Local/National

The fashion industry is a constantly developing area. There are many different types of styles a person can have, such as “Y2K”, “Preppy”, “Boho”, “Beachy”, and even different decades. But in recent years, social media has created branches off these styles into what are now called Micro-Trends. Micro-trends are short-lived fashion trends that gain popularity extremely fast through social media and fade just as quickly. While they are typically fun and stylish, microtrends also contribute to significant issues such as overconsumption and environmental degradation.

Microtrends are often circulated online on social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram. These trends typically consist of specific clothing items, patterns, prints, color combinations, or styles. One week everyone might be wearing cheetah print on anything and everything, and the next week retro Y2K outfits are all the rage. These trends are in and out so fast that it can be difficult to keep up, thanks to social media algorithms that glamorize and encourage people to keep up with the latest styles. 

If you have TikTok, you’ve most likely come across a video on your “For You” page promoting a specific style or “core”. A few big ones in the past year were “Coastal Grandmother” which was a soft, clean, beachy, northeastern look that followed a strict white and blue dress code. Another example is “Saltburn Core”, which refers to the movie itself. This one consisted of bright colors and electric house music. These characteristics are perfect examples of how microtrends lure people in. People love the thrill of trying new styles and showing off their clothes online and with their friends. Due to this, most trending items are very accessible. Fast fashion brands produce immense amounts of clothing items to whatever “core” is trending. These shops allow individuals to quickly buy trendy items without spending too much money. However, this accessibility has led to many downsides.

One of the biggest issues with microtrends is that they encourage overconsumption. As trends change rapidly, people constantly feel pressured to purchase new clothes to keep up with the trends. And as each trend fades, so does the urge to wear specific clothing items, resulting in them being tossed out. According to Earth.Org, “The average US consumer throws away 81.5 lbs of clothes every year. In America alone, an estimated 11.3 million tons of textile waste – equivalent to 85% of all textiles – end up in landfills on a yearly basis.” (Martina Igini). All these “un-trendy” clothes are being thrown away because of microtrends.

The fast fashion industry thrives on these microtrends, which significantly harms the environment in a few ways. Manufacturing companies often use toxic chemicals, unsustainable, and un-recycled materials in their products. Additionally, they ship these clothes around the world increasing carbon emissions, and worsening climate change. According to an article by Martina Igini, “The fashion industry contributes to 10% of global carbon emissions annually, more than the emissions from international flights and maritime shipping combined” As microtrends push consumers to buy more clothes faster, the environmental toll becomes more serious. 

While these trends and aesthetics are unlikely to disappear, there are ways to help limit the negative effects. By being more mindful about clothing choices, people can enjoy fashion while also protecting our planet and staying true to ourselves. Fashion should not be constantly seeking what’s currently “in or out” but instead appreciating what we like to wear and how it affects the world around us. Consumers should look out for items made from recycled materials, and avoid falling to the trap of your feed. and choosing quality over quantity. Fashion influencers should also encourage a more thoughtful approach to shopping, promoting embracing one’s unique style instead of chasing after trends.

The cold and dry weather marks the return of fire season on America’s West Coast, particularly in California, where wildfires pose an annual threat. The Palisades Fire has reportedly burned over 23,000 acres of land, according to the Emergency Management Department—an area equivalent to approximately 17 football fields. This wildfire stands as the largest in the United States since the devastating Eaton and Hughes fires, which also ravaged parts of California. As firefighters battle the relentless blaze, officials urge residents to remain vigilant and prepared for potential evacuations. The fire has been documented as the fastest growing wildfire to hit California in the last 20 years, burning 825 acres of land a day, half a football field burned every minute. 

