#farmers crop insurance | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

botanyshitposts · 1 year ago

Note

Opinion on the US's Cogs damn obsession with corn?

don't know what you're talking about specifically but my understanding of US agricultural policy in general is that being a farmer in capitalism sucks and has since colonization and for a long time the US government tried to make it suck less with subsidies which sometimes work (because people get paid predictably regardless of demand and its less like gambling with crops) but sometimes go over really badly (because then too many people grow it and the price per bushel goes down and then government has too much corn) and then a couple times they got rid of all the subsides and related regulations and that REALLY didnt work (because then the price just crashed hard and with nothing to compensate them a bunch of farmers, many of whom were in debt for other farming-related reasons, couldnt get paid and actually had to foreclose their farms, which accelerated the long-standing trend of farms getting foreclosed on and then being bought out by bigger farms that then ended up running INSANE multi million dollar operations, sometimes even on farms in other states where the owners do not live, in communities they do not contribute to) and they had to backpedal on it and then eventually they just started on the current system where you simply pass a farm bill every 10-12 years instead of yearly or biyearly and that way you simply dont have to think about it, and then when it is election time you go stand by a cornfield for a while for tv. it does not fix the huge enormous farms buying out smaller farms problem or any of the complicated related problems but it DOES put it off for longer which is more important.

sometimes also you (USAID for instance) can give the too-much-corn you have from farm subsidies to a foreign country as a 'gift' and say youre just being a helpful little guy, but in the process of doing so undercut the local farmers in that country because they cant compete with free stuff but that's cool because then the foreign country can't really survive as well without US agricultural aid and you can manipulate them to do imperialism better AND you have more demand for the corn which might raise the price per bushel in the US. also sometimes the corn is fed to livestock en masse because the meat is worth more and sometimes its made into gas or high fructose corn syrup, and sometimes the price is so low per bushel that the insurance on the field is worth more than the actual corn.

but. i CANNOT stress enough that the most important thing about corn is that you can stand next to it on tv and if you cant do that, maybe you can stand next to a guy who is around it a lot and say you are helping him.

in my relatively uneducated opinion the most epic way to solve this complex multi-century interdisciplinary push and pull of supply and demand would be to just pay farmers a salary through the state since youre already paying out massive state subsidies for crops you dont need anyway and the farmers are performing a vital service and that way you can guarantee people a consistent salary AND control how much of each thing gets planted so you dont have a massive stockpile at all times AND you reward individual people instead of paying out large amounts of money to whatever massive operation sells the most corn by virtue of being big, but if you dont want to do that then the second best thing is to just pass another mediocre farm bill whos inflexible 10-ish year lifespan makes it impossible for it to respond well to changes in market demand and that way you can just put off making tough decisions and instead stand next to a guy and a cornfield on tv again. which as we have covered is the most important part of american agriculture

#you know?#(i took an agricultural history class in college. dont remember everything but i remember my overall impression was this)#asks #plont asks

721 notes · View notes

thedansemacabres · 9 months ago

Text

Introduction To Supporting Sustainable Agriculture For Witches and Pagans

[ID: An image of yellow grain stocks, soon to be harvested. The several stocks reach towards a blurred open sky, focusing the camera on he grains themselves. The leaves of the grains are green and the cereals are exposed].

PAGANISM AND WITCHCRAFT ARE MOVEMENTS WITHIN A SELF-DESTRUCTIVE CAPITALIST SOCIETY. As the world becomes more aware of the importance of sustainability, so does the duty of humanity to uphold the idea of the steward, stemming from various indigenous worldviews, in the modern era. I make this small introduction as a viticulturist working towards organic and environmentally friendly grape production. I also do work on a food farm, as a second job—a regenerative farm, so I suppose that is my qualifications. Sustainable—or rather regenerative agriculture—grows in recognition. And as paganism and witchcraft continue to blossom, learning and supporting sustainability is naturally a path for us to take. I will say that this is influenced by I living in the USA, however, there are thousands of groups across the world for sustainable agriculture, of which tend to be easy to research.

So let us unite in caring for the world together, and here is an introduction to supporting sustainable/regenerative agriculture.

A QUICK BRIEF ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Sustainable agriculture, in truth, is a movement to practise agriculture as it has been done for thousands of years—this time, with more innovation from science and microbiology especially. The legal definition in the USA of sustainable agriculture is:

The term ”sustainable agriculture” (U.S. Code Title 7, Section 3103) means an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will over the long-term:

A more common man’s definition would be farming in a way that provides society’s food and textile needs without overuse of natural resources, artificial supplements and pest controls, without compromising the future generation’s needs and ability to produce resources. The agriculture industry has one of the largest and most detrimental impacts on the environment, and sustainable agriculture is the alternative movement to it.

Sustainable agriculture also has the perk of being physically better for you—the nutrient quality of crops in the USA has dropped by 47%, and the majority of our food goes to waste. Imagine if it was composted and reused? Or even better—we buy only what we need. We as pagans and witches can help change this.

BUYING ORGANIC (IT REALLY WORKS)

The first step is buying organic. While cliche, it does work: organic operations have certain rules to abide by, which excludes environmentally dangerous chemicals—many of which, such as DDT, which causes ecological genocide and death to people. Organic operations have to use natural ways of fertilising, such as compost, which to many of us—such as myself—revere the cycle of life, rot, and death. Organic standards do vary depending on the country, but the key idea is farming without artificial fertilisers, using organic seeds, supplementing with animal manure, fertility managed through management practices, etc.

However, organic does have its flaws. Certified organic costs many, of which many small farmers cannot afford. The nutrient quality of organic food, while tending to be better, is still poor compared to regeneratively grown crops. Furthermore, the process to become certified organic is often gruelling—you can practise completely organically, but if you are not certified, it is not organic. Which, while a quality control insurance, is both a bonus and a hurdle.

JOINING A CSA

Moving from organic is joining a CSA (“Community supported agriculture”). The USDA defines far better than I could:

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), one type of direct marketing, consists of a community of individuals who pledge support to a farm operation so that the farmland becomes, either legally or spiritually, the community’s farm, with the growers and consumers providing mutual support and sharing the risks and benefits of food production.

By purchasing a farm share, you receive food from the farm for the agreed upon production year. I personally enjoy CSAs for the relational aspect—choosing a CSA is about having a relationship, not only with the farmer(s), but also the land you receive food from. I volunteer for my CSA and sometimes I get extra cash from it—partaking in the act of caring for the land. Joining a CSA also means taking your precious capital away from the larger food industry and directly supporting growers—and CSAs typically practise sustainable and/or regenerative agriculture.

CSAs are also found all over the world and many can deliver their products to food deserts and other areas with limited agricultural access. I volunteer from time to time for a food bank that does exactly that with the produce I helped grow on the vegetable farm I work for.

FARM MARKETS AND STALLS

Another way of personally connecting to sustainable agriculture is entering the realm of the farm stall. The farmer’s market is one of my personal favourite experiences—people buzzing about searching for ingredients, smiles as farmers sell crops and products such as honey or baked goods, etc. The personal connection stretches into the earth, and into the past it buries—as I purchase my apples from the stall, I cannot help but see a thousand lives unfold. People have been doing this for thousands of years and here I stand, doing it all over again.

Farmers’ markets are dependent on your local area, yet in most you can still develop personal community connections. Paganism often stresses community as an ideal and a state of life. And witchcraft often stresses a connection to the soil. What better place, then, is purchasing the products from the locals who commune with the land?

VOLUNTEERING

If you are able to, I absolutely recommend volunteering. I have worked with aquaponic systems, food banks, farms, cider-making companies, soil conservation groups, etc. There is so much opportunity—and perhaps employment—in these fields. The knowledge I have gained has been wonderful. As one example, I learned that fertilisers reduce carbon sequestration as plants absorb carbon to help with nutrient intake. If they have all their nutrients ready, they do not need to work to obtain carbon to help absorb it. This does not even get into the symbiotic relationship fungi have with roots, or the world of hyphae. Volunteering provides community and connection. Actions and words change the world, and the world grows ever better with help—including how much or how little you may provide. It also makes a wonderful devotional activity.

