Whether you cry a little every time you’re taken to a galaxy far, far away, or you draw a blank when someone cries “Exterminate!” there is no denying science fiction (sci-fi) is a massive part of pop culture. One of the most sci-fi concepts of them all is a city on Mars, which seems to be making a comeback ever since water was discovered on the red planet. Recently, the United Arab Emirates seemed to have become most intent on making a Mars city a reality.

Announced by Sheikh Mohammed on Feb. 14th, the Mars 2117 project aims to not only place a human settlement on Mars, but also to serve to open up the rest of space for humans. A VR experience outlined most of the details so far.

The colony is said to be somewhere around the size of Chicago, with a max population of 600,000 (NBC). The reasons for such a high number, as described by Saeed Al Gergwai, is, “Because it’s going to be like an exotic island, not everyone can go first, then we get advancement of rocket tech, which makes people move there easily, then the advancement oxygen tech to make it more Earth like, which will incentivize people.” (NBC)

Already, this sounds great, but the project is not fully complete. The economic system, for example, is still being discussed. Capitalistic elements are present, but a system needs to be designed with the unique environment of Mars in mind. Then there’s the small matter of the many, many, many environmental issues on Mars – the intense radiation and lack of terrain to grow food comes to mind (techtimes.com).

Finally, there’s the technology involved. Spacesuits are a necessity, but they’re not indestructible and could easily be compromised, and the technology needed to extract water isn’t to the point where we can start decorating it like a flying saucer.

Regardless of all this, the Mars 2117 project looks to be promising. But there’s still one question left: what would we call someone who lives on Mars?

By Henry Kelly and Elliot Wall

There is more trouble for the Trump administration as yet another member of his cabinet, this time his Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is caught up in the controversy that swirls around the new administration. This new controversy comes soon after General Michael Flynn resigned from the cabinet over allegations of contacting Russia, and the accusations currently being thrown at Sessions are arguably worse.

Specifically, the controversy revolves around Sessions’ meeting with with the Russian ambassador, that occurred while he was campaigning for Trump. The controversy arises from the Logan Act, a 18th century law that prevents unauthorized U.S. citizens from contacting foreign governments on their government’s behalf. In addition, some have linked it to claims that Russia tried to influence the U.S. elections, with some going as far to say Sessions had a hand in this alleged rigging.

Sessions’ defense against these claims is that these meetings were simply part of his duties as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader in the House, and former member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, claims that Session didn’t have a reason to meet with the Russian ambassador, as neither did she when she served on the equivalent committee in the House. Her claims are somewhat deflated by the fact that she did indeed meet with the Russian ambassador during her tenure as Speaker of the House.

The controversy deepened however, after Sessions was accused of lying under oath about his Russian contacts (during his Senate confirmation hearing for Attorney General, he had stated that he had never had contact with Russia). Despite contesting that he hadn’t lied, due to the way the question was worded, Sessions eventually recused himself from all investigations regarding the relations between Russia and the Trump administration, agreeing that an unbiased observer was needed.

Combined with Michael Flynn’s resignation, this only furthered the widespread distrust in the Trump administration. While it’s difficult to say how the administration’s popularity was effected, Trump’s favorability rating didn’t drop significantly. Some suggest this is because only extremely dedicated Trump supporters are still supporting him. Others claim that this is because it really didn’t have an effect – it simply didn’t resonate enough. Either way, scandals particularly about Russian contact, will probably plague the Trump administration for the foreseeable future.

Since the start of Donald Trump’s presidency, or even the start of his campaign, there have been a slew of suppression strikes against the press, often claiming they are reporting “fake news.” This is funny as one of the president’s closest correspondents, Kellyanne Conway, reported a massacre in Bowling Green, claiming nobody knew about it because the press, as a whole, chose not to report on it. Now here’s the funny part: there was never a massacre in Bowling Green. Kellyanne reported fake news on national television.

Since her comment about Bowling Green was a false statement, according to Trump’s belief, she can be sued. Trump said, “I’m a big believer, tremendous believer, of the freedom of the press. Nobody believes it stronger than me, but if they make terrible, terrible mistakes and those mistakes are made on purpose to injure people — I’m not just talking about me; I’m talking anybody else then, yes, I think you should have the ability to sue them.” So according to this statement, the American people, are able to sue Kellyanne Conway on account of her fake news that “injured” the people affected by it; mainly the race in which the republicans in the White House believe to be terrorists.

