The state of New Hampshire rejected a plan to run a powerline corridor through the state’s famous White Mountain Wilderness in order to redirect hydro-energy from Canada to Massachusetts in February of 2018. The New Hampshire regulators decided that the corridor, dubbed the Northern Pass, didn’t do enough for the state to justify the damage it would cause the rich tourism industry in the Whites. As a result, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker turned to the state of Maine and struck a deal with Central Maine Power (CMP) to use existing corridors in Maine for his initiative while also cutting away over fifty miles of pristine Maine north woods for what has been formally called the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC). CMP has suggested that the project will yield significant economic and environmental benefits for the state of Maine, but the state of New Hampshire turned down the deal because they knew it wasn’t in their best interest; Maine regulatory powers need to recognize and reject the corridor for the same reasons.

The majority of CMP’s 145 mile line would run parallel to existing power lines, but a significant scar, about 53 miles, would have to be carved through Maine’s North Wilderness and across environmentally vulnerable areas as well as recreational areas like the Appalachian Trail and the Kennebec River Gorge if the project were to proceed. The corridor itself would be 150 feet wide and include a 75-foot buffer on each side. The entire project is estimated to cost $950 million in total, none of which would be paid for by the state of Maine or its residents. Most of the costs will instead fall on the state of Massachusetts, which is seeking to reach carbon dioxide reduction goals set in 2008. Central Maine Power itself and its parent company, Avangrid, stand to make $60 million a year over the course of the 20-year contract.

The stakes are high for all communities, but no more so than the Forks community whose small economy relies on ecotourism for the Appalachian Trail and white water rafting businesses. For these Mainers, who rely on the beauty and serenity of their environment for their businesses, CMP has promised to pump tens of millions of dollars into the Forks community and those around it which may be negatively affected by the corridor. This, in short, is not much more than a bribe for those residents, and one that may not last them as long as they might think. Spokespeople for CMP have also argued that the corridor will save Mainers tens of millions of dollars on electricity prices, when in reality, according to Maine Public, the savings per household could range from $1.50 to 10 cents a month. After the money runs out and Mainers realize the savings aren’t all that special, the beauty and the wildlife of the North Woods will have already been permanently disrupted. 

The plan is neither in the best interest of the state’s economy nor the actual reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Seth Berry, Maine’s co-chair on energy and utilities, suggests that, “by sending [power] east instead of west [Massachusetts] will create more demand… for what’s called backfilling from the West.” Clean energy is not being created anew, it is simply being routed to another source, thus leaving space open for more power to be generated through the use of fossil fuels. Berry argues that instead of letting another state run “a giant extension cord” from Canada, Maine should invest in its own clean energy solutions like off-shore wind or solar power and sell that energy for profit.
The NECEC is far from passing, as it has to be approved by multiple state and federal regulators before any ground can be broken, and Mainers opposed to the corridor are currently petitioning for a referendum on 2020 ballots. Just this month the Land Use Planning Commission postponed their decision on whether the corridor is an appropriate use of state lands. 

The wild, isolated expanse of the North Woods is a vital aspect of Maine’s identity, and its fate should be a referendum in itself upon what will become of “The Way Life Should Be.”

At least eight buildings have been impacted or lost to fires in Old Town since 2018. That means in just two years, families, university students and business owners have lost important, foundational parts of their lives to flames. Most recently, Old Town fell victim to two separate fires just three days apart. On Sept. 22, the building next to Yamas Bar and Grill in downtown Old Town was heavily damaged in a nighttime fire that spread to neighboring buildings. On Sept. 25, a fire in an Old Town apartment building left nine adults and two children without a home. It seems that devastating fires have become almost commonplace in our small college community. With these surges of life-altering events, the town of Old Town should come together as a community to support those affected and take a second look at their building and fire safety ordinances. 

It’s obvious to anyone renting out apartments or driving down Stillwater Avenue that many buildings in Old Town are on the older side. This can be advantageous in some ways to college students who are looking to rent out bedrooms or houses that won’t break their usually limited banks. However, older buildings also run the risk of having higher fire danger. 

Currently, the Town of Old Town complies with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) -1 Fire Prevention Code, 2006 Edition, the International Building Code, 2009 Edition, and NFPA – 101 Life Safety Code, 2006 Edition. These documents lay out rules, regulations and standards that different buildings need to meet in order to be in compliance with town ordinances. 

But the NFPA releases new Fire Prevention codes and Life Safety Codes every three years. Currently, there are four updated versions of each set of codes, all with new amendments and additions to previous years’ regulations. 