RESOURCING FOOD AND COOKING

Buying from farmers is not always easy, however. Produce often has to be processed, requiring labour and work with some crops such as carrots. Other times, it is a hard effort to cook and many of us—such as myself—often have very limited energy. There are solutions to this, thankfully:

Many farmers can and will process foods. Some even do canning, which can be good to stock up on food and lessen the energy inputs.

Value-added products: farms also try to avoid waste, and these products often become dried snacks if fruit, frozen, etc.

Asking farmers if they would be open to accommodating this. Chances are, they would! The farmer I purchase my CSA share from certainly does.

Going to farmers markets instead of buying a CSA, aligning with your energy levels.

And if any of your purchased goods are going unused, you can always freeze them.

DEMETER, CERES, VEIA, ETC: THE FORGOTTEN AGRICULTURE GODS

Agricultural gods are often neglected. Even gods presiding over agriculture often do not have those aspects venerated—Dionysos is a god of viticulture and Apollon a god of cattle. While I myself love Dionysos as a party and wine god, the core of him remains firmly in the vineyards and fields, branching into the expanses of the wild. I find him far more in the curling vines as I prune them than in the simple delights of the wine I ferment. Even more obscure gods, such as Veia, the Etruscan goddess of agriculture, are seldom known.

Persephone receives the worst of this: I enjoy her too as a dread queen, and people do acknowledge her as Kore, but she is far more popular as the queen of the underworld instead of the dear daughter of Demeter. I do understand this, though—I did not feel the might of Demeter and Persephone until I began to move soil with my own hands. A complete difference to the ancient world, where the Eleusinian mysteries appealed to thousands. Times change, and while some things should be left to the past, our link to these gods have been severed. After all, how many of us reading know where our food comes from? I did not until I began to purchase from the land I grew to know personally. The grocery store has become a land of tearing us from the land, instead of the food hub it should be.

Yet, while paganism forgets agriculture gods, they have not forgotten us. The new world of farming is more conductive and welcoming than ever. I find that while older, bigoted people exist, the majority of new farmers tend to be LGBT+. My own boss is trans and aro, and I myself am transgender and gay. The other young farmers I know are some flavour of LGBT+, or mixed/poc. There’s a growing movement for Black farmers, elaborated in a lovely text called We Are Each Other’s Harvest.

Indigenous farming is also growing and I absolutely recommend buying from indigenous farmers. At this point, I consider Demeter to be a patron of LGBT+ people in this regard—she gives an escape to farmers such as myself. Bigotry is far from my mind under her tender care, as divine Helios shines above and Okeanos’ daughters bring fresh water to the crops. Paganism is also more commonly accepted—I find that farmers find out that I am pagan and tell me to do rituals for their crops instead of reacting poorly. Or they’re pagan themselves; a farmer I know turned out to be Wiccan and uses the wheel of the year to keep track of production.

Incorporating these divinities—or concepts surrounding them—into our crafts and altars is the spiritual step towards better agriculture. Holy Demeter continues to guide me, even before I knew it.

WANT CHANGE? DO IT YOURSELF!

If you want change in the world, you have to act. And if you wish for better agriculture, there is always the chance to do it yourself. Sustainable agriculture is often far more accessible than people think: like witchcraft and divination, it is a practice. Homesteading is often appealing to many of us, including myself, and there are plenty of resources to begin. There are even grants to help one improve their home to be more sustainable, i.e. solar panels. Gardening is another, smaller option. Many of us find that plants we grow and nourish are far more potentant in craft, and more receptive to magical workings.

Caring for plants is fundamental to our natures and there are a thousand ways to delve into it. I personally have joined conservation groups, my local soil conservation group, work with the NRCs in the USA, and more. The path to fully reconnecting to nature and agriculture is personal—united in a common cause to fight for this beautiful world. To immerse yourself in sustainable agriculture, I honestly recommend researching and finding your own path. Mine lies in soil and rot, grapevines and fruit trees. Others do vegetables and cereal grains, or perhaps join unions and legislators. Everyone has a share in the beauty of life, our lives stemming from the land’s gentle sprouts.

Questions and or help may be given through my ask box on tumblr—if there is a way I can help, let me know. My knowledge is invaluable I believe, as I continue to learn and grow in the grey-clothed arms of Demeter, Dionysos, and Kore.

FURTHER READING:

Baszile, N. (2021). We are each other’s harvest. HarperCollins.

Hatley, J. (2016). Robin Wall Kimmerer. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Environmental Philosophy, 13(1), 143–145. https://doi.org/10.5840/envirophil201613137

Regenerative Agriculture 101. (2021, November 29). https://www.nrdc.org/stories/regenerative-agriculture-101#what-is

And in truth, far more than I could count.

References

Community Supported Agriculture | National Agricultural Library. (n.d.). https://www.nal.usda.gov/farms-and-agricultural-production-systems/community-supported-agriculture

Navazio, J. (2012). The Organic seed Grower: A Farmer’s Guide to Vegetable Seed Production. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Plaster, E. (2008). Soil Science and Management. Cengage Learning.

Sheaffer, C. C., & Moncada, K. M. (2012). Introduction to agronomy: food, crops, and environment. Cengage Learning.

Sheldrake, M. (2020). Entangled life: How Fungi Make Our Worlds, Change Our Minds & Shape Our Futures. Random House.

Sustainable Agriculture | National Agricultural Library. (n.d.). https://www.nal.usda.gov/farms-and-agricultural-production-systems/sustainable-agriculture

315 notes · View notes

melanieph321 · 11 months ago

Text

Ruben Dias x Reader - A House Is Not A Home Part 5/8

⚠️Warning ⚠️

- car s*x

18+

Ruben's wife dies during childbirth along with their son. Ruben hasn't been in a relationship since. Y/N is a single mother to a four year old boy. She buys a house in the small town that Ruben lives in. The house needs alot of fixing which Ruben helps with, resulting in him slowly falling in love with Y/N. However, falling in love with Y/N makes Ruben feel like he is betraying his dead wife.

Enjoy!

"There she is! I see her! Mommy, mommy!"

You were standing by the town square waiting for the bus. As it pulled up to the station your son, Johnny, spilled out and made a run towards you.

"My baby!"

He ambushed you with a hug and you gladly picked him up and twirled him around.

"Mommy, look what gammy got me."

Your son showed you a little toy car, not bigger than the size of his palm.

"That's for letting me yank out that old tooth of his." Your mother said, as her bad hip had her limping towards you.

"You lost a tooth?" You gasped.

Johnny nodded excitedly.

"Show me."

He displayed his little baby teeth and indeed one was missing.

"Isn't it to early for him to lose teeth?" You asked.

"How can you blame him." Your mother exclaimed. "The stress of moving across the country. He'll be toothless by the time he starts the first grade."

You rolled your eyes, ignoring your mother. She had always been very vocal about you buying a house so far away from home, in the country at that. You had been raised in the city and that's where your mother meant you belong. You suspected that she missed you, with your dad being gone. And now you were taking Johnny from her too.

"It's cold in here, no?"

Arriving at the house you put Johnny down and let him explore his new home. You and your mother started unpacking their things as she had agreed to stay with you for a few days.

"It's the heater. I think it's broken. " You immediately got up to sort out the fireplace.

"An open fire." Your mother scuffed.

"Mom don't start."

"Baby, you can't have a four year old running around where there is an open flame. It's dangerous."

"Well, I'm not gonna let him freeze."

"Don't you have someone who can come and take a look at the heater, it can't be impossible to fix?"

You had someone who could come over, but that someone wasn't speaking to you anymore. Two weeks had gone by since you last spoke to Ruben, the last time being when he kissed you. It was petty and childish of him not to want to sort things out as an adult and so you decided to let him be, to not hunt him down for answers or help anymore.