Wildfires ignite when a heat source (ignition) meets dry, flammable material (fuel) in the presence of oxygen, with common causes ranging from human activities—such as unattended campfires, discarded cigarettes, sparks from machinery, downed power lines, and arson—to natural events like lightning strikes during dry thunderstorms. In the case of the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles, investigators have yet to determine a definitive cause, though early findings suggest human involvement. Law enforcement sources indicate possible origins included arson, fireworks, accidental sparks, unauthorized camping, or a rekindling of a smaller fire that was extinguished on New Year’s Day. This Jan. 1 brush fire, spotted near the ridgeline by Palisades Highlands residents, was quickly contained without reported damage, but its potential connection to the massive blaze six days later has fueled public speculation. The ATF’s National Response Team is leading a joint investigation with local authorities into the Palisades Fire, as well as the other wildfires that tore through Los Angeles County, fueled by high winds, destroying over 12,000 structures, consuming more than 40,000 acres, and killing at least 25 people. Some of these fires continue to burn as officials work to pinpoint their exact causes.

The Red Cross is actively collecting donations to aid in relief efforts for those affected by the Palisades Fire. In addition to national organizations, many local charities, businesses, and even California-based influencers have stepped up to support displaced residents. Fundraisers, supply drives, and temporary housing initiatives are being organized to assist families who have lost everything. Community centers have opened their doors to provide shelter, food, and essential supplies to those in need. Additionally, volunteers have mobilized to distribute water, clothing, and hygiene kits to evacuees, ensuring that those affected have access to basic necessities. 

Social media campaigns have played a crucial role in amplifying donation efforts, with celebrities and influencers using their platforms to raise awareness and encourage contributions. In addition to the professionals who have stepped up, many influencers based in California have promoted many organizations for help, some even running drives themselves. On a recent episode of the Upstairs Neighbor’s podcast, influencers Maya Umemoto Gordon and Dom Roberts shared that they have been repeatedly waking up early in the morning to secure volunteering positions; they were taken aback when all the positions to help were filled. They recounted this story to shed positive light on the power of community within Californians. Nevertheless they persisted in creating their own drive, and uplifting the voices of affected people of color in the community. 

As the battle against the Palisades Fire rages on, the resilience of Californians is evident in the tireless efforts of firefighters, volunteers, and affected residents who refuse to let devastation define their communities. The road to recovery will be long, but with continued support and awareness, those impacted will begin to rebuild their lives one step at a time. Natural disaster relief is a difficult scenario, but time and time again, these situations test humanity and its ability to aid others and lift communities up. 

Photo contribution by Army.mil

James Earl Carter, popularly known as Jimmy Carter was the 39th president of the United States who served from 1977 to 1981 as a member of the Democratic Party. He was also in fact the longest-living president and the one to see 100 years. On December 29th, 2024, he took his last breath and died in his hometown Plains, Georgia, 2 months after turning 100. The state funeral took place January 7, 2025, at the National Cathedral, then sent to Plains for burial. 

Jimmy Carter was born October 1st 1924 in Plains, Georgia. In 1946, he graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, which paved the way for his career as a naval officer. He specialized in nuclear marine technology. Following the death of his father, Jimmy Carter resigned from his job as a Navy officer to take over his family’s peanut farming back in Georgia. This was hard during the first year but became a success after. 

In 1955 he successfully ran for office for the first time for a seat on the Sumter County Board of Education, eventually becoming its chairman. He also became a church deacon and Sunday school teacher at the Plains Baptist Church. Jimmy’s political career began as a member of the Georgia Senate, serving two terms in the 127th and 128th Georgia General Assembly. Initially, he had lost to his opponent and challenged the results of the election, leading to a re-election. During his two terms in the state senate, Carter gained a reputation as a civil rights advocate, focusing on education, civil rights, and government reform. 

In 1966, Carter planned to run for United States Congress. However, a Republican rival announced his candidacy for governor of Georgia, and Carter decided to challenge him. He did not win this election. In 1971, Carter ran again for governor and won the election, becoming Georgia’s 76th Governor on January 12, 1971. During this time, Carter tried to put an end to segregation and be a civil rights activist. 

On December 12, 1974, Carter announced his presidential campaign at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. His speech contained themes of domestic inequality, optimism, and change. Although he was unknown as compared to the other running candidates, Carter presented a good campaign strategy which was very helpful to him in the long run. November 2, 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected 39th President of the United States and was inaugurated  President of the United States of America on January 20, 1977, in Washington, D.C. After his first term, he was nominated for reelection, but lost to Ronald Reagan, and thereafter, did not run again.

