French President Emmanuel Macron just destroyed his legacy, and the French people will seal his fate in the upcoming week. 

The decision is shocking in regards to timing, logic and most of all — audacity. 

This move could very well be one of the “biggest democratic blunders in recent history,” according to Vince Pedicino, Director of Academic Programs at the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs. 

“This election has taken politics to the absurd,” said Pedicino. 

Macron made this announcement on June 9, which surprised the French electorate and government alike. Macron’s choice not to alert even top officials of this decision only supports the narrative that under pressure, Macron will not work to unify his government but instead exacerbate existing wounds in an effort to flaunt his power. 

It is immature and inconsiderate to a country already under major stress. 

Macron’s power only exists through his influence over the parliament and prime minister, and he could very well lose both in these elections. He just opened himself up to the fate of being a lame duck for the last two years of his presidency. 

In addition to the secrecy surrounding this sudden dissolution, the timeframe for the re-election of parliament is extremely condensed —now just three weeks.

Macron did not shock the French political establishment to invigorate the people, nor did he throw a lifeline to save his own party, Renaissance (RE), which underperformed in the recent European elections. This sudden dissolution only stirred extremism in an already volatile political environment, which will only serve to hurt Macron’s centrist party. 

With the imminent arrival of the Olympics, nearly the entirety of France is under construction, and the French government is no exception. The country is unprepared to handle the attention of the world if it cannot even handle domestic conflict and dissent. 

France is at a sociopolitical inflection point. With all eyes on France, Macron must show he has a firm grip on his country. This election only highlights Macron’s insecurity and lack of control. 

In the face of major change, maintaining stability wherever possible is in France’s best economic, social, and political interests. 

Yet, Macron’s decision has been anything but stabilizing.

The Paris stock exchange and bond markets have taken a downturn. The CAC40 index, a benchmark French stock market index, dropped 6.2% in the week following the dissolution. 

With no time to campaign, Macron made it so that every political party, including his own, was equally unprepared for re-election. In the scramble to win votes, the parties on the left side of the aisle formed a united front, agreeing not to fragment the votes between left-leaning parties in parliament. 

In an already chaotic moment for France, Macron fomented more chaos and shot himself in the foot in the process. He revealed that his campaign for unity and balance was just a farce. At best, he made an uninformed choice, but at worst, he made a choice just to prove he could make a choice. 

With the far-right Rassemblement National (RN) party on a high after taking the majority of the vote in the recent European elections, Macron needed to make them the people’s enemy to revive his party. He needed to take a big swing at changes that the French people could see and feel. 

“People in France are angry, and they don’t want to vote for any existing political power since they all function the same,” states Pedicino. 

The RN uses France’s many losses in recent years, from Notre Dame to a suffering economy, to fan the flames of an electorate that so desperately wants change. Had Macron picked any one of those issues and made an attempt to solve them, he would be in a better place. 

But rather than making sound policy changes, Macron did what he does best: He made a move that backfired on his party and reputation and left it in someone else’s hands to deal with the repercussions. In this case, the French people must clean up this mess during this month’s elections.  

As it stands, the left-wing alliance sits narrowly behind the RN in polls. 

Amid this disarray, campaigns started armed with lackluster policy proposals to cure the ails of the French economy. This only solidifies the people’s lack of faith in the government, specifically its understanding of what the French want. 

As of June 21, the left-wing coalition has announced an economic plan to raise the minimum monthly wage in France by increasing the number of tax brackets from five to fourteen and enforcing a progressive tax system. 

However, with the current economic distress, a costly overhaul to the current system is unpopular with voters. French citizens have concerns about inflation and resistance from market participants. 

With that said, the Rassemblement National has yet to present a full political plan, offering promises of lowering retirement age and public spending increases with no plan on how to enact them.

Macron declared himself an incapable and feeble leader and left his people to decide between a campaign based on the change the French fear and a party that promises to return France to its former glory. Even if this election was unpredictable, it does not take a political analyst to determine why the RN appeals to the electorate. 

Ultimately, as is often true in politics, this story has no heroes. What is rare, however, is the ability to point a finger at the orchestrator of disaster and weakness. 

Macron failed France at a moment when it needed strong and decisive leadership. On center stage, Macron crumbled under pressure and destroyed the legacy he so desired — one of unity and strength.

The post Macron’s dissolution of parliament: An agent of chaos and polarization appeared first on Technique.

Dear Harrison Butker, 

Your commencement speech at Benedictine College does not reflect the world in which you and I grew up.

