Design by Mary Hartness

YELLOW JACKETS

Much has been said about Tech’s quarterbacks,  and not  enough about the defense. Compared to last season where the unit forced 10 turnovers the entire year, this year’s Tech defense has already forced 20. Standout defensive end Anree Saint-Amour has amassed three forced fumbles and two interceptions on the season. Taking the ball away from the Miami offense will set the Tech offense up nicely.

HURRICANES

The Miami offense has slowed down tremendously from scoring an average of 41.5 points in the first six games of the season to a meager average of 13 points per game in their last three contests. This leaves Mark Richt with a quarterback controversy: move forward with redshirt senior Malik Rosier or give back the reins to redshirt freshman N’Kosi Perry? Richt has chosen to start Perry for the game but both  quarterbacks will probably play. 

Watching Tobias Oliver is like seeing poetry in motion. “Shall I compare thee to Justin Thomas? Thou art more dexterous and slippery. Rough defenders do collapse the pocket around ye, but skilled in the scramble art thou.” Shakespeare this writer is not, but the point stands — Tobias Oliver can play. It is here. It is real. Sure, a degree of caution is naturally warranted with jumping to conclusions about the depth chart — Oliver had barely seen any substantial play time in the first half of the season, and as fun as it may be in terms of narratives to have a senior quarterback benched for an upstart freshman, that move backfires more frequently than it does not. But out of pure necessity, true talent has won out, and that talent is Oliver.

This is not to slam the door on Marshall as he approaches the end of his Tech career. Marshall was given the biggest of shoes to fill and performed admirably despite Tech’s atrocious defense. That Tech went 5-6 in Ted Roof’s final year as defensive coordinator is not an indictment of Marshall – rather, it a testament to an elite triple option quarterback.

Marshall has still performed well this season — his 4.9 yards per carry this season would be the best by a Tech QB since Thomas’ magnificent 2014 campaign were Oliver not on the team. Marshall is and has been an excellent triple option quarterback.

But it is no longer possible to make the argument that Tech’s quarterback should be someone other than Oliver. Both Marshall and Oliver have seen roughly the same number of carries: 135 for Marshall, 132 for Oliver. But despite having fewer touches, Oliver has outgained Marshall by 121 yards. Oliver has scored three more touchdowns on the ground than Marshall. Oliver displayed the same kind of deep-bomb, coverage-breaking pass ability that Thomas did, albeit in limited action. What is more, Oliver has fumbled the ball on just 3.8 percent of his carries this season — almost half as frequently as Marshall, who sits at 6.6 percent.

Of course, Oliver has gotten a fair share of garbage time minutes, padding his stats. But Oliver has seen impactful minutes against good opponents like USF and Virginia Tech and excelled. And whatever slippery-fingers issues that Marshall has struggled with have not manifested with Oliver — a factor independent of quality of opponent, given that most of Marshall’s fumbles have been dropped hand-offs or lost footballs, rather than fumbles forced by pressure.

It has become apparent that Oliver is the Tech quarterback of the immediate future. Blue chip recruit James Graham’s red-shirt season looms on the horizon, but at the very least, Oliver has proven himself as the superior product to Marshall. Marshall’s senior season is about to expire, and were this a lost season for Tech, it would be by all rights fair to Marshall to allow him to finish out the season, knowing that Oliver has potentially three seasons of triple-option mastery ahead of him.

But this is not a lost season. Tech started out the season just 1-3, yet they have found themselves with a non-zero chance of winning the ACC Coastal, in no small part thanks to Oliver’s superb play. At the very least, Tech is just one game away from bowl-eligibility; a return to the postseason would be a welcome gift to Tech fans who suffered through the nightmare that was the 2017 season. Even if Tech loses any chance at the ACC Coastal, Tech is playing to reclaim their lost pride after their bowl-game streak was interrupted back in 2015. For the program and for fans, getting that kind of opportunity is important for Tech.

