Welcome to the political theater of the absurd, where, in a continuing bid for relevancy, respected national news organizations eschew substantive critique in favor of grandiose hyperbole.

This week’s victim of choice is Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. A likely 2016 GOP contender, he has marshaled in a period of fiscal responsibility by cutting taxes, reducing spending and reversing a multi-million-dollar budget deficit.

But, nevermind the tangible benefits Wisconsin residents received from the successful implementation of these policies, there is one indelible fact which haunts Walker, one ill-starred action that taints his record — he left college a semester early.

If only this characterization were hyperbole; it isn’t, disturbingly. The Washington Post, among other news organizations, this week ran stories that focused, not on real tensions that exist between likely Walker supporters and his history with Common Core and immigration reform, but on “lingering questions” surrounding his decision to withdraw from Marquette University some 25 years ago.

The level of insipidity on display is stunning. First, that the media should deign to consider such drivel worthy of even a few seconds thought, let alone an editing process, denigrates good journalism and insults its audience. Second, it only underscores the farcical treatment conservatives are forced to endure at the hands of the media. Reasonable scrutiny on those in the public eye is one thing, but, the sophistic scope of this is, frankly, perverse and more in line with a defamatory whisper campaign than the duty to inform.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, something really pernicious lies at the root of this particular strain of criticism, and this is a fascistic vein of collectivism running through modern popular attitudes.

Once upon a time, roughly 240 years ago, a different idea reigned an attainment of a self-determined end was variable, judged on the merits of demonstrable successes. Accomplishment rested in the well-plied skills and the character of the individual; self-empowerment was the superlative benefit of such a system.

Now, this idea, once so powerful an ideology as to be the kernel of a government, has been perverted and warped; it is the romantic notion that sustains a few enterprising individuals against the ugly facts of dystopian hierarchy.

Society, no longer a pluralistic catchall used to describe an amalgamation of people, but a singular collective that requires unity to survive, enshrines certain values in an impenetrable tower, populated by elites whose attitudes rival those of Plato’s philosopher kings, which are ringed around with bastions of institutional higher education.

The life force of an individual is a rare, precious element. It holds immeasurable power. To strip, to demean on the basis of dissonance is a mean, puerile thing. This is what the press, when it treats people like Scott Walker, who do no more than dare to empower themselves by following an inner vision, as something to be derided.

The squelching of volition, of sovereignty — the truly divine elements of life comes at an incalculable cost. Modern society owes its existence to visionaries who had the gall to stand against their contemporary societies. Modernity does not even allow dissent to progress this far. When empowered institutions delegitimize anything that goes against them, when they disparage any who chose to ignore their diktats, the great are conquered before they can even realize their own potential.

Every election cycle, heavyweight politicians and insipid celebrities are drawn, like moths to a flame, to campaign trail and commercial appearances for endorsement spots.

This culture, which promotes the puerility of groupthink, and depresses the meritocracy that should underlie popular elections, is one of soft despotism. It holds colloquy — the battlefield of ideas at the heart of democratic governance — at the barrel of a gun, allowing puerility to act unimpeded.

Political endorsements rely on collectivism. Collectivism relies on vapidity and conformity. Value lies in the consensus of a majority that is, at best, vaguely defined. Rather than independently examine facts, contrasting them with truth made apparent to the individual through their unique experiences and thought patterns, a primacy is placed on social capital made hollow because there is no examination, just reaction.

This system of soft tyranny is, in some respects, worse than hard tyranny. Slavishness of the mind is volitional. Choosing not to think is as much an active act as choosing to engage in rationality. Hard tyranny, the act of conquering, presupposes opposition. The conquered at least has the satisfaction of having resisted. The victims of soft tyranny don’t even have this vestige of honor for they’ve sold themselves, and done so gladly.

Voting should be the ultimate public expression of ego. Federalistic representation relies on the principle of each voter carefully weighing their needs and opinions against the actions and words of a candidate. In this way, an individual brands themselves upon national politics and proclaims the supremacy of their interests. Here, the individual is part of the national constituency, but they maintain their sovereignty.

A culture where political endorsements are valued strips the individual of sovereignty and perverts the principles of democratic governance. Endorsers, whether famous national politicians or members of the entertainment industry, draw turnout from name recognition. They make emotional, not logical, appeals. They use buzz words and emotionally gratifying bromides instead of analyzing the foundation of policy. This is not political discourse: this is venial gloss.