We are both from Decatur, Ga. Our high schools are a thirty-minute drive away from one another, and I expect that as fellow Georgians, we would even offer the same disclaimer: “Well, thirty minutes, assuming minimal traffic.” 

I attend school at your alma mater, and in less than two years I will be alongside you saying “to HELL with georgia” in the alumni suite. 

Yet, I disagree with nearly everything you said in your commencement speech.

Sure, we can point out differences in the number of Super Bowl rings between us or that I am a woman and you are a man, but those differences do not account for the major discrepancies in our interpretations of American society. 

In your speech, you say that “[t]he world around us says that we should keep our beliefs to ourselves whenever they go against the tyranny of diversity, equity, and inclusion.” 

But there is no DEI tyranny. The worlds we live in are not governed by these ideals, not only systemically but culturally. The narrative of DEI forcefully suppressing opposing beliefs is nothing in comparison to the reality of the institutional forces that oppose progressive thought.

For example, in your address you said  you “have gained quite the reputation for speaking [your] mind.”  This descriptor puts you in a group with other politically active athletes who use their platforms to say what they believe, such as Colin Kaepernick and Muhammad Ali. 

The key difference is what your fellow athletes stood for. They both took a stance for equity and as a result, were effectively blacklisted from their sports. The most severe consequence  of your political stance has been internet backlash. That does not sound like diversity, equity and inclusion reign in our culture.

Suppression of activism extends beyond the world of professional sports. 

As a fellow Jacket, I assume you are  familiar with the fight song “Ramblin’ Wreck from Georgia Tech,” in which one of the lyrics is “Oh, if I had a daughter sir, I’d dress her in white and gold, And put her on the campus, sir, to cheer the brave and bold.” 

For years, this lyric has been controversial because it suggests a woman’s role at the Institute to cheer on male students. It is a lyric that stands against inclusion.

There have been campaigns and elections to change the lyrics, but despite the alleged tyranny of diversity, this lyric continues to appear in the T-book and all other official publications. Even on a systemic level, women continue to be a minority at the Institute, despite the growing numbers of female applicants in recent years. 

Time and time again, those in power shut down efforts toward diversity and inclusion. Then, it is not diversity, equity, and inclusion that are tyrannical, but the current doctrines of empowered people. 

In your speech, you said that, “Our Catholic faith has always been countercultural.” I push you to consider that your faith may be countercultural in the broader world, but not in positions of power. 

Proportional to the United States population, Catholicism is disproportionately represented in public office. According to the Pew Research Center, 20% of Americans identify as Catholic. However, nearly 30% of Congress members identify as Catholic, as well as President Joe Biden and two-thirds of the Supreme Court.

While Catholics are a minority in the United States, they are not a minority in circles of influence. Your faith is extremely well-protected, unlike abortion, IVF or surrogacy, all of which you mention as the results of poor leadership in the United States.

The tyranny you describe does not exist. You speak of honoring your vocation as a man, and a part of that is listening to the women  who are the backbone of society. 

I implore you to write about what you know — the world as it really is.

The post Open Letter to Harrison Butker appeared first on Technique.

When I was 16, my grandmother turned to me and demanded I tell her my resolutions for the new year. 

When I said that I did not have any, she told me I was far too old not to have at least one and that I needed to think about it and get back to her. 

I tried to find a reason to neglect this assignment that my grandmother had brought before me, but with ample time over winter break to ponder the fickleness of life, I decided that I had no excuses and agreed to return to her with a list of resolutions. That, and I deeply feared Grammy’s wrath. 

The word “resolution” has several meanings, but when it comes to New Year’s resolutions the world tends to subscribe to the idea that it is a promise to do better. This, of course, forces one to reflect on their shortcomings, failures and general morality, which is uncomfortable to put it mildly. 

However, rather than digging deep into one’s soul and resolving the troubles that plague their relationships and fuel their insomnia, the typical person looks at themself in the mirror and decides, “I am going to eat more salad.”

This is not to say that a good resolution is one that demands extensive soul-searching and contemplation, nor that eating more salad is bad. However, I do think that people, myself included, tend to use the wrong
definition of “resolution.” 

The “do better” definition makes it easy to fall into the trap of promising to be the person the world or the communities we live in want us to be. To be thinner, run faster, maximize your productivity or make more money. 

Although these goals may have value to some, they are certainly not “one-size-fits-all.” 

Going to the gym for six days a week may be beneficial to some people, but for many people this goal is not possible or it may be unfulfilling. 

Expanding the definition of resolution can account for goals that do not serve oneself. 

