By Lola Weber

March 8th, 2021

Texas, home to nearly 30 million Americans, has been hit by dangerous and unprecedented weather conditions, along with a brewing struggle regarding energy policy in the U.S. 

   As expected, the urgent weather crisis which  hit Texas this late winter has morphed into a cultural conflict of sorts, creating the red-blue division which frames itself in nearly every conflict across the nation. Initially, leading GOP members initiated this ‘war’ while attempting to scapegoat the calamity of the Texan energy disaster. 

   Dan Crenshaw, a Republican representative, urgently took to Twitter in the midst of the Texas emergency, stating, “with blackouts across Texas, many are wondering: what happened? Leftists are cheering a ‘red state’ having energy problems”. He then went on to blame the blackouts on “a mix of over-subsidized wind energy and under-investment in gas power”, which hastily fired off the energy hostility. 

   Tucker Carlson soon followed suit, declaring on a Fox News segment that, “the windmills failed like the silly fashion accessories they are, and people in Texas died. This is not to beat up on the state of Texas — it’s a great state, actually — but to give you some sense of what’s about to happen to you.” Liberals have begun to parallel this conservative fervor over coal energy, towards wind energy.

   Although it is undeniable that in comparison to coal energy, wind energy finds itself to be significantly more environmentally beneficial, there is a discernible failure among both resources.

   While advocates of coal energy preach the resource’s efficiency, they fail to comprehend the detriment which follows. While renewable advocates push for alternatives like wind energy, they too fail to comprehend the risk and dependency that these resources have on unforeseeable weather conditions. 

 This is not to draw an equivalence between the two, as liberal renewable energy proponents are far less destructive in their mission in comparison to that of fossil fuel proponents, but to note a common flaw amongst both sides of this energy-culture war, which is the failure of well-rounded accountability and comprehension. This large-scale investment, which was about 47 billion dollars, put up by liberals across the U.S. in efforts to produce more wind turbines, did not come from a place of real climate urgency, but instead was a large-scale capitalist venture. 

   This endeavor is essentially what led to the critical deregulation of energy in Texas which created a perpetual auction on energy. Interestingly enough, Texans don’t mirror the ‘clean energy’ hostility which is so avidly projected by Republican lawmakers. 

In a survey conducted last fall, it was found that about 65 percent (an overall majority) of voters in Texas would be likely to support candidates who pledge to achieve 100% clean energy by the year 2035. Along with this, the study also found that a large sum of Texan voters actually supported the abolition of government tax advantages for the fossil fuel industry. 

The right wing zeal for fossil fuels isn’t as popular in Texas as many would assume, with 46 percent of people in the same study being against fracking, and only 34 percent being proponents of increased fossil fuel. The political climate regarding clean energy in Texas is a lot more progressive and willing to clean energy than conservative and liberal lawmakers suggest. 

Instead of the formation of another Red V. Blue culture war on energy, this situation should strike a pursuit in a more efficient and sustainable solution as a whole. Centering the discourse around wind energy versus fossil fuel energy is futile, when it should be focused around a stronger environmental agenda, such as the Green New Deal, and the push away from complete energy deregulation within the state of Texas, and throughout the nation. 

By Taylor Tomlinson

February 23, 2021

People often have a fascination with the unknown. We love science fiction, space travel, mystery novels; we’re obsessed with things we want to understand. The alluring pull for answers leads us on a quest for “the truth”, which can lead to falling down a rabbit hole on the internet. Our searches can lead us somewhere dangerous, in the hands of conspiracy theorists. In a country where the truth can become distorted in layers of bias, hearsay, and increasingly distanced from fact, it’s no surprise that conspiracy theories seem to be making their way into the mainstream.

  Conspiracy theorists have a different way of operating as opposed to the scientific method the public has known to trust. To them, you start with the conclusion you want and then look for evidence to support it, not the other way around. This biased researching process often leads to the finger being pointed at one group, in particular, the Jewish population. Anti-Semitism isn’t new, and neither is using Jewish people as a scapegoat for the world’s problems, but the internet and social media have allowed it to manifest itself in new ways. Lying underneath the surface of many conspiracy theories, Anti-Semitism festers and acts as fuel in the war against truth. 