Jimmy Carter would most likely be remembered for his post-presidency deeds. In 1982, President Carter became University Distinguished Professor at Emory University in Atlanta and, in partnership with Emory, he and his wife, Mrs. Rosalynn Carter founded The Carter Center to “wage peace, fight disease, and build hope” in nations around the world. This act earned him a Nobel Prize in 2002. He also volunteered every week, once a year at Habitat for Humanity to help build, renovate, and repair homes for people in need, as well as raising awareness for affordable housing. 

The country has lost a great legend. Jimmy would not only be remembered for his time in office as president, but also for being an active American citizen as well as a humanitarian. He fulfilled his promise of casting a vote for the 2024 elections before he died. 

Photo contributed by Creative Commons

Jerry Springer was a man of many talents. He was a politician, broadcaster, lawyer, and actor but he was best known for his role as the host of the Jerry Springer Show which dominated television during its 27 season run on national television from 1991 till 2018. The show was known for its rambunctious nature which often pushed the limits of what was considered appropriate for television. The show was a cultural phenomenon in the US, often unseating The Oprah Winfrey Show as the most-watched program on television. Recently, Netflix sat down with the crew and producers behind the show in their documentary Jerry Springer: Fights, Camera, Action as they detail the story behind the show’s success and its impact and legacy on American culture.
The documentary drives into the origins of Springer, who had political aspirations before turning to the talk show business. At first, the show was more discussion-oriented, with subpar ratings until the arrival of Executive Producer Richard Dominick who brought his tabloid experience to the show. His focus was on finding outlandish things that would make the show standout and draw the attention of TV viewers as they looked through the channels. The biggest example of this was the episode “Klanfrontation” in which KKK members fought Irv Rubin of the Jewish Defense League. The shock value of these style of episodes boosted the show’s ratings and continued a pattern of episodes that devolved into fights and other attention grabbing topics. One episode even featured a man who had married a horse. The new style was met with widespread criticism of the show, which many felt was severely inappropriate, but catapulted its ratings to new highs because of the shock value.
Behind the scenes, this new focus on fights and crazy stories required the producers of the show to commit some questionable behaviors to have the guests perform on stage. Oftentimes that would mean that guests were given the star treatment with limos and drink tickets before getting wound up by a staff member before the show. Interviews from the documentary highlight the mental toll of job on the production team and add on to the criticism of the show. The show was even sued at one point over its role in the murder of Nancy Campbell, who was killed by her ex-husband. Both had appeared on the show, with the murder occurring on the day that the episode first ran. The lawsuit was ultimately unsuccessful but ignited another wave of criticism over the behavior of the show towards its guests and how they were portrayed on television. Regardless, the show remained a cultural icon in the eyes of many. For Jerry, he described his show as a “circus” and as a place where individuals were able to “demonstrate outrageousness”. This belief was more than just words for Jerry, who was a fierce advocate for free speech on his show and often had on individuals whom he or society would not agree with.
The show’s reputation of sensationalism and free speech will live on but will constantly be debated if it was for the better. Oftentimes in the modern day, we see that the mainstream elements of society will run with a headline that is false or misleading in order to draw attention, without serious attention towards accuracy. Furthermore, the platform that Springer advocated for is important in a functioning society but can be detrimental when his show glorifies violence as a part of the discourse. Many point to these factors as having a negative impact on society because of the platform they provided for sensationalism to become mainstream.

Some of you read the title and are thinking what the heck is this project 2025? That’s what I said too when I initially began reading about it. Quietly, a conservative “manifesto” has been circulating through the media and politicians’ briefcases, spreading the promise of a more conservative America.

According to Mike Johnson, a Louisiana congressman, Conservatives focus on “Individual Freedom, Limited government, The Rule of Law, Peace through strength, fiscal responsibility, Free Markets, and Human Dignity.” Project 2025 goes deeper into the Conservative promise and what Conservative America looks like. Project 2025 is just one iteration of the conservative manifestos that are released every 4 years when election season is upon us once more. These conservative manifestos began in 1937, when US Senator from North Carolina, Josiah Bailey became concerned regarding the “move towards collectivism” as stated in The History Project. This led Bailey to create and present the nation with the first program of its kind, known as The Conservative Manifesto, which presented 10 principles of being Conservative. The 1937 manifesto set a precedent for there to be many more manifestos in the future to be made for the Conservative party to decide what Conservative America would look like. These manifestos plan out the future of America as envisioned by the ideals of the party that created it. So, why is this year different?