Namely, “resolution” can be defined as problem-solving or as the quality of being determined or purposeful just as well as it can mean a promise to change. 

These considerations pave the way for more thoughtfulness and individuality in our quest for self-improvement in the new year. 

It is generally accepted that a resolution starts with reflection and identifying a problem. 

The word “problem” tends to have a negative connotation; however, a problem does not have to affect one’s daily life to be worth being addressed. Identifying areas to grow in, whether it be learning a skill or trying something new, is a problem that can be solved. 

The problem can be as heavy or as simple as one desires; the choice to repair a damaged relationship compared to the choice to clean out that pesky coat closet are wildly different and yet, they are both valuable,
important problems. 

Once a problem is identified, an important question to ask is “why do I want to change that?” If there is no answer or the answer involves contorting oneself into a socially constructed box, then it may be worth reconsidering. 

For example, let’s assume that someone wants to attend more group fitness classes. 

If they are attending these classes for the purpose of making friends or improving their mental health, then that goal will be a much more enriching experience than if their only goal is to get into shape. 

Finding ways to expand activities to address more than one problem only adds value. Then, the only challenge left is to execute that resolution. Committing to any change is hard, regardless of how much that change needs to happen. Continuing to fine-tune resolutions to fit my life and my schedule at that moment makes it much easier to stick to them. That editing process does not cheapen a resolution — it just accounts for life’s changes. 

A few days later, I reported back to Grammy with two resolutions: to write once a week and to learn how to moonwalk. The latter turned out to be an excellent quarantine activity between watching TV and shuffling from room-to-room in sweatpants. 

As ridiculous as that resolution was, it served its purpose and made me feel better in a rather dark time. It was intentional and new and exactly what a resolution should be. 

It is only January and 2024 is full of possibilities. There are plenty more dances to learn and resolutions to write before we count down to midnight again. 

The post New year, new me: finding resolute resolutions appeared first on Technique.

In the last few days, social media users across all platforms continued to return to the same three moments in pop culture news: Selena Gomez’s return to music, Lana Del Rey’s limited 2023 tour and music executive Scooter Braun’s sudden loss of A-list clientele. Although each story is captivating, they each have a relationship with major happenings in the entertainment world, leading to their consistent grasp on the top reports circulating through Instagram and TikTok feeds. 

Selena’s “single soon”

Actress and singer Selena Gomez’s new song and accompanying music video “Single Soon” came out on Aug. 25th, which she advertised as “perfect for the end of summer” on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. Fans were not disappointed by the pop anthem, which has the same catchy punch Gomez is known for, but with more nuance and maturity than music from earlier in her career. The slow electronic beat that juxtaposes seemingly joyful lyrics about the freedom of leaving a relationship sounds the subtle but significant change this single has from the rest of Gomez’s discography. 

Gomez reflects the same conflicting feelings in the song’s music video, where her sparkly outfits deeply contrast the darkness of the setting. “Single Soon” is a feat on its own, but is especially impressive in the wake of Gomez’s public battle with lupus, an autoimmune disorder that led to her 2017 kidney transplant. Although her health condition has kept her from performing live, it has clearly not slowed Gomez down from her rejuvenated music career or  success as an actress and producer on Hulu’s hit show, “Only Murders in the Building.” 

Lana locations

In the realm of live performance, Lana Del Rey is known for her controversial lyrics and aesthetic, which have been said to glamorize violence and fetishize the struggles of the working class.  Del Rey has defended her choices for years, but perhaps her greatest commitment to her style is reflected in the stereotypes of the states she is touring this fall. 

Her touring stops include Tennessee, West Virginia, Florida, Mississippi and North Carolina, among others. This unusual touring schedule is made more strange by the fact that the album she is promoting on the tour, “Did You Know There’s A Tunnel Under Ocean Blvd,” is inspired by California, a state that she has yet to announce tour dates for. 

Scooter gone

Del Rey is featured on a track off Taylor Swift’s recent album “Midnights,” an album that contains songs many speculate are about Scooter Braun. Braun is most known for his purchase of record label Big Machine Records, which granted him ownership of all material copyrighted by Big Machine, including the masters of the original recordings of Taylor Swift’s first six studio albums. 

Although Swift has been critical of Braun for years, this did not prevent Braun from becoming one of the most successful managers in the music industry. However, in recent weeks, several artists in his roster have allegedly ended their management contracts with Braun, including major names such as Justin Bieber, J Balvin, Ariana Grande, Demi Lovato and Idina Menzel. Although it is unclear exactly why so many artists are terminating their contracts, some reports suggest a major restructuring of Hybe, the entertainment studio where Braun acts as CEO, is pulling him away from hands-on management. While all reports are unconfirmed by Braun, this has not stopped Taylor Swift fans and Scooter Braun haters from celebrating online.

