Mediaboss Marketing

BURLINGTON Nationally renowned scholar and political columnist George F. Will is the featured speaker at the Ethan Allen Institutes Thirtieth Anniversary Celebration at the Doubletree by Hilton in South Burlington on Wednesday, May 31. The topic of his talk is Why Conservatism is Important in a Place Like Vermont.

Information on sponsorships and reservations may be found at http://www.ethanallen.org. The social hour with featuring a cash bar begins at 6 p.m. and before the dinner at 7 p.m.

George Will, described by the Wall Street Journal as perhaps the most powerful journalist in America, is widely regarded as one of the most influential conservative/libertarian journalists and commentators in the nation. He was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 1977. He continues his half-century-long career as a member of the Washington Post Writers Group, and his columns are syndicated in more than four hundred newspapers, including Vermont News & Media.

Institute President Myers Mermel said, We invited George Will because of his eloquent advocacy for the fundamentals of a free society: individual liberty, private property, competitive free enterprise, limited and frugal government, strong local communities, personal responsibility, and expanded opportunity for human endeavor, which are the principles of the Ethan Allen Institute. Were thrilled to be able to bring such a distinguished national opinion leader to Vermont for our 30th Anniversary observance on a topic that Vermonters will find intriguing.

John McClaughry, a co-founder of the Institute, says, I have enjoyed and learned from George Wills writing for almost 50 years. He is widely recognized as perhaps the most profound conservative/libertarian political philosopher in our country today. His insights on Americas founding, its principles that have sustained us, his immense grasp of our history, and his assessment of our prospects for the future will be valuable, unforgettably delivered, and leavened with his trenchant sense of humor.

Go here to see the original:
George Will to highlight Ethan Allen Institute's 30th anniversary ... - Bennington Banner

The German government has dismissed calls for a last-minute delay in shutting down the country's last three nuclear power plants this weekend

By

FRANK JORDANS Associated Press

April 12, 2023, 11:13 AM ET

3 min read

BONN, Germany -- The German government dismissed calls Wednesday for a last-minute delay in shutting down the country's last three nuclear power plants this weekend.

Opposition politicians and even some members of the Free Democrats, a libertarian party that's part of Chancellor Olaf Scholz's governing alliance, have demanded a reprieve for the remaining reactors, which were already operating without requisite safety checks.

The nuclear phase-out by April 15, that's this Saturday, is a done deal, Scholz spokesperson Christiane Hoffmann said.

Successive German governments planned a phase-out of nuclear power. The last three plants originally were scheduled to shut down on Dec. 31, 2022. Scholz ordered a postponement last year amid concerns that Germany might face an energy shortage due to the war in Ukraine.

Lawmakers approved the extension on the condition the plants, which began operation more than 30 years ago, would cease operating by mid-April of this year.

Critics argue that switching off the nuclear plants now deprives Germany of a source of low-emission power and requires the country to keep operating fossil fuel plants that contribute to climate change.

Wolfgang Kubicki, deputy leader of the Free Democrats, said in an interview with the Funke Media Group that Germany has the safest nuclear power plants worldwide and switching them off would be "a dramatic mistake" with painful economic and ecological consequences.

Other members of his party have called for the nuclear plants at least to be maintained as a fallback in case they are needed at a later date.

But doing that would be both illegal and costly, according to Environment Ministry spokesperson Bastian Zimmermann. The ministry oversees nuclear safety in Germany.

Zimmermann said the three reactors Emsland, Neckarwestheim and Isar II last underwent safety checks in 2009 and such inspections normally need to occur every 10 years. The requirement was only suspended due to the shutdown planned for the end of 2022, he said.

Any further lifetime extension for the plants would require comprehensive and lengthy security checks again, Zimmermann said.

The country is still searching for a location to permanently store almost 2,000 containers of highly radioactive waste for thousands of generations.

The Economy Ministry dismissed concerns that Germany won't be able to meet its energy needs without the nuclear power plants, which currently produce about 5% of the country's electricity.

Ministry spokesperson Beate Baron said recent studies showed Germany would be able to maintain its power supply with coal and gas-fired power plants and renewables such as wind and solar, while remaining a net exporter of electricity.

Baron said the government wants to phase in the use of hydrogen that can be produced without greenhouse gas emissions and fired up quickly on days when there's little sun or wind for renewables.

___

Follow AP's coverage of the climate and environment at https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment

View post:
German government rejects new call to delay nuclear shutdown - ABC News

By and large, Lake Countys legislative delegation has minded their business this session and not sponsored some of the wackier bills weve seen, such as criminalizing teachers for mentioning sex in the classroom, allowing more selenium in Lake Koocanusa to benefit Canadas huge open-pit mining conglomerate, Teck Coal, or telling science teachers to only teach facts, not theories (a great strategy for undermining the entire scientific process, but not at all helpful when it comes encouraging critical thinking or educating future scientists).

Rep. Joe Reads bill to move oversight of water compacts from the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation to the Public Service Commission, while an eyebrow lifter, was basically dead on arrival in committee.

More alarming is Polson Senator Greg Hertzs bill, passed last week by the Senate, that would require the two candidates who receive the most votes in primary elections for U.S. Senate to advance to the general election, irrespective of party affiliation. He describes this as a trial run that would conveniently expire after the next Senate election in 2024 and only impact the race for the seat currently held by Montanas lone Democrat, Jon Tester.

