Beard of the Week: Sean Bellemore

Victoria MacMillan

Why do you have a beard?

I have a beard because it keeps me warm in the winter, makes me look older, and the ladies love it.

How long did it take you to grow out your beard?

It took me about 3 weeks to grow my beard out.

What do you use to keep your beard clean?

I use beard oil, I lather Head and Shoulders shampoo on my beard, and I also use Perts Plus conditioner.

How often do you trim your beard? Or do you not trim it at all? 

I do not trim my beard often, only if I have a special event or date.

When did you decide to let your facial hair grow out? 

8th grade.

Do you see yourself with a beard in the future?

Of course.

What's your advice to those out there trying to grow a beard? 

My advice is to not shave all the time because you think your facial hair will grow faster, that's really a myth. If you want to grow a beard, then don't shave for weeks/months and don't try to shape it or trim until it's a defined beard.

SHARE:

0 comments

Pictures of Spirit

Jacob Valenti

Friday, October 9th marked the day of Haverhill High School’s homecoming football game, prompting current students, alumni, teachers, and parents to flock to the stands. “School spirit,” of course, is measured by attendance and crowd participation at the game, of which I saw very much...on Instagram.

School spirit used to mean that when one of our teams, no matter the sport, took the field (or playing arena) we would cheer and scream until we’d won, Hell, even if we lost we’d still support our peers. School spirit in the past meant that, as a unified group, we would fill our team's hearts with fire and their souls with passion. We’d chant together, we’d jump together, and we’d dress together as one coagulated group of all types of people. Brown and gold lined the stands on Friday, yelling filled my ears, and people surrounded me.

Yelling and cheering is of course standard with this type of gathering; however, the sounds I heard were not the ones I wanted. I was standing to the right of the section of people who consider themselves to have “spirit” and originate most of the main chants. I enjoy chanting at the games, especially to the theme of a White Stripes song called "Seven Nation Army." But Friday night the chants were half-hearted, hardly going past two verses. Traditionally, chants have a creative saying like “You’re still ug-ly” followed by a clap--clap--clap-clap-clap, this process is repeated at least three times, or at least it should be. At the homecoming game the chants stopped after repeating the initial chant once. Other chants were louder and had more length, but those were the ones by specific cliques cheering for individuals rather than for the team as a whole. 

The most disappointing part however was the chanting of "Seven Nation Army." The beat of the song is sung in a series of “whoas" by the crowd usually following a touchdown, field goal, or basically anything awesome. This event did occur but it stopped within ten seconds of its starting. When this happened I leaned over to my buddy and said “If this was a European soccer match that chant would be going for ten minutes.”

The most distracting thing to happen during the game was the number of pictures being taken of different people who had dressed up for the game, decked out in brown and gold clothing and paint. I noticed that while the game was being played, these fans with “spirit” would be facing the other way so that they may get their pictures taken from above in the stands. Flashes and shutters covered up two point conversions and vuvuzelas. At this point I leaned over to my buddy, who must’ve been getting sick of me by then, and said “It’s no longer about spirit, it’s about pictures of spirit.”

School spirit is no longer measured by unified chants, it is measured by whether or not you can get your friend on the field to hear you. School spirit is no longer about jumping when points are scored, but about how still we can stand and look at our phones. School spirit is no longer about being slathered in brown and gold; instead, it is measured by how many likes a picture of you dressed in brown and gold gets online. 

SHARE:

1 comments

Amping up gun regulations

Morgan Seale

In writing the Constitution, our Founding Fathers had no way of predicting what the Second Amendment would entail for the future. At the time it was written, “arms” meant very ineffective firearms that only shot one bullet at a time. Furthermore, guns were meant to be used to arm militias in an era when violent invasion from foreign powers was a very real concern. Now, automatic weapons and ammunition capable of piercing law enforcement protective gear abound and the only remaining semblance of a militia are street gangs.

According to the FBI, gun violence accounted for 69% of homicides in the US in 2013. Most of these deaths were not in self defense, which is what the Second Amendment looked to guarantee the American people. In recent years, incredible advancements in firearm technology have also allowed for an unsettling increase in mass murders. According to Christopher Ingraham from the Washington Post there have been 294 mass shootings so far in 2015 alone.

Despite the evident need for urgency to stem this proliferation of bloodshed at the tip of bullets, Congress continually seems to be unable to arrive at any real solution. The Democrats are looking to solve the problem by restricting access to firearms and creating a more rigorous process by which people purchase guns. Hillary Clinton recently called upon to"make sure the irresponsible and the criminal and the mentally ill don’t get guns.” Her views are not necessarily representative of all of her fellow Democrats but are representative of a progressive majority who recognize the problem of the mentally ill and reckless enjoying easier and easier access to guns.

Republicans, on the other hand, tend to be less proactive in their policy. Their theory is that by removing restrictions on gun ownership and purchasing it will lead to a decline in crime. This is to say that the more people who have guns, the more likely it is for responsible gun owners to stop criminals. They think if people had easier access to guns they would be able to more easily protect themselves and others. Regarding the most recent mass shooting in Oregon, Republicans tried to argue that since the school was a gun free zone the victims were unfortunately unprotected and vulnerable, or, as Donald Trump audaciously phrased it, every student was a "sitting duck."

The real problem is neither gun-free zones or oppressive restrictions on purchase. The real problem is the availability of guns. Something has to be done about this and right now Democrats are the only people who offer any real solution. They want to stop violence at the root of the problem, while Republicans want to let more people have guns to be used in cases of self defense. Guns are the most dangerous weapons Americans have  access to and should not be given out to people purely on the basis of a person’s Second Amendment right. Giving anyone access to guns is not actually solving the problem. If guns are the cause of the high crime rate, how could a reasonable person think that providing more guns would reduce that? It would just lead to more guns floating around and become even easier for people, whether they are part of organized crime or troubled individuals, to obtain them illegally. Currently there is no law requiring gun hobbyists to conduct background checks when selling their guns. There is an appalling lack of restriction on these weapons. There needs to be restrictions on this so as to prevent people from illegally gaining access to guns, and the only way to do this is with the help of the federal government passing specific policies addressing this issue.

SHARE:

0 comments