Before they were an “Antifa thug,” I knew Graham Evatt from soccer. We both played goalie at a small club in DeKalb County and we would meet at the field behind the charter school every Thursday evening to practice. 

There were four of us plus our coach, so we all got to know each other pretty quickly. Our conversations were never more than a few minutes long, but even so we had inside jokes and secrets that never left the pitch. I always felt that keepers had an unspoken bond; we were the oddballs of the soccer world, willing to throw ourselves to the ground to defend our team. 

Anyone who has ever played goalie would say that saving a shot is a thrill like no other. 

That thrill is not about personal victory; it is about sacrifice for the greater good. Keepers will take the fall so their team does not have to. Some call us adrenaline junkies, but I always liked to think that we didn’t do it for the high — we did it because we cared. 

Perhaps it was because of this that I was not surprised when I found out that Graham had been arrested a few weeks ago in a riot against the police in downtown Atlanta. 

They garnered a slew of charges including domestic terrorism, criminal damage and arson. 

This act is all part of a greater movement to stop the Atlanta Police Foundation from building a police training facility in Weelaunee Forest, which, if built, will be the largest police training facility in the United States. 

Since former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms approved the lease for 85 acres of land in 2021, protesters have camped on the land to prevent the construction of the pseudo-city which could contain mock nightclubs, houses and apartments for training purposes. 

Although protests never ceased, they became more prevalent following the fatal shooting of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán, an environmental activist, by a Georgia State Patrol trooper on Jan. 18. 

Terán, like seven other protesters that evening, was camping on the property when the state troopers executed a planned operation to sweep for people trespassing on the land. 

Three days later, on Jan. 21, a group of six people split off from a peaceful protest in honor of Terán, allegedly including Graham. The group shattered windows and battered police cars in downtown Atlanta before police arrested them. 

The “Stop Cop City” protests are the consequence of repeated systemic failures by the police and government at all levels. From its conception, Cop City was inherently violent, from the land it will sit on to the training it intends to execute. 

The forest was stolen from the Muscogee Creek people in the 1830s, turned into a plantation and then a prison farm for much of the 1900s. 

The $90 million budget for the complex includes plans for military-grade training facilities and a shooting range in a primarily Black, working-class community. 

This project may very well force one of the groups that are the most frequently mistreated by the police to let them train in their neighborhood. 

Regardless of one’s feelings toward the police, general distrust within a community can be dangerous. 

As it turns out, many people at Tech agree with some version of this sentiment. On Friday, Feb. 10, the Organization for Student Activism (OSA) hosted a protest against Cop City by Tech Green, and crowds of students with signs arrived ready to share their voices. 

The desire to fight echoed in the voices of every speaker. The crowd chanted rhyming mottos about the people and forest lost in the struggle against Cop City. 

Each speaker touched on a different subject, however, they all had the same takeaway: it is not radical to want better treatment for the civilians and environment around us, but it may take radical action for changes to happen. 

Although I will not know what exactly happened until Graham goes to court, and even then it may remain unclear, I find myself wondering how far is too far to go for one’s beliefs or goals. 

With an issue painted so gray, it is hard to find dichotomies of good and evil. Are all acts of violence equal?

Does context always matter? 

Maybe I will never know the answers to these questions, or maybe my answer will change with time. 

However, to me, a person’s life is more valuable than a window. Just like a scrape on my elbow is worth saving a goal in soccer. 

I know that it is never that simple, and there are complexities to this issue I will never understand. 

At the end of the day, it may be true that I do not know what Graham stood for, but I do know what they would fall for. 

When I was younger, I dreamed of living in an apartment. I would imagine myself walking through a revolving door into a giant brick building with a forest green awning.

I would ride in the elevator up to my condo on the fourteenth floor, where a fluffy gray cat would brush against my legs and purr with delight. I tried to picture how I would decorate. 

Would I have a sleek, modern apartment? That kind of futuristic style where everything is so white and harsh that one questions if anyone has ever lived there? 

Or maybe my apartment would be quaint, with bookshelf-lined walls overflowing with dog-eared novels and notes in their margins? 

More than anything else, though, I was excited to have my own space. I could fill it with whatever I wanted: blue and white porcelain plates, Halloween decorations, plants, pinball machines, lies, truth or love. 