The following days involved a lot of administration work for you. For this you were grateful for your mother's presence, as she helped you get Johnny's insurance sorted, the house insurance sorted and help you enroll Johnny to a nice kindergarten. It was all going well and Johnny really seemed enjoy his new town.

"Look, horse!" He exclaimed, as the three of you had joined the locals at a street market that the town had put together. Many people were selling their own goods like crops and honey. One farmer was even letting the kids ride his horse around the block.

"Careful Johnny, don't get to close to it."

"It's okay mom. The horse is tied up."

The farmer let Johnny pet the horse and sit on it's back. Meanwhile you and your mother checked out the many market stands, one of them being Katarina's.

"Y/N!" She exclaimed at the sight of you. "I haven't seen you for ages, where have you been?"

"You know...fixing up the house."

"Really? Has Ruben been up there helping you?"

"Um...no, not really."

"No?" She frowned. "Then what has that man been up to theses days." She murmured. "He barley comes over either."

"Who's Ruben?" Your mother budged in, which was a good time for you to introduce her.

"Mom, meet Katarina. Katarina and her husband let me stay with them after the storm damaged my house."

"Of course." Your mother nodded. "Thank you for taking care of my baby."

"Mom." You were embarrassed.

"With pleasure, she's lovely." Katarina offered your mother her hand. They both smiled as they shook.

"Mommy, mommy!" At some point Johnny came running, tugging at your jeans. "I rode the horse mommy, did you see?"

You picked him up and wiped a dead eyelash from his cheek. "I did see you baby, you looked really cool."

"Gammy, did you see me. I looked cool."

"I did see honey." Your mother gladly unhanded Johnny from you, giving his face a round of wet kisses. As Johnny squirmed in anguish you noticed Katarina and the peculiar expression that had come across her face.

"This is my son, Johnny." You realized that you hadn't told her about him, you hadn't told anyone about him.

"You have a son?" She smiled, although her smile was stiff and a bit sorrowful.

"Yes. He just turned four. He has been living with my mother up until now..... because of the house."

"Of course." Said Katarina. "May I ask, does Ruben know about him?"

"Who, my son?"

"Yes, dear."

Well he knew of Johnny, you thought. Little did he know...."Yes, yes he does." You lied.

Katarina nodded her head but remained silent. Suddenly she perked up. "Tell you what, why won't you and your family come over for dinner tonight? David is hosting a small gathering to celebrate the years harvest."

"We accept the invitation." Your mother said, beating you to it.

"Wonderful. I'll see you at our house at six, there'll be a BBQ so come on an empty stomach.

"Thank you Katarina."

Back at the house you weren't sure if you wanted to attend this gathering.

"Why not?" You mother protested, surley she was up to it for the free BBQ, the fact that she wouldn't have to cook for once.

"I don't know mom." You weren't really in the mood.

"Does any of this have to do with that man the lady mentioned, Ruben?"

You were astonished how alert your mother were at picking up on things.

"She said he used to come over and help you with the house and now he's not coming over anymore, no?"

You shook your head. "No."

"My sweet child."

"Well you've made things difficult for yourself indeed. But you'll get a chance to tell him the truth, I'm sure he'll understand."

"He's just a friend mom, really." You assured. "He was the previous owner of this house and I think I made a mistake not to tell him about buying the house in grandad's name. Ruben thinks Johnny's is my husband."

"You think so?"

"Yes, now let's get ready for that BBQ."

Okay, you were a little excited for the BBQ. You loved spending time with your friends and leaving the city left you without no social life whatsoever. You needed stability and Johnny needed a proper introduction to the locals. But as you walked through the gate to Katarina and David's backyard, something caught your eye. A familiar face stood by the grill, flipping burgers with ease. It was Ruben.

"Well I'll be damned." David removed his cap at the sight of them.

"Y/N!" Someone exclaimed, making heads turn your way, including Ruben's. Katarina had been coming down the steps to the back porch when she spotted you. "David, come! I'd like for you to meet Y/N's family." She waved for her husband to get up off his seat. The two of then came towards you in a way that felt like you were getting attcked. Behind you you could hear your mother coming through the gates, little Johnny in her arms.

"David honey, this is Y/N's mother...".

"Tanya." Your mother smiled.

"Nice to meet you Tanya, I'm David."

"And guess who this is..." Katarina was eager to unhand Johnny from your mother, taking him into her own embrace. She was good with children, you could tell immediately.

"Well who's this little guy?" David said, poking out a finger to tickle Johnny's belly. His laughter echoed throughout the backyard.

"This is Johnny honey. Y/N's son."

A light lit up David's eyes. "Well, how old are you son?"

Johnny was a bit shy but managed show his age with his fingers.

"Now I bet you couldn't guess how old I am?"

Johnny bit his lip, but decided to show off all of his five fingers.

"Five!" David laughed. "That's right son, I'm five years old." David laughed so hard that he struggled to breath.

"Oh honey don't be such a fool." Katarina sighed. "Please take Tanya inside and help her fix herself a plate."

"With pleasure." He said, escorting your mother inside.

"I better check if anything needs a refill. She said, handing Johnny back to you. "Please help yourself to a drink."

As Katarina rushed inside she passed by Ruben who looked to be coming your way. The two exchange a few words, resulting in Ruben really coming your way.

"Hey."

"Hi."

Johnny hid his face in the crook of your neck. The giant shadow that Ruben casted upon you had frightened him a little.

"It's okay baby, it's just Ruben."

"How have you been?" He asked, mostly out of courtesy. Perhaps Katarina had made him come over and talk to you.

"Fine, I guess."

"Kat tells me your family is visiting."

"Yes, my mother is here."

"And who is this guy?" He smiled. Johnny had dared come out of his hiding place.

"This is Johnny Jr, my son."

Ruben looked taken aback but quickly composed himself. "Oh, so he's named after his father?" His gaze trailed somwere over your shoulder as if someone was about to walk through the backyard gates.

"No. He's named after his grandfather actually."

"I..." Ruben looked confused, struggling to put two and two together.

"I've been meaning to tell you." You said, rocking your body back and forth as Johnny was becoming heavy to carry.

"Tell me what?" Ruben asked.

"About Johnny, my grandad."

"Your grandfather's name is Johnny?" He frowned.

"And my son." You nodded.

"And your husband..."

You shook your head. "No. It's just me and him, me and Johnny."

Ruben was about to open his mouth and say somthing when Katarina was seen re-entering the backyard.

"We're out of potatosallad! Ruben I'm going to need you to run to the shop and buy me some more potatoes."

"Um...sure."

"Y/N, you go with him."

"W..what why?"

"Because we're out of juice. There's nothing else for Johnny to drink but water. You go with Ruben and help him pick out your son's favorite juice."

"Um...okay."

"Here, I'll take Johnny, let him take a nap inside."

"What are you..."

He had been drifting off in your arms without you noticing. As the two of them disappeared inside you had no other choice but to go with Ruben. You expected a quiet and awkward ride in his truck, but to your suprise the car ride didn't last two blocks.

Ruben made a sharp turn, parking his truck near a deserted grove.

"Ruben?" You asked expectantly, a bit shook form the bumpy ride.

"No." You sighed. "I'm not married. Johnny's father.... It's a complicated story."

"So you're not married?"

Ruben turned in his seat to look at you. He was picking up where you left off.

Ruben was looking at you with big eyes, almost demanding you to go on.

Your eyes diverged from his face to your hands. "I was a young nurse volontueering in a community in Colombia." You said, not so fond about bringing up memories of your past. "As political rebels started infiltrate the small town, the government put military forces in to stop them. It's how I met Johnny's father, he was patrolling near the hospital where I worked. One thing led to another and Johnny was born."

You looked up to see Ruben take in your words but the dent between his eyebrows told you that things weren't all clear for him.

"All you need to know..." You sighed. "...is that he's not involved. Like not at all. I don't even know where he is." You shrugged. He could be stationed in another town in Colombia, or he could've been killed by rebels a long time ago. You wouldn't know. "It's just me taking care of Johnny, it's aways been like that. Of course my grandparents were there for me during my pregnancy. Gosh, how I wished my grandad was here to see Johnny grow up." You trailed off, the past memories making you realize how much you've had to overcome. Ruben sat silent next to you. Until he wasn't.

