The Democratic Party is scared of half of its base. This is not to say that the party does not value that half, but they understand it can cause problems. The Democratic Party leaders are wary of the members of its liberal wing, often characterized by politicians like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders, and would like to keep them at an arm’s distance at all times. 

With every passing election cycle, the ideology of the Democratic Party seems to becomes more and more liberal. President Joe Biden ran the most liberal platform of any Democratic nominee in this country’s history, but it still left many Democrats, both moderate and progressive, dissatisfied. 

It’s not often that politicians turn down money for campaign funding, especially when they won by a small majority in the last election, but that is what three Democrats did because they did not want to seem “too liberal.” 

Congressional Representatives Carolyn Bourdeaux, Elissa Slotkin and Conor Lamb all turned down $5,000 of campaign funding from Ocasio-Cortez during their campaigns. At face value, their actions don’t make sense. They turned down money from one of the most well-known figures in modern politics who wanted nothing but to help them win their re-elections. The rationale for this behavior lies in their fear of the progressives within their party –– they are worried about seeming too similar to party extremists.  

A 2021 Gallup poll shows that a slight majority of Democrats, 51%, identify as liberal in their political ideology. This news would be great for liberal Democrats everywhere if more Americans were Democrats or even left-leaning. The same poll also shows that the majority of Americans, at 36% of the whole group polled, identify themselves as conservative, 35% identify as moderate and only 25% identify as liberal. 

Naturally, most of the independents surveyed, at 48%, identified their political beliefs as moderates. Of this contingent, 29% identified as conservative, and only 20% identified as liberal. A closer look at Republicans shows that an overwhelming majority of them, at 75%, identify their beliefs as conservative. Politically, Democrats only have a slight advantage over Republicans, with 30% of Americans identifying as Democrats and 29% as Republican. 

To simplify what all those percentages mean: Democrats can not afford to lose any of the voters they have because if they did: it would mean a sure victory for their opponents. Democrats are afraid of the liberals within the party because if they lean too far to the political left, they run the high risk of losing the more moderate voters. An example of Democrats preventing this from happening would be with Sanders’ presidential runs in both the 2016 and 2020 Democratic primaries. Although Sanders was a favorite among liberals, the rest of the party saw him as more or less of a threat to the party’s victory in the presidential election. In the 2020 election, many political pundits questioned Sanders’ electability because of how radical his views are perceived. This question of electability was one of the reasons Sanders eventually dropped out of the race.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans run almost no risks in expressing more extreme views. That’s why many members of the party have no problem linking arms with politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who boast controversial plans like an American First Caucus for “Anglo-Saxon ideals.”

Simply put, Democrats need to account for far more than their opponents in order to secure victory in their elections. 

In many voters’ minds, liberals pose radical ideas that could upheave the current way of life. To gain those cautious voters, Democrats distance themselves from liberals to have a broader range of appeal. If Democrats want to win elections, they need to seem moderate; otherwise, they’ll lose too many votes to Republicans who promise a reverence for the status quo.

Just a short drive from the University of Maine campus, not far from the banks of the Penobscot River, lies the Juniper Ridge Landfill. Despite its proximity to the university and wafting odors to the surrounding area, many people are blind to this mass dumping zone. This state-owned landfill is growing in size and toxicity each day, impacting the state of Maine in a myriad of ways.

This landfill was founded in 2004 and has been home to out-of-state dumping through a loophole in Maine waste regulations. Approximately one-third of the 179 acre landfill is composed of toxic out-of-state waste from other New England states. Most of the New England states understand the toxicity of construction and demolition debris (CDD) and have set up legislation banning the dumping of such waste in state landfills. Maine, on the other hand, has a loophole in its waste regulations, stating that out-of-state trash that is sent through local processing facilities will be classified as “Maine-generated” waste. The Juniper Ridge landfill allows dumping of Maine-generated waste.