I could paint the walls a new color every day, and only I would know what colors were beneath the surface. 

My imaginary apartment was freedom, knowledge and power. 

So when I arrived in my first-year dorm, needless to say I was slightly disappointed when there were no bookshelves or cats or revolving doors. 

The room was empty except for the furniture issued by the university, the air conditioning unit and two Command hooks stuck to the wall from the last tenant. 

The walls were beige, the floor was a gray-blue carpet and the door had a fire evacuation plan taped on it. 

It reminded me more of an office or classroom than any home I had ever lived in. I climbed on the desk and hung a plant from one of the Command hooks. From my window, I could see lines of students trailing in with duffle bags and cardboard boxes, all of them taking in their surroundings, just as

I had minutes earlier. These were the people I would live with for the next year. 

That night we had a floor meeting, where we discussed quiet hours (ten to ten) and the prohibition of electric scooters in rooms (they are a fire hazard), as well as any concerns we had moving forward into the year. 

My concerns were more personal, (“what happens if you come back and need to cry, but your roommate is in the room?”), so I kept them to myself. 

Some asked about room checks, others asked about the Wi-Fi password. Although I had no questions, it seemed odd to me that the trials and tribulations of living alone could be summarized in fifteen minutes. Was it really going to be as simple as that?

Turns out, in a lot of ways, it is as simple as that. I did not stop waking up in the morning or brushing my teeth. For the most part, living alone is pretty similar to living with my family. I just have different schedules and routines that do not revolve around the people I live with. 

What I do every day is pretty much up to me.

I can eat cereal for dinner and sleep until noon, or I can eat my veggies and do pilates. I quickly learned that power is freedom, but that freedom is a daunting realm when all I had ever known was codependency. 

However, as the months went on, my world became exponentially smaller. My list of goals went from “make a lifelong friend” to “wash sheets.” 

My mindset changed from “make lifelong memories” just to “live.” So, like everyone who has to make the transition to living alone, I learned a lot.

I learned that it is best to have DayQuil on hand so I do not have to go to CVS while sick. 

I learned that putting too much detergent in the laundry does not make the washer explode, but it will make the clothes in it a bit too soapy. I learned to keep an umbrella in my bag if there is rain in the forecast, and that rain is a lot less glamorous when

I have to walk to class in it. 

I learned that string lights make any room more pleasant, and that the gray-blue carpet is a lot nicer with friends sitting on it. 

Although my dorm is nothing like the beautiful apartments I imagined growing up, the stories told in it are more breathtaking and wonderful than any green awnings or revolving doors. 

From the abandoned Command hooks to the carving in my desk, there are narratives contained in these four walls that I will never know. The ghosts of lessons others have learned as arbiters of their own power, freedom and the knowledge they left with. 

Each chip in the wall and notch in the bed frame is a dog-eared novel that I will never read, but knowing that they existed is enough to calm my fears, which I will scribble in the margins of my own story. 

Warning: Spoilers ahead

The hollow rattle of a viper’s tail chatters in the distance, invoking fear in prey and people alike. Snakes slither through life, blending in and striking at anything less powerful than them. They are a symbol of evil and death. Colloquially, however, snakes are not animals, but people. They are backstabbers — the barbarians — who have a tendency to manipulate situations to craft a narrative that presents themselves as innocent. Zach Cregger’s 2022 film “Barbarian” subverts horror movie tropes and questions who the true snakes of society are. It encompasses themes of power hierarchies, social class, fate and the injustice of existence, ideas that Cregger highlights using violence, irony and juxtaposition. 

Although the first half of the film has valuable commentary surrounding feminism and perceptions of men and women today, the second half of the film truly dives into major societal divisions with the introduction of Hollywood executive AJ Gilbride (Justin Long, “Tusk”). AJ enters the movie speeding down a California highway singing “Riki Tiki Tavi” by Donovan in a vintage red convertible when he receives a call that someone accused him of sexual assault, and that he is getting dropped from the project he was working on. AJ curses at the people at the other end of the line, pulls off the side of the road and stares off into the distance with his mouth agape. 

This scene foreshadows the rest of the plot and the major themes of the film in a gloriously ironic way. “Riki Tiki Tavi” alludes to a short story from “The Jungle Book” by Rudyard Kipling, in which a mongoose kills a cobra attempting to attack the British family that adopted Rikki-Tikki. The moral of this fable is based in colonialism and that the British should not punish “good” colonized peoples. In the song, however, Donovan calls out the offensiveness of the story, saying that the mongoose was a victim of the power structures in his society. The lesson of the song is to distrust the powerful, because they will not kill snakes for their people. AJ fails to recognize that he is in a position of power, and that he is the snake someone is trying to kill. He views himself as a victim of his accuser’s “lies” and as such attempts to take the situation into his own hands. 

