early start, though, is more than just taking advantage of having the campus to yourself or being healthier; it could also give you a good shot at boosting that GPA.

According to a 2008 study by the University of North Texas, early birds actually performed better academically than night owls — a whopping one grade point better, to be exact: 2.5 average GPA for late-risers as opposed to a 3.5 average GPA for early birds. Morning people tend to be more proactive, tend to be able to anticipate problems, have higher optimism and get better, more restorative sleep, though it may not feel like it in the early morning.

If you are looking for a change, aren’t feeling as productive during the day or could use some extra time to get things done, consider delaying that gratification for a bit and set that alarm clock back a few hours. It could do wonders.

Jacob Patterson is a management information systems senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Summer is coming, and with it comes swimsuit season, shorts, T-shirts and more skin to show off. The advent of this skin-baring season puts a lot of pressure on students to slim down, but losing weight — in fact, simply eating healthy — isn’t easy, particularly when so much temptation exists on campus.

College life introduces an element of freedom to individuals who had previously relied solely on the food provided at home or in school. Here, students have dining options everywhere they turn, whether it’s more formal restaurants like Eric’s in the Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, dollar burritos at Taco Bell in the University Center Satellite or even gorging on the endless supply of desserts in the dining hall during a particularly stressful week. Eating healthy isn’t always a top priority.

In the past few decades, the issue of eating healthily has gone past gaining the “freshman 15” and crossed into dangerous territory.

Phillip Sparling, professor of applied physiology at the Georgia Institute of Technology, discussed the rise of this new epidemic in his 2007 article, “Preventing Chronic Disease.” He said college campuses have seen a dramatic increase in the occurrence of obesity and obesity-related disorders including type 2 diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia. The American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment found that three in 10 college students are either obese or overweight.

While tackling the issue of weight on a large scale is hindered by several complications, individuals can work to create a better lifestyle.

Biology junior Merlin Jacob says eating healthy isn’t impossible, and college campuses often encourage healthy eating and living.

“There are more opportunities to eat unhealthily on campus, but for me, the presence of the Rec Center makes me feel guilty. At home I’m not thinking about working out, whereas on campus I’m conscious about it,” she said.

UH has taken several steps to bring fresher and healthier food to its students, including the introduction of the Healthy for Life program.

“The Healthy for Life program is being implemented to help create a culture of wellness. It is designed to enable, educate and encourage our diners to make healthy choices,” said Caroline Sullivan, registered dietitian and UH Dining Services nutritionist.

The Healthy for Life program included the unveiling of the new Wellness Wall on Feb. 19 in Cougar Woods Dining Hall. The Wellness Wall includes Just4U nutrition messaging, which displays healthy menu items carefully selected by culinary experts. The wall also includes information on low-fat foods as well as vegetarian and vegan options.

Some other tools provided by the program include the UH Dining website and a mobile app that enables students to access the nutritional information for all dining options on campus, as well as the dietitian’s “Healthy Picks” to help students make educated food choices. In addition, UH also offers the Heart Healthy Lunch option, which includes healthy dessert options such as reduced fat oatmeal cookies and heart-healthy bread pudding.

So whether you’re trying to look good for that vacation to Cabo this summer or simply want to start leading a healthier lifestyle, explore your options and make educated decisions about what you put into your body.

Trisha Thacker is a biology junior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Imagine for a moment what it is like to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender growing up in Texas — an area known for its deep spirituality and history of being less than friendly to anyone not straight and white.

Imagine growing up in a conservative household where dating anyone who is not the opposite sex and does not have the same skin color is so taboo, it could rip the family apart.

Imagine carrying that weight all throughout your childhood and into your high school years, where LGBT groups for young people are rare outside of the cities. From some of the college tours you have taken, you discovered there are actually centers full of people your age just like you, staffed with people who can help you cope with the confliction and pain, who are there to let you know that you’re not alone and to lend you the support you might not otherwise get at home.