Currently, the 2006 Fire Prevention and Life Safety Codes have four compliance options for the different types of buildings in Old Town. 

The first compliance option applies to apartment buildings that are three or fewer stories in height and have ten or fewer dwelling units. Buildings that meet these requirements do not have to have fire suppression or detection systems installed throughout the units. The second option applies to apartment buildings that have a complete fire detection and notification system and requires that buildings that meet this standard must have fire alarm systems installed throughout the units. 

The third compliance option includes buildings that have fire sprinkler protection in select areas, including corridors, stairs and at every unit door. This option does not require sprinklers in living areas. The fourth and final option applies to apartment buildings that have an automatic fire sprinkler system throughout the residence and requires that all areas of the dwelling unit be provided with sprinkler protection. 

Many newer apartment complexes in the Old Town and Orono area, such as The Avenue or the Reserve, meet the compliance options that include sprinkler systems. Yet many, if not most, old houses and apartments are equipped only by fire alarms. 

Policy and regulations grow and change with time in order to adapt to circumstances, technology and new knowledge. For example, smoke and fire detector regulations have changed throughout time to improve safety. The first code from 1976 required alarms only near bedrooms. Then, in 1981, a new code implemented a rule that activation of a detector must be audible within closed bedrooms. Then in 1994 and again in 1997, new codes updated rules which required detectors to be interconnected on all levels. 

In times like this, when tragedy strikes, we often actively seek out the cause. Whether these local fires have been caused by accident, outdated regulations or resident mishaps, they impact real people trying to live their lives, and no matter what, we should be taking steps to help them and prevent others from the same tragedies. 

The town of Old Town should take this time to take a look at their current fire safety and building codes and consider updating their compliance with some of the newer recommended codes from the NFPA. The Old Town community has rallied around their fellow citizens to provide aid, donate money and extend support for those affected by the fires. The town government should do the same by ensuring that fewer students, fewer families and fewer residents are impacted by home-stealing fires in the future.

What do big-name celebrities like James Charles, Taylor Swift, James Gunn, Laura Lee, Kayne West, PewDiePie, Roseanne Barr, Shane Gillis, Logan Paul have in common? They have, at one point in their careers, been “canceled.” Hoards of their social media followers took to Twitter, Facebook and Youtube to hurl insults and declare the celebrities “canceled.” Each of these celebrities has become the target of cancel culture. But what exactly does that mean? 

Cancel culture is defined by the holy grail of internet slang, the Urban Dictionary, as a “modern internet phenomenon where a person is ejected from influence or fame [because of] questionable actions. It is caused by a critical mass of people who are quick to judge and slow to question.” 

Perhaps a more sophisticated explanation comes from the New York Times article “Everyone is Canceled.” Author Jonah Bromwich’s own definition is explained as. “an act of cancellation is still mostly conceptual or socially performative.” In other words, internet users hop into the mob-mentality that surrounds canceling a certain individual, and the actual act of canceling usually comes in the form of a trending hashtag, angry tweets, or a user’s status that denounces the artist, comedian, YouTuber or celebrity. 

Take the cancellation of Taylor Swift for example. In Kanye West’s music video for his song “Famous,” released in 2016, he made references to having sex with Swift, who later stated she did not approve of some of the lyrics. But later, after Kim Kardashian West released a phone call with Swift seemingly contradicting her own statement, the hashtag “#TaylorSwiftIsCancelled” hit the internet by storm. Despite the swarm of hatred Swift received, the majority was “socially performative,” to use Bromwhich’s words. Swift’s first album after the incident, “Reputation,” sold 2 million copies in the first week after its release. On the internet, Swift was canceled, but in real life, people still bought her music. 

Another instance of the cancellation came when famous comedian Kathy Griffin posed with a Donald Trump mask with what appeared to be blood dripping from his neck (it was later revealed by Griffin to be ketchup) in 2017. The photo drew immediate criticism and resulted in professional consequences for Griffin. Even though Griffin released an apology stating that she “crossed the line” and “went way too far,” her comedy tour was canceled and she was placed under investigation for conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States, according to an article by CBSNews. Additionally, she was placed on the “no-fly list” and was fired from co-hosting CNN’s New Year’s Eve special with Anderson Cooper — a job she had held for years. 

While Griffin’s cancellation came with more permanent consequences, both Griffin and Swift underwent emotionally turbulent times. Swift endured being called a “snake,” “manipulative,” and as Swift put it in an interview with Vogue magazine, she was being sent “mass amounts of messages” telling her to “either shut up, disappear, or [as] it could also be perceived as, kill yourself.” 