The juxtaposition between the narratives permeated by those in power versus those that are disempowered is a prominent feature of the film. For example, when AJ arrives in his Detroit AirBnB and goes downstairs only to discover the hidden corridor as well as the room with the bloodstained bed, he immediately goes back upstairs to see if he could count the secret tunnel in the square footage of the house when he sold it. 

AJ’s oblivion is comical, but also furthers the idea of how one’s treatment in society can shape their perception of various issues. A situation that was alarming to Tess, a young Black woman, was simply a way to make money for AJ, a middle-aged, white man. Time and time again, AJ tries to profit off the backs of the disempowered, from sexual violence to gentrifying a poor suburb. 

A second introduction, that of the house’s previous owner, Frank, is equally as jarring as AJ’s arrival in the film. The film cuts from a desolate gray to an overly saturated scene in a seemingly utopian neighborhood. In the flashback sequence, it is revealed that a man named Frank inhabited the house in the 1980s and would stalk women, kidnap them and then rape them in the basement. As his neighbors left due to a Reagan-era fear that the poor and overwhelmingly Black communities of Detroit were a threat to their safety and power as white people, Frank remained in the house with the women he assaulted. Not only does this scene carry extreme weight in terms of plot, it forwards many of the ongoing themes of the film. It firstly tackles the central idea that no organization will fight the true threats to a society, as the U.S. government fabricated “snakes” of the suburbs and failed to address someone who had abducted dozens of women. Even Frank’s neighbors ignored blatant signs that he was lying, such as the work uniform he wore to go undercover labeled “Carlos.” They continued to believe that the threats to their community were elsewhere, creating dramatic irony.

The similarities between AJ and Frank truly reach a head when AJ  finds an elderly and bedridden Frank sitting in bed in the depths of the tunnel system under the house. AJ gives Frank water and tells Frank that he will help him leave, before looking at Frank’s shelf of cassettes labeled with names and descriptions of women next to a TV. It becomes abundantly clear who the man is and what he has done. AJ is visibly terrified and appalled, ironically so, because he is essentially looking at a reflection of himself. Frank pulls out a gun from his bedside table and kills himself, foreshadowing AJ’s own death and the consequences of immoral action. 

Although there are a myriad of examples of power abuses in the film, like the police not taking Tess’s kidnapping seriously and calling her a criminal for breaking the window to escape, the clearest example of abuse is one of the final scenes of the film. Shortly after AJ shoots Tess, they find themselves running away from The Mother, Frank’s victim who was a “misdirect” villain of the story before Frank’s crimes were revealed. AJ sprints up the stairs of the water tower, with Tess limping behind him. When Tess makes it to the top, The Mother is just behind her. In an attempt to save himself, AJ pushes Tess off the edge of the water tower, which distracts The Mother, giving AJ time to run down the stairs. When he gets to the bottom, he finds that The Mother threw herself under Tess to break her fall. AJ is extremely apologetic and tries to deflect blame, saying that Tess slipped off the tower. Then, The Mother wakes up from under Tess and kills AJ for threatening her baby, Tess, as she was taught to do in the basement. 

It is clear Tess sympathizes with the woman, who is a victim of her circumstances. However, societal failures do not always excuse individual action, and the lines between good and evil can be blurred. With nobody else to turn to, Tess shoots The Mother with Frank’s — her and The Mother’s captor’s — gun. This ending was bittersweet, but known since AJ entered the film. After all, Donovan says, “When I was a young man, I was led to believe there were organizations to kill my snakes for me … but when I got a little older, I learned I had to kill ‘em myself.”

Nov. 11 is the first day of finals in the “Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions” for season 38. The championship pits the 21 top players of the season against each other in a series of games to determine the ultimate winner. The top three players after quarter- and semi-finals play will go head-to-head in up to seven finals games. The first competitor to come out on top in three games will win a $250,000 prize. 

Although this tournament occurs at the end of every season, this last season of the game show was uniquely historic. It was the first season since famed host Alex Trebek’s passing, which also meant that it was the first season of the show since 1984 that Trebek did not host. 

It is a near impossible task to fill the shoes of a great like Trebek, however, “The Big Bang Theory” and “Blossom” actor Mayim Bialik and the longest winstreak “Jeopardy!” champion in history, Ken Jennings, filled the job.