Tech stands a good chance at winning these games with Marshall at the helm of the offense, and one can argue that Marshall has earned that chance, that right, as a result of his play and experience at Tech. But simultaneously, Oliver has that same right as this discussion might not be happening if not for him. This season has not been Marshall’s, but Oliver’s, and Oliver deserves more of an opportunity to finish this season than Marshall has. Seniority cannot take precedence in this instance — not when the future of a football program is at stake.

Marshall has already established his legacy at Tech. No one will forget his wasted magnificence against Tennessee in the 2017 opener or his stellar campaign that season thwarted by Tech’s defense. And over the last two seasons, Marshall has been the model teammate in every visible way: he has always been forthright and polite with the media and has seemed engaged on the sideline in the last few games as Oliver has shone. 

There is no doubt that Marshall is a valuable influence on the young quarterback. And frankly, quarterbacks running Tech’s option are susceptible to injury; one way or another, the odds are good that Marshall will see meaningful snaps even if he is relegated to playing in relief. 

But it is time to begin building Oliver’s legacy. Tech has the postseason in its sights, and their best chances ultimately lie with Oliver. There is no guarantee that Oliver is starting at this time next year ­ ­— talented freshman James Graham, who red-shirted this year, or the returning Lucas Johnson may well be knocking at the door. But given that he might be the face of this program over the next few years, there is much to be gained in letting him take the helm for the last few games of the season against three quality opponents. 

Perhaps Oliver will play poorly and fans will be disappointed. But in Tennyson’s words, “‘Tis better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all.”

Earlier this month, Nintendo released “Super Mario Party,” the 16th game released in the “Mario Party” franchise. The game loosely follows the gameplay model of earlier installments in the series, which are essentially digital board games designed to be played by sizable groups of players.

“Super Mario Party” ditches the car mechanic that Nintendo experimented with in the past couple of mainline “Mario Party” games, returning to the classic board game style of the older games in the series. The return to a more traditional form is much appreciated, though the general playing experience is lacking in several areas.

With only four independent boards, a small handful of items, only a few dozen mini-games and relatively few board events, “Super Mario Party” has much less going for it in terms of quantity than any “Mario Party” game in the past. Though “Super Mario Party” features several modes of play, it does not feature a dedicated story mode. This is bound to be a disappointment to fans of the “Mario Party” series, though there is still something of a story woven into the presentation of the game.

Additionally, fans of the series will likely feel that the general item balancing in the game is not handled well, with several items being unreasonably powerful. Additionally, the pricing is often too inexpensive for how powerful some of the items can be; effects which might have cost 30 coins in past entries now cost only 10 and stars themselves cost half of what they normally did in the past. These changes make turn-to-turn action quicker though less meaningful and impactful.

One thing that didn’t need changing at all in the past games was the menuing, so it was a surprise to see that it had changed to a slower hub world-style menu which only seems to serve to make starting up a game more difficult and time consuming.

In terms of mini-games, the chance-dependent mini-games in “Super Mario Party” are far less balanced and far less enjoyable than in past entries — one in particular, “Don’t Wake Wiggler,” is enough to make the player question whether the developers have actually played some of them. Conversely, the skill-based mini-games are some of the most balanced and easy to understand of the franchise.

One of the main draws to “Super Mario Party” is its character-specific dice mechanic. Each of the 20 playable characters in “Super Mario Party” may use a unique dice block on every turn, in place of the regular dice block. Unfortunately, not all dice blocks are created equal. Certain blocks offer clear advantages over others, and before long players find themselves selecting characters with certain dice blocks to maximize control over rolls. While this dice mechanic is an interesting and unique feature, it is certainly not balanced. If it seems doubtful that the character chosen in “Super Mario Party” has a significant impact on one’s ability to succeed, one needs only search for the “Super Mario Party” tier list which is already circulating.

Another unique mechanic introduced in “Super Mario Party” is the ability to recruit allies. Allies roll a special dice block in addition to the player’s roll, which allows the player to advance more spaces than normal. When an ally is recruited, the player may choose to roll the ally’s special dice block on each turn from then on. In addition, allies may help the player during certain mini-games. Unlike character dice blocks, which each come with strengths and weaknesses, allies are practically only ever a benefit to the player. Due to the more linear flow of game boards, the ability to travel quickly is more important in “Super Mario Party” than in past titles; therefore, recruiting allies quickly is a must and may even be more beneficial in the early stage of the game than collecting stars.

