Over Winter Break, I had the great satisfaction of humoring myself with a bit of personal time at the mall. While not my favorite place to be, as I much prefer the little silence and sanctity I can garner my own home, I decided a moment of mental clarity would greatly work to my advantage. Valley View Mall in the later hours of the morning is definitely one of the finer experiences in the Roanoke Valley, allowing me to freely traverse the building’s vast concourse without much hindrance from passersby.
While not much of an avid shopper, I have always found a humble reprieve from the constant nagging of everyday life between the simple folds of a book. Therefore, I thought it appropriate to treat myself to a new book and maybe a few other items. I entered Barnes & Noble, a store that has always served as a calming atmosphere. Hit immediately with the colloquially known “new book smell” and other scents such as freshly ground coffee beans and the ever-present aroma of pretzels, I felt free to browse books of my interests without interruption, of course. As I perused the enticing catalog of books, magazines, and toys on display, a bright-red hardcover caught my attention. On it, the single word “WAR” was scrawled across in all-capital white letters. My eyes journeyed to the bottom of the glossy jacket, which contained the author’s name: Bob Woodward. Intrigued, I meandered over to a vacant chair, where I set my coat down and opened the book. Inside, a map of the current situation in Ukraine was displayed, including all territorial advances through October. “Okay, now it’s definitely piqued my interest,” I thought as I methodically flipped through a few more pages. I glanced at the table of contents, which covered a vast number of topics including the War in Gaza, the domestic situation, Donald Trump’s resurgence, among many others. It wasn’t long before the pages pulled me from the peaceful hum of the bookstore into the stark realities of global conflict and political intrigue. “Alright,” I decided, “I’m absolutely buying this.” While waiting in line, I noticed a copy of TIME Magazine’s latest issue: “PERSON OF THE YEAR: DONALD TRUMP.” This was not necessarily out of place; TIME’s Person of the Year has been the victor of the presidential election for years. I figured I would purchase that too, along with the weekend publication of The Wall Street Journal. Approaching the checkout, my eclectic mix of selections certainly garnered a strange look from the cashier who was ringing me up, and for a brief moment. I wondered if she was silently crafting my political profile based solely on my reading material. Was I about to be pegged as a staunch conservative? Or just someone who takes their news seriously? Either way, I grabbed my items and walked out, leaving the mystery intact. Somehow, I figured, she knew it was a little bit of both. I left the mall around noon, granting me free rein to spend the rest of the day poring over my new acquisitions. I quickly became engrossed in Woodward’s book, which prompted reflections on several foreign policy challenges that have emerged in the wake of the presidential election. While I’ve been inundated with chapter and verse over which candidate was “better” or “more deserving of the win,” the reality remains that the victory has been bestowed upon the 45th President, Donald Trump. Nearly every American is well-acquainted with the domestic debates surrounding the election, yet few pause to consider its implications for international relations—most notably, the intense friction between the United States and Russia amid its escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War through a full-scale invasion in February 2022. Will Putin’s paranoia force his hand, or will President Trump’s characteristic volatility push Russia over “the red line?” Donald Trump, then a household-name business mogul, said in a 1989 interview that “instinct is far more important than any other ingredient if you have the right instincts. And the worst deals I’ve made have been ones where I didn’t follow my instinct.” That attitude, it seems, he has carried into the White House. Nearly 5,000 miles east of Washington, Vladimir Putin, the cautious, analytical, multi-term “modern tsar” of the Russian Federation, has often been characterized as paranoid, oligarchist and vehemently oriented towards restoring Russian territorial integrity in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea. The meticulously pragmatic president has been benchmarked by his resonant megalomania and misguided savior complex. Despite a multitude of pleas from Biden and the West to de-escalate the situation before its onset, Putin deflected, simply saying that “we defend the interests of our countries, our peoples, and our relations are always primarily pragmatic in nature.” Trump’s instinct-driven “go for broke” tendencies and Putin’s calculated Amero-skepticism represent two clashing ideologies with the power to reshape not only U.S.