The two alternated hosting duties every few weeks. Each took on a tournament, with Bialik hosting “Jeopardy! College Championship” and Jennings hosting the “Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions.” 

To match an already unprecedented season, the contestants the two hosted proved to be some of the fiercest competition the show had seen since Ken Jennings’ 74-game run in 2004. 

It started with the “Amodio Rodeo,” the nickname given to Ph.D. student Matt Amodio’s 38-game streak. Amodio is known for his extremely strategic play, such as beginning all his responses with “what’s” to save time.

Amodio came away with the highest single-game winnings that season ($83,000) and the most correct responses in the game (42). When his run ended, he was second in consecutive games won in the history of the show, only behind Ken Jennings. 

Amodio’s performance on the show would have been season-defining any other year. However, in keeping with a remarkable season, Amy Schneider, an engineering manager, would clench the number two spot. Her 40-game run was the longest win streak by a female contestant on the show. Even more impressive than that, however, is her 95% accuracy in responses and $1.3 million in cash winnings. 

Although nobody snatched Schneider’s spot on the leaderboard, two contestants from season 38 would also make the top ten list of “Jeopardy!” champs. That means competitors from this season alone comprise nearly half the top ten list. 

One is Mattea Roach, a 23-year-old tutor from Nova Scotia whose 23-day run is the longest of any Canadian on the show. “Jeopardy!” questions tend to cater to an older, American audience, making her success on the show all the more impressive. She left the show with over $500,000 in cash winnings and the fifth spot on the list of most consecutive wins. The second is Ryan Long, a rideshare driver whose 16-game streak was enough to give him the number nine spot on the “Jeopardy!” all-time leaderboard, and nearly $300,000. Only Amy Schneider rivaled Long’s ability to run entire categories with both running a record-setting three categories in a single game.

Unfortunately, Long lost his quarterfinal match on Oct. 31, but his time on “Jeopardy!” was memorable nonetheless. 

At this time, the semi-finals are underway. Amodio, Schneider and Roach immediately qualified for a spot in the semi-finals as the top three players from the season. Six other competitors will join them in the semi-finals after their quarter-final wins. Among them are many fan favorites.

As midterm elections take place across the country, Twitter is awash with political commentary of all sorts. Search the name of any politician on the ballot this November to find thousands of typo-laden thoughts, opinions and assertions.

Recently, the social media site has been the battle-ground of many political conflicts, from banning public officials to sharing information on riots and protests. However, Jack Dorsey, the creator of Twitter, intended for the app to be a way for individuals to communicate with small groups of friends. How did the app evolve to be a crucial tool in conversations regarding politics?

Principally, experts say this divergence from friendly chats to planning coups began in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Former President Barack Obama’s campaign used social media to establish a digital grassroots campaign, connecting individuals across the country.

Soon, other officials saw the value of social media and the usage of Twitter became commonplace for government officials, bureaucrats and political organizations to spread their messages. Now, politicians could put their finger on the pulse of younger voters, exploiting some of the largest consumers of social media content.

Additionally, what set Twitter apart from other voter outreach  strategies is that it further democratized the political process; users could interact with public officials, new politicians could kick off campaigns without large advertising budgets, there were almost no barriers to entry and arguably most importantly, users could interact directly with each other.

Anonymously, and from the comfort of their own homes, users could express their opinions and respond to others. The nature of social media ensured that if a user had an unpopular opinion, other users could search through their feed for more reasons to disagree with them. Behind a screen, it is clear how quickly searching for faults in others’ ideology could become a game — and spiral out of control.

On top of that, part of the effectiveness of Twitter as a political tool is algorithmic in nature. Social media apps are programmed to provide the user with similar content to what users have interacted with in the past. Thus, interaction intentionally creates a so-called “echo chamber” where algorithms only present opinions that the user agrees with on their timeline. 

Furthermore, as social media influence has greatly expanded in the last few years, politicians and programmers have found ways to micro-target potential electors using their personal data and consumer preferences.

The danger of social media is that it does not require face-to-face interactions, nor does it necessarily require a human conscience. Hence, bots can rule social media without users ever realizing that the opinions they agree with or the ones that anger them to the ends of the political spectrum are inhuman.

Nevertheless, the language people use on Twitter, particularly in the context of politics, cannot be explained by the adverse side effects of programming. The true demarcation of the rise of such jargon is former President Trump’s 2016 presidential bid.