"So when I kissed you..." He said, words uttured cautiously.

"Yes?"

You chuckled. "No Ruben, I didn't mind. I actually..."

"...you didn't mind?" He asked.

It was all he needed to hear. Ruben leaned over and did it again, placing a soft peck on your lips. As you parted you opened your eyes, only to find Ruben smiling at you.

"That was..."

"Y/N, I thought I...."

"Sshhh." You sushed him, his scruffy beard tickling the palm of your hand. "Just kiss me again."

You uncovered your hand from his mouth. Ruben scooted closer, unbuckling his seat belt. The two of you were making out within seconds of your lips colliding. Soft moans filled the narrow space in the car, with Ruben having you lay down in the passenger seat.

"Y/N, you must know....it's been awhile."

You could tell by how eager he was, his hands finding their way underneath your shirt and bra, groping your breasts, pinching your nipples.

"It's okay Ruben, I'm on birth control."

His breath was in your ear, running warm. You could tell how turned on he was by the way his erection pressed against your stomach. He was tugging at the bud of your zipper, pulling it down as to slip a hand down your pants.

You gasped.

"Fuck." He grunted, his fingertips feeling how swollen and wet you were for him.

"Ruben." You cried. For someone who hadn't been intimate for a while he sure knew how to tease you.

"Please." You begged.

He sat back to pull your jeans down your legs. Once they were off he got on top of you again, one hand unbeckling his belt. He pushed your panties aside and let his tip spread your folds. Once his cock was aligned with your entrance he eased into you with a satisfied groan.

"Fuck Y/N, you feel so good."

"Fuck, I'm sorry." He said, sitting up, regaining his composure.

Your walls clenched around him, not yet adjusted to his size. You arched your back as Ruben began thrusting his hips, bringing himself in and out of you in waves. The truck rocked with his movment and anyone passing by would know what was going on inside of it, but in that moment neither of you could care less.

Ruben came before you, his body collapsing on top of you. You lay like that for a minute, just holding onto each other, letting your breaths come down from the high.

"It's okay." You reaching for your pants. "We better get back before Katarina wonders where we've gone."

Ruben chuckled. "I think she already knows.

"What makes you think that?" You said, adjusting your hair in the trucks rareview mirror.

"Because... David and I helped Kat buy about ten kilos of potatoes the other day. There is no way one BBQ made her run out."

Ruben was right about the potatosallad. As you returned from the shop with Johnny's juice, everyone with a plate of food also had a side of potatosallad on it.

"Back from the shop I see." Katarina said, grinning from ear to ear. She, your mother and Johnny were seated together. "How did it go?"

"Wow, you're really strong!" Johnny exclaimed, looking up at Ruben with admiration.

"Great." Ruben smiled, he looked to you, a twinkle in his eye. He then looked down at the table, to Johnny, who was going off with his crayons. As a shadow was casted Johnny looked up from his coloring book, his big brown eyes wide with curiosity. "Hi!" he said, waving shyly at Ruben.

Ruben, who had been taken aback by the sudden introduction, forced a smile onto his face. "Hey there little guy! It's nice to meet you." Ruben tried to sound calm and confident. But as soon as he saw Johnny's tiny hand wrapped around his own large one, all of his doubts melted away.

Ruben laughed and ruffled Johnny's hair. "Well, I like to think so," he said. "But you know what? You're pretty strong too."

You were standing to the side, feeling your heart swell at the two of the interacting. The night would go on with Johnny never wanting to leave Ruben's side and with Ruben never letting him do so. Just like Katarina, he was a natural with kids, you could tell immediately.

#fanfiction #football imagine #ruben dias #man city #manchester city #ruben dias x reader #ruben dias imagine #footballer imagine #footballer x reader #football angst

148 notes · View notes

centrally-unplanned · 1 year ago

Text

Gonna make this a quick one since I just don’t have the spoons for a really big effort post: Pre-CCP 20th Century China Did Not Have Feudal or Slave-like Land Tenancy Systems

Obviously what counts as “slave-like” is going to be subjective, but I think it's common, for *ahem* reasons, for people to believe that in the 1930’s Chinese agriculture was dominated by massive-scale, absentee landlords who held the large majority of peasant workers in a virtual chokehold and dictated all terms of labor.

That is not how Chinese land ownership & agricultural systems worked. I am going to pull from Chinese Agriculture in the 1930s: Investigations into John Lossing Buck’s Rediscovered ‘Land Utilization in China’ Microdata, which is some of the best ground-level data you can get on how land use functioned, in practice, in China during the "Nanjing Decade" before WW2 ruins all data collection. It looks at a series of north-central provinces, which gives you the money table of this:

On average, 4/5ths of Chinese peasants owned land, and primarily farmed land that they owned. Tenancy was, by huge margins, the minority practice. I really don’t need to say more than this, but I'm going to because there is a deeper point I want to make. And it's fair to say that while this is representative of Northern China, Southern China did have higher tenancy rates - not crazy higher, but higher.

So let's look at those part-owner farmers; sounds bad right? Like they own part of their land, but it's not enough? Well, sometimes, but sometimes not:

A huge class (about ~1/3rd) of those part-owners were farming too much land, not too little; they were enterprising households renting land to expand their businesses. They would often engage in diversified production, like cash crops on the rented land and staple crops on their owned land. Many of them would actually leave some of their owned land fallow, because it wasn’t worth the time to farm!

Meanwhile the small part-owners and the landless tenant farmers would rent out land to earn a living…sometimes. Because that wasn’t the only way to make a living - trades existed. From our data, if you are a small part-owner, you got a substantial chunk of your income from non-farm labor; if you owned no land you got the majority of your income from non-farm labor:

(Notice how that includes child labor by default, welcome to pre-modernism!)

So the amount of people actually doing full-tenancy agriculture for a living is…pretty small, less than 10% for sure. But what did it look like for those who do? The tenancy rates can be pretty steep - 50/50 splits were very common. But that is deceiving actually; this would be called “share rent”, but other systems, such as cash rents, bulk crop rents, long-term leases with combined payment structures, etc, also existed and were plentiful - and most of those had lower rent rates. However, share rent did two things; one, it hedged against risk; in the case of a crop failure you weren't out anything as the tenant, a form of insurance. And two, it implied reciprocal obligations - the land owner was providing the seed, normally the tools as well, and other inputs like fertilizer.

Whether someone chose one type of tenancy agreement or the other was based on balancing their own labor availability, other wage opportunities, the type of crop being grown, and so on. From the data we have, negotiations were common around these types of agreements; a lot of land that was share rent one year would be cash rent another, because the tenants and market conditions shifted to encourage one or the other form.

I’m doing a little trick here, by throwing all these things at you. Remember the point at the top? “Was this system like slavery?” What defines slavery? To me, its a lack of options - that is the bedrock of a slave system. Labor that you are compelled by law to do, with no claim on the output of that work. And as I hit you with eight tiers of land ownership and tenancy agreements and multi-source household incomes, as you see that the median person renting out land to a tenant farmer was himself a farmer as a profession and by no means some noble in the city, what I hope becomes apparent is that the Chinese agricultural system was a fully liquid market based on choice and expected returns. By no means am I saying that it was a nice way to live; it was an awful way to live. But nowhere in this system was state coercion the bedrock of the labor system. China’s agricultural system was in fact one of the most free, commercial, and contract-based systems on the planet in the pre-modern era, that was a big source of why China as a society was so wealthy. It was a massive, moving market of opportunities for wages, loans, land ownership, tenancy agreements, haggled contracts, everyone trying in their own way to make the living that they could.