Legally, the press is not allowed to report anything false, but they are protected by “actual malice.” According to the Legal Information Institute, at Cornell University Law School, “Actual malice means that a statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false.” In short, as long as the content was published by the journalist in good faith, all the information was as accurate as possible, it is legally publishable. This is contrary to what the president believes, as he stated on a Miami TV station, that “Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it.”

Trump, as a tremendous believer in “freedom of the press,” has pledged to change the libel laws in a way that would undermine the First Amendment and the freedom of the press. While on his campaign run, Trump stated that we should “open up our libel laws so when [newspapers] write purposely negative stories…we can sue them and make lots of money.”

The First Amendment, a foundation of the country’s democracy, states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” 

To illustrate this attack on the press, on February 1st, 2017, a 45 second clip, of a press conference with the president, surfaced on Twitter. A journalist was trying to ask a question, and after being denied, the journalist calmly informed the president of his right to ask a question. The president quickly interrupted him, demanding he go back to his division.

The immigrant journalist, Jorge Ramos, told the president “You can not deport eleven million people and build a 1900 foot wall, and strip citizenship of the people in this country.” The president repeatedly told the journalist to “sit down” when a security agent approached the him, and placed his hands on Ramos in attempt to escort him out of the room.

Ramos did not fight back, but instead calmly told the man he could not touch him. As Mr. Ramos was exiting the room he told the president, “I have a right to ask a question.” Once the journalist exited the room, a Trump supporter can be heard telling Jorge Ramos, “It’s not about you, get out. Go back to your country.”

For context, Jorge Ramos is a U.S. citizen. Not only is he a Mexican-American citizen, but he is regarded as the best known Spanish-language news anchor in the U.S., as well as being listed as one of the top most influential people in the world in Time magazine. In addition to that, Ramos has been referred to as the “Walter Cronkite of Latin America.” Walter Cronkite was a CBS news anchor for almost twenty years, during which time he was cited as being “the most trusted man in America.”

After he was escorted out of the press conference, Mr. Ramos immediately made a statement following the incident. That statement can be found here: https://youtu.be/qPpxvf1niW8

This is just one example of the suppression, and disrespect, President Trump has enforced on the free press, the most influential press, the voice for the people. Just recently, Trump hosted his first independent press conference in which he blamed the “fake news media” for the poor  picture of the White House and his staff.

Despite the many times Trump has chosen to protect his ego before the American people, the people will not be silenced by the shake of a head and a closing door. Many protests and boycotts have taken place following the inauguration, speaking out against the president. 

2016 was a disaster. I’ve seen the shirts to prove it. But in April 2016, something good actually happened: 194 countries unanimously signed the Paris Agreement, which sought to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” But April 2016 was 9 months ago. It is now January 2017.

A former Trump aide, Myron Ebell, says that it is only a matter of time before Trump pulls out of the Paris Agreement. Considering the bulk of Trump’s supporters, and his cabinet members, are climate change deniers, this is all too likely. But assuming this isn’t just a rumor (he is a climate change denier as well, so there’s that), then this is going to easily end up being the worst idea the U.S. has had in a long time.

Why will this be one of the worst ideas in a long time? For starters, green energy/tech companies are estimated to increase in value substantially in the coming years according to The Atlantic. If The U.S. does back out of the Paris Agreement we’ll be saying auf wiedersehen to a lot of worthwhile cash; something anybody will tell you is not considered good.

On top of that, if the Independent News is correct, it’s going to be a full year before the U.S. actually backs out of the agreement, and if we figure out by then that this was a bad idea, it’s going to take another three years to get back in on the agreement. And on top of all that, there’s the small matter of CO2 producing companies/manufacturers being able to crank up production since the agreement means the EPA must recognize CO2 as a pollutant. Keep in mind here that the Paris Agreement was made to cut down pollutants.

All in all, this could easily be a nightmare for everyone involved and possibly those who aren’t…assuming this actually happens. Remember, it’s still ambiguous. What do you think: rumor or another inconvient truth?

(Al Gore please don’t sue me)