As we all know, this is an election year and one that matters a lot for several reasons. America functions as a 2 party system, with the Democrats and the Republicans having a majority of the votes. The Republican nominee for president is former President Donald Trump and the Democratic nominee is current President Joe Biden, but there are numerous other candidates such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. running as an independent. Many important issues, domestic and international, are at stake this election season, including student loan debt, abortion, gun restrictions, the Ukraine-Russia War, and the conflict in Gaza. These hot-button issues will assuredly be at the top of everyone’s mind going into the election season, alongside the outcome of President Trump’s current criminal trial which may lead to him being ineligible for the presidency. This all culminates in America being at an all-time high for political polarization, which is the idea of the divergence of political attitudes away from the center, towards ideological extremes. Americans are viewing the world in a black-and-white way, unable to listen to what the other side has to say. This state is only increased by Project 2025, which foreshadows what’s to come regarding America after a conservative wins the 2024 election. In a democratic republic, such as the United States, the creation of laws is devoid of political motivations. In contrast, Project 2025 states what is to come, such as “deleting the terms sexualorientation and gender identity…diversity, equity, inclusion, gender, gender equality, abortion, reproductive equality, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights.” When we overlook the principles of America, we are unable to move forward as a country united in the tumultuous times of this world, such as climate change and world peace. 

As many young voters are beginning to exercise their Constitutional right guaranteed and protected by the 16th, 19th, and 26th Amendments, it is of utmost importance that we educate ourselves regarding who we are voting for and why we believe that they will be the best leader of the United States of America. Who you vote for determines the future of America. On behalf of all of the MP Hoofprint staff, GO VOTE!

IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE 18 BY NOVEMBER 5TH 2024, YOU CAN VOTE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION!!!

Many quiver at the idea of taking a test that combines all of their high school knowledge, but some students take this opportunity to show where they thrive and excel. Standardized tests like the ACT and SAT, which used to be mandatory, have become optional requirements when applying to college. This is due to factors like the pandemic and schools wanting to adopt the idea of giving students a choice in their applications. The Urban Institute states, “The number of four-year universities and colleges with test-optional policies has nearly doubled from 713 to 1,350 since spring 2020”. Many schools have adopted test-optional policies to best-fit students’ needs. 

However, test-optional policies create an issue for many universities. Acuity Insights states that “Widening the net of viable candidates is an intended consequence of test-optional admissions. The increased pressure on admissions offices is not.” Due to the bigger candidate pool and extra pressure, many universities take longer to accept and deny students. This is especially true for prestigious universities. Due to the large pool of applicants, it is harder for these universities to make decisions; consequently, they make misconceptions about many applicants. 

Dartmouth, a highly prestigious university with an acceptance rate of 6.2%, has dealt with this issue significantly. They have changed their applications to be test-required as of this year, which aims to benefit students rather than harm them. Sian Beilock, Dartmouth’s President, conducted an internal study on standardized tests, which revealed that standardized test scores outperformed high school grades, essays, and teacher recommendations in predicting students’ success at Dartmouth. Reinstating test scores will better help high-achieving students by understandably displaying their strengths. Additionally, implementing test-required policies will help admission officials make decisions in a faster and more timely manner. This is because admission officers will no longer have to look at applications in a lengthened manner.

Dartmouth has also decided to implement  application test requirements to better help low-income students. Economictimes.com states, “Unexpectedly, the researchers found that Dartmouth’s test-optional policy during the pandemic negatively impacted lower-income applicants. Many students from disadvantaged backgrounds chose not to submit their SAT or ACT scores, wrongly assuming their scores were too low. In reality, these scores could have demonstrated resilience and potential, potentially securing their admission”. This is because test results are a helpful tool for admissions staff to find high achievers, especially if the kid is attending a high school where admissions have a history of fewer details regarding the high school and their transcript. The change will benefit students by giving them more of an advantage, by showing their high-achieving qualities in a standardized form, more than just based on what their high school has to offer. 