Now imagine showing up at a public university anywhere in Texas and find the campus LGBT group has closed shop because it did not have the funds to operate, and suddenly, you are alone again.

This was the future we faced if state Rep. Bill Zedler, R-Arlington, had had his way.

The representative filed an amendment April 2 to the general appropriations act, SB1, which would have prevented public universities and colleges from funding LGBT resource centers and other “gender and sexuality and related student centers.”

It comes as no shock that state politicians want to attack educational institutions and students yet again. In the past few years, the state has slashed its education budget, forcing the layoffs of thousands of public elementary and secondary school teachers statewide. This was not the first time state politicians attacked LGBT students specifically, either.

According to the Dallas Voice in May 2011, then-state Rep. Wayne Christian, R-Center, filed two amendments to SB 1811 — one which would require public universities to equally fund centers for “family and traditional values,” while the other would prohibit state funds being spent on campus LGBT resource centers and prohibit universities from housing them on campus.

Christian eventually dropped the amendments because State House Democrats threatened to sabotage the bill they were attached to. The Zedler Amendment is just the latest wave of legislative bigotry so poorly disguised it borders on insulting.

“Funding of Gender and Sexuality Centers and Related Student Centers: An institution of higher education may not use money appropriated to the institution under this Act, or any property or facility of the institution funded by appropriations under this Act, to support, promote, or encourage any behavior that would lead to high risk behavior for AIDS, HIV, Hepatitis B, or any sexually transmitted disease,” the Zedler Amendment said.

Judging from the language of the bill, the intent seems rather obvious — Zedler is taking up the cause of his Republican colleague in the State House, Christian, by offering this amendment to force universities to stop funding LGBT resource centers.

This would push the operational costs on to students to pay for the centers through student fees, and at universities like Texas A&M University, where the Student Senate introduced a bill to allow students to opt out of paying their LGBT Resource Center fees on religious objections, such centers statewide could have folded over the course of a few years.

That’s on the surface, though, and bills can be applied in other ways and to other people beyond the original intent.

For example, take the UH Women’s Resource Center — a place on campus where female students can go to get information on a variety of topics, to educate the UH community on topics that concern women, identify and research issues that affect UH women, among other things.

Seems innocent enough, until you discover that on the WRC’s homepage, there’s a link to a video showing women how to use a condom, an advertisement of weekly discussion called Gender Talk that discusses gender issues that go beyond just women’s issues, but stretch to men and transgender people as well and a link to a website called feminist.com which serves as a link hub to several websites offering health and sexual information, including websites devoted to abortion.

By the definition of the Zedler Amendment, any opponent of the WRC could petition the university to pull its funding because it indirectly promotes abortion and Gender Talk somewhat promotes LGBT values. Ignoring the fact the WRC links a video promoting safe sex on its homepage or that the third-party website in question also provides links to website educating about the dangers of STDs, the flimsy justification could be enough to pull the WRC’s funding and any other women’s resource center that promotes or educates students about sexuality.

The language of the amendment itself was so vague that any resource center that attempts to educate students on sexuality could have been perceived as promoting promiscuous or “high risk behavior,” and as such, the amendment was too broadly written. On the other hand, if it had been any more narrowly defined, the amendment would have been construed as discriminatory, just as the justification for this amendment was discriminatory, promoting the stereotype that LGBT lifestyles promote STDs and promiscuous behavior.

According to aids.gov, “men who have sex with men” consisted of 61 percent of new HIV infections in 2009 (heterosexuals making up 27 percent of new infections) while making up nearly half, 49 percent, who lived with HIV in 2008. However, that in and of itself is not an indictment of LGBT resource centers, which provide information and services to educate young LGBT adults about sexual health, which helps keep those HIV numbers down. By taking away that resource, only the opposite is achieved.