According to Senate Bill 566s language: Seats for the U.S. Senate are set at six years and do not give voters the same opportunity to hold elected officials accountable as those officials in two-year terms in the House.

Interesting way to twist logic. Or, to not play fair in the sandbox.

This is historically a close contest Tester won office in 2006 by a 1% margin, and held onto his seat for a third term in 2018 with just 50.3 % of the vote against Republican Matt Rosendale (46.8%) and Libertarian Rick Breckenridge (2.3%). And that was in a state that voted for Trump over Biden by a 20% margin and gave Republicans super majorities in the statehouse.

Its disingenuous for Hertz or any other senator who voted for this bill to claim its about anything other than putting an R next to that Senate seat.

Montana, historically, has had its share of independent voters who arent aligned with either political party, and Libertarians often qualify for ballots at the local, state and federal level, although they rarely win. The partys platform calls for less government, lower taxes, and more freedom a mindset that seems like a pretty good fit for independent-minded Montanans.

So why try to squeeze qualifying third-party candidates off the ballot? Its pure brass-knuckle politics: Libertarians tend to attract more votes from the Republican side of things, thus potentially tilting an election slightly toward the Democrats.

Hertz and his Republican supermajority clearly dont want to risk a slight tilt this, despite the fact that they have three-quarters of the delegation, the governors seat and every elected position in the Capitol building. You can bet if they thought a U.S. House seat were at risk, theyd be suggesting the same approach there.

So-called jungle primaries arent a novel idea. Theyve been deployed across the country with mixed feedback some say the approach helps elect more centrist candidates; others say they deny smaller parties an opportunity to gain political traction.

Its also not a novel idea for the party in power to want more power. Thats not a R or D thing its a human thing.

"I'm not attacking Sen. Tester," Hertz said of his proposal. "I just want to make sure that the individual that is the winning candidate gets the majority vote."

Its also a very helpful way for the legislative supermajority to put its thumb on the scale in the 2024 U.S. Senate contest. Id much rather the voters put their imprint on the ballot instead.

The bill is slated for a hearing before House State Administration Committee at 9 a.m. Friday. Id suggest those truly concerned about election integrity weigh in.

Excerpt from:
Hertz: Not playing fair in the sandbox - Polson Lake County Leader

WASHINGTON (TND) As debate over how to handle immigration along the southern border continues, new data shows just how much the recent surge of migrants could cost American taxpayers.

A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates that overall, illegal immigration costs American taxpayers at least $151 billion a year for things like education, welfare and medical costs.

The report notes that on an individual basis, an American taxpayer is shelling out almost $1,200 per year.

FAIR arrived at this number by "subtracting the tax revenue paid by illegal aliens just under $232 billion from the gross negative economic impact of illegal immigration: $182 billion.

However, an expert at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, said FAIR is presenting a faulty analysis because the report counts the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, who are American citizens, as a cost factor. It also does not include the tax contributions of those American citizens.

The Cato Institute has its own analysis that looks at the economic impact of all immigrants, regardless of legal status. Their report shows that in 2018, for every $1.43 a first-generation immigrant pays in taxes, they consume $1 in government benefits, while native-born Americans pay $0.72 in taxes for every $1 they receive in government benefits.

The Fact Check Team reached out to the White House yesterday for their estimate but has not heard back.

Sanctuary cities are struggling to keep up with the influx of migrants.

For example, in New York City, Mayor Eric Adams says the city has seen more than 50,000 asylum seekers within the last year and the city estimates it could cost as much as $2 billion in 2023. Because of the influx, last week, Adams ordered city agencies to cut a combined $1.1 billion from their budgets every year for the next four years.

In Chicago, last month the City Council approved $20 million for things like emergency food and shelter for migrants.

Last week, government officials in Denver, Colorado estimated the cost of housing migrants in the city could be as much as $20 million for a six-month period.

The federal government is stepping in to help. The governments 2023 budget includes an additional $800 million for FEMA to help communities experiencing large numbers of migrants. Additionally, the Biden administration announced earlier this year that they were increasing funding available to border cities and those cities receiving an influx of migrants.

View post:
How much is the migrant influx costing American taxpayers? - KTXS

STK- letter to the editor

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy says the Trump indictment has irreparably harmed the country. What on earth is he talking about?

Prosecution of misdemeanor or felony crime is harmful, illegal, unconstitutional, wrong?

The answer to his befuddling statement is found in a message on a popular T-shirt: Trust God. Not government.

McCarthy is trafficking in the popular libertarian philosophy, which is also the evangelical church argument, that government is evil. The fundamentalist church and its anti-civic bedfellows, patriotic libertarian Republicans, are the only forces for good on earth.

The problem with this is that our patriotic ancestors in 1776 were not fighting against government and law, they were fighting against Kings government and Kings law. And those bad laws of King George III are listed in painful detail in the Declaration of Independence.

Our ancestors wanted Peoples government, and Peoples law. When laws are made by the people, they are blessed by God, and people have respect for them.

McCarthy is trying to use our ignorance of history to return the nation to British-style autocratic government in the form of Donald Trump, himself, or a new Republican leader in 2024.

Kimball Shinkoskey, Woods Cross

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Original post:
Letter: Government for the people, not person in power - Daily Herald