Proposal for New Ticketing System New System Opening Doors to Public By; Andrew Hartlove With COVID still being a problem, there is a new solution for people to come back to the stadium and/or arena for concerts and sporting events. This new plan that’s in the works with the CDC and Professional Ticket Sellers in the state of Ohio is being obligated to provide a sufficient negative COVID test, take a symptom check, and taking a temperature check along with a purchased ticket at the check in to any concert or sporting event. This along with everyone in attendance oblige by the rules of always wearing a mask except when drinking or eating. This is good first step on the road of coming back to normalcy from the dumpster fire that is COVID. It’s about time to start to come back to the arena, and enjoy the thrill of a sports game and seeing your favorite musician in concert. And this new plan in the works is a step in the right direction towards the goal, that being normalcy. This belief is quite common among common people. A survey of 223 people 125 agreed with this plan and the other 108 people disagreed, it was almost a 50-50 split between the two factions. In an interview with one person who wished to remain anonymous, he said that “It’s always a good thing to get back out into the world after so long of being inside.” Now along with that he stated that we had to be careful, like wearing masks and being distanced but we should get back out in public again. On the contrary in another private interview a person who disagreed with this question, who also decided to remain anonymous. He said, “It’s too early to say if it’s good to go back just yet, this could possibly raise the spread by who knows how much” which is understandable, considering that the vaccine is not out just yet worldwide and a spread and surge is still very probable. This belief can only be used for a short time. It’s only valid for a limited time. It’s only good for a short while and the expiration date is swiftly approaching. Meaning that this belief of waiting longer to get back out there into the world can only work for a short while. At some point we all need to get back out there, virus or not. We have solutions to this problem. We can't be scared anymore. At some point in this lifetime, we have to face the fears head on. We can only destroy the fear of COVID together. Will you rise and join the battle?
AVA GRIFFITH Mental health is a flourishing topic recently and many people have heard how to care for themselves at home with meditation and therapy, but what about in school? Guidance counselors stop by the class and give a presentation about the topic, but are they even helpful to the students? What do the students with mental illnesses need from the school? Well, they need educated teachers. All teachers have to attend mental health and illness training, with assessments they need to take to make sure they understand. Although, despite this, students and young adults have reported feelings that their current and/or former teachers didn’t seem to care. In a poll of 13 to 24 year olds, 61% of participants said that schools did not do their part to accommodate the needs of the mentally ill children while 39% of participants said they did. In an openresponse survey, that same 61% anonymously suggested what they thought schools could do to help. “Check up with students and don’t remove points for not making eye contact and fidgeting in presentations.” Some participants have also mentioned that they think teachers should “be friends with their students instead of being so formal all the time.” Another message from a different participant who sent a long list “they need to understand not everyone can mentally do what they can. To research how to handle those with illnesses and disabilities.” They added “Teachers should acknowledge those with anxiety and not call on people on the spot, it's really damaging and frightening!” Other suggestions include offering alternate assignments or eliminating assignments that involve presenting for students with anxiety, as well as the mention that some of teachers have expressed their frustration that some kids can't “just learn to work under pressure.” It's frustrating to see close-minded or uneducated teachers who think mental illness is something they seriously think can be brushed aside. In the example of Panic Disorder, things like triggers the anxiety just simply don’t exist- Panic Disorder doesn’t have triggers, it just sets in when it wants to. In a school setting, it's incredibly upsetting and fear-mongering knowing that an attack could happen at any time and it can't “just wait until the lecture is over.” ADHD isn't too flattering either. It is caused by having a smaller frontal lobe which inhibits impulse control, concentration, and inhibition. It’s awful for kids to explain to teachers that they can’t “just focus”, it’s something they try to do but is essentially useless because its seen as an excuse. According to Psychology Today, the more prestigious colleges like Yale and Harvard “It’s often the most prestigious schools that do the worst by their students with mental health...the highest score (Pennsylvania University) was a D+ while Yale and Dartmouth both scored an F.” It been made obvious that students with mental illness have to sacrifice their well-being just to get average or below average grades. Why are the grades of the mentally ill portraying the stereotype that mental illness equates to failure? It’s not like they can’t do well. According to alberteinstein.org “Einstein’s social behavior...prompted some specialists to place him among those with Autism or Asperger’s.” Psychology Today also stated that community colleges are “more understanding and accommodating to mental illnesses.” This all begs the question: why is mental illness still being equated to failure or not being “as good” as those without it?
