Op/Ed
Thursday, October 17, 2019
9
Report Card
Escape the vape: don’t waste your breath
Andrew Bucko Co-Opinion Editor
The bathrooms are quieter compared to my past three years at Conestoga. Groups of guys passing around e-cigarettes in plain sight are few and far between. The signature crackle of heating vape juice occasionally echoes from stalls, but only when fiends are guarded by a metal partition. Just why are these fruity-smelling speakeasies coming to a close? Could it
be the new cameras outside of bathrooms and in parking lots that administrators informed us of on the first day of school? Perhaps students cower in fear of being caught and having to take a digital anti-vape course? Or maybe, just maybe, the 18 (and counting) national vaping-related deaths have a role. According to the CDC, these deaths — along with 800 reported vaping ailments — are all caused, in part or in full, by THC and nicotine vapes. Most troublesome about these deaths is how little time vapes have been on the market. U.S. Customs and Border Protection cites the first U.S. import of vapes in 2006, with mainstream use coming much later. Illnesses arising this early offer a glimpse of what upcoming decades may bring. Even my aunt (a loyal Marlboro fan) has been smoking for 40 years and has yet to
succumb to illness. If the prospect of a swift and mysterious death isn’t reason enough to stop, the cost of funding a vaping addiction is nearly as scary. Using a pack of JUUL pods per week can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $1,300 annually. That’s a Louis Vuitton bag, two roundtrip flights to the Caribbean or a competent laptop to replace your school one. Is it really worth slaving away at some nine-dollar-per-hour job only to have your paycheck go up in smoke? On the bright side, vaping is, like, totally in. After all, nothing is more attractive than exhaling antifreeze and a slew of other chemicals. What better way to spend your Saturday than hunting to find the cheapest mango JUUL pods? And begging upperclassmen to buy “the goods” will obviously earn you a cool reputation.
Lanternfly Invasion
- They’re going to kill all of our trees...
New Printer System + Saving paper
Elena Schmidt/The SPOKE
“I think It’s OK. I know that vaping is bad and this seems like a step in the right direction.”
“It’s a good idea. Too many people vape and it’s bad for your lungs. It can even kill you.”
- Josh Penny, freshman
Kylie Jenner & Travis Scott Breakup
A
“Stranger Things” season four
sophomore
STUDENTS SPEAK OUT
Q: Do you agree with President Trump’s call to ban flavored vape products? “I think a total ban on flavored vapes is pretty extreme. Even though vaping is pretty bad and they are known for marketing towards kids, it’s still a safer alternative to smoking cigarettes and makes it more enjoyable to quit their cigarette addiction.”
Sophia Pan Copy Editor “I’m not a VSCO girl, I swear! I just like scrunchies.” “If you lose this round, you have to dress up as a VSCO girl!” “Hey, VSCO girl! Where’s your Hydro Flask?” Lately, I’ve heard this term — VSCO girl — tossed around a lot. So, what exactly are VSCO girls, and why does everyone seem to hate them? The term VSCO girl stems from the popular photo-editing app VSCO, which functions like a low-pressure version of Instagram without likes or comments. To put it simply, a VSCO girl is someone “basic,” often stereotyped to be wealthy, conformist and vain. She’s generation two of the “basic white girl” (think Starbucks and Uggs) of the early 2010s. Picture a girl in oversized clothing, Hydro Flask in hand, walking around in her Birkenstocks saying “sksksk” and “and I oop-.” Her hair is tied up with a scrunchie, and she’s got four more on her arm. And don’t forget the puka shell choker around her neck and the friendship bracelets on her wrist. But however strange the VSCO girl may seem with her phrases and fashion sense, she doesn’t deserve the hate she gets. A lot of VSCO-girl hate originated from TikTok, a short-video sharing app that has skyrocketed in popularity. Recently, that hate has seeped into our everyday lives. People have started dropping casual jokes about wearing scrunch-
simplicity to them that flatters everyone in every outfit color. The German company has retained relevance since its inception in 1774 because of its time-tested design, whose soles are designed to become more comfortable over time. “Sksksksk” (a keyboard smash) and “and I oop-” (adopted from drag queen Jasmine Masters) are harmless phrases that effectively communicate excitement, shock and surprise. Besides, internet lingo has always found its way into the outside world — these are just the newest additions to the ever-growing list of weird things people say (think “mood” and “tea”). Most of what people associate with VSCO girls is harmless or even healthy. At the end of the day, everyone just wants to fit in somewhere. VSCO girls shouldn’t be insulted for wanting to be comfortable, eco-friendly or accepted.