After playing several rounds of “Super Mario Party”’s main game mode, Party Mode, the player begins to feel that the smaller, more linear boards in the newest entry to the “Mario Party” series have strayed from the style of past entries in ways that often are not improvements. The smaller, tighter boards seem rife with the possibility of engaging opponents frequently in 1-v-1 “duel” battles à la “Mario Party 5” or bulldozing through opponents with some kind of special item — e.g. Bowlo Candy from “Mario Party 8”.

The idea of hindering opponents by passing is toyed with minimally in the game’s Partner Party mode, in which two teams of two players must work together; in this mode, passing opponents allows one to steal coins from them, which can be helpful. Despite the variety in characters and the change-ups to the board for Partner Party, the player cannot help but feel that there simply are not enough boards, items and events to keep Party Mode fresh after several play sessions.

While Party Mode is less than ideal, the new game does have redeeming qualities. Though Party Mode is the most important mode for a “Mario Party” game, it is not the only one, and several game modes are enjoyable, and fans should not lose hope.

The mode that is likely to prove most divisive for fans is River Survival, in which a team of four players attempt to work together to get to the end of a rafting-themed obstacle course while playing mini-games unique to the mode; while it provides a break from the competitive modes, its short supply of four-player co-op mini-games begins to drain from the experience.

“Super Mario Party” has also brought back Mario-thon, a game mode in which players compete to increase running score totals through a set of skill-based mini-games; this game mode is a fan favorite and practically carries the entire game on its own.

In general, “Super Mario Party” is an enjoyable game which revives some of the best parts of the older games and is worth checking out. Its unique gimmicks give it its own identity, though players will wish there were more boards, mini-games and items to help keep the intrigue going. Fans should not be put off by the criticisms put forth here —”Super Mario Party” will deliver a fun time. It is a “Mario Party” game, after all.

Netflix recently released the hit BBC crime-thriller “Bodyguard” in the U.S. The six part series follows a British police officer tasked with protecting a high-level cabinet minister as he thwarts and investigates attempts on the minister’s life.

The series stars Richard Madden (“Game of Thrones”) as David Budd, the central police officer, and Keeley Hawes (“The Bank Job”) as Julia Montague, the Home Secretary and the charge under Budd’s protection. These two stars provide the best acting in the series, with Madden portraying a veteran struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) vividly and convincingly and Hawes bringing to life the archetype of the morally conflicted politician.

The highlight of the rest of the cast is Sophie Rundle (“Peaky Blinders”), who plays Budd’s wife, Vicky. Vicky cares for David, encouraging him to seek treatment for his PTSD and remaining close to him for his sake and the sake of their children despite the two having separated due to David’s instability. The character risks falling into the sexist archetype of the woman who exists exclusively to support the hero, but Rundle’s performance saves the character, bringing nuance and strength to the role.

Other than those three actors, the acting in the series is unremarkable — while the other performances are not distractingly bad, they are nothing noteworthy.

The biggest strengths of “Bodyguard” are its writing and plot. The series is fast-paced and suspenseful, always drawing the viewer in and providing a seemingly endless stream of twists and revelations.

From the beginning, the series is full of action and tension. The pilot opens with Budd thwarting a suicide bombing attempt on a train, convincing the bomber, a teenage middle eastern girl, to surrender herself and have the bomb diffused. Immediately the viewer sees Budd as a dedicated cop who take his job incredibly seriously and is willing to risk his own life to save others.

The plot picks up quickly, with Budd almost immediately being assigned to protect Secretary Montague.

One tool that series writer Jed Mercurio (“Line of Duty”) uses to keep the show interesting is setting up false storylines for the reader to follow. These are not exactly twists, in that Mercurio does not explicitly promise one sequence of events and then provide another. Rather, he simply foreshadows certain plotlines which never materialize.