  QAnon has been a buzzing news topic for the past couple of weeks after many claim that theory fanned the flames for the insurrection at the Capitol. For those who don’t know, QAnon is a far-right conspiracy that champions former president Donald Trump as a savior facing off against, as defined by the New York Times,  a “cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who are plotting against Mr. Trump while operating a global child sex-trafficking ring.” Before this year, QAnon has lived in the shadows and could be easily ignored. Once insurgents donning QAnon gear stormed the Capitol last month, QAnon posed itself as more than just a foggy theory spouted by lowlifes on a few dark corners of the internet. When alleged former QAnon believer Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia’s 14th District was sworn into office as a House of Representative member, the theory proved it had more of an influence on legislation than ever thought possible. 

  It’s no surprise that a conspiracy based on a group of people controlling the government and media would have anti-Semitic roots. While QAnon is not explicitly Anti-Semitic in its stated beliefs, the tropes it’s founded on have been used to cause Jewish people harm for centuries. The discourse of a secret community of left-leaning, non-Christians conspiring  against a white Protestant isn’t exactly fresh material. Its members have also been known to encrypt anti-Jewish rhetoric in its secret messages. According to Insider, “many Jewish figures, including (George) Soros, have been met with anti-Semitic attacks from the community.” While QAnon, a conspiracy that fosters racist, xenophobic, and anti-truth discussions, having anti-Jewish biases shouldn’t be a shock, it may be a surprise to learn that most Global conspiracy theories have some anti-Semitic roots. 

  Flat-Earth had a reinvigoration over the past five years. Popularized by internet discourse and social media, “Flat-earthers” believe the Earth is not a spinning ball orbiting the sun, but a stationary surface with the atmosphere hovering above it. This conspiracy has based itself in a primarily Christian support group, with claims of a fixed Earth throughout the Bible. Demonstrated by Psalm 93:1, the Bible states “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” which some Flat-Earthers use to disprove a globed Earth. Flat-Earth also accompanies theories of the space exploration organization NASA coordinating to hoodwink the public about the shape of the Earth. While many consider this theory silly and baseless, few regard this theory as being anti-Semitic. It appears the venn diagram of QAnon supporters and Flat Earthers are closer than many realize.

  While the theory of a Flat Earth has inherently nothing to do inherently with anti-Semitic finger-pointing itself, it’s easy to identify similar tropes that run within certain conspiracies. For flat Earth to be even remotely conceivable, it needs to be understood that NASA required thousands of their employees spanning decades to be committed to one lie. During times of political uncertainty, some grow distrustful of government organizations. This sentiment can be felt within the Flat Earth community. When journalist Kelly Weill of the Daily Beast went to the Flat Earth Conference in 2018, she observed a pattern of anti-Semitism among the convention. According to Weil, she noticed “Two tables over, vendors are selling a weighty book on Flat Earth. “Zionist Jews control the educational system,” begins Chapter 33 (“Mind Control”). The second paragraph is a block-quote from the wildly anti-Semitic and fabricated conspiracy text ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, which the Flat Earth author concludes is proof that Jews are trying to hide the Flat Earth, in order to undermine God and control the world.” As Weill points out, religious conspiracies thrive under political chaos, and this pattern can be seen way back during World War I. As people grow fearful of government, and accompanying organizations, such as NASA and the FBI, anti-Jewish fervor can spread as well. The Jewish community is not a new culprit, so it’s no surprise that when Christain ideologies are questioned and political tensions are rising, people find no trouble refusing the scapegoats of the past.. 