These two women were canceled by society and suffered emotional and professional consequences. But what about when the internet cancels someone over racism, sexism, insensitivity or homophobia? 

Comedian Shane Gillis has been in the headlines recently after being fired from Saturday Night Live just days after being hired. NBC announced his termination after light was shed on racist, islamophobic and homophobic remarks Gillis made on his podcast, “Matt and Shane’s Secret Podcast,” in 2018. 

People immediately took to Twitter with angry responses, and rightfully so. The comments made by Gillis harmfully and unjustly targeted minorities and were in no way acceptable. But the positive impact of “canceling” Gillis remains unseen. The statement released by the comedian is far from apologetic. In a tweet released shortly after the announcement of his termination, Gillis states: “it feels ridiculous for comedians to be making serious public statements but here we are. I’m a comedian who was funny enough to get SNL. That can’t be taken away. Of course, I wanted an opportunity to prove myself at SNL, but I understand it would be too much of a distraction. I respect the decision they made.” There’s not an utterance of “I’m sorry” in sight. 

Later, he released another statement on Twitter, defending himself by saying “I’m a comedian who pushes boundaries,” and that he was “happy to apologize to anyone who’s actually offended by anything I’ve said. My intention is never to hurt anyone but I am trying to be the best comedian I can be and sometimes that requires risks.”  Again, not much of a true apology. It seems that even though Gillis was canceled, he did not learn from his mistakes. 

Which begs the question if cancel culture actually does what it intends to do: hold people accountable. James Charles and Logan Paul still make Youtube videos. Taylor Swift and Kayne West still sell successful, Billboard chart-topping albums. It seems as if our cancel culture has entered us into an infinite circle. 

A well-known figure is found to have participated in or said something problematic, the people take to the internet with their outrage, and an apology is issued; sometimes sincere, and sometimes not. But then the cycle repeats itself. How can we tell if cancel culture is actually leaving room for individuals to grow from their mistakes? Or if it even motivates them to do so? 

Kimberly Foster, founder, and editor-in-chief of For Harriet, a YouTube channel that celebrates “the fullness of black womanhood,” released a video arguing that we “cannot cancel everyone.” In her video, Foster states that instead of cancel culture, where individuals are pressured by the mobs to disappear and never return, we should encourage changing culture. Foster states, “changing culture meaningfully means approaching folks from the standpoint of ‘these harmful ideas you are perpetuating need to go’ and that ‘we’re not going to accept this anymore. But the people themselves can be recovered.” Individuals may be more willing to self reflect and make changes in their morals and values if they are approached with the mindset: “hey, you messed up, but we will forgive you and continue to support you if you change,” instead of “you messed up and we will never forgive you.”

The purpose behind cancel culture may be productive, but the execution must be changed if we want to live in a time where privileged people of power and influence are held accountable for their actions. Without this change, it is unclear whether people will actually change for the better or just continue to view themselves as the victim of an angry, irrational internet mob.

“If not you, who? If not now, when?” This quote, penned by 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg, serves as a homing call for every person on this planet who is and will be affected by climate change. On Friday, Sept. 20, and again on Friday, Sept. 27, people around the world will walk out of businesses, jobs, homes and their classrooms to participate in a global climate strike. 

The strike’s goal is to disrupt “business as usual” in an attempt to highlight how crucial climate change action is for the future of our world. Already, organizations, activists, and everyday people have signed up in over 150 countries to participate. As the first strike grows near, the participation of students, across the nation, around the globe, and at the University of Maine is imperative for success.

UMaine is a school that places climate change and sustainability on its priority list. Organizations and administration offices work year-round to create sustainable practices for UMaine and it’s students. The Office of Sustainability has implemented sustainable dining and housing procedures such as composting, trayless dining and various water, heat and electricity conservation. Additionally, UMaine dining has already passed its 2020 goal of purchasing 20% of food from local partners. Dining halls, dorm rooms, walkways and classrooms are all equipped with zero-sort recycling, making it easy for students to help reduce waste. 

Earth day celebrations are another big deal at UMaine come springtime. The yearly week-long celebration brings educational workshops, presentations, trivia, club outings and raffles to students. This year marks the 50th Earth Day and UMaine is sure to celebrate.

All these efforts from the university encourage student activism. When the semester gets rolling, homework starts piling up, and students’ plates fill with responsibilities, it can be difficult to find time to stand up for a cause. However, throughout history, students have been an influential force paving the way for societal and political change. 