And it is degrading. It promotes a view of the electorate, not as a faction who must be won over through meritorious action and solid rhetoric, but through the hyperbole of ultimately foundationless cultural appeals.

Worse still, in this atmosphere, the dissenter is demonized, necessarily so. A platitude can only stand so long as its core is not examined. Dissent, whether borne of disagreement over message or values, threaten to expose the hollow core of this perfunctory grandiose oratory. The right to survival demands they be discredited. So, endorsers become more malevolent, painting their opponents as a threat to the very foundation of the mob. And the more people object to this tactic, the worse the smears must become. This is the centrifugal force that destroys free society. This is real democracy.

This is not to say that those with public stature give up a right to speak their mind. They have every right. Nor should the channel through which they can do so be regulated. Discourse is what moves values forward. Rather, the individual needs to understand that their silent assent to such rhetoric is the only thing that sanctions the soft tyranny of political endorsements. Liberality and democratic governance require a high threshold for discretion. Voters need to hold candidates for office to that.

Cameron Grover, Opinion Columnist

It’s going to be a close one. We’re less than 40 days from Maine’s gubernatorial election, and sometimes it seems like this campaign could go on forever. There are many issues that will guide voters in making their choices for governor this year. It seems that in this race, with two candidates staying as close as can be in every poll so far, a clear stand by one of the front-runners on a big issue could make all the difference.

For me, the biggest issues that need to be addressed are women’s issues, specifically health care and the pay gap. In Maine, women are being paid 79 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts for the same work. The topic of employer-provided insurance coverage for women has recently gained national attention from politicians and organizations. Even the briefest of internet searches or a quick flip through the channels to see political commercials will tell you who is doing the most to help the women of Maine.

Mike Michaud is the Democratic candidate in the gubernatorial race this coming November, and he is the candidate who will best respect the rights of Maine women. He plans to address the wage gap that Maine women are currently experiencing. He understands that women turn to doctors, not politicians, for advice and counsel about what they should or should not do with their health and reproductive systems. Mike knows that politicians should not be telling women what medical procedures they can and cannot have. Mike has said, “As governor, I will veto any bill that attempts to weaken Maine’s Reproductive Privacy Act or infringes on a woman’s right to choose.”

Mike Michaud is the governor that Maine women need. I feel that electing Mike as governor is crucial to defending women’s rights and prerogatives in our state. And just as importantly, Mike would set an example for governors across the country. Mike would show that you can be a male leader that respects the choices and rights of women. Mike does care for Maine’s women. I truly hope that Maine’s people step up and realize, as Mike does, that women’s issues affect all of us.

This is my call to the students of the University of Maine to vote for Mike Michaud. If you care about the women in your life, I call upon you to vote for the candidate who will fight for their rights to equal pay and proper health and wellness resources. I want you to know that the candidate who has the record, the voice and the drive to fight for Maine’s women is the Democratic candidate, Mike Michaud. My fellow students, and the faculty, staff and alumni of this great university need to do whatever it takes to make sure that our candidate, the candidate who will fight for Maine’s women, becomes our next governor. Vote for Mike Michaud.

Stuart Higgins, Opinion Columnist

In light of a recent op-ed I wrote on police targeting of inner city black people, I felt it was an appropriate time to reflect on the legacy of the Black Panther Party and its founder, Huey P. Newton. The Black Panthers, formed in 1966 under Newton and Bobby Seale, started out as a group monitoring local police officers to help prevent police brutality in urban communities. This idea generated a powerful response within black communities, which helped them organize and mobilize against massive civil rights abuses across the United States. President J. Edgar Hoover described the group as “the greatest threat to the internal security of the country.” This was because Newton was a Marxist who studied the works of revolutionaries like Lenin and Mao, and advocated for armed self-defense against the state. This mix of theory and practice struck fear into the establishment.

When discussing the civil rights era in school, students are rarely taught the true nature of the Black Panther Party. Instead student’s heads are filled with the idea that the group was full of criminals and thugs; this notion couldn’t be further from the truth. The group received such hate and vitriol mainly because they saw American imperialism and capitalism as the root cause of the problems people of color faced at home and abroad. Newton set up a ten-point program outlining the party’s ideology and demands. The program essentially asked for “land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace” for black communities across the United States.