  Living in an echo-chamber can have its consequences, and the internet’s “dark alleys” almost always have hidden agendas and are simply trying to push their own narrative. Internet discourse can have real-world effects. According to PR Newswire, “the new FBI Hate Crimes Statistics report found that more than 60% of religious-based hate crimes in 2019 targeted Jews, an increase of 14% over 2018.” Falling down an internet rabbit hole can be exciting, but it’s important to be mindful about where your information comes from. The social media landscape is as dangerous as ever, and in the age of misinformation, personal bias almost always affects the truth. The urge to question the world around us is a good one that can push human progress. However, the rise of conspiracy asks how much questioning can be done until we have to wonder the very basis of fact versus fiction?

By Lola Weber

February 12, 2021

A star studded inaugural ceremony wasn’t enough to steal the spotlight from an image of an unimpressed looking Bernie Sanders, hunched in his seat with recycled mittens. Immediately following the inauguration, this image went viral and rapidly spread through various social media platforms. 

As this image continued to saturate political discourse throughout several outlets, Bernie soon transformed into a meme, having been photoshopped into historical moments, iconic art pieces, and a plethora of other pop culture moments. The emergence of this meme doesn’t come to much of a shock, as his ‘humble’ nature provided a refreshing facet to the pageantry of Biden’s inauguration. 

 Bernie’s stance, combined with the general appearance of a lack of interest, felt like an assumed rejection to the self-congratulatory mood of the inauguration. Sanders himself responded to the meme on late night with Seth Meyers, explaining that he was just, “sitting there, trying to keep warm, trying to pay attention to what was going on., so this obviously wasn’t an active attempt to ‘comment’ on the inauguration, but as with any cultural moment, the people make of it what they want.

 While the concept of the meme itself seems lighthearted, the utilization has been telling. At the heart of this meme, there is an immense display of reality for millions of working people. 

Ranging from moderate Democrats to the entire spectrum of the Left, this meme has become a massive cultural takeaway from the historical events on the 20th. Although this may seem like some sort of unity, the image itself takes on a variety of meanings depending on the differing viewpoints. Those who align themselves with a more moderate/centrist viewpoint have treated this image as a mere joke, seeing the surface level of a meme about an old and frigid ‘socialist’. 

For those who align with progressive politics, such as social Democrats, it signifies an apparent defeat and melancholy outlook to the new presidency’s future. As this meme reaches a further left perspective, it maintains the sentiment of defeat and ‘let-down’, but focuses more on a push towards the left rather than Sanders himself. 

This isn’t the first time that an inauguration has spawned a meme with such cultural buzz. The 2016 inauguration led to the viral video of Richard B Spencer, the man who coined the term ‘alt-right’, getting punched in the face. This came after Spencer’s victory lap at Trump’s inauguration, celebrating a supposed win for reactionary politics and his own white chauvinism.

Both the viral video of Richard B Spencer, and the image of Bernie Sanders, were shared by a similar range of audience, Democrats and Leftists, both symbolizing two different outlooks on these presidencies. While the video of Spencer was a joyous moment for many of those who were inherently ‘anti-trump’, it did signify the fear and genuine panic of Trump’s presidency. 

The meme of Bernie signifies a different reaction to a different presidency, one that does not scream chaos or horror, but thorough disappointment. While many may feel comfort to rejoice in this win against the hellscape that was Trump’s presidency, this feeling of despondency among many lingers. That feeling in contrast to the pandemonium of Trump’s administration, definitely sets the stage for these next four years.

This disappointment is evidently warranted, considering that in a social climate with extreme inequality and declining capitalism, people were hoping for a transformative government.

Biden does not fulfill that need, and represents the milquetoast neoliberal ‘compromise’ for this election. Whether it is the people’s disappointment within Bernie’s own loss of the presidency, or the broader concept of a loss of anything to the Left, this meme has a weighty truth to it. 

By Diana Kerbeck

February 12th, 2021

What is the meaning of free speech in the digital age? Does a private company have responsibility for what is posted on their site? These are some of the questions that are being asked as the social media giants begin to censor disinformation, mostly from the right, on their platforms.

 This began after domestic terrorists stormed the Capital Building in a futile attempt to stop congress from certifying Joe Biden as the next president of the United States. This insurrection resulted in the deaths of four people and permanently damaged America’s reputation as a republic.