Guys, garments going forward in fashion; Making choices that fit style, not gender In today's society there is a lot of controversy about whether men should be wearing traditional feminine clothing. Some people think men aren't as manly if they wear feminine clothing, where other people think it’s a way of expressing yourself. Men should be allowed to wear whatever makes them happy and comfortable. In recent poll on Instagram, the question was, does a man who wears traditional feminine clothing (dresses, skirts, etc.) in public places make you uncomfortable? Out of 85 results, 24 people said yes it does make them uncomfortable, and 61 people said it doesn’t make them uncomfortable. Most of these answers were from teen students. The data shows most people don’t mind when men wear clothing that isn't traditionally made for them. Another recent poll on Instagram addressed accepting personal style of dress for men and women. Out of 83 voters, 26 voted society has changed for the better, 21 voted stayed the same, and 36 voters said it has gotten worse. While it was a little unexpected that people said it changed for the better because of how much negativity we have in our society about gender clothing norms, the results are promising. Harry Styles, a musician, had a Vogue photoshoot in November for his new album Fine Line. It had a lot of controversy because of him wearing feminine clothing during this shoot. Candace Ownes tweets, ““There is no society that can survive without strong men.... It is an outright attack. Bring back manly men.” on November 14, 2020. Owens had “a lot people hate on her in her comments” (altpress.com). Styles replied to her tweet by tweeting, “Bring back manly men” with a picture of him in feminine clothing eating a banana. In result to him making that post he had 79k people in the comments supporting him and commenting things like, “TELL THEM HARRY, SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS” says Rachel (fan on twitter). He had 1.1 million people like his post with 338.2k retweets. This data shows that at LEAST 1.1 million people support Harry Styles wearing feminine clothing. And that’s a big deal. In a recent interview with Vogue, Styles tells them, “When you take away ‘there’s clothes for men and women’, once you remove any barriers, obviously you open up the arena in which you can play.” (glamour.com). He mentions that some people put up barriers when wearing clothes, when people do this it blocks out a whole other world with people who express themselves with the clothes they wear. Clothing shouldn’t just be one gender, and Styles addresses the fact that people aren't opening up to other options besides what they believe. Styles also says in the interview he personally thinks women clothes are amazing. We need to expanded out fashion norms and not tear down others for expressing themselves. Being able to wear what you want without the fear of being judged is what we need for our society to be united. You will end up being left out of new fashion trends if you keep judging people for what they love. So, let down your barriers and open up to new style and expect the unexpected.
Men are allowed to wear what they want There have been many controversies about whether men should or shouldn’t be allowed to wear female clothing in public. More recently, this topic has become front and center after singer Harry Styles was featured wearing a dress on the cover of Vogue. Men should be permitted to wear traditionally female clothing in public with no judgment attached. According to a recent poll on Instagram, 45 people disagree with that statement and 48 people said they would pass judgment if they ever saw a man wearing female clothing in public. Here is the thing; women can wear men’s clothing out in public with no trouble and generally they face no judgment most of the time. However, as soon as a man wears female clothing in public, an uproar occurs and people start to get mad, judge or feel uncomfortable or offended. According to pairedlife.com, “[Women] can also wear men’s clothing out in public without too much trouble either. For men however, the act of wearing women’s clothing in public is something of an act of defiance it breaks the rules. It shocks onlookers.” Why the double standard? How come women can wear male clothing but men cannot wear female clothing? Women can wear flannels, over-sized sweatshirts, baggy t-shirts, a dress suit, etc. and not get any judgment or backlash from it but a man “can’t” wear any female clothing such as heels, a dress, a skirt, a blouse, and they can’t even carry a purse without being judged. Styles wore a dress on the cover of Vogue and wore more feminine clothing during the shoot such as a skirt. With this, he made the statement that clothes are for everyone and men can wear what they choose. Clothes do not have a gender and cannot define who you are. “Clothes are there to have fun with and experiment with and play with. What’s really exciting is that all these lines are just kind of crumbling away,” Styles told Vogue. “There’s so much joy to be had in playing with clothes. I’ve never really thought too much about what it means-it just becomes this extended part of creating something.” Many people agree with what Styles said and many people fully support him wearing a dress on the cover of Vogue but there are also many people who believe that was wrong of him to do and they are not afraid to show that they disagree with him. Candace Owens says, “There is no society that can survive without strong men. The east knows this. In the West, the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence. It is an outright attack. Bring back manly men.” Styles has indirectly replied to that and all the other criticism by posting picture of himself wearing a light blue “feminine” looking suit eating a banana with the caption, “Bring back manly men.” The best people can do to prove the people who believe it is wrong for men to dress feminine is to walk with confidence in whatever they are wearing. Men should be permitted to wear traditionally female clothing in public with no judgment at all. Prove the people wrong. Make a change. And wear what makes you happy.
=
Those who pollute shall pay for pollution; Tax dollars are being wasted Caroline Barquin
Environmental taxes are taxes that are designed to tax behavior that is harmful to the planet’s health. They use the principle that the people that pollute shall pay for the pollution. The question is whether the taxes that are used to fight climate change are beneficial to the environment or have been wasteful from not connecting to the root of the problem. The taxes are applied to many of the issues that we hear about regularly, including the emission of nitrate monoxide and nitrogen dioxide tax. By driving your car every day, you are contributing to climate change. Other taxes go to waste management, noise pollution, water pollution and transportation pollution. The problem is all these taxes are targeting the harmful effects that have come from the pollution but are not getting to the root of the problem. Although the taxes are displayed as sending money directly to the cause, there is a lack of connection. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development “Increased or more effective use of environmentally related taxes can drive growth-oriented reform by shifting the tax burden away from more distortive taxes, e.g., on corporate or personal income, and contribute to fiscal consolidation.” This money is also decreasing, there has been a huge decline in the amount of money collected for protecting the environment. The organization Iberdrola has experts that are very concerned about “the fact that the percentage collected for environmental taxes has declined worldwide over the period 2000-2017. For example, the collection of environmental taxes in the EU in 2003 represented 2.56% of GDP compared to 2.4% in 2017.” Gisele Bundchen, Supermodel & UN Goodwill Ambassador explains that, "One thing leads to the other. Deforestation leads to climate change, which leads to ecosystem losses, which negatively impacts our livelihoods – it’s a vicious cycle." However, without the government support for protecting the environment when deforestation occurs, climate change gets worse, and people's lives are directly impacted from the environment. We can’t afford to let things get worse. Two polls were taken to survey the thoughts of the teenage community on this topic. Out of 123 teenagers, 84 said yes that tax money should go to protecting the environment. Clearly, this demonstrates the youth understanding the need to protect and save the environment. Some teens stepped forward and explained that they strongly believe that money needs to be going to the environment in order to save it for future generations. Climate change is the greatest environmental threat and the teenagers that answered the poll and said yes are able to acknowledge the threat and the need for change. In another poll, there was an overwhelming amount of people who believe the government is not spending enough money on protecting the environment. Out of 127 students 98 of them agreed with the statement. In those same polls, 27 people said they do not think tax money should go to protecting the environment. It is understandable not to want the government to take your hard-earned money, but that is not going away any time soon so instead of putting that money towards silly things put it towards the environment which impacts everyday lives.
19 people believed that the government has spent enough money in protecting the environment. This is correct and incorrect; the government definitely does have taxes in place that support the environment but not nearly enough. Taxes impact everyone and it is important to know what they are going to; this is why it is extremely essential to make environmental taxes more direct to decreasing the damage caused by harmful pollutants.
8.
Round two of Covid-19 vaccine gets underway; Students face potential return to school building Cole Hellwig Reporter Corona Virus. Sickness. Quarantine. Those words bring one thing: dread. As round two of the Covid-19 vaccine starts, many students are preparing to return to the school building. However, before doing so, students should be required to get Covid-19 vaccine first. A poll of 47 people given on January 8 highlighted that 30 participants agreed they would get the vaccine if it became available to their community or area. With over half stating they would get the vaccine, it is clear that the students and staff are in favor of getting the vaccine to protect themselves and their family members who may susceptible to the virus. So, if over half the general population of students and staff would get the vaccine, wouldn’t it just be easier if it was required to protect those who are maybe susceptible to the virus and families that might be put in harm's way? Some families rely on the in-school education system to provide things such as lunch or a place for their child to stay while parents are at work. Keeping the schools open may be the only option for them. Families are going to be put in harm's way by their child being at school with students not being required to have the vaccine. It will increase the chances of spread to not only their family who may be susceptible to it, but to the others around them. If students are required to take the Covid-19 vaccine before returning to the school building, the chances of spread and sickness to families that rely on the in-school education system will drop a substantial rate. CDC has already proven that you can no longer get sick from the Corona Virus after taking the vaccine, so why not make it a requirement? While scientists have already proven that the Covid-19 vaccine cannot make you sick with Corona Virus, parents are still concerned? Side effects. Parents claim that the vaccine may have long lasting side effects or maybe alter DNA. According to scientists over at www.alz.org, “Side effects reported from the vaccines were mild and temporary, including fever and muscle pain.� So far, side effects have been very closely related to the flu shot. Other research has suggested there has been little to no long-lasting side effects, such as temporary muscle pain and fever. Information from the CDC was also given about alteration of DNA from the Covid-19 vaccine. CDC states that the vaccine cannot alter your DNA in any age group or at any point. Well, what about people who are afraid of needles? Some people argue that student and teachers may be afraid of needles, keeping them from getting the Covid-19 shot. In a recent survey given to 46 students and teachers, only 14 said they have a fear of needles, (both physically and mentally.) With over 70% saying they are not afraid of needles both physically and physiologically, it has become clear this is not the case. With that all in mind, students should be required to take the Covid-19 vaccine before returning to the school building. Not only will this have a positive effect in families that are highly susceptible to the virus and require their child at the school building, but it will also help slow the spread in our communities.
Slowing the spread of the Corona Virus is something we can all work towards, and vaccinating your child before returning to the school building is a step in the right direction. And failure to do that jeopardizes everyone’s safety and well-being. Are you willing to take that risk?
Gun ban has been pushed forward; puts lives in danger Gary House Reporter January 12,2021 There has been a lot of uproar in not just our communities but the United States in general about a potential gun ban. There are two sides, people for it and people against it. The people who do not support it say guns cause more damage than good, but the opposite goes for those who support it. There should not be a gun ban in the United States. It is our second amendment right to have guns and that should not be infringed. According to https://guncontrol.procon.org/, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The people who made the second amendment understood the effects it would have on our future and had to weight the pros and cons, and the pros of having the right to bear arms ultimately outweighed the risks. that “The Founder understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and essential to maintain liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights.” There was a survey done within my class and got 12 students that answered the question of “Do you think that there should be a gun ban?.” From those 12 students, 33% (4 students) said that we should have a gun ban and 66% (8 students) said no. This isn't a very accurate representation of a good survey on this topic but is a start on the subject. Some believe this amendment is a decade old rule that should be abolished, and there is no use for it in today's society. However, it is needed more than ever right now. In today's society there is so much talk about the abolishment of the second amendment and a gun ban, but if we banned guns, the only people that would have guns would be the people who we need guns to defend against. If the people are willing to do illegal things in the first place, what is stopping them from doing one more? There are inherent risks to giving guns to a society, but there are more pros than cons. If the people left themselves vulnerable than what is there to stop the government form turning our currently free country to a communist country?
There are many things that we could do to oppose this ban. One of the things you could do would be signing petitions against it. Another thing you could do is fight back, not violently, but in peaceful protests. We need to stop this ban from going through for the sake of freedom, for the sake of our future generations. We need to take action now to prevent risk later on. Our second amendment right is to bear arm, so we should take full advantage of this. Do not let guns go, because if you do then they could fall into the wrong hands.
In United States, art funding minimal compared to military, war In recent years the United States has spent large amounts of money on military and war and small amounts on education and arts. This is due to the disproportionate amount of spending being given to Defense instead of Education. The United States should spend more money on education and arts instead of military and war. According to a recent poll out of 29 people, 23 are involved in the arts. In the same poll, 17 people said that education and arts should be funded more, instead of military and war. More people that are involved in the arts think that education and art should be funded more than it is already. According to nationalpriorities.org in 2015 the United States spent 1.11 trillion dollars on its defense fund. That is 54% of the entire United States funding for that year. Compared to the 6% spent on education of that year, you can see where the United States’ priorities are. Attn.com stated that the entire education department usually gets about 70 million dollars a year for spending and funding. The benefits of funding education according to Attn.com is that “Investing more in education raises the rate of low-income students to finish school.” This is very important both for the student and the school. The graduated student will have more opportunities in life, with jobs, income, quality of life and even just having a well-rounded conversating with another person. In a recent article about education funding Attn.com stated “Investing in child education early in life creates pathways and success later in life.” Even funding in low-education schools creates more and more positive opportunities for students in life. This is part of a big conversation about educations and arts. We could have more well-rounded, intelligent, citizens that would contribute to society in a larger way than just politics and a nine-to-five capitalist job. Funding the arts and education could contribute to a more peaceful society. You can support education and arts more by buying from local artist and giving donations to local and national agencies that educate children and adults. You can go to a local music festival to support your local artist. You could sign a petition for the United States to fund education and art more than military and war. So, what will you do? The fate of the future is in your hands.
Harsh School Dress Code; Sexist Toward Female Students: Reporter: Karlee Neel School dress code has been a riveting topic for years, always back and forth whether female students are being discriminated against for their choice of clothing. Its highly common that students are dress coded because of shoulders being shown, shorts too short, or your shirt is a bit too big. A sixth-grade student from a Roman Catholic school in New Orleans was kicked out of the classroom after showing up with braided hair extensions, the young girl was said to have left in tears. According to Tim Morris Catholic schools are very particular about their dress code, for religious reasons. But your standard public schools did not make their dress codes distinct to a religion, they made it so that we are not “intrusive” to other students learning experience. A total of 18 people thought that they should change the dress code so that it benefits teachers and students, should school administration be able to trust students to make the appropriate decisions? Many people may say that showing to much skin is disturbing. Picture this, a young girl came into her school wearing a tank top; a teacher claims that she is showing to much skin on her shoulder and demands her to visit the principal's office. Isn’t that sad? a little girl wearing an innocent little tank top on a hot summer day and she gets in trouble for it. Everyone has seen a female student wear showy clothes that come off as erotic, which is understandable. In April of 2017, a female student was suspended for wearing a “minuscule crop top” and was declared “erotic and too distracting for a school environment.” Truth be told the student way or may not have been wearing the top, but as claimed by Dan Garner... He was “looking into the situation.” Have you ever been involved in a circumstance where a school official questioned your clothing choice? Have they said that it was “inappropriate?” Well, Gottsman of USnews.com claims “professional clothing should consist of sleeves.” Because showing off your arms is inappropriate? It appears many if not all public schools deal with these decisions of suspending a student who has “violated” the dress code, the only question that remains is when does the discrimination stop. There are so many ways to resolve an overpowered dress code, one way is to change it so that it is fairer and prevents erotic clothing and lets females dress the way they please without being suspended. The only issue is how are they going to change such a detailed rule to match the requirements of both sides...? For starters, they should investigate the kind of things teen girls wear on a regular basis. I mean, there is a huge difference between the clothes people wore in the 2000s versus now, 20 years later. Big changes were made to fashion and it has become so much more influential and intricate. School officials need to recognize that the dress code they created 5 years ago will not apply to the modern-day fashion requirements. There are all kinds of aesthetics and styles people love dressing too. Unfortunately, none of those will ever go alongside a standard public-school dress code. Picture yourself a parent, seeing your child take a liking to dress a certain way and fallen in love with the new fashion forward designs of today...You drop them off at school and are immediately called to address a situation with your daughters clothing choices. Personally, you see no issue in the shorts and sweatshirt she decided to wear today and see that the sweatshirt was a bit to oversized and covered her shorts. The school principal asks you to remove her and have her
change to a more school appropriate outfit. Without thinking, you decide to follow the rules and head home with your daughter, on the way you see how distraught and embarrassed she was. What would you say? What words could describe that gut wrenching feeling? It is about time we stand up to the dress code and help ensure that its accommodating both the school officials and the students.
Abortion costs: Unreasonable burden on women who have become pregnant due to rape, incest Kris Gray Reporter Anti-Abortionists call it murder. Pro-Choice supporters claim it to be a right. But, what about women who have been raped or sexually assaulted? Do the same rules still apply to them? Should they? The cost of an abortion ranges anywhere from zero to 1000 dollars. Why should a woman who has become pregnant through unwanted sex be objected to the same judgement as someone who gave consent? According to Planned Parenthood, there are five things that can affect how much an abortion can cost. Your health insurance: If you have insurance, it may cover all or some of the costs of your abortion. Any income and financial support programs available in your area can help as well. The cost of an abortion varies depending on your location. The type of abortion you get and how far along your pregnancy is. The longer you have been pregnant, the more your abortion may cost. If a woman has been raped, sexually assaulted or a victim of incest, they did not give consent to engage in the activity. Therefore, they cannot be held accountable for the result of pregnancy. Thus, they should not have to pay for abortion because they did not choose to engage in sexual activity. According to Rainn, every 73 seconds, an American is sexually assaulted. One out of six American women have been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime. The National Library of Medicine took a 3-year survey with the conclusion that rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. A woman should not have to pay to get rid of something that she did not want. It is unfair and wrong. The victim is already struggling with the trauma of being assaulted and making her pay for an abortion is adding more weight on her shoulders. Instead of making the victim pay for an involuntary abortion, we should make it easily accessible and affordable. Some states, as well as the Medicaid program provide abortion funding for low-income women. But it should be accessible to every victim in the United States. The Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided by Medicaid. So, the woman will have to identify as a rape or incest victim which could cause emotional stress and low self-esteem. Therefore, we should create an accessible and effective abortion process for rape and incest victims as well as women who have physical disorders, illnesses, and injuries. If this issue is not resolved, thousands of pregnant women will suffer the struggles of abortion costs without any help. Women who cannot find a way to terminate their pregnancy will raise an unwanted baby. Women who cannot physically bear children will be injured. Young girls will be overwhelmed with being a teenage mother. An endangered child and overwhelmed victim is worse than a free abortion.
Should people be required to get the Vaccine at school It would be so Dangerous if no one got the vaccine and went to school. It would be a safer place if we all returned to school with the vaccine. Should people be requried to get the Vaccine at school In a survey of 150 people all ages. 57% of people said that everyone who goes to school should get a Vaccine. Some out of the 20 of the 150 people have said if everyone got the vaccine, they would feel safer to go to School. one of my friends have said if not everyone does not have the vaccine that they will not go to school because of their older Family members and trying not to get them sick. Also, they do not want the eerie feeling of knowing that they infected their whole family. Edweek.org reports that there should be a different method of going to school. What this means is that there would be a hybrid of ways to learn such had going to school and learning online. State leaders and federal public health officials generally agree that teachers and school employees should get their shots before there are enough doses for the public. Edweek.org reports all teachers Should be required to get the COVID-19 virus vaccine.
Why armed teachers could save lives; How training, arming teachers can prevent school shootings MACKENZIE SCOTT Reporter Teachers should be allowed to carry firearms in the school building. Giving a schoolteacher the opportunity to use a gun in the school building in an emergency can give them the opportunity to save lives. Teachers, staff and students have a better chance at survival rather than being helpless if a firearm is present in the building. According to futureofworking.com, “If a teacher has a classroom of 20 students who are trapped with an active shooter at their door, the presence of a firearm can help to save lives. Even the knowledge that a teacher might be armed could be enough to stop an uncertain individual from committing an act of violence.” According to futureofworking.com, “It may be 2-4 minutes before the first officials arrive at the school to confront a shooter” A lot can happen in just one minute, and in that minute, it could be the difference between life and death. According to Whyy.org a third-grade teacher in Ohio had said “The public knows that some teachers and administration are carrying, but they don’t know who. Not even their unarmed colleagues are supposed to be in the loop.” The teachers had learned “Where to conceal her firearm” so the students do not know notice the firearm. So, the teachers who do choose not to have a firearm can, like mentioned before would be in the building with armed teachers so other students and staff would not know who is armed or not. It's important that who is carrying a weapon is unknown because it could affect whose classroom a shooter may choose to enter. If they know a certain teacher is armed, they might choose not to enter their classroom, thus choosing an unarmed teacher's room putting them at risk. On a poll it asked people how they would want teachers armed. There are some who believe that teachers should not be armed or should only be armed when necessary. If a teacher is only armed when necessary, I think that they may not know when it will be necessary. Being overprepared is better than having to react spontaneously. Now, say there is a scenario of a teacher in their room and they are alerted that there is an active shooter. Now if the teacher had the gun on then they would have no problem protecting their students right away. If the teacher did not have their firearm on them, they would have to use valuable time getting the gun, wasting the possible seconds it could take for a shooter to take someone's life. A separate poll has asked people if schoolteachers should be armed. The poll was taken by 40 people and the results had been split completely in half. 50% had said they would like teachers to be armed while 50% said they would not teachers armed. This shows that that at least half these people would be comfortable with teachers being armed. On the other poll asking people how they would want teachers to be armed, out of the 40 people, 10 had said they would want teachers armed. 16 said only when necessary and 14 had responded not at all. All though these polls wildly differed the facts still show that armed teachers save lives. According to Futureofworking.com “There have been at least six school shootings that were halted because of the presence of a swift and armed defender” So having armed teachers do work. Just imagine the opinions of the students who did not survive the tragedies of a school shooting and how they would have felt if a teacher could have saved them before the fatal tragedies had ended their lives. How their parents, siblings, friends, classmates would have felt if a teacher could have saved them. If you are a teacher, you could save someone's life. If teachers are not armed you are saying you are okay with a whole school of students, staff and teachers gambling that law enforcement will be able to arrive in time to stop a loss of life in an active shooter situation.