According to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), waste has increased by 31% since 2012 at the Juniper Ridge Landfill in Old Town. Many factors have contributed to this increase in waste, including rising populations, rollback of recycling programs, and a decreasing amount of municipal landfills. Despite the quantity of municipal landfills decreasing, the size of these landfills is dramatically increasing. For example, the Juniper Ridge Landfill sprawls over 179 acres of what was once Maine wilderness, piling high. From afar, one might mistake this landfill for a mountain. The Juniper Ridge Landfill is indeed a mountain, a mountain of trash.

As a University of Maine student studying ecology and environmental sciences, I feel an obligation to the local environment. Seeing such a mass of waste in my town that is generated out-of-state is something I will never forget. As I drove through the winding roads of the landfill, my car plowed through piles of single use plastics, wind blew grocery bags across the road, and the stench of trash and gas enveloped my vehicle. I looked up at the pile of trash with dismay, with pipes letting the methane and other volatile organic compounds flow into the atmosphere. I knew something must be done to ban the out-of-state waste from taking over our landfills and polluting our surrounding environment. 

Any true Mainer has an undying love for the never ending beauty our state has to offer, whether that be our flowing mountain streams, bold coastline, fields of lupins, or the roaring rivers. Whatever it is that makes you call Maine home, is at risk of environmental degradation. The Juniper Ridge Landfill is in the same watershed as part of the Penobscot River, Stillwater River and Pushaw Lake. The harsh toxic chemicals from the CDD are making their way into our water sources and polluting the resources of the Orono/Old Town area. These changes in river ecology work as a chain reaction and eventually affect coastal areas at the mouth of the Penobscot River, causing potential damage to our tourist industry. 

The Penobscot River is home to the Penobscot Nation, who rely on the river as a natural and cultural resource. The Penobscot Nation has a reservation on Indian Island in the Penobscot River in Old Town. The nation is at risk of losing the ability to fish and use the water as a resource if the leaching of sludge and toxic chemicals reaches the river. Not only are these chemicals a risk for the rivers and lakes nearby, but also the Hirundo Wildlife Refuge that is just down the road from Juniper Ridge. The toxic chemicals are contaminating the water sources, soils and small animals, which could bioaccumulate over time in large animals. This forested area is also fragmented by the 179-acre landfill, affecting larger quantities of edge species like squirrels and deer, changing the natural balance of the ecosystem. There are endless problems that this landfill creates for surrounding wildlife, and the residents of the Orono/Old Town area and potentially the entire state of Maine. 

The problem of out-of-state waste disposal in Maine landfills is something that needs to be resolved. There is no reason other New England states should be dumping their toxic waste in our landfills, polluting our environment, wildlife and communities. Let’s ban out-of-state waste! Sign the petition, inform your neighbors, talk to representatives and keep Maine beautiful.

As an end to the COVID-19 pandemic seems to come closer with vaccine rollout, people are getting excited about what they’ll be doing once everything is said and done. Some people are excited about concerts. Other people can’t wait to travel. Many are just looking forward to hugging their family. But very few people seem to be excited about going to movie theaters. Not without good reason, either.  Even before everything changed, theaters were expensive, uncomfortable and losing their appeal. If things don’t change, movie theaters will be facing a hard uphill battle when the conditions in other industries return to normal.

One of the problems movie theaters had before the pandemic, and one of the issues they will most certainly have after the pandemic, is their pricing. In the latter half of 2019, on a national average a movie ticket alone cost $9.25. A large popcorn and a large soda were an additional $15, give or take. For one person to go to the movies for a “full experience,” it could be nearly $25. One can only remember how expensive it might be to go on a date with a significant other or go to the movies with family members. 

Theaters need to pay their employees and keep the lights on, but there has to be a way to make the experience more affordable. According to a Harris study, 58% of Americans sneak in snacks to the movie theater. One can only assume a factor of this is the price of snacks at the theater. If most people are sneaking in their snacks, perhaps theaters should make some changes to help them in the long run. 