It's a system that left many poor, and to be clear injustices, robberies, corruption, oh for sure were legion. Particularly during the Warlord Era mass armies might just sweep in and confiscate all your hard currency and fresh crops. But, even ignoring that the whole ‘poverty’ thing is 90% tech level and there was no amount of redistribution that was going to improve that very much, what is more important is that the pre-modern world was *not* equally bad in all places. The American South was also pretty poor, but richer than China in the 19th century. And being a slave in the American South was WAY worse than being a peasant in China during times of peace - because Confederate society built systems to remove choice, to short-circuit the ebb and flow of the open system to enshrine their elite ‘permanently’ at the top. If you lived in feudal Russia it was a good deal worse, with huge amounts of your yearly labor compelled by the state onto estates held by those who owned them unimpeachably by virtue of their birthright (though you were a good deal richer just due to basic agriculture productivity & population density, bit of a tradeoff there).

If you simply throw around the word “slavery” to describe every pre-modern agricultural system because it was poor and shitty, that back-doors a massive amount of apologia for past social systems that were actively worse than the benchmarks of the time. Which is something the CCP did; their diagnosis of China’s problem for the rural poor of needing massive land redistribution was wrong! It was just wrong, it was not the issue they were having. It was not why rural China was often poor and miserable. It could help, sure, I myself would support some compensated land redistribution in the post-war era as a welfare idea for a fiscally-strapped state. But that was gonna do 1% of the heavy lifting here in making the rural poor's lives better. And I don’t think we should continue to the job of spreading the CCP's propaganda for them.

There ya go @chiefaccelerator, who alas I was not permitted to compel via state force into writing this for me, you Qing Dynasty lazy peasant.

#Chinese history discourse blog #essay

257 notes · View notes

rjzimmerman · 3 months ago

Text

Excerpt from this story from Inside Climate News:

Soon after Vice President Kamala Harris selected Tim Walz as her running mate this week, pictures of the Minnesota governor began to spread across social media—of Walz holding a piglet, of Walz on thrill rides at the state fair, of Walz and his rescue dog.

All of it coalesces into an image of a guy with rural roots and deep ties to agriculture.

Since Harris’ announcement, climate advocates have applauded her pick, pointing to Walz’s solid climate bona fides. Farm groups across the political spectrum, including those that work to shrink agriculture’s carbon footprint, have, too.

During his six terms in Congress, Walz was a member of the House Committee on Agriculture, where he was instrumental in ensuring that soil conservation measures made it into the 2018 farm bill. At the time, the farm bill—the massive piece of legislation that guides the country’s nutrition and farm policy—failed to acknowledge agriculture’s role in contributing to climate change, and barely hinted at its potential role in slowing it.

Walz, who spent his early years working on his family’s farm in rural Nebraska, found a political work-around of sorts. That year he introduced the Strengthening Our Investment in Land (SOIL) Stewardship Act, which boosted existing farm conservation programs and incentivized farms to adopt certain practices that improve soil health, ultimately making soils better able to sequester carbon.

“Even as short a time ago as 2018, the word ‘climate’ does not appear in the farm bill,” said Ferd Hoefner, who was policy director at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition at the time. “He made soil health, through the SOIL Act, the acceptable thing one could talk about when one was trying to talk about climate mitigation through agriculture.”

Hoefner noted that the last time the term climate change appeared in a farm bill was in 1990, an indication of just how polarized and partisan the issue has become in farm policy debates since then. After that, it “was verboten to even mention the word,” he added.

The provisions of the SOIL Stewardship Act were ultimately included in that year’s farm bill. Farm policy observers also point to one of Walz’s biggest farm-related accomplishments, which was introducing bills in 2014 and 2018 that help small-scale, veteran and beginning farmers access credit and funds for land, equipment and crop insurance. Provisions of these bills made it into the final versions of those years’ farm bills.

The Land Stewardship Project, based in Minnesota, has long pushed against the trend of increasing consolidation in agriculture, which has seen the rise of ever-larger farms, mostly run by large corporate entities. This week the council applauded Walz’s record of working against this ongoing shift.

“What we’ve seen through his time in Congress and his time in the governor’s office is that issues around the future of agriculture and rural communities aren’t partisan—they cut across political lines,” said Sean Carroll, policy director at Land Stewardship Action, the organization’s political arm. “Many bills he’s co-sponsored or led are about creating a future for rural communities where we can keep more farmers on the land, where we can allow farmers who are stewarding the land to succeed and make money.”

#Governor Tim Walz #Minnesota #climate #agriculture

52 notes · View notes

probablyasocialecologist · 1 year ago

Text

Agricultural production is worth protecting; food and fiber are too important to be subject to the increasingly cruel vagaries of the weather and global trade. But as it stands, the [Federal Crop Insurance Program] is maladapted to the challenges of our modern world, where places like Arizona are routinely smashing through high heat records and water in the West is becoming increasingly scarce. While home insurers like State Farm are pulling out of California and Florida due to the mounting costs of climate disasters, the FCIP is doing the opposite: insulating farmers from the true cost of doing business. The average return for home and auto policies is about 60 cents per dollar spent on premiums. Farmers receive an average of $2.22 for every dollar they put into crop insurance. As a result, between 2000 and 2016, farming businesses—mostly large ones—collectively pocketed $65 billion more in claim payments than they paid in premiums. They were paid to plant crops that never came to market.

#agriculture #farming #usa #big ag #crop insurance #Arizona

218 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 month ago

Text

The Farm Bill is a critical piece of legislation that reauthorizes the country’s agricultural and nutrition programs about every five years—and the 2024 version is now on legislators’ desks, with some major changes.

Originally designed to support farmers, the Farm Bill has evolved over time to prioritize nutrition assistance, with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) now comprising 76% of the budget—projected to increase to 84% in the current version. This shift underscores the growing emphasis on addressing food insecurity among low-income Americans, as SNAP currently serves over 42 million individuals, or about 12% of the population.

The 2024 Farm Bill will fund SNAP, agriculture subsidies, and crop insurance through 2029, at a projected cost of $1.5 trillion. However, as the first Farm Bill to exceed $1 trillion, it faces heightened scrutiny as both parties clash over the allocation of funding between SNAP, subsidies, and other key programs.

The current version of the bill, introduced by the Republican-led House Agriculture Committee, has sparked controversy by proposing a $30 billion cut to SNAP funding over the next decade. This reduction would be achieved by limiting adjustments to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP)—a low-cost, standardized estimate of the minimum cost of a nutritious diet, used to determine SNAP benefit levels—to inflation rates only.

The TFP is reevaluated every five years to reflect current food costs. In 2021, the Biden administration reevaluated the TFP to respond to high food costs due to COVID-19 and supply chain issues in the global food industry, resulting in the largest-ever increase in SNAP benefits, totaling $256 billion. Now, Republicans are seeking to restrict future adjustments to reflect only inflation costs, marking the largest SNAP reduction in nearly three decades. But Democrats and researchers argue that such a restriction could have significant impacts on the 42 million SNAP recipients, including 17 million children, 6 million older adults, and 4 million people with disabilities.

Americans face rising food insecurity and barriers in accessing nutritious diets

The proposed cuts, along with provisions to outsource program operations, could undermine SNAP’s ability to effectively combat food insecurity. This is especially concerning given that food insecurity rates rose to 13.5% of U.S. households in 2023, affecting 18 million families—a statistically significantly increase from 2022, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Food insecurity rates are notably higher for single-parent, female-headed households; Black and Latino or Hispanic households; and households in principal cities and rural areas. In addition, voters are growing increasingly worried about inflation and high food costs, with 70% citing food prices as a major concern. This view is especially pronounced among younger voters, who have been hit hard by a 20% surge in food costs since 2020, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In addition to concerns surrounding food insecurity and rising costs, the TFP debate risks being a superficial fix that overlooks deeper, more critical challenges low-income families face in accessing nutritious diets. A USDA study found that 88% of SNAP participants encounter challenges in maintaining a healthy diet, with 61% citing the high cost of healthy foods as a key barrier. Other reasons include a lack of time to prepare meals at home and transportation difficulties in accessing healthy foods.