In order for the party’s strategy of armed self defense to be effective and help members avoid arrest, Newton knew they needed to stay within the bounds of the law. He spent an extensive amount of time studying California penal code and set party guidelines and procedures based on his research. Eventually, the government would find ways to combat this by creating new laws in response to the party’s actions. The most important law set up was the Mulford Act of 1967, also given the name “Panther Bill.” The Mulford Act prohibited the carrying of loaded firearms and was undoubtedly put together to target the party. In response to the bill, the Panthers protested at the state capitol while fully armed. This protest showed the community that the Black Panther Party would not back down from its duty to protect the people and only helped the party gain more support.

Newton’s most important contribution to the party’s goals was what he called “survival programs.” The party raised money in order to feed and clothe the poor within their communities, while at the same time educating the people about the causes of their living conditions and teaching them how to combat these issues. The most important of these programs was the Breakfast for Children Program; the Panthers claim to have fed more than 20,000 children during the school year of 1968-1969. These programs were invaluable because they taught people to rely on each other; they knew they couldn’t rely on the government and the law to stop their oppression and create better social conditions.

Eventually the United States government would instruct its counterintelligence program to attempt to undermine and neutralize the party. By exploiting rivalries between black-nationalist groups and targeting the party’s social programs, the FBI was able to dismantle the Panthers from within, leading to their demise.

Although Newton will forever be remembered as a controversial figure, there is no denying his work helped unify the black community through education, self-betterment and localized care. It is important to remember Newton as a selfless leader who risked his life for the peoples’ cause. Too often the importance of armed self-defense is erased from the record of the civil rights movement; Newton’s legacy is testament to the importance of those aspects of the movement.

The foundation of the Western liberal tradition is property rights. To paraphrase Machiavelli, a man will sooner forgive the death of a parent than the seizure of his patronage. One can’t choose one’s parents. One can purchase goods that are a material reflection of personality and ideals as well as a testament to the effort put into achieving the capital that purchased them.

But no one ever considers what lies at the heart of ownership, and yet, that which does is the simplest and most crucial of ideas. That idea is ego, the “I” upon which every thought and emotion an individual ever experiences over the course of their life hinges.

“I” is not simply a product of linguistic structure; it is an inescapable absolute. It’s at the heart of philosophical treatises; pithy, ignorant opinions and eloquent declarations of abounding love. Even that which is supposedly altruistic — the doing of something to benefit others — revolves around ego. An act of charity, or an action undertaken for the benefit of another, is done because the actor thinks or feels it is moral or right.

Selflessness is a myth. All thought, emotion and action are borne of the internal stimulus of a singular mind. No man can think or feel for another, only for himself, and this he must consciously choose to do every waking moment of his being.

The everydayness of the frenetic world is unextraordinary, yet it is in such mundane interactions that man’s ego is tested. Matters of principle are easy, epistemologically. Right and wrong and the actions that lead down either path are clear. The only real variable is man: Does he have the courage of his convictions?

Adversity pits man against man. The banal necessity of queuing in checkout lines blurs the clearly demarcated lines of ego. The wealth of products made accessible by the myriad blessings of capitalism ought to catalyze self-expression. But, modern society is alarmingly ignorant of the symbolism of free market interactions. Mass produced media, clothing, even coffee brands scream to consumers: conform; join the cultured intelligentsia.

From the dubious union of everydayness and conformity springs the malformed chimera known as “society.” Its paternity, on closer examination, is undecipherable. Like some medieval patriarch suddenly springing to power, it speaks for all on the authority of some ancient bloodline whose roots can neither be discovered nor disproven.

Possessing ultimate, unquestioned power, it behaves as some petty Torquemada, commanding in a wheedling, nasal voice, “Submit or be destroyed.” The penalty for defiance is death by exsanguination. The collectivist vampire seizes at the beating heart of ego and sucks lustily as individual identity courses from the fading shell of its victim and floods its own constitution with new strength.

This horrid affair is made all the more pernicious because it kills in spirit, but not in body. Stripped of everything that makes him by the faceless and omnipotent masses, what is man? This is not a rhetorical question, but a serious one. What manner of creature does man become when he is assimilated into the body of a beast that effectively functions as a metronome moving this way and that without purpose, sometimes in jerks, sometimes evenly as it responds to its prime biological impulse — react?

There is no answer for such a creature has no nature; it cannot be named or classified because it has no independent existence. And this is the threat that hangs over all men who acquiesce to the idea of society’s supreme judgment. The individual is the only empowered entity. Only he can sanction or condemn his survival.

Matt Pinkham, Opinion Columnist

On Sept. 20, 2014 famed actress and UN Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson delivered a rousing war cry for her new campaign “HeForShe.”