-Russia relations but also the broader stability of European allies. It all comes down to the perpetuation of a strained, high-stakes relationship, renewed indifference toward allies, and the uncertainty surrounding U.S. support for Europe during Donald Trump’s rebirth as the 47th President. In 2017, after securing a significant underdog victory in the prior year’s election, Donald J. Trump, a New York native, was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States. Immediately thrust into the pressures of the White House—pressures often at odds with his campaign promises—Trump’s first priority was not closing the border, deregulating the economy, or confronting China, but addressing growing concerns over Russia’s alleged interference in the election. If true, such interference could have potentially tipped the scales for either candidate, raising questions about the integrity of the election process itself. Questions that, as observed, have continued to this day. Trump’s initial perceptions of Putin were favorable; he admired his ability to assert control over such a vast nation and agreed with some of his more conservative policies of anti-LGBTQ governance and an integration of Eastern Orthodox ideals into the country. This praise of the ex-KGB head was old news by the time Trump even stepped foot on the campaign trail, as he once said on a 2007 CNN interview that “[Putin] has done – whether you like him or don’t like him – he’s doing a great job in rebuilding the image of Russia and also rebuilding Russia period.” This unusual relationship also was not one-sided. During the race, Putin said of Trump that he was a “genius” and “the absolute leader of the presidential election.” They appeared on 60 Minutes in the same 2015 episode, and amassed some of the show’s highest ratings to date. In ironic contrast to Trump’s aforementioned characterization of his instincts, Putin said that Trump “doesn’t have the usual political instincts, but I think that can be a good thing.” In the same interview, Trump said that “I think that I would probably get along with [Putin] very well. And I don’t think you’d be having the kind of problems that you’re having right now.” So with this myriad praise, one must ask: is there any contention at all? Well, yes, and it stems from a few key factors. For starters, Russia's interference in the 2016 election and the subsequent Mueller investigation made Trump's relationship with Putin a domestic liability. This limited Trump's ability to forge closer ties without facing bipartisan backlash. So in essence, President Trump was forced to give Putin the cold shoulder or risk suspicion of treason or collusion. This reaction, however, was not immediate, and drew even stronger criticism after the 2018 Helsinki Summit, when Trump appeared to side with Moscow over security concerns rather than points stipulated by U.S. intelligence. This damaged his public image even further, and led to adopting a tougher stance on Russia. Post-presidency, Trump has been a vocal opponent of Russia’s 2022 Invasion of Ukraine (albeit praising the strategy), and repeatedly claims that he would have prevented it if given the opportunity. Across the Arctic, this sentiment is echoed. Putin reportedly became disillusioned with Trump’s unpredictability and limited ability to deliver outcomes that were advantageous to Moscow. While Trump’s rhetoric was often favorable, many of his administration's actions—sanctions, support for Ukraine, and NATO strengthening—worked against Russia’s interests. Trump’s rage at Putin was cemented during the 2024 Election which, although a victory, served as a reminder of the Kremlin’s souring attitude toward a second Trump Administration. The Russian president expressed a semi-sarcastic will for Harris to come out on top, saying that “[Harris] laughs so expressively and infectiously. That means that she is doing well.” This comment was meant to be a gut punch, and served its purpose directly the way it was intended. only served to enrage her opponent. Although this election was a victory, the damage has absolutely been done, which leaves us with a nagging query: What is this new relationship going to look like? Washington and Moscow have already allegedly come to blows over the president-elect’s strategies in the years to come. Russia’s premier foreign agencies have already dismissed Trump’s peace plan, one that stipulates postponing Ukraine’s admission to NATO for 20 years and stationing British and European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine, as a complete non-starter and vowed to leave the negotiation table if refusal to acquiesce to amendments continue. Trump, despite the Kremlin’s grievances, has not publicly released the plan, saying that it would become “worthless” if shared. With this gridlock, we are presented with two options for the future of US-Russia relations. The White House could opt for a more intimate relationship with Vladmir Putin, though some argue at the expense of allies, and mitigate the risk of the Kremlin seeking other allies in Iran or the People’s Republic of China. Conversely, President Trump could double down on his growing contempt for Putin, invigorate NATO and Ukraine, while simultaneously presenting a heightened sense of peril. Regardless of the situation’s outcome, one thing is certain: global dynamics are ever-changing, and the next four years will remain rock-solid evidence of that. Winners of the Caption Contest