Access barriers—combined with broader economic factors such as regional variations in real food prices and other costs of living, shifts in food composition data, changing consumption patterns, and updated dietary guidance—significantly impact low-income households’ ability to maintain affordable, nutritious diets. Addressing such factors is crucial for creating a more sustainable and impactful SNAP program, yet they remain sidelined in favor of quick, inflation-focused approaches that do little to address systemic barriers to healthy food access for vulnerable families.

The proposed $30 billion cut to SNAP funding over the next decade by restricting the USDA’s authority to adjust the TFP beyond inflation rates will have serious and multidimensional challenges for these low-income, food-insecure households. In addition, the bill’s proposal to outsource core SNAP operations to private entities could create complications in the application process and eligibility criteria, while also increasing federal costs by $1 million.

Notably, the current version of the bill proposes to expand SNAP’s purpose to include the prevention of diet-related chronic diseases. Critics, such as the HEAL (Health, Environment, Agriculture, Labor) Food Alliance, argue that this risks diverting attention away from SNAP’s core mission of reducing food insecurity, and instead shifts the focus to diet-related concerns facing low-income populations. Yet these diet-related concerns are often a result of multifaceted challenges such as stress (or “bandwidth poverty”), food insecurity, and other factors such households face. The current version of the bill also proposes to cut climate-focused conservation efforts introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act.

Proposed changes to agricultural subsidies have sparked equity concerns

The proposed Farm Bill aims to reallocate funds by raising price floors for key agricultural commodities such as corn, wheat, and soybeans, while cutting SNAP funding. A large portion of the increased spending is directed toward farm programs and crop insurance—raising concerns about equity and the disproportionate benefits to large, wealthy farms.

A report from the American Enterprise Institute highlights this disparity, revealing that the top 10% of farms receive 56.4% of all crop insurance subsidies, with the top 5% receiving 36.4%. Since these subsidies are not means-tested—and the level of subsidies is directly proportional to an agri-business’s production levels—the wealthiest and largest businesses capture the most significant share of these benefits. Research from the Environmental Working Group confirms evidence on the concentration of these subsidies toward the wealthiest agri-business owners. They found that between 1995 and 2021, the top 1% of recipients received 27% of the total $478 billion in farm subsidies—underscoring the disproportionate benefits to large-scale, wealthy farmers. Moreover, these subsidies favor a narrow range of commodity crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton, which accumulates benefits to white, wealthy farmers while farmers of color receive little support. This inequitable allocation of resources raises important questions about the Farm Bill’s broader social and economic implications.

The Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office have proposed reforms to the current inequitable structure of these subsidies. Such reforms have the potential to reduce the fiscal deficit while protecting rights of farmers, ensuring food assistance to low-income populations, and maintaining price levels of key commodities. Reforms include implementing income limits on premium subsidies for wealthy farmers, adjusting compensation for insurance companies to reflect market rates, and reducing taxpayer reimbursements for administrative costs.

SNAP benefits aren’t keeping up with the true costs of a healthy diet

A critical aspect of SNAP that is often overlooked in fiscal policy debates is the economic adequacy of the program’s benefits. There is a growing body of research suggesting that SNAP benefits in their current form are insufficient to cover the “real” cost of a healthy diet.

In other words, the TFP might not truly reflect the real value of food costs low-income households face. The TFP was originally intended to represent the minimum food expenditure basket that would allow low-income households to avoid food insecurity. It is not necessarily based on the most recent scientific methodologies that factor in food prices, accessibility, and dietary needs.

Recent evaluations have shown that the TFP often underestimates the cost of a nutritious diet, particularly in areas with higher living costs. An Urban Institute study found that despite food price inflation moderating in 2023, SNAP benefits remained inadequate for covering food costs: By the end of 2023, the average modestly priced meal cost $3.37, which was 19% more than the average maximum SNAP benefit of $2.84. Families with zero net income faced a shortfall of $49.29 per month by the end of the year, with urban areas experiencing a 28% gap between meal costs and SNAP benefits, compared to 17% in rural areas. In the five counties with the largest gaps, the shortfall exceeded 70% throughout the year.

Recent economic research indicates that current SNAP benefits often fall short of covering the actual cost of a low-budget, healthy diet, with significant variations in benefit adequacy across U.S. regions. Researchers have found that these geographic variations in SNAP purchasing power significantly affect welfare outcomes such as child health and food insecurity. Despite deductions for housing and child care, many regions face much higher real costs of food, and SNAP dollars do not go far in such high-cost areas. To ensure equitable support, social scientists have put forth proposals to index SNAP benefits to local area food prices.

Therefore, the proposed cuts to SNAP funding risk exacerbating systemic and multidimensional challenges low-income populations already face. Concerns about food insecurity and diet-related chronic diseases are symptomatic of deeper systemic challenges related to health insurance access, stress and bandwidth poverty, access to healthy foods, the higher cost of healthy foods, and structural oligopolies in the American food industry. Research suggests that SNAP inadequacy is linked to worse health outcomes, such as increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Yet instead of focusing on deeper systemic issues, the current Farm Bill proposes a quick fix, Band-Aid solution by proposing to cut SNAP funding further.

Policy recommendations for a stronger Farm Bill

Despite proposing massive cuts to SNAP, increasing inequitable farm subsidies, and cutting climate funding for conservation efforts, the 2024 Farm Bill does lay out some positive measures. These include raising the income cutoff for SNAP eligibility (the Earned Income Deduction) from 20% to 22% of income, which will ensure more households just at the margin of earned income now have access to SNAP benefits. It proposes to give benefits access to individuals with drug-related convictions, who were previously excluded. Further, it proposes to extend the age limit for high school students on SNAP from 18 to 22 years, allowing students to work without disincentivizing income for eligibility. However, despite these positives, the proposed cuts and other changes could undermine the Farm Bill’s effectiveness in addressing food insecurity and equity concerns in agricultural subsidies.

The proposed cuts based on restricting SNAP increases to only reflect inflation diverge significantly from academic research underscoring that the TFP should be updated regularly to factor in food prices, consumption patterns, and nutritional guidelines. While this measure could save $29 billion between 2025 and 2033, it will further dampen SNAP’s purchasing power as food costs continue to rise and vary across regions.

The polarization of the Farm Bill reflects a broader ideological divide over the role of welfare in American society. Republicans have historically advocated for limited assistance and stricter work requirements for SNAP recipients. In contrast, Democrats have historically perceived welfare programs such as SNAP as essential tools for reducing poverty and inequality, and advocated for expanded benefits and more coverage.

Politicians need to look beyond this ideological gap and focus instead on creating a more equitable and effective Farm Bill that addresses society’s economic and welfare needs. A zero-sum approach that pits agricultural interests against the needs of food-insecure, low-income consumers is not proving to be effective.

What follows are key policy recommendations for crafting an inclusive and equitable Farm Bill that addresses the economic and welfare needs of vulnerable populations, including low-income households and underrepresented farmers.

Evidence-based SNAP adjustments: Use scientific methodologies to measure the TFP’s adequacy and issue frequent and regular updates to SNAP benefits. Factors that impact the TFP beyond inflation include other costs of living, regional variations in SNAP adequacy, food consumption patterns, and healthy diet guidelines.

Index benefits to reflect local economic conditions: Implement regional cost-of-living adjustments to SNAP benefits, which can address disparities in food costs and improve equity across geographic regions.

Expand access to healthy foods: Invest in initiatives that improve access to healthier food options, such as affordable farmers markets, community gardens, and incentives for retailers in underserved areas to improve food access and support local economies.

Rebalance agricultural subsidies: Impose income limits on farm subsidies and expand efforts to improve subsidy access for small-scale and BIPOC farmers.

Integrate climate goals: Allocate funding for climate-resilient agricultural practices and provide financial assistance and incentives to small-scale and BIPOC farmers to invest in such technologies.

Foster bipartisan collaboration: Encourage cooperation across party lines to create a Farm Bill that balances agricultural support with food assistance—recognizing their interdependence rather than treating them as competing interests.

Engage stakeholders: Involve farmers, nutrition advocates, and SNAP recipients in the legislative process to ensure policies reflect the needs and realities of those directly impacted.