  Social media made this insurrection possible, it allowed conspiracy theories of election tampering to run wild and it allowed the most devoted of Trump’s supporters to organize and plan their revenge. 

 Since then, most social media companies have taken bold steps to combat disinformation and hate speech on their sites, most notably the censorship of former President Donald Trump. Is this an example of the silencing of free speech or a justified act that prevents the spread of false information?

  Legally, social media companies have the freedom to control what is said on their sites, and the First Amendment only prevents congress from regulating freedom of speech. However, this does create an ethics-based dilemma since a country that prides itself on its liberty has private companies controlling what is said on the most popular means of civil discourse. 

  In my opinion, the actions taken by social media companies so far are completely justified. They have immensely helped curtail the sheer amount of false information and violent rhetoric that has littered social media for the last few years.

  Social media companies have finally realized they share responsibility when the content posted on their sites leads to hate, violence, and death. More importantly, these tech giants’ actions may have helped prevent violent riots from occurring on inauguration day.

  Additionally, spending these last few weeks without the dumpster fire that is Donald Trump’s Twitter account, has been quite refreshing. This all being said, there is still a concern over the sheer power wielded by these companies that is now becoming far more apparent than ever before. Should we trust private companies with the absolute ability to control the discussion of American politics?

 One must not forget that social media got us into this mess in the first place and that Facebook played a significant role in the election of Donald Trump in 2016. The overall issue, as it nearly always does, goes back to money. 

 The primary interest of social media companies is not to foster a free and open environment for civil discourse, or to help police the spreading of false or hateful rhetoric, but rather profit. These companies saw no issue with their platforms becoming breeding grounds for fascism, only now that they see their bottom line threatened do they act. Facebook and Twitter shouldn’t be receiving credit for doing the bare minimum, especially after the damage they have already done. 

  The solution is a highly complex issue, but since the only thing these companies seem to listen to is money, consumers do have the power to withhold support from social media that chooses not to reflect our values.

By Kirstyn Hill

February 4, 2021

Just thirteen days ago, the US Capitol was stormed and defaced by an angry mob of Trump supporters declaring fraudulent election results, and threatening the lives of the congressmen and congresswomen inside. With President Donald Trump’s incitement of the riot then continued apprehension to attempt to adjudicate the situation, he facilitated a potential domestic terrorist attack against the democratic process. 

With President Joe Biden being officially inaugurated into office on January 20th, 2021, it has been made clear that the majority of US citizens demand a peaceful transition of power. The national security threat of extremist groups has become an increasingly more prevent issue in recent times and is now threatening the security of the American democracy.

Masks weren’t the only new arrival at this year’s inauguration, as the National Guard was called on stand by, surrounding the Capitol building, and shutting down much of Washington D.C. After a continued display of negligence shown in Washington during Trump’s last weeks of presidency, it is now crucial to show the American people that security in democracy prevails. 

Donald Trump’s failure to call the National Guard earlier on January 6th was out of sheer favoritism to the group protesting, as it was known by anyone who is active on social media, and any US intelligence agency, that an attempt to storm the Capitol would be committed. It was made clear that day that the inauguration was to be protected by the National Guard, due to the severity of the national threat at hand. In a time where it has become normal American behavior to be radicalized through basic media outlets like Facebook preliminary precaution is never unnecessary.

What is typically a peaceful transition of power from one president to another, has been disgraced by forcing the attendance of the armed military. Not only has the U.S. democracy been strained severely through Trump’s initial refusal to concede and later resistance to even accept the election results, but it has also been exposed of its weaknesses and flaws.

It is undeniable that America is in unprecedented territory and the next 100 days of Joe Biden’s time in office will likely determine the results of his whole presidency. It is time to put an emphasis on unity in America and work to undo some of the damage left by the Trump administration. The attack on the capital was a great symbolizing act of the last four years, of unjust chaos and ignorance leading to irreversible consequences. Now it’s time to move forward and hopefully gain control of a country that is edging on the line of self-sabotage.