Another problem theaters have always been notorious for is how uncomfortable they are. This problem will only become more noticeable post-pandemic. We’re all familiar with the awkward situation where two strangers are sitting next to one another in the theater and someone has to choose who gets the armrest or who awkwardly holds their arm tightly to their side. Now, imagine this situation immediately after a pandemic. People aren’t going to want to sit elbow to elbow to watch a movie. Of course, people will forget about the pandemic and fall back into old habits over time, but the question is if theaters will be able to hold on for that long.

The biggest problem that movie theaters will face after the end of the pandemic is overall interest. People aren’t interested in movie theaters anymore. More and more people would rather watch movies in the comfort of their own homes. According to a Variety survey, only 12% of people would definitely watch a movie in the theater if there was a 90-day wait to watch it at home; this is opposed to 23% of people who would definitely wait to watch a movie at home and 21% who probably would. 

People aren’t interested in seeing movies on a bigger screen with louder audio anymore. The problems of comfort and price factor into these statistics mentioned, but even if those problems were solved, many still may not be interested in movie theaters. If theaters want to survive, they need to figure out something new to catch people’s interest and amend the current problems.

To put it lightly, Maine’s state flag is terrible. The flag is somehow bland and over-complicated at the same time. It breaks all the rules of good flag design established by the North American Vexillological Association. The worst part about the current flag is that it replaced a flag that was perfect for the state. It is because of the current flag’s poor design that Maine should revert to its original flag.

In vexillology, which is the study of flags, there are five rules for creating a well-designed flag. The first rule is that a flag should be simple enough for a child to draw it from memory. Take a moment and try to imagine the current flag of Maine. I am sure there are parts of it you can conjure to mind. Do you think you could draw it from memory? 

Maine’s original flag was beautiful and simple. It has a buff-colored background with a green pine tree in the center and a blue star in the upper right corner. Without even seeing it, I’m sure you can imagine it. This means the original flag passes the first rule. 

The second rule is that a flag should use meaningful symbolism. The current flag does pass this rule. The sailor on the flag represents Maine’s strong ties to the sea, and the farmer represents agriculture. The North Star represents that Maine was once the most northern state. The moose and pine tree represent the state’s wildlife and forests. The original flag has a pine tree and a star for the same representations as on the current flag. Even though the current flag has more symbols, the original flag has enough to be distinctly Maine. 

The third rule is a flag should only use two to three simple colors. The current flag doesn’t even come close to passing this. In total, there are about 15 different colors in the current flag, with three different shades of blue alone. The original flag nails this rule with only three colors total: blue, green, and buff yellow. 

The fourth rule is that a flag should never have any lettering or seals. The original flag also passes this rule while the current flag fails miserably. Perhaps the most embarrassing part about the current flag is the fact that it says Maine right on it. I think it’s fair to say that if a flag has to say where it is from, it fails to effectively represent the state. 

The final rule is that a flag should either be distinct or intentionally related to another flag. The current flag is similar to 20 other state flags in the United States. The flags in question all have a blue backdrop with a seal on top of that. This rule is where the original flag shows its worth. There is not a single flag that is even remotely similar to it. The original flag is unmistakable in its uniqueness. 

All of these rules don’t just help design a flag that is pleasing to the eye. These rules set guidelines to create a symbol people can be proud of and recognize as their own. A state as beautiful as Maine needs a flag that is as striking as it is.

It is cruel and unethical for the University of Maine to pay $12.65 an hour to students who are putting themselves at risk to conduct COVID-19 testing. Maine’s flagship university has always prided itself on liberal values and community-oriented ideals; however, when it finally comes to putting their wallet behind their beliefs, the best interests for their students seem to all too predictably disappear. It is disturbing, especially at a time when many students are struggling financially and feel they have to take any work they can find.

The entire student body received an email mid-January offering paid positions at the testing sites on campus. I was particularly interested because I used my winter break to relocate to a hard-hit part of the country to work as an EMT and swabber at a testing clinic. I am very grateful for this opportunity to help, but I will also say that it was the only job I could find.

