Gun stores are closing at rapid rates after the Biden administration implemented a “zero tolerance” policy for gun dealers and added updated language to define what can be classified as a “willful” violation, leaving Federal Firearm License (FFL) revocations at a 16-year high.
This unprecedented move to an all-digital library has stirred up valid conflict of interest questions regarding the role of Megan Cluver, Vermont State College System’s current vice chair and chair of the Education, Personnel and Student Life Committee.
I have grown accustomed to personal attacks from those who cannot tolerate freedom of thought and speech. The most recent attempt at assassinating my character comes from a fellow Cavendish citizen.
The Vermont Senate has introduced its long-promised work-around of a U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring towns with no high schools to provide tuition to approved, independent religious schools.
A Vermont environmental leader and 2020 candidate for governor is warning the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee that its plan to convert Vermont from fossil fuels to electricity will strain the state’s power grid.
Vermont was once a treasured, special place, celebrated for its agrarian common sense, sustainable frugality and self-sufficiency. That is no longer celebrated at Shelburne Farms.
Vermont is rushing rashly into a permanent universal student meals program that will cost taxpayers an estimated $27 million yearly. This sudden push is being driven by a handful of political activists, while ignoring the sources and impacts of funding the program.
Vermont already pays some of the highest per pupil education costs in the country relative to income — making universal school meal expenditures permanent will increase that distinction.
Issues high on the Democratic policy agenda include the Affordable Heating Act, paid family and medical leave, child care, ending school choice, repeal of the Sportsmen’s Bill of Rights, and more.
Several witnesses (and basic math) are on record that Vermont is not on track to achieve those reductions by the first milestone in 2025, nor the second milestone in 2030, so the anticipated lawsuit now appears inevitable.
To summarize — McKibben’s continuous use of “What If?” future-focused “Geoengineering-might-happen-someday” framing throughout his New Yorker article is historically inaccurate, as weather and climate modification programs have been conducted in earnest for close to a century.
We need a real conversation and thorough assessment and analysis of this bill which is currently under review in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy.