6 Opinion
the
www.thesmokesignal.org
Smoke Signal
Mission San Jose High School Est. 1964 Vol. 44, No. 1 | September 11, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Smoke Signal
Jules of Wisdom
MAOTH off!
Winking Her Way to the White House
Move Away from Image-Based Votes
www.thesmokesignal.org
41717 Palm Ave. Fremont, CA 94539 (510) 657-3600 Editors-in-Chief Sophie Diao, Mala Neti News Vidya Mahavadi, Amy Mao Opinion Julia Harrell, Marianna Mao Feature Lena Liu, Hannah Scobel Centerspread Amanda Kwan, Natalie Yang A&E Vicraj Gill, Eric Sun Sports Ryan Tanakit, Audrey Tseng Graphics Cici Cao, Jerry Ting Web Raymond Chou, Lucy Liu Tech Abhay Malik, Albert Yuan Ads Rebecca Gao, Sargunjot Kaur Business Victoria Gu Circulation Derek Yueh Events Megan Bernstein, Clara Ma Writers & Photographers Andre
Abrahamians, Sandhya Chandrasekaran, Monica Chen, Victor Chen, Christine Cheng, Michelle Chu, Ankur Dhar, Hannie Dong, Michael Feuerman, Peter Gao, Alissa Gwynn, Niku Jafarnia, Henna Jethani, Sonya John, Cynthia Kang, Karen Lin, Yvonne Lin, Gina Liu, Tanu Patel, Joseph Teng, Elisa Ting, Anastassia Tselikova, Jane Wang, Anthony Wu, Jonathan Ye, Jordan Zhang
Adviser Sandra Cohen Send letters to the editor to opinion@the smokesignal.org. Letters under 300 words may be considered for publication and must include a full name and school affiliation. The Smoke Signal reserves the right to edit for clarity and length.
To advertise in the Smoke Signal, e-mail ads@thesmokesignal.org. Advertising that is included on the pages of, or carried within, the Smoke Signal, is paid advertising, and as such is independent of the news and feature content.
The Smoke Signal’s right to freedom of speech and press is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
By Julia Harrell Opinion Editor
When the day of the Vice Presidential debate rolled around, I felt like a kid on Christmas morning. I’m not lying when I say that I couldn’t wait to see America’s greatest hockey mom crumble under the pressure of having to answer questions for which she had no prewritten responses, questions which would show the America people how unfit she is to be Vice President of the United States. But the thing is, Sarah Palin didn’t fall flat on her face. She spoke coherently and had a warm ambience about her. At first, her performance seemed decent. But then she did something that forced me to pause and rewind the debate multiple times. She winked. Sarah Palin winked during a nationally televised Vice Presidential debate. At first I tried to legitimize the act by thinking that perhaps it had been some sort of a facial twitch. But then I realized that Palin somehow thought the debate was a beauty pageant, and instead of answering tough questions about the disastrous state of the economy and foreign affairs, she was trying to be cute. Her attempts to woo the America people with her trite catch-phrases such as “There you go again Joe, looking backwards” and “You know what they say, drill baby drill” made it seem as though she didn’t take the debate seriously at all. How, I wonder, would it be possible for the American people to elect this woman who is so woefully unqualified to
GRAPHIC OPINION
By Marianna Mao be second in line to run the country? Frankly, Palin’s attempt to flirt with the camera during one of the most important debates in the election disgusted me and only solidified my belief that she is a disgrace to women and an insult to female politicians. Not only did Palin trivialize the debate with her inappropriate behavior, her casual language and repeated mispronunciation of the word nuclear had me staring at the TV in disbelief. It baffles me to think that anyone could vote for a ticket with her name on it, let alone take her seriously. Though all of the aforementioned factors about Palin’s debate made me shudder, her simple inability to answer questions in a straightforward manner made her entire performance sub par. Not only did she repeat the same points, she continuously avoided answering the moderator’s questions and instead went back to talking about subjects which she felt she could give intelligent responses to such as how America needs to tap into its internal oil reserves and her experience as an oil regulator in Alaska. As a woman, the fact that Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain’s VP to try and sway female voters is insulting. She should be given a pat on the back for her attempt to be a serious candidate in the election. But giving her a vote? That just seems out of the question. ▪ Send letters to the editor to opinion@thesmokesignal.org
Staff Writers
“Watch out, this time the pig’s even got lipstick...”