Coco Kambayashi/The SPOKE
- I’m 13 episodes behind
+ Nostalgic way to procrastinate
senior
B
- Drifting is hard. Bye bye battery
junior
ies or clothes that are too big. Hydro Flasks have become indicators, and mockingly saying “sksksks” or “and I oop-” has become the norm. But most of what typically characterizes VSCO is simply harmless or functional. Scrunchies, for example, work great for tying up hair both thick and thin. They’re a fun and vibrant return to ’80s and ’90s fashion. And what’s wrong with wanting to save the turtles? If environmentally-conscious products like Hydro Flasks and metal straws are a VSCO girl’s way of showing she cares about the planet, let her be. Crewnecks and oversized tops provide comfort by allowing more movement and air circulation. Wearing something just a bit too big is like being enveloped in a soft hug, and no one should be judged for wanting a little more comfort. Birkenstock sandals have a
+ Something else to binge
Mario Kart Tour
- Aaron Li,
-Katie Chuss,
D-
-Poor Stormi :(
- Cameron Porte,
In defense of VSCO girls
B
- Hard to print anything in a timely manner
+ More drama to keep up with
“I’m of two minds on the issue. There are definitely health issues that come with using tobacco and vapes, and we’re just starting to see the amount of damage vaping can do. At the same time, simply banning (flavored vapes) doesn’t address the root causes and doesn’t help anyone who’s already addicted. Unless we actually get people access to treatments and discourage vaping, I don’t think it would fix much.”
F
+ Fun to kill, ASMR-grade crunch
Censure Trump — Impeachment isn’t worth it
Claire Guo Co-Editor-in-Chief The sensational drama of American politics has reached a three-year high. House Democrats are exploring the impeachment of President Donald Trump, and they’re serious. That leaves us with two questions. One, is what Trump did impeachable? And two, should Congress move forward with impeachment if his actions are impeachable? The short answer? Yes, and no. The long answer: 1. Is what Trump did impeachable? Yes. Most of us aren’t political experts, so sometimes it’s hard to determine how wrong any political action really is. (Before the televised hearings on Watergate, a Gallup poll found that only 31 percent of Americans thought Watergate was a “serious matter.”) But Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian president is grounds for impeachment. The Democratic Party began a formal impeachment inquiry — an investigation, the first step to impeachment — three weeks ago. Why now? A “whistleblower” in the intelligence community sent a complaint to the director of national intelligence claiming that in a July phone call, Trump pressured Ukraine’s president into investigating Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden while withholding nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine. Since then, the White House has released a rough transcript of
the call. In it, Trump asks Ukraine’s president to investigate Joe Biden and Biden’s son (in regards to a baseless theory that Biden deliberately sabotaged a Ukrainian prosecutor’s investigation of his son). Trump then says, “I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.” A highlight of what’s wrong with the above picture: Trump wanted to have his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani work with a foreign president on investigating possible campaign rival Joe Biden (on a matter for which there is no evidence of Biden’s wrongdoing). The vague Constitution boundaries of acceptable presidential behavior are nowhere in sight. If the impeachment process moves forward, “articles of impeachment” will reach the House, where a simple majority vote would “impeach” Trump. But Trump wouldn’t be removed from office until a trial is held in the Senate and a two-thirds majority votes to convict him. That brings us to our next question. 2. Should Congress move forward with impeachment? No. The results of such an impeachment are easy to predict: the Democrat-controlled House will succeed in “impeachment,” but the Republican-controlled Senate won’t convict and won’t remove Trump from office. In the meantime, the American public will be dragged through mountains of Trump coverage and grow more polarized than we already are, if you can believe that. Issues that truly matter to Americans, like health care and education, won’t matter. Not to Congress, not when each side is so focused on getting the other. But if Trump deserves impeachment (see 1.), how can Congress ignore his actions? What if I told you there was a third option? One that publicly
Trey Phillips/The SPOKE
condemns Trump but doesn’t drag Americans through the tedious and ultimately damaging impeachment process? Congress should censure Trump. Censure is a formal statement of disapproval of a politician’s actions that requires a simple majority vote from both houses. It doesn’t remove members from office, but it is a public condemnation. One without hearings. Censure forces all members of Congress to vote on one thing and one thing only: is what Trump did wrong? There is no evasion of the question, no disagreeing with impeachment “because it overrides the American people’s decision.” Censure lets Americans choose the president themselves on November 3, 2020, little over a year away.
What’s more, only one president has ever been censured: Andrew Jackson, in 1834. Succeeding to censure Trump now would make a statement, and that was really the whole point of impeachment, wasn’t it? Members from both parties have introduced dozens of resolutions over the years to censure presidents from Lincoln to Nixon, Clinton to Obama, and even Trump himself earlier in his presidency. Besides Jackson, every attempt failed: the evidence wasn’t strong enough, or the party attempted impeachment instead. Censure could succeed now. Impeachment won’t. Worse, it’ll waste our time. Censure Trump. Move on. The 2020 election is on its way, and that’s when the American people will decide what they want.
Charity Xu/The SPOKE