When I read the position is titled “COVID Testing Ambassador,” I immediately imagined the Maine Hello team cheering people on to muster enough spit to fill a cup. The reality is that the university is hiring desperate students at essentially minimum wage for a position which will regularly expose them to a deadly disease which, at the very least, could negatively impact their studies and mental health through quarantining. The title is just an excuse not to call these students what they really are: healthcare workers. If testing was hired out to anyone other than cheap student labor, the risks dictate an industry standard of $15-$30 an hour. Even the absurdity of this wage is overshadowed by last semester’s frantic email sent out by student recreation and Greek Life asking students to come help with testing to meet their volunteer hours. 

I still took the job as a COVID-19 tester on campus as it is important work that must be done, but I accepted it knowing that I am already vaccinated. This brings about the other major problem with these positions. Per the university administration this job is “non-contact,” so employees are not considered healthcare workers and therefore will receive the vaccine at the same time as the general student population.

This assessment by the university is simply wrong. The job posting states that some of the roles of a “Testing Ambassador” are cleaning, distributing tests and checking patients in and out. Even if we were to ignore the fact that this job will require close proximity to potentially contagious patients, mistakes do happen. Sometimes your N95 does not seal correctly, someone touches a paper clip they shouldn’t have, people take their masks off to sneeze and so on. The “administrative/greeter” at my testing clinic just contracted the virus, despite working in a so-called “non-contact” position. Especially with the new, more contagious strains of the virus expected to ravage the country in the next few months, any contact is enough contact. If this position is so safe and zero risk, I ask the university board and administrators to lead from the front by joining the testing effort for a day or two to get a better understanding of the job.

These general and legitimate grievances about the university’s student employment system are not what I am trying to address in this article. However, the reckless employment of students, without proper compensation, is totally unethical and contradicts the university’s mission. I propose that the university create a separate tier of their pay scale for student employees, called “Hazard Pay,” that has a substantial percentage-based increase for higher-risk work. The application of hazard pay is most apparent with these testing positions, but could be beneficial if expanded to other inherently dangerous jobs. 

UMaine is understandably under strict financial limitations; it is not running a charity. A lack of funding was a defense used as to why the university can’t pay testers more. There is never enough money for everything, so the University of Maine System must decide what to prioritize. To me, near the top of that list is compensating students for serving their community in a hazardous role. Student workers and other staff feed us, tutor us, and ultimately make this campus run. Now we are expected to keep everyone safe. What is a fair price to pay to the young people who are risking their health for our collective wellbeing? Surely we can do better than $12.65.

When reading last week’s publication, I was so glad to see Maine’s new Climate Action Plan garner much-deserved attention. That said, the opinion editor himself raised an important point: fiscal responsibility. While the scientific consensus regarding climate change has been clear, answers surrounding the financial considerations of environmental action have traditionally remained less certain. Also uncertain is the infrastructure of the national climate agenda that Maine-specific endeavors will operate within. This precariousness can be clarified comprehensively by Congress implementing the Baker-Shultz Carbon Dividends Plan.

Maine’s Climate Action Plan lays out four main goals: reduce emissions, avoid the impacts of inaction, foster economic opportunity, and advance equity. Baker-Shultz would perfectly augment this vision by implementing a gradually rising price on carbon and rebating the revenue directly to the American people.

In terms of emissions reductions, Baker-Shultz would achieve a 57% cut nationwide in the next 15 years. This is a rate that exceeds the Obama-era regulations and Paris Accords and puts us well on the governor’s track for carbon neutrality by 2050. This avoids the staggering costs of further government inaction, and the plan’s wide bipartisan support makes it primed to burst through our current partisan gridlock.

Much of Baker-Shultz’s appeal stems from its economic potential. By 2035, this proposal would create 1.6 million jobs and spur $1.4 trillion in capital innovation — all while adding nothing to the federal deficit. Furthermore, the dividend payment would yield the average family of four $2,000 per year and put the bottom 90% of Mainers ahead. Such widespread developments would be especially meaningful as we finally begin to turn the page from COVID-19.

In short, the goals of Maine’s Climate Action plan are the bold, admirable steps our state so desperately needs. Nationally, these efforts would be made that much more effective and equitable if implemented under a federal framework that reflects them. Baker-Shultz clearly can be, and should be, that answer.