Students should not have to be required to get Covid vaccine to return to school MEKENZIE MCCANN Reporter Right now, the Covid vaccine is a hot topic. Many people are rushing to get one right now, while other people are waiting a bit. Students should not be required to get a vaccine to return to school. The Covid vaccine was rushed to be completed and as a result, we do not know what the long-term effects are. “The most common reason cited for not wanting to get a vaccine was the speed at which it has been developed.” Education Week. Education Week reports that some have concern about” ... whether there might be rare or longer-term side effects that have not cropped up in clinical trials, which began over the summer.” Since the vaccine was so rushed, we do not know all the long-term effects. Right now, we only know the short-term effects that can happen and that seems problematic. Some parents are not comfortable giving their kids the Covid vaccine, when it comes out. I and many other people do not blame them. As of right now there is no vaccine for kids. They started working on it, but it has not been tested on children yet.
The Covid vaccine for kids is still a long way off, but schools still can require it when the vaccine becomes safe for children. However, at this point, there is no way to know if the vaccine really is safe for children because we don’t know what it can do to our bodies in the next 5 or 10 years. Some people say that the Covid vaccine should be required to return to school. That is the wrong way to go. If HCPS mandates that students get the Covid vaccine, there will be a huge backfire. “... experts say schools almost certainly will require students to — potentially setting the stage for a showdown between reluctant parents and education officials,” according to NBC News. In a recent poll of 103 people, 41 people said yes to requiring student vaccines, and 62 people said no. If the school system were to require students to get a Covid vaccine. This means that more than 50% of people do not want the school system to require vaccines for kids to return back to school. Schools do allow exemptions from getting a required vaccine. Some of the exemptions include religious, personal, and non-medical exemptions, which are all permitted. Since the Covid disease is such a fast spreading and contagious disease, will schools allow students to be exempted from getting the Covid vaccine? In another poll of 103 people, when the question, “If a student in HCPS did not get the Covid vaccine, should HCPS allow them to return back to school or will they have to be homeschooled? "was asked. 57 people said that students should return to school, and 46 people said that students should be homeschooled. If HCPS is to require the Covid vaccine for students to return back to school, many people will not get the vaccine. And even if they do, “A vaccine is vital in fighting the virus, but it won’t be a quick pass back to our old lives,” according to KHN. The truth is, precautions and masks will still be necessary. Social distancing will still be expected. And the virus isn’t going away. So, vaccine or not, we need to be prepared to adapt to what the new normal looks like.