“Stop acting like animals, control yourselves,” said the teacher, glaring at the students. -- Elizabeth Jackson ‘28 The Zoo for Presidency -- Kaylie Johnson ‘27 “Ok class, today we will be playing this or that: politics edition.” -- Indira Weed ‘25 Herald staff members chose their top three and these three were chosen more than others. By Mason Bibby
It is time to stop beating around the bush. Whether Republican or Democrat, I believe there is a large degree of consensus around the premise that neither candidate, Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, is ideal for a majority of people. In fact, this has been the case for a multiplicity of presidential candidates, leaving many to opt for the proverbial “lesser of two evils.” Too few have stopped to consider what a hypothetical “ideal candidate” would look like. Specifically, what would a campaign look like that synthesizes and juxtaposes all of the beliefs, values and visions that one holds dear. For myself, it is relatively easy to discern. However, that averment may be difficult for others, and so I have used myself as an example. This was a more arduous task than one might expect, which surprised even me, as I took a great deal of care in ensuring that my beliefs aligned with things I may say or attempt. To do this, I took a quick political test (which I strongly recommend by the way) and found that I side with the GOP, or Republican Party, on about 81% of issues. I was not unsurprised; I tend to lean further to the right on a multiplicity of issues, such as economic policy, infrastructure improvement, and individual values. Conversely, I found that I sided with the Democratic Party on about 46% of issues–far less than the Republicans, and far less than half. Other parties, such as the American Constitutional and the NoLabels movement, also made appearances, mostly through answers that were similar throughout most or all parties. Therefore, I figured, my ideal candidate would most realistically either be on the right, center-right, or a more conservative iteration of the left. Next, I did a bit of self-searching to determine what kind of qualities, characteristics, and general demeanor I would want a presidential candidate to exhibit. Honesty, transparency, and integrity, are perhaps the most important benchmarks of an individual competing for the highest office in the land. Lastly, it all comes down to how my opinions will change as I grow. I am neither a true office holder nor a voter, and there are many, many, many things I still need to learn and experience. But for now, I can safely say that I would value the true characteristics of a candidate rather than his or her party. ![]() How often do high school students reflect on or think of politics? The daily life of a student at NCS: wake up, get ready for school, attend four block periods, have an assembly, a break and lunch in between, then head to extracurriculars, athletic practices or home. But what do we think about throughout the day? Should students be more educated on politics? How do I look? My shoes don’t really match my uniform. Is my homework done? I can’t wait to watch YouTube when I’m home. Is Mrs. Sprouse here? What time do we go back to class? What are we eating for lunch? I’m sick of chicken tenders. I wonder if I should get a Celsius or Frappuccino from the snack shack. I’m afraid my best friend won’t be able to hang out with me this weekend. What about the world outside? Politics are always mentioned in Government classes. But are we actually informed on what’s going on in the world aside from what we are taught in school? Do we know which side we favor in politics, and do we know who to vote for if possible? AP Comparative Government and regular Government classes are only taught in the later years of high school. We don’t have a class for politics. Political education defines our politics. Students need to be educated in order to build democracy. We need to be learning, especially at a young age. “The history department aims to produce engaged American citizens,” History Department Chair Ryan Demarco said, “by not only teaching students about the contents of American history and the principles of American government, but also by fostering skills needed by active citizens including critical thinking, digital media literacy, engaging diverse perspectives, and active listening.” Some students clearly get the message. “Learning about the structures of government and the different roles that everybody plays helps me become more active in politics,” Valeria Dancea ‘25 said, “and I have also learned from government class about the importance of voting in smaller, more local elections.” Politically active Mason Bibby ‘27, sophomore class president said, “I think of politics at least once every couple minutes. I’ll be sitting in class, and my mind wanders to something political. What does the electoral map look like? What states are going to flip or stay the same?” “Sometimes I think about what all I need to get done. If the people who I wanted to email have responded,” Bibby said. “I’m genuinely a busy person, whether on campus or off. When not focused in class, which is often, I’m thinking of things I need to get done. But like everyone else, I do think about random things like what’s for dinner and which parent is going to pick me up from school. I think about whether I will mess up on the script I have to read on stage or for volleyball games as well,” he said. “As a student close to the age of 18,” Lauren Boone ‘25 said, “I only think about politics when it is mentioned. I think about it in Government, when I’m watching the news or talking to my parents. It is not something that I’m too passionate about or interested in unless elections are coming up. I’m sure that I can speak for other high school students too.” Dear seniors,