The HEA group, a research and consulting agency focused on college access and success, found that only 18.5% of Ivy League students are low-income. This shocking statistic proves that college admissions are engineered to prioritize high-income students. This is because it’s much easier to stand out to college admissions when your parents can afford tutoring, sports programs, and essay editors that can set you apart. Standardized testing allows students to show how the school has served them, and it also displays how they can perform. Schools are also interested in looking at job success, Standardized test scores are also good indicators of college and job success. Ultimately, Standardized tests can offer evidence of and promote academic rigor, which is invaluable in college and as well as in students’ careers. Matthew Pietrafetta, Ph.D., Founder of Academic Approach, argues that the tests “create gravitational pull toward higher achievement”.

Whether or not standardized tests are beneficial, they do serve to demonstrate many skills that are the best fits into prestigious universities. They can be good indicators that show students’ success and help them get accepted into schools and programs. 

Photo contributed by Eleanor Haviland

The rise of the anti-single-use plastic water bottle movement has incited a rise in the reusable water bottle industry. In the past 20 years, names such as Camelbak, S’well, Hydroflask, and many others have rotated through the trend cycles impacting both our water consumption and our overconsumption of new products. A trip to Target or a quick shop on Amazon can supply you with the newest fad but the impact of this modern movement of always needing trendy water bottles could prove more harmful than it seems. With the increase of social media and influencers, water bottles have become more of a status symbol or collector’s item than a resource for hydration, affecting people’s pockets, the environment, and society.

     Staying on each water bottle trend comes with a hefty price tag. There have always been popular brands but when comparing to icons of the past: the classic green Gatorade bottle at $6 and a 32-ounce Nalgene is $16, with trends of the present: 30-ounce Stanley Cup is $35 and a 32-ounce Hydroflask is $30, the price disparity is glaring. Sometimes the water bottle itself isn’t enough and one needs accessories to enhance it . A rubber bottom to “protect” the easily dented metal, an interchangeable lid to match your mood for the day, or a cute silicone animal to cover your straw can all be purchased to personalize the hydration station. The sticker industry is also safe as long as people keep curating the perfect gallery on their water bottles only to misplace it the next month. Are these customizations super fun and cute? Yes. Are they also an arbitrary expense on top of the already stupidly expensive water bottle? Yes again. 

     Even worse than your bank account’s well-being is the health of our environment. While reusable water bottles are far more eco-friendly than their single-use plastic counterparts, the impacts of metal manufacturing and the bottle’s disposal method can prove just as harmful. According to Treehugger.com, many water bottle manufacturers use only virgin materials in production, despite the vast amount of recyclable stainless steel and aluminum available.” Not only is obtaining metal ore harmful to the ecosystem, but most of the United States’s supply is outsourced meaning tons of emissions from international transport alone. The carbon spewing doesn’t stop at mining, with manufacturing exacerbating air and water pollution. Treating, shaping, and painting the metal for these trendy water bottles involves the use of toxic chemicals that inevitably make it into our air and waterways and eventually wreak havoc on our ecosystems and human health. 

    Perhaps the biggest long-term effect of these water bottles is their disposal. The idea of reusable water bottles is to relieve the strain of extra plastic in our landfills but even worse than plastic in landfills is metal that can’t be recycled. Contrary to popular belief, you can’t just recycle metal with your cardboard and paper products, your decrepit dented receptacle requires specific after-life treatment at a metal recycling plant. Many bottles contain layers of insulation with mixes of aluminum and stainless steel making the recycling process difficult.  In many cases, if it isn’t easily melted down it is rejected by the metal recycling plant and sent to a landfill anyway.  In a landfill, the metal can potentially leach toxic chemicals to its surroundings, practically defeating the purpose of a reusable water bottle in the first place. 

     While buying a 40-pack of plastic water bottles is by no means better than refilling your Owala, it is important to consider moderation when feeling the urge to jump on the new water bottle bandwagon, and at the end of the day, we all need water somehow.