On Feb. 1, 1960, four African American students Ezell Blair Jr, Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil and David Richmon, from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University sat down at a Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina and refused to leave despite segregation practices that were commonplace at the time. Just three days later, the four students were joined by 3,000 others in more than 50 cities, sitting at lunch counters and refusing to move to protest segregation.

According to a New York Times article on historical student activism movements, the “actions of the so-called Greensboro Four led directly to the creation of the Student Nonviolent coordinating committee, which the civil rights organizer Ella Baker urged students to form in April [of]1960 to coordinate the continuing sit-ins.” These efforts from students across the country sparked the momentum that “eventually contributed to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed segregation in public spaces,” according to the New York Times article. 

Student activism created history again in 1989, this time in Czechoslovakia. Students in Czechoslovakia took to the streets eight days after the fall of the Berlin wall, to protest the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. Over 500,000 protesters joined the students in Prague, and despite being attacked by riot officers remained peaceful until 11 days later when the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia relinquished power. The same New York Times article states that the “extraordinary revolution” was one of the “most rapid and complete successes for a student-led movement in modern history.”

Modern efforts by students still exist today. The Black Lives Matter movement was started in 2013 by three women in their early 20s and 30s, Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi, who were joined in 2014 by thousands more after the police killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown,  in Ferguson, Missouri. Many of these protesters were students. After the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas highschool in Parkland, Florida, a march was launched by student survivors to raise awareness of gun violence. Some students, including Cameron Kasky, Alex Wind, Emma González and David Hogg became vocal activists who influenced hundreds of similar events across the nation and around the world.

History has made it clear that student activism is not a force to be overlooked. Student solidarity, grit and passion have changed and will change the world. Now the world needs this generation of students’ help. 

 “If not you, then who? If not now, then when?”  The answer to these questions are quite simple. You, the student, right now, should stand up for issues you believe in. History might just be made with your he

On Friday, Aug.  30, the University of Maine welcomed incoming first-years, the class of 2023. For some students moving into their new dorms, the feeling of watching your parents drop your stuff at your door and leave to head back to the home you just left behind may bring a new feeling of independence. However, many others may feel a pang of anxiety. According to research conducted by the UCLA Higher Education Institute, over two-thirds of first-year college students report feelings of homesickness. 

Homesickness can take many forms and can affect every student differently. Typically, homesickness is equated with the feeling of missing parents, friends or pets from your home life. But homesickness can also be fostered in feelings of loneliness, displacement, anxiety or irritability, and can also cause a decrease in motivation and an overall negative mindset. Left untreated, homesickness can lead to more severe mental health problems.

Even though the majority of first-year college students across the nation experience homesickness, the negative stigma around mental health or other problems often prevents students from sharing their feelings with their peers, mentors or parents. According to a study conducted by the National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI), 40% of students affected do not seek out any help. 

But, here’s the thing. It’s ok to call home.

If you don’t know how to navigate your way through college-level classes yet; if you are having a hard time making friends; or even if you saw a dog on campus and wanted to share it with your family — it’s ok to call home. It’s easy to feel like once you enter college you have to be an adult working your way through the world on your own. But family members are one of many resources available to college students that should be utilized to their full potential to help create the easiest transition into a new lifestyle. 

UMaine does a wonderful job welcoming first-year students by providing them with a jam-packed weekend full of fun events around campus to keep first-years occupied and social during their first few days. However, when the weekend ends, and the first week of classes begin, some of the novelty of the new schedule, new friends and new living spaces can wear off and leave students in a strange and unfamiliar setting, leaving plenty of room for the homesickness to set in. 

Students can help fight homesickness in numerous ways. For UMaine in particular, students can get involved in organizations tailored to their interested by choosing from one of over 200 student clubs on campus, join a sorority or fraternity or sign up for intramural sports. Additionally, UMaine offers professional services through their Counseling Center and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Services, who are there to help students work through their transition to college life. 

Further, calling home to talk to your family, scheduling a weekend home to look forward to or even printing photos of your friends and family to hang in your dorm are all ways to help offset missing home. There is no shame is missing the comfort and normalcy of your family, and asking for help in no way impairs a student’s ability to thrive in a college setting. 

However, if feelings of homesickness persist over an extended period of time, it may be a sign of something more serious. In an interview for the Chicago Tribune, David Berrier, a chief psychiatrist with University of Chicago’s Student Health and Counseling services says that symptoms of homesickness and mental health issues  can have some overlap because “symptoms of homesickness can often resemble conditions like depression: feeling tired, experiencing mood changes.” 

And much like homesickness, mental health issues impact many first-year students. A 2018 study conducted by the American Psychological Association found that over one-third of first-year students are impacted by mental health issues across the globe. 