There has been a long-standing debate over the possible link of violent tendencies to individuals who play video games. According to the Dana Foundation, “The main reason to worry about video games is a slew of studies claiming to find a link between violence in video games and real-world aggression, but countervailing studies have found no persuasive link. The main reason to be skeptical of a causal link is that video games have spread widely around the world without driving other countries to the levels of violence in this country.” 

The claim that video games that display any kind of violence have a direct link to violence in children or even adults is an idea built from a few studies. Newzoo Senior Market Analyst Tom Wijman estimates that the gaming industry will generate $159.3 billion in revenue in 2020. The reason the gaming industry is so successful is not that it promotes violence, but that it promotes healthy lifestyles, increases social activity, and improves decision-making.

In particular, role-playing games (RPG) are one of the most common forms in the industry, including award-winning titles such as The Witcher, Elder Scrolls, World of Warcraft, Assassin’s Creed and Spiderman. All of these games are based on creating a hero role for the player to immerse themselves into. In this hero role, the player is faced with hard decisions and crucial character development that eventually leads to the desired ending. 

Not only does it promote healthy lifestyles, but the social interaction factor of video games is crucial for people, especially during COVID-19. With events remote and distanced, virtual social interaction is the only option. In our increasingly virtual reality, video games are a wonderful and engaging distraction from everyday life and the troubles that come with it. The joy of video games is rooted in a sense of satisfaction from systematically accomplishing goals.

The idea that video games promote violence because they enable players to virtually shoot guns at enemies is something that has been around since 1997, a year after the first “violent video game,” a boxing game, was released. In response to studies and articles fixating on the violence in video games, many production companies and publishers have created a violence/gore filter in the majority of their games. These filters censor blood and extreme violence in games, so if the user wishes to not witness the violence they don’t have to. Additionally, violent video games are often rated M or Mature, which is a grade from the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) that declares a game as inappropriate for anyone under the age of 17 to play or purchase. In effect, games with M ratings are going to have mature content that the production company did not intend for people under the age of 17 to play. 

The stigma against the gaming community is something that needs to change, as it is deteriorating the positive effects games can have on individuals. Promoting a healthy lifestyle and social interaction is what helps keep people sane and happy.

In the aftermath of Thanksgiving break, dear editor, you may have been rallying your sanity to prepare for the return of classwork — like many of us — but you may have heard too about the Maine Climate Action Plan. It could have been drowned out of your Facebook or Twitter feed by daily election news, but I can assure you that this plan is not receiving the attention it deserves. 

Gov. Janet Mills and a team of “more than 250 people,” including climate experts, communities, and industry leaders, have created a climate plan that will bring state emissions down by 45% within the next 10 years — one of the most ambitious climate plans in the nation. 

Though we would be hard-pressed to find someone who disagrees with this end, sometimes ambition doesn’t stray far from delusion. But that’s the beauty of the Climate Action Plan. It outlines four years worth of goals that are entirely achievable, like “accelerating Maine’s transition to electric vehicles,” investing in environmental infrastructure with funds won from climate lawsuits, funding “innovation support” for climate friendly products made in the state, and increasing the “total acreage of conserved lands in the state to 30%,” to list only a few. 

I don’t know about you, dear editor, but I’m tired of cliché attempts by our leadership to calm growing fears about the threats to our climate. Maine’s Climate Action Plan is the opposite of this. We should be proud of our state leaders for leading our nation in the fight towards environmental progress.

It’s 2020 and it’s time for people to stop asking women when they are going to get pregnant. Cultural and societal expectations are changing and progressing as the years roll by, but an unfortunate norm that has persisted in society is the expectation for women to be “baby-makers.” There has been a definitive shift in the attitude towards women working and equality in the workforce; however, even if a woman is successful in her career, many still expect her to fulfill a “biological” responsibility of producing children. This is a barbaric way of thinking.