Early in the series Mercurio foreshadows a conflict between Montague’s hawkish politics and Budd’s disdain for war. There is palpable tension between the two that surfaces occasionally in the series, but the viewer’s concerns about Budd’s loyalty always fizzle out as the officer proves that he will do anything to protect the Home Secretary.

These storylines keep the viewer from guessing what will happen next, not by employing shocking and unbelievable twists, but rather by hiding the truth among several false leads.

Every episode in the series is intense and gripping, making the show virtually impossible to turn off. In an entertainment world obsessed with things that are “binge-worthy,” “Bodyguard” is a perfect fit for Netflix.

The show is immaculately structured, spreading the action and plot perfectly over the six-episode run, but Mercurio does slip up on the finale. The episode contains an absurdly long segment in which Budd, wearing a suicide vest strapped on him by the antagonists, attempts to convince the police that he is not a threat and that they should help him diffuse the bomb rather than shooting him. The scene is well written and intense, but it drags on for far too long — around 36 minutes. The viewer may be kept on the edge of his seat, but after half an hour the tension becomes exhausting.

Another major mistake is the inclusion of a final twist, in which one of the characters turns out to have been deceiving the viewer all along. The twist — which is reminiscent of the famous one in “The Usual Suspects” — is unexpected and jarring, but it is simply unnecessary; the show already feels resolved and settled, and the shock ending is too unbelievable for an such a realistic series.

Other than these two weaknesses, “Bodyguard” is an excellent show. The viewer gets exactly what they want and expect, and there is something refreshing about a show that is well-written and well-produced, but looks to do nothing more than entertain.

The Coca-Cola Roxy concert hall was teeming with energy as people gathered to watch indie rock band Young the Giant perform. It was the Saturday night before Halloween, which was made obvious by the concert-goers clad in costumes. The air was heavy with the aroma of woody incense and anticipation as the audience in the sold-out venue awaited the commencement of the band’s performance.

Finally, at ten minutes after nine o’clock, the lights in the concert hall dimmed, and the audience erupted with shrieks of excitement as the five members of Young the Giant appeared onstage. The stage was awash with purple light as the band opened with their song “Mirror Master,” the twelfth track on their newest album of the same name. With their trendy, eclectic image and a sound that can go from dreamy to danceable, it’s no wonder why Young the Giant has claimed the hearts of countless fans.

Young the Giant’s concert was an hour and a half-long journey that explored tracks from “Mirror Master,” the band’s newest album that was released on October 12, as well as older favorites like “Cough Syrup” and “Silvertongue.” The beauty of Young the Giant’s music lies in the diversity of their song styles. Their songs range from vibrant and electrifying, bolstered by dynamic percussion and snappy guitar solos, to soulful and chill-inducing, lush with satiny falsetto and synth-produced bells.

In addition to performing the original versions of their music, the band also played two songs in a style they dubbed “In the Open” in which guitarists Jacob Tilley and Eric Cannata traded in their electric guitars for acoustic ones. When their music was stripped of its synth tones and electric guitar chords, the audience could experience the full effect of the raw emotion behind the songs’ lyrics.

Aside from their music, what attracts people to Young the Giant is their sense of freedom, their undeniable passion for performing and the gratitude they express to their fans. From lead singer Sameer Gadhia’s spontaneous, carefree dancing to the music’s spacey, psychedelic sound, the band’s unwillingness to fulfill societal expectations is apparent.

In between songs, Gadhia explained to the audience how the band is “embracing [their] versions of [themselves]” and how “[they didn’t] want to be put into a box and made to be something [they’re] not,” which ties into the meaning behind the album “Mirror Master.” The album delves into how individuals are often influenced by other people’s opinions of them, but ultimately, we are the ones who are in control of how we view ourselves. Gadhia preaches the message “Only you are the master of what comes next” in the hope of liberating people from the confines of society.

The passion expressed by Young the Giant while they performed made it impossible to look away. Their enthusiasm was everywhere: painted across their faces, echoed by the cheers of the audience and living within the music. Although the band’s music is already exceptional, hearing it live made it exponentially better. What elevated the excellence of the songs was having the ability to witness the group’s emotion with every lyric sung and note played. Young the Giant performed in such a way that made one feel wholly present in the moment; it was as if nothing else mattered but being a witness to the music and sharing the experience with people who were ablaze with an identical fervor for it.