As the semester moves forward, remember that it is normal to miss home, and completely acceptable to take some time to call your parents. But also be proactive and aware of your mental health; if feelings of loneliness or anxiety don’t fade as you adjust to this new lifestyle, consider making the effort to reach out to the resources at your disposal on the UMaine campus.

A list of student resources is available on the UMaine website, or through this link: https://umaine.edu/studentlife/student-resources/. 

Earlier this month, several prominent universities found that over 50 individuals were involved in various college admission bribery scandals. Between the years of 2011 and 2018, parents were accused of paying more than $25 million in bribes and participating in doctoring photos, falsifying test scores and fabricating essays in order to get their children into top colleges and universities. As the story unfolded, it was revealed that prominent celebrities, including Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin, were involved and are now facing federal charges. While the names involved might have taken some by surprise, the fact that the meshwork of the college admissions process is laced with the influence of money is no shock.

In the past decade, the number of colleges that offer early decision has risen. According to the Collegeboard website, approximately 450 colleges now use early decision or early action plans. However, early decision, in particular, offers an unfair advantage to students of higher income backgrounds.

Early decision is a special process that accelerates the college application process. Students are allowed to apply to only one early decision college in November, instead of the normal December deadline. Then, in mid-December, schools send out their decisions. If the answer is no, students have two weeks to apply to other schools. If the answer is yes, the student is required to attend the college. This is usually enforced through high school counselors, who, once aware of a student’s early decision application, refuse to send out official transcripts to other schools. This process benefits higher-income students and discourages those from lower-incomes. Students who apply through early decision must have the ability to commit to a usually prestigious and pricey school without knowing the financial aid package they may or may not receive.

Students who don’t apply through early decision also have a smaller chance of being accepted. According to The Atlantic, Yale admitted 37 percent of early decision students, and only 16 percent of regular applications; Columbia admitted 40 percent of early decision applications and only 19 percent of regular admission students; and Hamilton admitted 41 percent of ED candidates and only 27 percent of regular admission students in 2011.  

This process that has become normalized in the high stakes and competitive atmosphere of college admissions is simply a societal-deemed above board means of utilizing access to money to increase a student’s chances of being accepted at a school.

Beyond the admission process itself, money also plays a role in SAT and ACT scores. Despite the controversy around whether SAT scores should play as large of a role as they do in the acceptance process, SAT scores are often deciding factors for colleges and universities. The Princeton Review, an online organization that offers tutoring, test preparation and admissions counseling, guarantees a 100 point score increase for students who invest $500 in tutoring. Their college prep “SAT 1400+ Score Guaranteed” class starts at $1,200.

When students, or more specifically, their parents, exploit the college admission process, they are perpetuating the discrepancies in those who have access to higher education. The Atlantic found that “many schools don’t want more low-income students because they won’t be able to pay for them without a major overhaul of school funding practices,” and because of this, they implement “full pay” student policies.

This means that colleges actively recruit students who can attend their institution without needing financial aid assistance. Inside Higher Ed, an organization that provides an analysis of higher education issues, took a survey in 2011 that found 35 percent of admission directors stated that they had increased the efforts of encouraging “full pay” students. This also includes an “admit-deny” strategy, where students will be accepted to a school but denied a large enough financial aid package in order to discourage them from enrolling.

Students coming from upper-class families found by the Center for Education Policy Analysis at Stanford to be seven or eight times more likely to enroll in a more selective institution than students from the poorest 20 percent of households. Despite the fact that high-income students account for only one-third of high-achieving graduating high school students, they make up roughly 74 percent of students at the top 146 colleges across the nation. This implies that prestigious institutions are not strictly looking at merit, but instead a student’s ability to pay.

Unfortunately, there is no clear solution to fix this problem. The road to higher education in our country is littered with socio-economic roadblocks that unfairly hurt and target lower income and racially diverse students. But it should come as no surprise that the rich are bribing their way into schools, as the college admission process has found a way through early decision and specialized test prep to normalize the role of money in acceptance decisions.

This article has been updated.

When picturing Maine, the Pine Tree State, it’s hard not to imagine the rocky coast, the rural farmland and the vast forests. In fact, Maine has the largest amount of overall forest coverage in the country. Our state is home to the end of the Appalachian Trail, which hosts over 2 million hikers every year. Yet our state is currently facing the decision to either protect this forest covered land we call our home or sell it to an energy company who will replace pine trees with power lines.