We are in an era where women have more agency than ever before in this country, and there is no reason that they should have to endure questions motivated by offensive, patriarchal expectations. There are countless reasons as to why a woman has not had a child or is not planning on having children. As a society we need to establish the appropriate approach to this topic. It’s simple: don’t ask. In no circumstances is it appropriate to question the decisions that a woman makes regarding her personal life or her body.  

According to Psychology Today, almost half of all women in the U.S. between the ages of 18 and 39 had no children in 2014. By their mid-40s, about 1 in 7 (or 14%) never had children. There are also medical concerns involved with many womens’ decision whether or not to have children, such as the possibility of endometriosis, PCO (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome), miscarriages, mental health, and congenital heart defects. 

Even if there are no medical concerns, there can also be financial concerns. According to CBS News, “Having a baby is an expensive endeavor — but the cost of giving birth in the U.S. varies wildly. The cost of hospital childbirth is more than three times more expensive in New Jersey than it is in Nebraska.” 

Even though the cost varies widely from state-to-state, compared to the U.K., the U.S. has the highest cost for pregnancy and giving birth. According to CNBC, “In U.S. dollars, it costs $2,300 on average for a vaginal delivery or planned C-section in the U.K., or $3,400 for a more complicated procedure. By contrast, it costs $30,000 for the former and $50,000 for the latter in the U.S.” 

There is a simple solution to this situation: if it is not your body, then it is not your right to question, ask or even assume why a woman has not had a child by a certain age. There could be countless reasons why a woman has made the choice she has, and it’s important to accept that a woman’s decision to have a child is nobody’s business but her own. It is our right to do as we see fit with our lives, and no bystander should feel the need to question what we do or don’t do with our bodies.

It’s 2020 and we have endured countless traumas that will be with us forever. We are in a constant battle with an invisible disease. While the older and immunocompromised populations are at a higher risk for contracting the coronavirus and experiencing serious symptoms, the younger generations are trying to survive both the virus and their childhood. Specifically, the lack of normalcy during the holidays could negatively affect children and their development. While children are susceptible to the virus itself, necessary restrictions imposed in response to the pandemic could also be detrimental to their mental and social development. The world is adjusting in a variety of ways, and the upcoming holiday season poses the question: how do we try and save any normalcy in a time of such uncertainty? The simple answer is to create new norms. With each year we make advances in technology, culture and education, but this pandemic presents the entirely unprecedented challenge of protecting children while also preserving some sense of what it means to be a kid. 

The government has clearly emphasized the effects of COVID-19 on academic development in children, with factors such as school closures and remote learning negatively affecting their development. According to data collected by the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), there is a significant group of children and adolescents that receive their mental health services exclusively from school. The data includes information on mental health services for children aged 12 to 17 years and  demonstrates the implications of school closures on access to mental health services. Of adolescents who received any mental health services from 2012 to 2015, 35% received their mental health services exclusively in school settings. 

With school being the primary way children interact socially, many people are concerned with how remote learning will affect the way they learn. There is also concern over how social media will influence the mental health and development of the younger generations as it becomes their primary source for information and social interaction. 

We as a society are entrusted with the preparation of the younger generations. In order to achieve that in times where norms have been shaken, we need to join together and establish new norms that could avert any potential negative effects on their development, and it starts in one’s community. On a local level, communities like Orono are still having discussions regarding whether or not to hold community events and if they do happen how will they modify the events to meet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regulations and state mandates. An example of a successful modified holiday was Halloween; many people created inventive ways to share candy including drive-by trick or treating, or candy shoots made from PVC pipes attached to a front porch ending at the street, along with a bottle of sanitizing wipes for each kid to use after grabbing their candy. 

As unfortunate as it may be that many children don’t get to have “normal” holiday celebrations during the pandemic, that does not mean they cannot make their own happy memories. In this COVID-19 era, we are all adjusting and it is of the utmost importance to remember how deeply this pandemic affects the younger generations. While time at home can be joyful and pleasant, it can also create a unique sense of isolation for kids, and to create new norms with modified holidays is a step in the right direction.