Congratulations, it’s been quite the year! You all have accomplished so much and been through so much together that it’s hard to remember it all. Balancing classes, giving senior speeches, playing sports, performing shows, making college applications, socializing with others—the list of achievements is endless. In a survey conducted by the Herald asking students to use one word to describe your class, one sticks out among the rest: community. Undoubtedly, our school has the foundation for having a strong community, but you seniors have expanded this to a level beyond. Not only have you become overachievers and leaders in our community, but you have worked together and alongside one another forming unbreakable bonds. As the school year comes to an end, we will miss you dearly and we will never forget the lessons you have taught us. Because of you, we have not only formed a community, but we have truly become a family. Whatever the future holds, we wish you the best, and no matter what happens, we are beyond proud and grateful for all you have done. Love, The Herald “The Class of 2024 stands out to me for their ability to build community -- across grades and divisions, and across our region and the world. I will miss them dearly for their strong leadership, for their many talents - academic, artistic, and athletic -- and for their deep devotion to North Cross School. They have been all in this year as senior leaders, and I will never forget them.” -- Head of School Armistead Lemon By Ally Stone
When I attended elementary school in Coral Springs, Florida, we weren't allowed to say the word “gay” in school, and when we asked why, no one explained. They just said, “Don’t say the word ‘gay’. Just don’t say it!” So anyone could suddenly get in trouble for saying the word “gay” with your teachers, but no one knew why, and no one could tell us. Not even school guidance counselors. It was weird. I was fascinated, and that’s what led me to the subject of book banning. Book banning and word banning are an ironic contradiction in the public education system. After all, these words and books are not curse words. The basic building blocks of education start with understanding words and reading books, right? The purpose of reading a variety of books is to instill a sense of empathy for different perspectives. Schools that are trying to teach diversity may use literature with history to give students perspectives from minorities in particular that are targeted by religious groups or those in power. So what happens to public school education if minority perspectives are excluded from general studies? What will the impacts of removing diversity be from our schools? “Books should not be banned in general,” British Literature teacher Brett Odom said. “Even books that are controversial are important to engage with. They broaden our minds. And it's important for us to understand other perspectives even when they're ones we object to.” Surprisingly, parents are most generally behind book bannings in the United States. In 2022, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a law called “Parental Rights In Education”, which has been nicknamed the “Don’t say gay” law. This law prohibits educators from talking about sexuality and gender in the classroom. Ever since the 1600s, Americans have been banning books, such as 1984 by George Orwell. 1984 is one of the most banned books in the U.S. and possibly one of the most banned books in the world. The story is about characters living under authoritarian rule, how they have to live day to day under surveillance and how this oppressive government tries to control their day to day behaviors. This plot line may challenge the ideas of those in power that are actively trying to implement similar laws. By banning books that make us think, America has become dangerously accustomed to the idea that thinking and dissent should not be encouraged. This seems counterproductive to what the American public education system should be providing at the most basic level–critical thinking. Book banning is a form of censorship. It occurs when private individuals, government officials, or organizations remove books from libraries, school reading lists, or bookstore shelves because they object to their content, ideas, or themes. In America 2024, the practice of book banning is alarmingly on the rise. Should Americans be worried? Some frequent [recent] reasons why books are being banned in America is because of LGBTQIA+ content, racism, political views and so much more. Even though freedom of speech is one of the first amendments to the Constitution, book banning makes you question the irony of our foundational laws. Florida is one of the states that bans the most books, just behind Texas. According to a recent 2024 ABC News article titled “Book Ban Lawsuit Moves Forward As Florida District Removes Over 1,000 Titles,” more than 2,800 books have been banned in a Florida county. A lawsuit challenging book bans in Escambia County, Florida, is saying that the removal of books violates the First and Fourteenth amendments. Several authors including David Levithan (author of Two Boys Kissing, Boy Meets Boy, Hold Me Closer, and Full Spectrum), George M. Johnson (author of All Boys Aren't Blue) and Ashley Hope Pérez (author of Out of Darkness), are all backing the lawsuit that challenges the Florida county lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, books that were by or about people of color or part of the LGBTQ+ community, were targeted in the book banning policies described in the lawsuit. Book banning is not limited to the current American political climate either. It happens all over the world. The People’s Republic of China, Nazi Germany, North Korea and The Soviet Union are all examples of governments that have practiced book banning. The censorship of diverse and dissenting ideas may have been the greatest threat to these regimes. Historically speaking, book banning has been an instrument of authoritarian rule under controlling regimes such as Nazi Germany or North Korea to prevent citizens from accessing dissenting ideas. This should be a reminder to Americans that reflecting on the past will give harsh clues to the future. ![]() By Caroline Welfare Opinions Editor Earth Day there are 24 hours each spring when everybody is reminded to keep good habits and conserve energy. But our leaders don’t do a good enough job of telling us why we should care or what we should do. How are all animals important in the great circle of life? How will the scars we leave now come back to bite us later? Yes, it’s important to turn off the lights when we leave the house because it saves energy, and overuse of resources is interfering with the planet’s natural patterns, but with more and more of our lives spent online, it becomes easier to question why we need to do this. Beyond that, the lack of communicating and spreading environmental awareness is making people unaware of what to do when the unwanted side effects of woodland creatures are thrust into their faces. The lack of information can also lead people into potentially dangerous situations. Who hasn’t heard their parents complain about the raccoons getting into the trash? Or pigeons (and seagulls… and crows…) trying to steal their food? More and more wild animals are getting pushed into the cities, and are adapting to survive. And while it’s great to see more of them surviving (coyotes have been seen looking both ways before crossing the street), it also means that we are being confronted with new problems, namely, aggressive animals, pests carrying diseases, gardens getting eaten, raccoons that can open trash cans, and predators capable of injuring our pets. However, there are some other considerably worse side effects of being in close quarters with wild animals. Sometimes the consequences of not respecting them has something to do with eating something or being eaten. CBS news recently released an article about people getting sick and dying from eating a delicacy in Zanzibar: sea turtle meat. Not only is this sad for the sea turtles, it’s also a miserable thing to go through as the consumer, as the list of symptoms is “all of them”. People being unaware of these sorts of dangers can get hurt, as shown in the more extreme example of the early 1900s Maneater of Champawat; an injured tigress that claimed an estimated 436 human lives. It was finally stopped in India in 1907 by famed tiger hunter and conservationist Jim Corbett, the India Times said. In the book No Beast So Fierce, it is explained that the tigress had been maimed by a poacher’s bullet early in life, and was left unable to hunt its usual prey. As the East India Company pushed farther into the forests, its encounters with humans became more frequent, with us becoming its main food source. What stings the most is that both of these sufferings were entirely avoidable, if people had been responsible in their resource use and not tested their luck with a questionable delicacy. While those are somewhat (actually, they are) very unpleasant examples, their message rings true: People need to know and respect the boundaries of nature, for our safety, and everyone else’s. Earth Day is a prime opportunity to remind ourselves of what we can do to help, but what we do on Earth Day should carry over into every other day of the year. There is a reason that the image of a quiet mountaintop with a cool breeze and a warm sun nurturing blooming flowers is an idyllic image in our minds, and the day that we forget that, we have to protect that for ourselves and our future is a dark, scary day indeed. |
Editors:Co-Editor-in-Chief: Archives
February 2025
Categories |