Central Maine Power (CMP) has proposed building a transmission line called the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) that would span 145 miles from the Quebec-Maine border to an energy grid in Lewiston. Of those 145 miles, 53 would require clearing a new transmission corridor through Maine’s relatively undisturbed woods. According to the Natural Resource Council of Maine (NRCM), the corridor would cross 263 wetlands, 115 streams, 12 inland waterfowl and wading bird habitat areas and the Appalachian Trail.

CMP has released arguments stating that the corridor would benefit Maine by introducing a form of clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yet various environmental groups, such as the NRCM, have disputed these assertions and argue that a new transmission corridor would actually be the opposite of helpful.

Arguments that the corridor would benefit Maine’s economy are weak and easily refuted. According to NRCM, Mainers would only see a reduction of six cents on their monthly electric bills and the low-income households CMP claims to be helping would only receive around $2.37 of benefits per year.

A study released by Energyzt Advisors — that according to their website, are a “global network of energy experts,” — states that the new transmission line would not actually lower carbon emissions, because it would “divert energy sales from another market into New England,” it would not reduce total greenhouse gas emissions and “could even increase total carbon injections into the atmosphere.”

The same study also found that NECEC would “suppress the development of new renewable energy in Maine,” because the power lines installed would be unusable by any other form of clean energy. NRCM’s Clean Energy Staff Attorney Sue Ely spoke on NRCM’s podcast and described how the new power lines would have no extra room for energy from solar or wind farms to link in and be transported with the hydro-power coming from Quebec. Ely states that CMP is “maxing out the [clean energy] infrastructure” and making it “prohibitively expensive for new projects” to create new clean energy infrastructure after CMP’s corridor is put into place. Even though NECEC is supposed to lower greenhouse gas emissions, in reality, it would prevent Maine from developing any other clean energy solutions and would actually hurt Maine’s chances of ever lowering their carbon emissions to the critical amount we need in order to combat climate change.

Even Patagonia, the outdoor clothing company that doubles as an environmental advocacy organization, spoke out about their opposition to the CMP corridor. In a Facebook post made on June 1, 2018, Patagonia urged their followers to “take action” and “add [their] voice” to a petition against NECEC, arguing that “if constructed, [the corridor] could threaten Maine and Massachusetts forests, wildlife, and strides towards renewable energy standards.” Other organizations have formed petitions as well, and over 10,000 Mainers have signed on to show their opposition to CMP’s proposed plan, according to NRCM.

Most of the opposition to NECEC comes from environmental groups. The corridor already has approval from around 95 percent of the towns that the corridor would go through and the stamp of approval from Gov. Janet Mills, but that should not discourage Mainers to reject the proposal.

The next step of the proposal requires an endorsement from the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC). In order to start construction and move forward with the corridor, CMP would need a certificate of public convenience and necessity, which is given by the MPUC.

Because of this, MPUC has set up a week’s worth of public hearings at the University of Maine at Farmington from April 1-5 to hear concerns from Mainers as well as environmental and energy groups. Mainers and environmental groups should take advantage of this opportunity to voice their opinion and concerns to the commission.

Overall, CMP has failed to respond to the accusations against them that the corridor would not actually limit carbon emissions and would instead hurt Maine’s chances of ever establishing newer and more effective renewable energies. Their corridor would invade Maine’s pristine and undisturbed forests, endanger wildlife and hurt Maine’s green future.

NRCM says it best on their website when they say: “Maine deserves better than to have its unique undeveloped North Woods degraded by a massive new corridor when there are less damaging alternatives. As we develop our 21st-century energy infrastructure we should look to 21st century solutions, not the destructive approaches of the past.”

The era of attempted discrimination and dehumanization by Trump and his administration has proliferated with the presidential administration’s aggressive request to expedite the Transgender Military Ban. Introduced in 2017, the Trump administration is now trying to push the ban past the lower level federal appeals court and straight into the Supreme Court of the United States. The dehumanization of a group of individuals can come in many different forms and banning transgender individuals from serving their country is just one more inhumane way to discriminate against a group of people who have long endured hatred and rejection from their country.

The ban was first announced by the president through a tweet posted in 2017 stating that the military would no longer accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. In March of 2018, Trump signed a memorandum that rolled back his original blanket ban but still restricted most transgender individuals from serving or enrolling. The memoranda stated that any transgender individual that is diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which is distress or discomfort experienced alongside the discrepancy between a person’s biological sex they are assigned at birth and their personal gender identification, would not be allowed to serve, and that all other individuals must serve under the label of their biological sex. However, this ban was blocked by three different federal courts in Washington state, California, and Washington D.C., which prevented the policy from being enforced.