What is the point of homecoming week? Is it an opportunity for classes to show unity, respect for others, and concern for the community at large? Or is it an opportunity to waste resources, time and effort while perpetuating stereotypes? Are skits and airbands performed exclusively by enrolled students to be judged, or are these competitions for sale to the highest bidder? Is it healthy for students to attend classes for an entire week on limited sleep? Should the systemic vandalism of personal and school property continue to be overlooked? I don’t know the best answer to any of these questions, but are you asking yourself - what is the point of homecoming week? -Peter Geschke, Science Teacher Send letters to the editor to opinion@thesmokesignal.org
Many have hailed the 2008 presidential election as historic, no matter the result: the White House will likely welcome either the first African-American president and first Roman Catholic vice president or the oldest president and the first female vice president. But why stop at labels of race, religion, age, or gender to define what makes this election so special? I myself find it just as significant — or insignificant—that either Barack Obama will be the first president to have won two Grammy awards, or Palin will be the first (and probably only) vice president who knows how to skin and dress a moose. While this election’s winning ticket will certainly be remembered as a landmark pair in history, too much weight has been placed on the “firsts” of the campaign. First, Obama’s victory will not signify the end of racism, nor will McCain’s herald a new era for female politicians. Furthermore, focusing on characteristics like race, age, and gender only detracts from the legitimacy of the candidates’ viewpoints and campaigns. After all, Obama does not treasure hopes of becomeing “The First Black President”; he is simply someone running for the presidency who happens to have a Kenyan father. Likewise, McCain’s goal is not to be remembered as the oldest president but as a wise and vigorous leader. But because of the stark contrast between the two main presidential
candidates, image-based appeals are the ones shaping the election: Obama seems youthful and in-touch, while McCain plays up his stint as a prisoner of war. Yet these are unrelated to the abilities of the candidates to grapple successfully with challenges such as strengthening the economy, providing health care and restoring the international reputation of the United States. Furthermore, though many have tuned into the Presidential and VP debates, few realize that such forums provide only a shallow and inaccurate coverage of the candidates’ positions. In a political age where sound bytes, careful scripts, and plagiarized speeches are the norm, the people are more responsible than ever to critically analyze and discuss the decisions and policies that will affect not only ourselves but our children. At a critical moment in history, as Americans face an uncertain and murky future, Obama and McCain have based their campaigns on an urgent appeal for change in Washington. So let’s change the way we think, act, and vote. Let’s forget about popular image and catchy slogans. Let’s treat voting like the privilege it is and deliberate the merits of both candidates’ policies instead of blindly jumping onto the liberal or conservative bandwagon. We don’t have to wait for politicians to effect change; we can do it ourselves. ▪ Send letters to the editor to opinion@thesmokesignal.org
HUNTING FOR ALTERNATIVES By Sandhya Chandrasekan & Gina Liu
staff writer peter gao
Opinion Editor
As the deer population has started growing exponentially in vast expanses of land where they have no natural predators, debates have ensued as to whether hunting would be the most practical approach for curbing their numbers. Ideas have bounced back and forth, and recently, the Department of Fish and Game, which concerns itself with wildlife conservation and promoting the growth of threatened animals species, announced that it would promote hunting in order to keep the deer population under control. Although hunting may be one of the most popular wildlife management tools to control the rapidly increasing deer population, this method is extremely dangerous and irresponsible. Most hunting injuries result in fatalities, and unfortunately, innocent bystanders are often victims. Hunting is harmful to the entire community, not just to its willing participants. Many advocates of the use of hunting as population control cite the frequent conflicts they face with deer, which often eat their roses or jump in front of their cars. However, studies show that car and deer collisions actually increase during hunting seasons because
hunters chase the frightened deer out of their natural habitats and onto roads. Hunting deer in order to stop them from bothering humans would keep the number of deer and car collisions the same, if not increase them, while resulting in additional deer deaths– all in all, a significant waste of life due to an ill-conceived plan. What many people fail to realize is that there are other less controversial technologies available to keep the deer population in check. One example is immunocontraception, a method of lowering pregnancy in animals. Deer immunocontraception studies have shown that the number of births can be cut down approximately 72 percent in the first four years, stabilizing the population with no side effects or abnormal mating patterns for the deer tested. Why would anyone prefer a violent showdown to a relatively harmless alternative? Another reason to hunt is the deers’ potential for carrying contagious diseases, such as Lyme disease. Hunting seems like the perfect solution: killing the deer outright would prevent the illnesses from spreading. But would it really? As deer in an area are killed off, deer from surrounding populations come in to fill their place. This inter-population movement has a much higher risk for transmitting
flickr.com
such diseases, and could also result in the spread of new illnesses and diseases to the deer population and the surrounding area. Killing faultless animals for no purpose other than for sport is unfair and cruel. Deer are the true victims in this situation, not humans. The deer, having lost their homes due to the urbanization of their forest habitats, have nowhere to live and are left to wander the few grassy patches in cities. It is not their fault that they are homeless and must eat roses from gardens that grow where their forests used to thrive. Killing them off in droves is not a just punishment for a problem that we have essentially inflicted upon ourselves. Hunting for the sake of population control must be banned, and let’s hope, for the deer’s sake, that the Department of Fish and Game will honestly believe the same sometime in the near future. ▪