This bit of legislative insensitivity was quickly laid to rest Friday on the state House floor as Zedler’s legislative director announced that the senator had “pulled down” the amendment. Most likely this also stemmed from threats by House Democrats to derail the appropriations bill. Along with Zedler’s amendment, the Texas A&M “LGBT Opt-Out Bill,” later redubbed the “Religious Exemption Bill,” was vetoed on the same day by student body president John Claybrook.

Momentum is gathering for gay rights.

Across the state, students and lawmakers are confronting the issue of funding LGBT resource centers and Facebook users supporting gay rights have taken to changing their profile picture to equal signs and voicing their opinions on both sides. In Washington, D.C., the Supreme Court is two cases that could change years of legislation used to repress the rights of anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender legislation.

David Delgado/The Daily Cougar

The cases before the Supreme Court, Windsor v. United States, which challenges the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges California’s infamous Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. The court has the ability to issue broad rulings either way that would change the gay rights movement for generations.

All speculation points to the court making some sort of ruling in favor gay rights proponents, either narrowly or broadly, and that is for the best. No government should pass laws that restrict the rights of citizens without some sort of definitive constitutional objection. Religious freedom swings both ways, not just in the favor of Christian conservatives.

Media personalities see the writing on the wall as well. Prominent ultra-conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, an opponent to gay marriage, said defeat is inevitable.

“This issue is lost,” he said. “I don’t care what the Supreme Court does.”

Townhall.com columnist Kurt Schlichter, a conservative lawyer who opposes gay marriage, also predicts fellow opposers to lose the fight against gay marriage.

“Whether the fight ends with a Constitution-twisting Supreme Court ruling or after years or decades as the states adopt it one by one, it’s a done deal,” he said in a Monday article.

Two key conservative media figures both admitting defeat on the issue doesn’t bode well for opponents of gay marriage. The days of same-sex marriage being federally unrecognized are probably over, and perhaps every amendment nationwide banning it could all be wiped away come June.

A new America is on the horizon, one in which we uphold the Declaration of Independence and allow same-sex couples to find fulfillment of their pursuit of happiness without guilt or shame as heterosexual couples enjoy.

Lorraine Schroeder, director of UH’s LGBT Resource Center, said she had a positive outlook.

“In general, having same-sex marriage, whenever you have a marginalized population, when there is a law passed that makes them less marginalized, benefits everybody,” she said.

“With young people who are LGBT, (it allows them to) accept their identity without the guilt and shame that many times comes with gay or bisexual orientation because of the negative messages they get from society.”

Schroeder said that if LGBT marriages were more commonplace, society would become less homophobic.

Journalism freshman Jose Iraheta, a homosexual student, said he agrees.

“If DOMA is repealed, it could show the world that same-sex couples are same-sex couples, and we’re just good people (like) you all are, and we aren’t the monsters that people say we are,” he said. “Over time, with DOMA repealed, we can finally progress our country so that more people can live their lives the way they want without fear.”

Political science senior Michele Gaddis, who is bisexual, alludes to marriage as a whole being beneficial to society.

“First thing you have to ask yourself is does marriage have any benefit to society? If it can be shown — perhaps through sociology, psychology, anthropology, et cetera — that marriage, regardless of how it is defined, has any benefit to society, then it extends logically that marriage in general regardless of the gender of the people being married is beneficial to society as a whole,” Gaddis said.

The LGBT community has sizeable support from heterosexual UH students and alumni. Alumnus Mike Kiely said he does not see any harm in letting same-sex couples marry and that this can only be good thing for everyone.

“It’s government getting out of your personal lives,” he said. “It’s also more opportunities for everyone. It makes sense to both liberals and conservatives.”

This is not to say that religious rejections of same-sex marriage and are not valid, only that it is not valid to deny them the same rights as anyone else. Ideally, laws should be crafted that protects religious centers that choose not to marry same-sex couples, but also recognize and protect the centers that do.

It is not the business of any government to tell consenting adults who to love and how to express that love.

Jacob Patterson is a management information systems senior and Aaron Manuel is a print journalism senior. They may be reached opinion@thedailycougar.com.