The Trump Administration is attempting to appeal these decisions and blow over any further ruling that would be made by federal appeals courts by asking the Supreme Court to take up the case. However, the Supreme Court rarely takes cases that have not gone through the appropriate federal appeals process, unless the issue is of “imperative public importance.” This aggressive tactic has been used by the administration before; when Trump’s attempt to nullify the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was blocked by federal courts, his administration also petitioned to have the issue fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, but was denied. This history of pursuing a Supreme Court ruling and overstepping federal appeals courts paints the picture of an impatient administration that seeks to abuse the power of the third branch of our government when other courts don’t rule in favor of or fast enough for the current administration.

Besides this misuse of the American judicial process, the ban presents issues of wrongful discrimination against transgender individuals. Before Obama’s presidency, transgender individuals had been banned from military service since the early 1960s. However, President Obama and his administration ended the decades-long ban in June of 2016 with an announcement from Secretary of Defense Ash Carter that stated that no member may be discharged, denied reenlistment, or discriminated against based on their gender identity. This decision was based on a 2016 Research and Development (RAND) Corporation study that found that cost of transition-related healthcare was minimal compared to the overall healthcare costs in the Department of Defense, and that transgender individuals posed “little or no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness,” which disputed many of the claims made by opponents of transgender military service.

In addition to this study, transgender individuals have been serving in police, fire and federal law enforcement departments with little to no issues to their effectiveness. The medical costs tied to hormonal treatments are inexpensive, and the procedures are simple enough for individuals to administer to themselves.

Before this ban, transgender individuals already had to meet certain requirements through regulations in place to make sure individuals were fit to serve the military. Before recruitment, individuals had to show mental and physical stability for 18 months and have a civilian doctor certify that their transition is complete and does not limit their ability to serve. These requirements prevent the negative effects that opponents of transgender service tout, such as mental instability or physical inability of transgender individuals, in their attempt to find a reason to back their desire to exclude individuals they wish to ostracise from our society.

According to the New York Times, the Army fell short of their 2018 recruiting goals by thousands of troops, which has not happened since the height of Iraq War 13 years ago. As of September, the Army was still 6,500 troops short of its 76,500 new soldier goal. The article cites the rise in the American economy as one reason for this shortfall, but another may be the shrinking pool of eligible candidates; it stated that “more than two-thirds of young adults do not qualify for military service because of poor physical fitness or other issues such as drug use, according to the Army.” Despite this shortage of eligible recruits, the very administration that pushes for military expansion is also seeking to ban a large and willing group of individuals from serving their country.

The exact numbers of transgender individuals in military service are unclear due to the fact that many individuals have lied about or hid their choices of gender identity in the past to avoid mistreatment, rejection or discharge from the military. However, the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce and the National Center for Transgender Equality, estimate that over 150,000 transgender individuals have served in the U.S. armed forces, with an estimated 8,800 transgender individuals currently on active duty. And according to the 2014 estimates from the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Public Policy, 21.4 percent of the transgender population have served in the military, which is double the percentage of the U.S. general population that has served. These individuals are eager and willing to provide their services for our country but are being wrongfully denied on hateful claims based on dislike and misunderstanding.

If the president and his administration wish to bring this issue to the Supreme Court, they should do so through the just judicial process that is in place for a reason. If ruled constitutional, the ban would only enforce the discriminatory and hateful tendencies our nation’s leaders pose towards members of our community that deserve nothing but respect, understanding, and equality.

George Orwell’s famous novel and colorful criticism of abusive power, “Animal Farm,” has come to life on the University of Maine’s very own Pavillion Theater stage. The revolution that was originally written by Orwell in 1945 is transformed into a one act play, complete with pigs, horses, traitors, two-legged enemies and political doctrines.

Directing the show is Alan Estes, a fourth-year student at UMaine. Since entering theater for the first time his junior year of high school, Estes has engrossed himself in any form of artistic expression. Throughout his time at UMaine, Estes has performed in over 20 plays, directed twice and worked as a technician in the scene shop of the theater department.

“This show has essentially changed how I view theater, because … it has told me that there are things that I can pay attention to that I may not have without this play,” Estes said. “Specifically, in the play there are a lot of things that you have to decide for yourself. The playwright gives you a sentence of stage direction that tells an entire story, so when the animals revolt, I have to be the one to make the revolution. It’s told me a lot about how I work and how I want things to be created, visionary wise.”