Dress codes remain sexist; Changes needed Noel Bailey The dress code in school is out of date and we need to fix it or just get rid of it all together. It’s sexist towards girls and what is happening is disgusting. In a poll addressing whether girls get dress coded more than boys,74 people voted yes and 4 people voted no out of 22 people So, clearly people can see how the dress code is working against girls. Girls who aren’t “muscular” don’t get dress coded nearly as much as girls with different body types. Another poll was put out asking people to vote for which type of body type gets dress coded more often and the options were “bigger girls” which got 33 votes, “averaged sized girls” got 20, “skinny girls” got 20, then “muscular girls” got zero votes out of 117 people seeing the poll. These numbers show that the dress code favors certain body types which is down ratting girls. Society alone already has made girls insecure we shouldn’t have schools helping with that and then sexualizing girls either. On July 27, 2017 an article from the today show was put out on their website about how a 17-year-old girl named Grace Goble wore a sweater that showed her sholders for picture day. When the pictures got back to be put into the year book the school told her that it was inappropriate and she had to take another one or she can’t be in the year book. This is disgusting for the school to over sexualized a girl like that, if they didn’t even say anything about, no one would have cared or been “distracted” by what she wore in her yearbook picture. Grace even said “Shaming women for wearing the things that make them feel comfortable and happy in their bodies is horribly sexist, and leads many girls to grow up believing that if another individual cannot control their actions around women, that the woman was at fault.” One of the other polls asked whether the dress code influences how girls look at themselves. 114 people saw the poll and 86% voted yes while 14%voted no. Girls should not be worrying about what they are/were wearing when they go to school, they go there for education not be sexualized by the adults there telling them to wear and not to wear. Heinonline.org reports that schools' have ridiculous things they have banned. A school in Evanston, Illinois banned girls from wearing leggings since they were “too distracting to boys”. While in Florida girls were banned from wearing strapless prom dresses since they were also “too distracting.” Its repulsive that school systems which are middle aged men and women are over sexualizing what girls wear to school just so they don’t “distract the boys.” If a boy is really that distracted by what a girl wears’ they should leave the class. Boys should be taught to be able to handle them-selves instead of teaching girls that they can’t wear things they feel good in. Schools should stop worrying about what girls wear to school and instead actually teach the lessons they have planned because girls go to school to learn not to be sexualized. Boys should be instead taught how to be able to control themselves. We need to fix the dress code, but even more so, we need to fix how people think of girls. If we keep letting this go on girls are just going to get more and more sexualized and are going to feel terrible about them-selves.
Animals Affected by Deforestation REESE SHOWALTER Animals around the world are endangered as a result of deforestation and destruction of habitats. The lack of information produced to bring attention to the issue has also become an issue. As a result, many people don’t know the effects that deforestation has on animals and our environment. According to Endangered Earth there are now 41,415 species on the IUCN Red List. 16,306 of them are endangered species threatened with extinction. The list of endangered animals increased from 16,118 in 2019 to 16,306 in 2020. These numbers also include plants that have become endangered. These numbers are constantly increasing. These animals and plants are vital to our ecosystem. As more animals go extinct and more deforestation is occurring the harder it will be to help. Over 80 percent of Earth’s land animals and plants live in forests. Species that live in forest and have become endangered include the orangutan, the Sumatran tiger, and many different species of birds. There are many other animals that have been affected and put onto the endangered animals list. Many of these animals have become endangered due to deforestation Deforestation has become increasingly more of a problem as the demand for products that call for materials that trees can make increased. These animals' homes are being destroyed daily, forests are a source of food and shelter once there aren’t forests left to live in animals are at risk of being hunted down and killed or they won’t be able to live long enough to reproduce causing their entire species to become extinct. In a poll of 45 people, twenty-five people said yes, animals are being put into danger, nine people said no they don't think they are being put into danger, and eleven said that they might be in danger. These numbers suggest that most people believe that animals are in danger and understand that somethings need to change to help these animals. In another poll of forty-five people, eleven people said they were informed about deforestation, nineteen people said that they were not informed about the issue, and 15 people said they were somewhat informed. These numbers suggest that people know that animals are being put in danger but they aren’t informed about the topic and they are unsure of how they can help. This shows the lack of information given about deforestation There is a large lack of information and concern for animals that are being affected by the deforestation. Many people know that there is an issue of deforestation but very few are informed and understand that things need to change to help these animals. You may see a post about deforestation on an Instagram page but rarely is the issue brought to people's attention. Attention needs to be brought to the issue of deforestation now. If we wait too long to act hundreds and even thousands of animals could become endangered or extinct due to the lack of action. Our forests and animals need our help now before it becomes too late to help them. We need to find a way to help these animals as well as find a better way to get resources that we need. It is time to act. If you are able to sign petitions, donate money to help animals in these areas of deforestation please do anything with help the many endangered animals. These animals are in danger right now, they need help right now, if we wait too long there may be no way to help these animals. We can’t risk letting all these animals go extinct.
Harry Styles featured on Vogue magazine cover in dress. The December issue of Vogue magazine has sparked controversy after Harry Styles featured wearing a dress on the front cover and other feminine clothing in multiple photos. Vogue has made a dramatic, bold, and totally appropriate choice in having a popular male music artist acting as a role model to help normalize men wearing feminine clothing. If you take a look at the history of dresses you will see that men have been wearing them since prehistoric times. It was only withing the past century or two that society deemed wearing a dress “unmanly” or “unmasculine”. However, the dress is a part of many ancient cultures and has been showed that they were originally created for both men and women. For example, Greek statues have displayed images of men wearing Togas as early as 753 BCE, and the Kimono has been a part of Japanese culture since 792 AD and has never been exclusive to women. Some may argue that a man wearing a dress is unusual or as Ben Shapiro puts it “a referendum on masculinity” in his tweet responding to Candace Owens who described the situation as “an outright attack” On the contrary, in a recent poll of 30, results showed that 24 people (nearly 80% of the those who took the survey) said there is nothing wrong with Harry Styles wearing a dress on the cover of Vogue magazine and 26 of those same people said there is nothing wrong with men wearing feminine clothing in general. This seems to suggest that seems that most people would agree that there was no problem with the Vogue issue. After listening to the viewpoints of people who disliked the photos, it sounds like the main reason why people don’t find men in feminine clothing acceptable is because they are still thinking the outdated and stereotypical idea that clothing has a gender and that a man wearing a dress makes him less of a man. It’s possible that is a result of closemindedness and a way we can fix this problem in future generations is by showing more representation in media and letting young people form their own opinions.