The 2024 Farm Bill represents a critical opportunity for Congress to craft a more equitable and inclusive policy that addresses the dual needs of supporting agricultural production as well as nutrition assistance. However, as it currently stands, proposals such as the $30 billion cut to SNAP funding, the shift in focus toward preventing diet-related diseases, and the continued expansion of agricultural subsidies that disproportionately benefit white, wealthy farmers and a limited number of commodity crops risk undermining SNAP’s response to food insecurity and worsening inequality in the agriculture sector.

Policymakers must look beyond zero-sum dynamics that pit agricultural subsidies against nutrition assistance, when the fundamental issues farmers and low-income households face are symptomatic of deeper systemic inequalities in the economic and welfare structures of fiscal policy. Therefore, rather than continuing to concentrate support in the hands of wealthy, large-scale agricultural producers, the Farm Bill should prioritize uplifting smaller, diverse farmers and ensuring low-income households have the resources they need to access nutritious food. Encouraging small-scale and low-income BIPOC farmers to invest in green technology is also essential, as this would foster more sustainable agricultural practices while supporting communities’ economic growth. At the same time, Congress must ensure that commodity prices remain stable and affordable, preventing further economic burdens on consumers.

An equitable and welfare-focused Farm Bill would embrace a broader vision—one that balances the needs of both rural farming communities and urban, food-insecure families. By aligning agricultural subsidies with sustainable practices and expanding SNAP’s effectiveness, Congress can craft a policy that not only strengthens food security, but also builds a more just, resilient, and environmentally responsible food system for all Americans.

17 notes · View notes

sourcreammachine · 5 months ago

Text

GREEN PARTY MANIFESTO 2024 SUMMARY

tldr: there's a feeling of tension in this manifesto, between youthful zennial climatic ecosocialism and old-guard hippy-liberal environmentalism. this year the greens may well go from 1 MP to the dizzying heights of 2 (there's whispers on the wind that they may even get 3...), and the green council delegation is at 800-odd now, so this could easily be a changing-of-the-guard moment

with the great Berry and the ok Denyer in parliament the party could have more momentum in battling the starmerite government, and with that, it has the ability, the possibility to pick up more momentum. this is a big opportunity in the party's history - over the next five years it can and could be pushed into a holistic ecosocialist movement by the centrally influential mass party membership, and remove the last dregs of its tunnel vision to provide a lefty movement for everyone, green and pink, a Newfoundland coalition. with votes at 16 on the cards and this potential evolution of the party, 2029 could be a big moment for this country's left. whether or not the greens play the role of keystone is up to them

it is also the only manifesto to use the term 'neurodivergent'

💷ECONOMY

wealth tax of 1% on individuals with assets over §10m and 2% for assets over §1b (an extremely humble proposal), reform capital gains and investment dividend taxation to be at the same rates as income taxation, remove the income-based bands on national insurance contributions, ie raising total income taxation by 8% at §50k/a, – altogether raising government revenues by upwards of §70b/a

stratify VAT to reduce it for consumer stuff and hike it for stuff like financial services

permanent windfall tax on banks for whenever they get windfalls

perform a holistic land survey to get the data needed for a new, effective Land Tax

abolish the tax relief on existing freeports and SEZs

heavy carbon tax to raise a boatload of billions, rising progressively over a decade to allow industrial adaptation, for a ~§80b state windfall for five years that'll be for green investment as this windfall starts to recede

renationalise water and energy

§15 minimum wage, 10:1 pay ratio for all organisations public and private (ie §150 sort-of maximum wage, ~§300k/a), mandatory equal pay audits, 'support' lower hours and four-day weeks [clarification needed]

unambiguously define gig workers as workers with contract rights from day one, repeat offenders of gig-slavery will be banned from operating in the country

every City bank required to produce a strategy with a clear pathway to divestment of all fossil fuels "as soon as possible and at least by 2030", every City non-banking organisation simply to be banned from having fossil fuel in their portfolios, credit to be banned for repeat City climate offenders, mandate the BoE to fulfil the funding of the climate transition and climate leadership of the City, FCA to develop measures to ban fossil fuel share trading in the City and immediately prohibit all new shares in fossil fuels

"we will explore legal ways for companies to be transformed into mutual organisations"😈

develop regional cooperative banks to invest in regional SMEs, coops and community enterprises

diversify crop growth, promote local agricultural cooperatives and peripheral urban horticultural farms, give farmers a sort of collective bargain against grocers

aim towards a circular economy: require ten-year warranties on white goods, rollout of right-to-repair

tighten monopoly laws on media with a hard cap preventing >20% of a media market being owned by one individual or company and implement Leveson 2

🏥PUBLIC SERVICES

abolish tuition fees and cancel standing debt

surge nhs funding by §30B, triple labour's spending plans for everything, the entire budget, the entire state, everything

free personal care, with occupational therapy being part of this

35h/w free child care (eg seven hours over five days, or seven days of five hours)

renationalise many academies under local authorities, abolish the "charity" status of private schools and charge VAT

surge funding for smoking-cessation, addiction support and sexual health service

surge funding for public dentistry with free care for children and low-earners

free school breakfasts in primary school and free school lunches for all schools

one-month guarantee of access to mental health therapies

online access to PrEP

let school playing fields be used in the evenings by local sports clubs

greater funding for civic sports facilities and pools

🏠HOUSING

unambiguously-under-the-law nationalise the crown estate for an absolute fuckton of land and assets for housing and for green energy and rewilding for FREE

rent control for local authorities, ban no-fault evictions and introduce long-term leases, create private tenancy boards of tenants

local authorities to have right of first refusal on the purchase of certain properties at aggressive rates, such as unoccupied or uninsulated buildings

all new homes to be Passivhaus standard with mandatory solar panels and heat pumps

§30B across five years to insulate homes, §12B of which is for social homes, and §9B more for heat pumps, and §7B more for summer cooling

planning law reform: council planning mechanisms to priorities little developments all over the place rather than sprawling blobs, demolitions to require as thorough a planning application as erections, new developments required to not be car dependent

planning laws to require large-scale developments feature access to key community infrastructures such as transport, health and education, often mandating the construction of new key infrastructures, support nightlife and local culture in planning regulations

exempt pubs and local cultural events from VAT

building materials to be reusable, builders' waste rates to be surged to encourage use of reuse

750k new social homes in five years

🚄TRANSPORT

'a bus service to every village', restore local authority control and/or ownership of their busses

renationalise rail via franchise-concession lapsing, slowly assume ownership of the rolling stock (currently leased, and would continue to be so under labour's implementation of renationalisation) by buying a new train when the stock needs to be replaced

electrification agenda across the rail network, strategic approach to rail line and station reopenings

bring forward (sorta, the tories suspended it but labour says they'll reinstate it) the new petrol car ban from 2030 to 2027, existing petrol cars targeted to be off the road by 2034, investigate road-price charges as a replacement for petrol tax, hike road tax proportionally to vehicle weight, drop urban speed limits from 50kph to 30kph (or from 30mph to 20mph if you only speak Wrong), mass funding for freightrail and support logistics firms transitioning away from lorries

§2.5b/a for footpaths and cycleways, target of 50% of urban journeys to be extravehicular by 2030

frequent-flyer levy, ban on domestic flights within three-hour rail distance, remove the exemption of airline fuel from fuel tax, prioritise training of airline workers into other transportational jobs