The plot of “Animal Farm” follows the animal occupants of a small farm in England, as they revolt against their human oppressors and establish their own political regime. The pigs, one group of animals who reside at this farm, quickly place themselves in power by claiming the role of most intelligent animal and ruling over the other farm animals with a set of commandments first stated by brief character Old Major in the prologue of the play. Throughout the play, those commandments are altered as the pigs take more and more power for themselves and begin to kill off any who challenge them.

This abuse of power is portrayed through the manipulation of the working animals on the farm, convincing them that what they have seen or used to believe is incorrect, and that the Commander Napoleon, leader of the farm is always right, no matter what.

“[The play] follows pretty tightly the plot in which Orwell has described in his novel, specifically with quotes that he actually used, because in ‘Animal Farm’ … he likes to have [the animals] speak for themselves,” Estes said. “It’s very poetic that he wrote that and now it’s being adapted into a play in which they can use those words that Orwell actually wrote.”

Actors throughout the show take on new roles as their old characters are banished or killed, and progress the story through a series of meetings, executions and inter-character discussions. The audience is confronted with the fast-paced nature of the show and have no time to escape the messages being portrayed.

The show features eight actors, some playing two, three or even four characters throughout the show. The students participating come from various backgrounds. While many of those that audition and historically receive roles in shows are theater majors, this show also has students studying a range of fields such as engineering, nursing and media studies.

“The play itself for me, speaks not only to the power of storytelling and how we can immerse ourselves into something so unbelievably magical in such a real way and I think that the issues that are going on in our world are best represented through the ways that the people are affected within the play,” Estes said.

The show opened Oct. 19 and will run through Oct. 28 with Friday and Saturday shows at 7:30 p.m., Sunday shows at 2 p.m., and a Thursday, Oct. 25 matinee at 10 a.m. Tickets are $10 at the door or free with a MaineCard and can be found at the box office or at the School of Performing Arts website.

The round glasses; the strategically placed lightning bolt; the white owl; the broomstick. If you’re like me and have grown up with a deep, cherished love of Harry Potter, a familiar face immediately springs to mind. With over half a billion books sold in 80 languages, “Harry Potter” is a series familiar to many and a symbol of nostalgia and childhood innocence.

Now imagine the seven-book, eight-movie series and remove the nostalgia. This is the intent of Mike Shubert, the 26-year-old host of the growing “Potterless” podcast. Shubert, along with a different guest every two episodes, releases a podcast once every other week, recounting his experience reading the “Harry Potter” series for the very first time. The only catch: he seems to have removed those rose-colored glasses that many of us don whenever we want to revisit the magical series.

Each episode, of which there are currently 51, features Shubert describing details of a few chapters of a book at a time, going over the notes that he takes as he reads, and discussing his initial reactions, thoughts and predictions with a snarky, snappy and sarcastic sense of humor. His guests — lovers and haters of the series alike — are there to provide their own unique takes while attempting to stay away from any spoilers.

While the podcast’s tone is overall one of casual comedy, Shubert’s humor can get a bit harsh at times if you’re like me and enjoy the happy feeling you get whenever you hear the familiar music or read the familiar words of “Harry Potter.” Having a background in engineering, paired with a few more years under his belt than those who first read the series in their youth can cause Shubert’s view of the series to be critical and sassy. He frequently questions the physics behind the magic, points out holes in the plot and passes judgment on characters’ decisions, that a younger audience would never notice.

Instead of getting wrapped up in the magic of a children’s book, Shubert and his guests provide a comical, and sometimes too-critical rendition of a familiar series. This is disclosed in the description of the podcast and is the appeal for many listeners hoping to revisit the series with a new perspective.

The “Potterless” podcast also hosts a unique opportunity for listeners to be a part of something larger. Shubert set up a Patreon page for the podcast — a website where fans can sign up to donate a certain amount of money per episode, to help Shubert purchase equipment, travel to events and produce the podcast. With each rising level of donations, members are offered more gifts in return, starting with access to stickers and a shout out on the show, to special merch, special question and answer sessions with Shubert and exclusive additional episodes. On top of this, each month Shubert donates one dollar for each “Potterless” Patreon member to a charity, chosen from a list of suggestions from his listeners. His most recent donation was $478 to the Ghana Educational Collaborative.

Shubert’s cynical view of “Harry Potter” is one that’s taken with a comedic goal in mind. While his opinions are sometimes over the top and can frustrate those who don’t want all of the magic of “Harry Potter” shattered, his jokes land well, his guests are always entertaining and I find myself laughing along as I relive the “Harry Potter” series in a new perspective. I suggest this podcast to any level of “Harry Potter” fan.

The “Potterless” Podcast can be found on Spotify, iTunes, Soundcloud and the “Potterless” Podcast website.