Trump’s tweets were unlike those of other politicians in that he tweeted frequently and used informal language that was often contradictory or lacking in clarity, leaving room for personal interpretation. Whether intentional or not, Trump expertly took advantage of the volatile nature of Twitter, demanding attention from users on all sides of the political spectrum.

Since then, the line between Twitter rants and genuine political change has become blurred. Jokes have become opinions and bots have bolstered extremist tendencies. Twitter has fundamentally changed the nature in which people discuss politics. While it has made these types of conversations more accessible, it has also created an environment where only the most outrageous ideas garner attention. 

Just days ago, another factor was added into the equation that could change Twitter’s impact even more. On Oct. 27, businessman Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, officially purchased Twitter for a whopping $44 billion. 

After overpaying for Twitter, Musk is anxious to make sure the site is lucrative. He has promised investors that he will cut costs by laying off workers and began the process immediately upon taking over.

Several of the executives Musk fired were entitled to receive golden parachutes under the merger agreement, but Musk is claiming that they were fired “for cause,” which would relieve him of this obligation. 

Additionally, Musk is planned to cut ties with lower-level employees before Nov. 1 to avoid awarding stock grants the employees earned that are scheduled to be awarded on that day. The former employees will likely mount legal challenges against Musk to collect the compensation that they believe they deserve. 

Given Twitter’s role as a source for news and sharing political opinions for better or worse, it is unclear how the change in ownership of such a potent political tool will further alter the landscape of discussions surrounding government. 

With an unknown future and a tumultuous past, Twitter discourse is an incredibly nuanced issue that cannot be resolved by a change in leadership.

How does one define their existence? Some might answer this question with their purpose in life. Service to others. Happiness. Power. 

Others may speak of the legacy they wish to leave behind, one of progress or governance. Perhaps we are not defined by what we do but how we do it. How we worship, lead, hate and love. 

If one were to ask The Try Guys’ Ned Fulmer how he defined himself merely days ago, his answer to anyone who has followed his career would be obvious. Above all else, Ned existed to love his wife, Ariel Fulmer. 

Ned Fulmer’s entire internet presence was characterized by his marriage. 

He did not operate alone so much as he did as a unit, with Ariel at his side. 

He idolized his wife as if she were a goddess, praising her strength and beauty. Her role as a mother was even more remarkable, from labor pains to balancing her life as a working mom effortlessly. 

Ariel became so intertwined with her husband’s online presence that she too joined The Try Guys in an off-shoot called “The Try Wives.” Ariel and Ned Fulmer were the millennial nuclear family to envy and admire. 

That was, of course, until approximately a week ago when Twitter began to stir with allegations that Ned cheated on his wife with a Try Guys’ employee, his subordinate. These allegations were later confirmed by Fulmer in a Sept. 27th Instagram post. 

How did this “Wife Guy” fall from grace? 

Just ask John Mulaney, Adam Levine or any one of the other “Wife Guys” who allegedly cheated on the wives that they proclaimed their undying love for and shaped career moves around. 

This is not to say that Wife Guys do not love their wives or that nobody in the public eye can love their wife. However, when a wife defines one’s existence, it becomes an issue of patriarchy, identity and profit. 

The Wife Guy diminishes his wife to an object. She is not anything but “his wife,” and yet he is not described as “her husband.” Under the thin veil of feminism and supporting women, Wife Guys make their partners into trophies, beautiful things only they can touch. 

What empowers Wife Guy is not his appreciation for his wife, but his ownership of her. 

The Wife Guy makes a spectacle of his spouse, profiting not off his own excellence but his wife’s as well. In the case of Ned Fulmer it was his persona of the married Try Guy, with him mentioning his wife and the kids she gave him in every upload. Ariel was never herself on the YouTube Channel — she was only the “wife” or “mom.” 

John Mulaney, on the other hand, wrote bits about his wife’s witty comebacks and profited off them by mere association with her. 

Adam Levine wrote a song about supporting women and put his wife and daughter in the music video which garnered over 3.3 billion views. 

The underlying current in all these examples is that the Wife Guys are not the focus of their content; their wives are. Wife Guys love what their wives provide for them. 

Whether it be power, money or status, Wife Guys exploit their wives for the betterment of their own careers. 

When that power dynamic becomes the status quo, it is unsurprising that when Wife Guys cannot profit off their significant others, they seek out other validation.

Ned Fulmer’s legacy is now one of fakeness and infidelity. His life has been defined for him by the internet, for better or for worse.  

Now the question becomes this: did Ned Fulmer ever truly define his existence by loving his wife? 

Or did he love that she made him loveable?