By saying, “Gender equality is your issue too,” Miss Watson attempted to rally the male population of the world to her call for equality under the guise of feminism. Was it effective? I hope not.

Emma Watson’s diatribe suffered from the same failure that infests modern feminism: glaring hypocrisy. Feminism’s talking heads, like Emma Watson, sing the glories of feminism and the benefits to everyone. The practicing members of feminism, however, show violent opposition to anything they deem as “male.” Let’s look at the evidence.

Miss Watson spoke of the crushing burdens facing males because of gender stereotyping and sexism. She offered feminism as a way to transcend these troubles. The Feminist militia behind her tends to have a different view. Perform a quick Google search of the term “male tears.” Browse the plethora of merchandise, from coffee mugs to t-shirts, which mock the idea that men have emotions.

If you are not satisfied or sufficiently appalled then examining the authors of these memes will show that they are not isolated or fringe members of feminism. Miss Watson and the other talking heads would try to convince you otherwise, and if this was the only instance of organized assault on man’s psyche then maybe they would be right.

However, this is not the only instance of this aggression. Instead, we have seen it institutionalized. In November 2012, the renowned Warren Farrell gave a lecture at the University of Toronto. To be precise, he attempted to speak on the issues of gender equality. Mr. Farrell is a champion of second wave feminism and former member of the National Organization for Women. The speech he intended on giving in Toronto was focused on the social, economic and political issues facing men in society.

These are the topics that Emma Watson would try and convince you that feminism embraces and cares about. When the event was announced, the local feminist groups reacted with haste and did everything they could to stop the lecture, including violence and destruction of property. The University of Toronto’s administration watched as feminists assaulted men, destroyed property and barred the doors to the assembly. This is one of the most egregious acts of censorship ever seen on university grounds. The University of Toronto was reduced to a burning Rome as feminists responded with harsher violence than the Occupy protesters.

The university’s administration held no investigations into the events. No culprits were named. No evidence was gathered. No violent protesters were stopped. Rome burned.

If you don’t believe me, I welcome you to perform a second Google search. You can find video evidence on YouTube and watch the savagery with your own eyes. While you are watching this, help yourself to further footage of violent feminists. Also, after you’ve watched a few videos, perhaps you should send a few of these to Miss Watson. She could stand to see them.

None of these are isolated instances because they all stem from the same source: the flawed and fictitious concept of patriarchy. Modern “third-wave” feminism sells the concept that society is oppressive against women, and most importantly, men are the oppressors. The credo instantly vilifies all men. Men are oppressors, even if they never raise a hand against a woman. They are complicit in the crime, therefore are guilty and should be punished all the same. To them, male feminists are akin to kidnapped victims suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

This is why feminists would never endorse a fair discourse on men’s issues. After all, why should they collaborate with their enemy?

Herein lies the feminist hypocrisy, and the reason that I hope no individual is tricked by Miss Watson’s speech. Her didactic recruitment drive is nothing more than a guilt tactic thrown in the face of free individuals. It offers nothing but mob mentality.

If this is what equality truly is, then the crusade for equality is dead.

These are the times that try men’s souls. The Easter season is one of quiet introspection and muted sorrow. It is the setting of twilight over the human spirit. But, even in the deepest night, where peril seems to lurk in every shadow, the promise of the sun’s purifying light brings hope.

The agony of Jesus’s trial and crucifixion embodies the murky terrors of the night’s bleak obscurity and his miraculous resurrection is the sudden dawning of morning.

Easter is the celebration of indomitable, irrepressible spirit overcoming ultimate evil in its pursuance of ultimate good. The story of Christ is compelling because it is the story of a man’s indomitable spirit, his unyielding stand for ultimate good against an oppressive state and a dishonest people.

The story of Christ is the patronage for a long-line of indefatigable individualists whose stories loom large from the annals of history.

Simon de Montfort, who fought for democracy and equal application of the law in a time when the law was rooted in a caste system of blood and Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, last true prince of Wales and warrior for just law these are only a few examples of the distinguished spiritual sons sired by Christ.

In America, this ideology is the apex of a dream.

This is a nation built on an ideal of ultimate good that can only be purchased through wholly meritorious efforts.

But the attainment of that ultimate value, whether corporeal or spiritual, does not come cheaply since, as Thomas Paine once wrote, “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.”

Tyranny is the rule of dishonesty. It is what reigned when Pontius Pilate allowed Jesus, whom he believed to be innocent, be sacrificed. It is what reigned when the multitudes chose the life of Barabbas, a murderer, over Jesus. And it is what daily reigns when values are frittered away through equivocation and laziness.