Much to the audience’s disappointment, at 20 minutes to eleven o’clock, Gadhia announced that the band was about to play their final song of the night. Young the Giant concluded their concert with one of their first-ever singles, “My Body”, which the crowd sang along to without missing a word. As the song ended, Gadhia looked skyward with his eyes closed as if he were reflecting upon how fortunate he was to be in his position: to be able to live his dream, express his passion and spread a positive message. He was also incredibly vocal about his gratitude, which he conveyed by thanking the audience numerous times. After the show, the band members tossed drumsticks and other items into the audience.

Young the Giant’s concert was stellar not only because of the music, but because the members are outstanding performers who know how to captivate an audience. Although the backdrop was simply a grid of equally-spaced lights, the luminous effects contributed perfectly to the band’s style of music. Aside from the phenomenal sound of the group’s new album “Mirror Master,” it also comes with the message of being one’s own person and not conforming to society’s expectations.

Overall, Young the Giant provided their audience with a show that did not disappoint.

For freshmen students of the School of Industrial Design, Halloween brought with it on more than just costumes and candy. For the third consecutive year, students utilized their spooky season-inspired creativity to design and carve pumpkins in the styles of various famous designers. This project, which culminated in a public display and best-design contest, enabled students to break from the monotony of class and explore novel and exciting ways in which design principles can be applied.

“The idea is to take a week off of normal class projects and to do stuff that is a little more fun, but that applies design principles so that students learn a little bit without really realizing it,” said Kevin Shankwiler, professor and undergraduate program coordinator in the School of Industrial Design.

Students began the project by dividing into groups and choosing a designer whom they wished to study. After researching the principles and common stylistic choices of each designer, the teams created posters to showcase condensed, easily digestible synopses of the project and what the teams had learned.

With the background learning out of the way, the real fun began. Students got slimy and were arms deep with orange pumpkin pulp as they took the design principles and well-known works of their chosen designer and emulated them in their pumpkin carvings.

“Students take what they learned and carve pumpkins in the style of the designer, or a designer’s signature product,” said Shankwiler, “So, they’re learning about how to understand their design philosophy, their design approach and their design language and transfer that on to a pumpkin.”

The project culminated the night of Thursday, Oct. 25 with a final judging of the pumpkins. The pumpkins were critiqued by faculty members in the School of Industrial design. Following music, games and snacks, the winners of the Curator’s Award, Best in Show, the best in each design group and the People’s Choice were announced.

For the School of Industrial Design, projects such as this one, which seek to reinforce what is learned through conceptual development and practical application, are standard.

“The first phase is research where you learn about something,” Shankwiler said. “Then you take what you learned through that research phase and apply toward the design of a product, but in this case, we were carving a pumpkin.”

By taking this approach, students are given the opportunity to apply the design principles and processes which they learn in class and practice them in ways which not only reinforce the concepts, but also encourage them to bend and stretch them so that they can be applied in new and innovative ways to a variety of scenarios and products.

“My favorite part of the project was the pumpkin carving,” said Amanda Wooten, second year ID and winner of the Curator’s Award. “It was a lot of fun to see all the different ideas people had about the same artistic style.”

Wooten designed her pumpkin in the style of Philippe Starck.

“Starck is known for favoring aesthetic over function and likes his work to look dangerous, so I incorporated lots of sharp edges and pointed parts and made the pumpkin unstable by putting it on its side,” said Wooten of her design.

Learning however wasn’t limited to just to one’s own artist or just to design principles as first year ID Ian Harmon, winner of the People’s Choice Award, shared. Voters had wandered around during the evening, choosing which pumpkin was their favorite.

“I learned a lot about time management and different design styles and how we can incorporate those into our own work,” he said.

In the future, Shankwiler hopes to incorporate projects such as this throughout all levels of the School of Industrial design. Through this, students will not only keep the opportunity to have fun while learning, but also be able to share what they have learned with those who are younger and older in addition to showcasing the progress they have has been made.