👮FORCE

abolish the home office, transfer its police/security portfolio to the justice ministry and its citizenship/migration portfolio to a new migration ministry separate from the criminal justice system

abolish the kill the bill bill and restore the right to protest

recognise palestine, push for immediate ceasefire and prosecution of war crimes, back the south africa case, "[support] an urgent international effort to end the illegal occupation of palestinian land"

grant asylum-seekers the right to work before their application is granted

end the hostile environment

abolish Prevent

end routine stop-and-search and facial recognition

commission to reform 'counterproductive' drug regime, decriminalise personal possession

amend the Online Safety Act to "[protect] political debate from being manipulated by falsehoods, fakes and half-truths", ie actually protecting 'fReE sPeEcH' and not everything that rightists imply by that phrase

decriminalise sex work

reform laws to give artists IP protections against ai

cancel trident and disarm

push for nato reforms (in its and our interest, they're not russophiles, they're not galloway, it's ok): get it to adopt a no-first-use nuclear policy, get it to prioritise diplomatic action first rather than military reaction, get it to adopt a stronger line on only acting for the defence of its member states

right to roam🚶‍♂️

🌱CLIMATE

zero-carbon by 2040, rather than the ephemeral ostensible government target of 2050

stop all new oil/gas licenses, end all subsidy for oil/gas industries, regulate biofuels to end greenwashing, end subsidies for biomass

decarbonise energy by 2030, minimum threshold of energy infrastructures to be community owned, "end the de facto ban on onshore wind" with planning reform

massively expand the connections between the insular grid and the UCTE continental grid to increase electricity import and export and prevent the need for energy autarky

more targeted bans on single-use plastics

"give nature a legal personhood" ok grandma let’s get you to bed

§2b/a to local authorities for local small-business decarbonisation

"cease development of new nuclear power stations, as nuclear energy is much more expensive and slower to develop than renewables. we are clear that nuclear is a distraction from developing renewable energy and the risk to nuclear power stations from extreme climate events is rising fast. nuclear power stations carry an unacceptable risk for the communities living close to facilities and create unmanageable quantities of radioactive waste. they are also inextricably linked with the production of nuclear weapons. green MPs will campaign to phase out existing nuclear power stations." because some people just can't let go of the seventies. nuclear is good. nuclear is our friend

invest in r&d to find solutions to decarbonise 'residual' carbon in the economy, such as HGVs or mobile machinery

increase unharvested woodland by 50% (no time frame given), grants to farmers for scrub rewilding, rewet Pete Boggs, make 30% of the EEZ protected waters and ban bottom trawling

§4b/a in skills training to stop gas communities getting Thatchered, prioritising shifting these workers into offshore wind

a.. licensing scheme for all pet animals? you guys sure about that one

regulate animal farming with a goal of banning factory farms, ban mass routine antibiotics, ban cages/close confinement and animal mutilation

ban all hunting including coursing and "game", ban snaring, ban hunt-landscaping such as grouse moors, end the badger cull, mandate licensing of all animal workers with lifetime striking off for cruelty convictions, compulsory hedgehog holes in new fencing, 'push' for 'ending' horse and dog racing [clarification needed], new criminal offences for stealing and harming pets, 'work towards' banning animal testing

🗳️DEMOCRACY

proportional representation for parliament and all councils

abolish voter ID

votes at sixteen

votes for all visa'd migrants

restore the electoral commission's prosecutory powers and remove the cap on fines it can impose on parties

increase Short Money, especially for smaller parties

create a manifest legal category of organisation for think tanks, to allow better enforcement of lobbying and funding restrictions

consider fun new measures for political accessibility such as MP jobsharing and allowing public provision of offices for all parliamentary candidates

🎲OTHER STUFF

Self-ID including nonbinary recognition, including with an X passport marker

"work towards rejoining the eu as soon as the domestic political situation is favourable", join the eea now (with restored free movement)

let local authorities invest shares in sports teams, including professional ones, dividends ringfenced for public sports facilities and coaching

right to die

#196 #amy724 #ukpol #uk politics

20 notes · View notes

townpostin · 3 months ago

Text

Birsa Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Launched in Jamshedpur

DC Ananya Mittal flags off awareness campaign for farmer insurance scheme Jamshedpur launches crop insurance scheme to empower farmers economically, applications due by August 31. JAMSHEDPUR – The Birsa Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna was officially launched in Jamshedpur by Deputy Commissioner Ananya Mittal, who flagged off an awareness campaign vehicle. The awareness campaign vehicle will…

#agricultural awareness campaign #जनजीवन #Birsa Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna #crop compensation rates #DC Ananya Mittal #farmer economic empowerment #Jamshedpur crop insurance #Jamshedpur farmer benefits #Jharkhand agricultural initiatives #Kharif 2024 insurance scheme #Life #rural outreach program

0 notes

beguines · 2 months ago

Text

Plant scientists have noted that under similar environmental conditions, and with all sprayers adjusted properly, herbicide drift is "generally greater from aerial application than from ground application," and that the use of ground-based field crop sprayers through tractors reduces the likelihood of extensive drift. In an investigation I led with the team at Forensic Architecture, with close consultation and research supervision by Eyal Weizman, we were able to show that once sprayed, the herbicidal toxins sprayed by the IOF along the border are carried by the wind deep into Gaza—with wind speed and direction relative to the flight path as key environmental factors in determining the final impact of herbicidal spraying. But here too, environmental factors coincide with an apartheid structure for protection, recognition, and compensation that underpins the State of Israel. The colonial erasure of Palestinian existence through herbicidal warfare became further apparent after a confirmed the spraying by the Israeli army in 2015, Israeli residents of Kibbutz Nahal Oz living immediately on the other side of the Gazan border experienced unexpected agricultural loss and damage. On 16 November 2015, spraying for sterilization of agricultural land was carried out by the Northern Battalion of the Gaza Division of the army for operational purposes. Wheat crops sown in October 2015 in that area were scorched and dried up with no ability for growth on a land spanning 50 dunams. The toxicity of this spraying also prevented the Kibbutz from planning watermelons for the following season. Demanding compensation "following unsupervised spraying activity on active agricultural lands," the MOD paid the Kibbutz 61,900 NIS under a compromise agreement.

The case of Kibbutz Nahal Oz reaffirms that spraying herbicides by air is an inaccurate and less readily controllable method of application. The damages also confirm that low-growing crops are more vulnerable to this poison in various harvest periods as the toxins remain in the soil across seasons. However, while Israeli-Jewish farmers qualify for compensation, Palestinian farmers a few hundred meters on the other side of the border perimeter fall under the legal framework of Israeli military law and are denied the same protections and accountability. In June 2016, a claim on behalf of eight farmers in Gaza was filed by Al-Mezan, Gisha, and Adalah, seeking compensation for damages caused by aerial crop-spraying by the Israeli army in al-Zanna and Abasan al-Jadeda, in the border area east of Khan Younes. The complaints amounted to a total affected land area of 81.3 dunams, with an immediate loss for farmers estimated at $14,550, plus approximately $18,500 in water costs required for irrigation and replanting of the destroyed fields. In one of the complaints put forth, the herbicides reached a four-dunam agricultural plot farmed by Abu Ta'aymeh approximately 700 meters from the buffer zone inside Gaza, reportedly destroying the harvest and causing significant harm to the land itself. The petition held that the Israeli military's aerial spraying of herbicides constitutes a violation of both Israeli constitutional and administrative law, as well as of international humanitarian and human rights laws. According to the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) and Additional Protocols (1977), parties to a conflict must protect civilians and humanitarian interests during wartime and occupation, must refrain from causing harm or damage to civilian targets such as agricultural lands, and must respect the right of protected civilians to access food. The Israeli military's spraying of herbicides on agricultural crops which serve as a basic food source, while also taking into account the ongoing closure of Gaza, constitutes a violation of Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Yet, on 2 November 2017, the Insurance and Compensation Section of the Israeli MOD notified the human rights organizations of its decision not to provide compensation or reparations to Gazan farmers. Although recognizing its involvement in the spraying, the MOD does not hold itself accountable to the civilian population in Gaza, nor is it willing to provide reparations in accordance with its international obligations. Moreover, Gisha reports that the MOD has "failed to explain why the spraying was carried out, and why the same result could not be achieved using less destructive methods." To date, no Palestinian farmers have ever been compensated for damages to their crops resulting from herbicide spraying.

Shourideh C. Molavi, Environmental Warfare in Gaza: Colonial Violence and New Landscapes of Resistance

#shourideh c. molavi #environmental warfare in gaza

16 notes · View notes