Jesus himself warned against this, saying, “watch yourself lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life…But stay awake at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are going to take place” (Luke 22:34-36).

There is a duality between the struggle against evil and the attainment of an ideal. It is plainly written in Scripture, for only through suffering could Jesus attain his birthright. Similarly, there is a duality to value. Without a negative value to stand in contrast, a positive value is meaningless. There is no light without darkness, no good without evil. As Thomas Paine wrote, “’Tis dearness only that gives everything its value.”

Would freedom and justice be valued so highly if it did not have so high a price? Yes, it is grim to think that freedom has been bought in blood, both in the context of America and the salvation of the soul. But it is precisely an examination of the implications of this that breeds love of meritorious ideals and efforts.

And, so long as the duality of values exists, and engenders a contemplative process that leads to a spiritual striving to absolutely uphold absolute ideas, evil, though it exists, cannot win outright.

Divest UMaine’s decision to lobby the University of Maine System board of trustees, while perhaps being a noble endeavor in the environmentalist crusade, does not really serve the long-term needs or interests of students or employees.

The idea of divestment is important in a capitalist society. Money is speech. Individuals endorse, through purchasing power, the companies whose products and practices resonate with their values.

However, that’s a practice that must occur purely on an individual level. The University of Maine cannot afford to be so self-interested, as it has a duty to its students and employees to remain fiscally solvent. This means it should prioritize strong investment transactions, and oil is a strong, viable commodity.

It’s not as if the university hasn’t proven its commitment to sustainability through a number of initiatives, particularly through its involvement in the Maine Aqua Ventus offshore wind project.

But, even within this project, there is not wholesale agreement about whether so-called “green energy” technologies are the best step forward in terms of energy needs.

In an interview with this newspaper in January, James LaBrecque, owner of a local heating pump and refrigeration unit business, expressed concern that wind energy, which has lately been given attention as the possible energy of the future, is not the most efficient form available.

For most of the year, wind energy needs to be stored, since electricity consumption in local homes peaks in winter, and electrical energy doesn’t store as well as gas or oil.

Many forms of fossil fuels, such as gasoline, are much denser than electrical energy, meaning a consumer who needs to heat their home over the course of a season would end up using less heating oil than the equivalent of what is stored in electrical form.

Then, advancements in extraction processes, fracking in particular, have developed and can produce a higher quality of fuel that requires less refinement and processing, ultimately contributing less to emissions.

Modernity, for better or worse, depends upon fossil-based fuels and products. It is simply not feasible to abandon every endeavor that is in some way tied to them.

Further, the argument is far more complex than Divest UMaine’s position suggests. Questions of economic and fuel efficiency remain unsettled. There is a tradeoff between the amounts of emissions produced per unit of energy and the amount of energy that must be produced in order to meet the needs of consumers.

Technology is also constantly evolving. What environmentalists often forget is that it is not in the best interests of fossil fuel companies to destroy the world that they depend upon to stay in business. Many companies are committed to natural stewardship and are constantly looking for new, more wholesome means to get efficient energy to consumers. Hence, the recent shift to cleaner, more efficient natural gas.

But finally, and most importantly, the University of Maine System is not a special interest group. Its goals are not primarily ideological devotion. It is a business and has a duty to serve those whom it supports and those who support it. This means that consideration of students must come first.

The Federal Communications Commission’s announcement, and subsequent cancellation, of a study on the process that newsrooms use in selecting story coverage is yet another alarming example of the chilling erosion of any distinction between government and society.

While the federal government has made increasingly outrageous forays into the private sector, and this particular idea was no less egregious than the NSA’s blanket data collection or the IRS’ targeting of non-profits aligned with a particular political ideology, it’s hardly surprising that the FCC thought it had the power to monitor newsrooms.

This is, after all, the same agency that successfully regulated the content of private radio channels, purportedly in the name of “fairness,” until only an alarmingly few years ago. This most recent proposed initiative only shifted the focus to a different medium.

This most recent instance is hardly the only case of a federal agency, at the behest of government officials, heading an expedition into the previously uncharted territories of private business with increasing intrepidity.

Though stymied by populist outrage this time, this phenomenon will only continue to grow because it is merely the symptom of a much deeper and insidious problem — a radical interpretation of “fairness” that has crept into the federal prerogative.

Once upon a time, it was generally understood that the only way in which fairness entered into the national lexicon was through equal application of what federal laws were necessary to ensure the un-prevaricated protection of individual rights.