This project shows that the School of Industrial Design sure knows how to create a scary good learning experience that is both fun and productive for its students.

When life gets tough, it is healthy to find something that you really love to help the time go by more smoothly. Everyone has their passion, be it sports, music, academics or other hobbies. Some such activities take more training than others, and one of those is sculpting pottery. One student of this art is Zachary Houillion, a third year CHBE whose creative outlet happens to be expertly crafting mugs, bowls and vases ­— and winning many awards for his designs.

Houillion has been working hard since the beginning of high school to make his craft what it is today.

Houillion has always had a deep appreciation for art, learning many classical Romantic pieces on piano from a young age. He knew and appreciated beauty through many forms of art and wanted to find a way to express his own creative tendencies through something truly his own.

Initially he just wanted to fill an arts requirement for his high school and intended to do that through drawing. After not getting into a drawing class, he began taking art history with a ceramics portion. The rest, as they say, is history.

“[My peers] were making pieces that were ridiculous,” Houillion said. “I guess seeing my classmates’ work — which was incredible, we had one of the best programs out there for high schools — [is] kind of where I drew influence.”

In high school, Houillion worked until 9 p.m. after school every day, practicing the process of preparing clay, putting it on the wheel, letting it dry, trimming it, carving it, putting pieces into the kiln and so on, over and over.

Houillion learned to put his own perspectives into his work, adding many deeper meanings to his newfound skill. Houillion has a unique perception of art, through which he sees mathematics, nature and art as one in the same. This is very evident in his pottery, where he uses fractal patterns combined with many nature-influenced designs, such as roses or tree branches.

“There’s certain uniformity to the way things flow in nature and the way things look — be it mountains, or trees or flowers — there’s patterns in each one, and I just try to capture that,” he said.

However, he lets people choose their own interpretation of his works for themselves, even though he does put a lot of his own personal meaning in each and every piece.

Even so, he is slow to become attached to his ceramic designs as he knows they are extremely fragile. Houillion learned this the hard way when one of his most intricate works was blown over by a gust of wind, shattering it to pieces. Many people would be crushed after spending over 20 hours trying to perfect such an intricate piece, but Houillion knows this is just a part of making ceramics and keeps his head up anyway.

Even after suffering an injury that prevented Houillion from pursuing sports, he did not give up. Instead, he spends even more time perfecting his works of art. Houillion uses his love for ceramics as an outlet, allowing him to step back for a while, forget about his problems and fulfill his desires to become even more versatile with his pottery.

Houillion continues to make and sell his ceramic designs on Etsy and wants to stick with his love for ceramics for the foreseeable future.

“It’s been interesting,” he said of running his own Etsy shop. “If people buy [my pottery], great; but, I plan on selling them more in person.”

He has received many accolades for his designs, including winning two YoungArts Presidential Scholar in the Arts merit awards and four National K-12 Exhibition awards. He has also been featured on the front page of Reddit.

Even with all of these successes, Houillion feels he has a lot left to accomplish in the world of ceramics. Perhaps one of these things is teaching; he currently shares his skills by teaching classes in Paper and Clay on Wednesday evenings.

A week and a day before Election Day brings Americans together to vote on the future of the country, members of four different political organizations on campus had the chance to challenge each other and discuss a broad range of topics in a debate held in the Student Center Theater.

Some of the topics discussed included election system security, freedom of speech on the Internet and whether current policies that block undocumented immigrants from Georgia’s top universities are just.

The event, which lasted from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Monday, was hosted by the Student Government Association (SGA) Government Relations committee and boasted a solid attendance of students sprinkled across the theater.

Four political organizations — the College Democrats, College Republicans, Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA) and Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) — were able to each place two representatives on the panel.

A total of six questions were fielded to the debaters. Each party was allotted two minutes to answer each question and explain their position, after which a seven minute open discussion period would ensue — leading to an overall two hour long event.

The first question touched on the issue of election reform and students discussed whether electronic ballots are robust enough for use in elections.

Georgia is one of only four states across the country that uses an electronic ballot without any paper trail for use in elections, meaning that there is no physical backup for election auditing.

The electronic nature of Georgia’s election system, which might contain exploitable vulnerabilities, has been a concern among voters leading up to the election.

Abhishek Khandal, third year AE and one of the representatives of College Democrats, argued that the country should shift to paper ballots only.

“As we’ve seen recently in this year’s elections, in the midterms, in Texas, voting machines have been recorded as flipping votes from not only just from Democratic to Republican, but also Republican to Democratic, and that’s obviously a major cause for concern,” Khandal said.

“It is the 21st century and of course we want to continue to use technology to help ease all of our systems, including voting,” said Matthew Bowling, fourth year BA, speaking on behalf of the College Republicans. “Another thing to consider is that the quicker you are able to vote with technology incentivizes more people to come out and vote. No one likes long lines.”

Bowling, however, said that there should a paper receipt for recount purposes.

Nicholas Riccardelli, third year BME and president of YAL, shifted discussion on the question on election reform away from voting technology and to whether third parties are treated fairly in the process leading up to and during Election Day.

“There is a level of, I think, discrimination against third party candidates within our electoral system,” Riccardelli said. “The Commission on Presidential Debates — the rules that they’ve set for who is eligible for the debate I think are overly restrictive and don’t allow candidates who may better represent the views of American citizens.”

Riccardelli noted that although Gary Johnson, the Liberatarian Party nominee for the 2016 presidential election, was on the ballot in all fifty states, he still was not allowed on the debate floor with major party candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Nate Knauf, third year CS, chair of YDSA and College of Computing student representative, criticized campaign finance law for breaking the electoral system across America.

“An elite class of billionaires has captured our electoral system and rigged it in their favor,” Knauf said. “The Senate and the Electoral College were not intended for this and they have been molded over time to advance the majority rule of a minority of the population.”

Knauf criticized campaign finance laws that allow large amounts of money to be donated to super political action committees  — super PACs — without sufficient transparency regulations governing donor disclosure.

The mixture of various opinions was typical of discussions of later issues, where the political organizations were asked to discuss where to draw the line on what speech is tolerated on social media, and the U.S. foreign policy response to climate change.

In general, those issues brought a partial consensus: that speech on social media platforms should not be impinged upon by government regulations, but companies had free range to remove users based on violations to their terms of service; and that anthropogenic climate change was real and something needed to be done about it, even if there were multiple policy routes to approach that goal.

The second trio of questions focused on issues particular to Georgia, and were given to panelists from before the debate so that they could prepare responses.

Of those later questions, voices on the left and right most diverged on whether Georgia rules that prevent undocumented immigrants from entering top state universities unfairly deprive students of an education.

The defining maxim of the Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy, at least according to the president and his surrogates, is “America first.”

The underlying idea behind this slogan is that the U.S. pays far more for global security than any other country and, in doing so, disadvantages itself economically. Advocates of ‘America First’ policies argue that our allies, especially those in Europe, take advantage of our willingness to provide for their security and use the money they save on defense to improve the quality of life of their citizens.

If nations around the world were to pay for their own defense and maintain militaries large enough for the U.S. to reduce its global military presence, they argue, the U.S. could be much wealthier.

Those who seek to defend NATO — and other international institutions which rely upon the global military presence of the U.S. — often work tirelessly to poke holes in this view of the world. Still, they struggle to put together convincing arguments to challenge President Trump’s ‘America First’ worldview.

The reason it’s so difficult to argue with the president’s points is that he’s not really wrong. The U.S. does carry a disproportionate burden in paying for global security, and this burden does disadvantage us economically.

The U.S. accounts for 35% of all global defense spending, easily more than any other country. The GDP of the U.S. accounts for about 15% of global GDP, meaning that we do spend disproportionately on defense.

What’s more: If we consider the spending of only the U.S. and its allies — eliminating big spending rivals like China and Russia — the situation becomes even more dramatic. U.S. spending accounts for 72% of the aggregate defense budget of NATO’s 29 members. The next biggest contributor, the United Kingdom, accounts for just 5.8% of total NATO defense spending.

President Trump got a lot of flak recently for claiming that the U.S. “was paying for anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of [NATO].” Naturally, President Trump didn’t get the facts completely correct. Our defense budget does make up about 70 percent of the combined defense budgets of NATO’s
member nations, but this is not money that the U.S. is directly sending to NATO to be spent on European defense; it is our entire military budget. Still, the general idea that he was expressing is not incorrect.

The second part of the ‘America First’ worldview is that the U.S. could benefit economically if it did not pay such a large share of the cost of global defense. This is also hypothetically true.

If the U.S. were to share the financial burden of global defense evenly with other countries, it could reduce its military budget significantly. If we were to direct this spending to other programs — things like healthcare, infrastructure or education — we would more efficiently cycle government spending through the economy, our overall GDP would likely increase and the quality of life in the U.S. would almost certainly be higher. Some have even pointed out that the U.S. defense budget is large enough to pay for  public college for all Americans.

It seems, then, that the ‘America First’ worldview is pretty much correct. Where President Trump goes wrong is in explaining why the U.S. pays so disproportionately for global defense.

According to the administration, our allies take advantage of us and our politicians are simply too stupid to realize that they are being duped. The reality is more complicated and less convenient.

At the end of World War II, Europe’s armies and economies were decimated. The U.S. had reached an unprecedented level of military might and western governments felt that they needed immediate protection from the Soviet Union. Throughout the next few decades, the U.S. was happy to provide economic and military support to Europe to contain the spread of global communism, European governments were happy to devote their efforts to rebuilding their nations rather than their militaries.

Today, our global military presence serves less to contain communism than to safeguard U.S. interests and influence around the world. Still, Americans are not keen on giving up the power and security that comes with being the world’s only true superpower.

In fact, the irony of the right’s embrace of ‘America First’ foreign policy is that conservatives are the biggest proponents of protecting America’s military superiority. While President Trump is correct in arguing that the U.S. pays more for global security than any other country, his solution to the problem is to force other countries to pay more for their defense without actually having the U.S. pay less for it. In fact, the administration continues to push for increases in U.S. military spending while complaining about being taken advantage of by our allies.

If our allies increased their military spending while our military budget continued to rise, it would benefit no one, and it could even threaten global stability. At the moment there is little risk of war between major western powers because of our military superiority over our allies. If European nations began to increase their standing armies, war in Europe would become a genuine possibility for the first time since WWII.

While President Trump likely does not care about whether or not ‘America First’ makes sense as a foreign policy principle — as long as it fires up his base, it is doing its job — those who wish to debunk the worldview should stop trying to prove that the rest of the world pays its share for defense  and focus instead on asking whether or not Americans really want to lose the security and influence that comes with being the world’s undisputed military leader.

New kids on the block 

Tech adds two Tennessee five-star prospects to the fold for this season: forward Elizabeth Dixon from Germantown, and wing Elizabeth Balogun from Chattanooga. Both players received glowing evaluations as high schoolers; ESPN’s HoopGurlz described Balogun as “among the elite small forwards in the class of 2018” and Dixon as an “ultra-athletic interior performer.” Last year, Kierra Fletcher was a top performer as a freshman. The year before, it was Rookie of the Year Francesca Pan. Both freshmen will have a chance to shine.

Replacing the bigs 

Both Fletcher and Pan will undoubtedly be important returning contributors, but they cannot replace two more Jackets who have been key players for the team for year. Graduated seniors Zaire O’Neill — the reigning ACC Sixth Player of the Year — and Elo Edeferioka provided significant toughness and a dominating presence in the paint. In this regard, the team will have to look to players like Dixon to pitch in; she is the tallest player on the team and was ranked No. 5 at her position in the recruiting class.

Get better on the road 

At home, the Jackets are formidable against nearly anyone. The team even nearly knocked off then-No. 3 Louisville on December 28, a game they would have almost certainly won if not for the heroics of Cardinals superstar Asia Durr. On the road, the 2017-18 team was a different story altogether, winning only one conference game on the road. This year’s team has the talent to make the NCAA Tournament, but for that to happen, they need to close out games away from McCamish Pavilion.