Despite the backlash, Harry Styles wearing a dress on the cover of Vogue magazine is a positive thing and sign of progression and acceptance in our society.
PROGRESSIVE AMERICA Gender expression becoming increasingly more accepted in the media Celebrities have always broken “gender norms”. However, it seems as though wild fashion choices of the past have only really affected what people wear on run ways and to special events. Putting the past behind us, what if it was normal to walk down a busy sidewalk and see men in skirts and women in blazers. It turns out that just might be where we are headed. In a recent survey conducted earlier this month nearly 65 percent of people said they would not mind seeing someone wear clothes traditionally worn by the opposite sex and 25 percent said they would pass positive judgment and encourage that person. Many of the people who gave positive responses were kids in high school and younger. The 15 present of people who said they disapprove were almost all older than 25. This information leads me to believe as the older generations eventually die off, we will be more progressive and expressive with our clothing. Celebrities are still dressing outside of the gender norm but they are now also advocating for change. Harry Styles, one of the most influential people in the world, constantly sports skirts, pearl necklaces, and lace garments. He also famously wore a dress on the cover of vouge a few months ago. Not only does he express himself through his clothing he has also expresses his feelings on the topic of gender quite often in interviews. He said in a Teen Vouge interview “Even if the masculine and feminine exist, there limits are subject of a game.” Celebrities like this are the reason for this inevitable change in the future and for the people who hate them for that I ask you, why do you care? Is it truly so important that things stay the same way they always have been?
Stop war on addicts TED RUSH Reporter
America has struggled with the war on drugs since President Nixon declared them public enemy number one in 1971. For almost 50 years, the United States has been wrongfully criminalizing those whose lives are consumed by drugs. The narrative all students in the U.S. have grown up with are “drugs are bad”. When 124 students were polled on whether or not they believe hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine should be decriminalized by the federal government, almost 60% said they should not. Now these drugs certainly are bad, but this label has extended much too far beyond the drugs themselves to include those who use them, as if users become the drug problem themselves. It doesn’t take a genius to know hard drugs are extremely addictive and can entirely remold the mind of an addict to become dependent on them. A statistic from the Drug Policy Alliance shows that 1 in 5 heroin users become physically dependent on it. Not to mention the overcompensating reuptake of dopamine from cocaine can result in states of depression and further drug cravings after just the first use. Many of those afflicted by drug addiction are not doing it because they choose to; their brain chemistry is fundamentally rearranged to make sobriety feel like a living hell. Like a suffering alcoholic, they are not fully in control of their actions, and punishing them for having an overwhelming affliction is principally fallacious. Now, most critically thinking individuals maintain the idea that letting addicts go isn’t going to help either, and they’d be right. Ignoring the issue certainly is not going to solve anything. Drugs are illegal for a reason. It is certainly a benefit to no longer see illicit drugs in our vending machines. They are harmful and detrimental to not only those who use them, but American society as a whole. Arresting the people who use drugs and putting them in prison would get them off the streets and essentially force them to get sober. However, addicted persons’ reasons for doing drugs such as cocaine or heroin in the first place typically stems from prior mental illness and/or a poor environment. Prison only keeps addicts away from the general public, but does virtually nothing or even worse for the addicts themselves. For instance, “Heroin relapse can be lethal since one’s tolerance for the drug can go down unexpectedly during periods of abstinence”, as stated by the Drug Policy Alliance. Jail time does nothing to form effective coping mechanisms for convicted addicts, and so once they are free, they often resort back to their original recreational deeds, which has even greater risk for fatality. In a poll of 119 people, more than half agreed court-ordered rehab would be a much more effective alternative to jail or criminal fines. This would give many addicts a chance to remake themselves and once again join society as a functioning member of it. American Addiction Centers cites that heroin users have an average gap of nine years between first use and entry into a treatment program, meaning many don’t seek out help for almost a decade or more of illicit drug use. A court-mandating of therapy for drug-users could curtail addiction before it even starts and help begin forming healthy habits in addicts. Removing a criminal label from addicts will also allow them to maintain their social reputation and give them more opportunities to succeed within society and give them a healthier environment to promote recovery. Even more than that, our justice system would benefit greatly from such a policy. The Drug Policy Alliance shows that almost 90% of drug-related arrests are for possession alone. By freeing up the stacks of paperwork and the large majority of police, lawyer, and judicial time on
petty drug possession, our justice system would be able to better focus on cutting off the problem at its source: Drug distributors and manufacturers. Without some kind of change, thousands of sick, innocent people will continue being shunned and chastised by society while the real criminals run the streets spreading the plague faster than we can throw them in jail. The problems America faces are not the individuals victimized by drugs. It’s time to refresh America’s perspective and end the stigma that whoever a drug touches becomes less than human.