This, truly, is fairness. Success then relies on personal discretion and drive, as it should, since, depending upon the goals, there are innumerable ways of defining what ultimate attainment looks like.

But, those who supposedly know better have decided that this simply isn’t doing enough to insure success for those who are victims of a system that, through free enterprise, promotes only the truly meritorious. Enter fairness-driven legislation and initiatives, most recently actualized in the FCC’s monitoring of press coverage “balance.”

No longer is government blind. Now, it is a sentient being, motivated by some bizarre altruism that holds the nebulously defined “good” of a supposedly disenfranchised few above everyone else. Now, need, is suddenly a desirable goal of legislation. Now, those whom it decides are the oppressors of the voiceless are criminal and need to be watched.

In “Common Sense,” Thomas Paine wrote, “Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices.”

This is supposed to be a compelling reason to put high, unscalable walls between the two. Society is the realm of volition, wherein men can easily cast off those associations they find to be onerous or unsatisfactory. Government, on the other hand, is ironclad and its oppressiveness is not so easily shaken.

It is because of this that most issues are left to the invisible hand of the market. Then, though aggressions may occur against some party or another, they may be sorted out naturally. Only when these become outrageously assailable do they become an issue for government redress. Even then, local levels are sought as arbiters first.

This works because there is no real definition of fairness. There is no prototypical human being and therefore no single function or end that is somehow more innately virtuous than another. Society needs brain surgeons, and it also needs garbage collectors.

To protect the interests of both of these professionals, the government must make no judgments regarding their aims. When it does, the FCC is able to rationalize an Orwellian state in which newsrooms are subject to surveillance to make sure they serve the interests of their consumers. Yet, any quasi-rational person could point out that only the consumers are capable of knowing their interests.

The deleterious effect this has on society is easily demonstrable. Reporters Without Borders recently released their press freedom index, and out of the 180 countries, the United States fell to 46, behind such paragons of independent journalism as Estonia and Botswana. That’s a 14-spot drop from last year.

And, for a country that enshrined freedom of speech in a dominant spot in its governing document, it’s a travesty and one that will only continue to wreak havoc on society.

Water is an incredibly pervasive element of day-to-day life. People shower in, cook and drink the water that comes out of their taps. One of the fundamental roles of local government is to provide residents of a town clean, safe drinking water.

The Orono/Veazie Water District has recently run into public backlash over levels of trihalomethane, a carcinogen created when organic particulates found in pipes react with chlorine used as a treating agent, in the water it dispenses to residents.

Only a few years ago, in 2011, the trihalomethane levels were above the maximum level.

Now, tests show they are around 76 parts per billion, which is just below what is considered “safe.”

Any time consumers pay for a good or service, they have a right to demand excellence in their product. Utilities are a government-sanctioned monopoly, and taxpayers have little choice in the selection of the company that provides things like water or heat. When choice is limited, performance becomes incredibly important.

However, though utilities benefit from not having competition, they still have to go through the same business practices as other less sheltered industries. This means enacting change requires time in order to ensure it is executed properly. If a job is rushed, shoddy workmanship may result in the task having to be redone, which raises cost and potentially endangers consumers.

So, while residents certainly have a right to voice their unhappiness with the quality of water they’re being provided, they should also consider the myriad risks the Orono/Veazie Water Board has to consider when attempting to come up with a solution.

The trihalomethane levels, which some residents complain are still too high, are influenced by the levels of chlorine used to treat the water. Without chlorine, the water would be far more contaminated and unsafe. With too much chlorine, the health risks are also great. And it’s hardly possible to remove organic material from pipes. So, the water department has to be careful about over or under-correcting. A step too far in either direction could have fatal consequences.

Since the pipes are old, and some argue that the rust in them is contributing to poor water quality, one option is to replace the pipes. This could be incredibly expensive and disruptive to service. The board is also considering digging a new well. However, depending upon the location, this has a possible cost of $5 million. That’s quite a hefty sum of money.

If the board were to rush through the decision of placing and digging a well in an effort to quickly appease public sentiment, it’s possible they might not pick the best location and run into further problems. This would be a waste of a lot of taxpayer money, and that would inevitably anger just as many people — and for good reason.

So, those who are unhappy with the quality of water they’re receiving from the Orono/Veazie Water Board, since they pay for utility service, have a right to be secure in the knowledge that they are drinking safe water. But, they should also remember that the board is under a lot of pressure. If they make the wrong decision, they will be accountable to even greater outrage.