Top Tag

Trump, Climate Change, and the Death of the Small Farm

Sometimes you have a bad year. That’s always been the reality of being a farmer or rancher. The business of growing crops and raising animals for profit requires two crucial elements for success that are out of farmers’ control: good weather, and good government policy. No one enters the agricultural profession thinking that every season is going to be successful.

But farmers and ranchers, particularly in the Midwest, have had more than just a bad year or two. Wisconsin’s dairy farms are in crisis, having lost about half of their net income between 2011 and 2018. They’re now shutting down at a record rate, due to low milk prices, overproduction, and President Donald Trump’s trade war with China and Mexico. That war has also caused billions in combined losses to Iowa’s soybean, corn, and hog industries. Nebraska farmers lost between $700 million and $1 billion in income last year. In Minnesota, farmer income fell 8 percent, making 2018 the worst year since the farm crisis of the 1980s.

And now the Midwest has been hit with historic, devastating floods. Excessive snow melt and rainfall, notably the “bomb cyclone” two weeks ago, have caused vast fields of corn, soy, and other crops to be washed away. Countless hogs, calves, and chickens have been killed. Iowa is estimating $1.6 billion in losses, Nebraska $1.3 billion, but the overall damage is hard to calculate because the floodwaters haven’t receded. It’s likely they’ll get worse. “The extensive flooding we’ve seen in the past two weeks will continue through May and become more dire,” Ed Clark, director of NOAA’s National Water Center, said in a statement to Vox.

While bad luck is indeed normal for the farming business, this season’s crisis is neither normal nor a matter of luck. The volatile weather is part of a larger pattern of human-caused climate change, and the Trump administration is deliberately prioritizing industrial-scale agriculture; both are making it harder for small and midsized family farms to stay afloat. If these trends become the new normal, local family farming as we know it will die.


In 1982, America was home to about 2.2 million farms. That number hasn’t changed much; according to the USDA, America now has about 2.1 million farms. But today’s farms are a lot bigger than they used to be. In 1987, only 15 percent of farms had 2,000 acres or more of cropland. By 2012, 36 percent did. The USDA credits the rise of big farms to consolidation: small and midsize farms combining to form larger operations, or getting bought out by such operations.

Small and midsize farms produce far less now than they did a few decades ago, replaced by large and very large farms. USDA Economic Research Service

This often happens because smaller farms aren’t making enough money to survive on their own, said Joe Schroeder, a senior farm advocate for the nonprofit
Farm Aid. And one of the many reasons why they’re not making enough money is that catastrophic weather—like this year’s flooding—keep knocking them when they’re already down. “Flooding like this always accelerates consolidations,” Schroeder said. “It hurts the poor folks and it helps the rich folks.”

Consolidation has been underway for some time, and isn’t solely related to weather; agricultural policy increasingly favors large operations with lots of resources, Schroeder said. But weather events like extreme flooding “puts [consolidation] into fast-motion and intensifies it,” he added. “It’s like pouring a gasoline on a fire.”

Such weather is becoming more common. According to the National Climate Assessment, heavy-rain events have risen 37 percent in the Midwest since the 1950s, and the magnitude of river floods is steadily increasing. The region also has been hit with a series of anomalous disasters that tend to affect farmers and ranchers more dramatically: In 2011, eleven of the country’s 14 weather-related disasters with damages exceeding $1 billion were in the Midwest. The assessment says that climate change is likely to “increasingly disrupt” American farming with extreme heat, drought, wildfires, and heavy downpours. These effects vary with the season. As the tech news site Seeker reported in January, “Kansas is likely to see earlier spring-like weather, more heat waves, longer gaps between rainfall, and heavier downpours when the rain does arrive.” And in the summer, swings between rainfall “often coincide with heat waves that can damage crops.”

While the effects of climate change may vary from season to season and place to place, the result is the same: Small and midsize farmers are more worried than ever about their future, and feel their only choices are to quit or consolidate. Schroeder, who frequently answers calls for Farm Aid’s farmer help hotline, says he hears it almost every day. “It’s people on the kind of continuum where they no longer have any control over their own demise,” he said. “They’re just participating in a way that causes the least destruction, or gives them a little more time.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is running for president, unveiled a plan on Wednesday to help these farmers, promising to “tackle consolidation in the agriculture and farming sector head on and break the stranglehold a handful of companies have over the market.” Her plan may help ease the crisis, but ultimately, it will require tackling the much bigger problem of climate change. Maybe these floods are the beginning of a washed-out grain belt that no longer produces grain,” Schroeder said.

This is the apocalyptic future that America is facing. It’s surely a long way off. But year to year, season to season, small family farmers are glimpsing that future on their own land today. They’re facing their own personal apocalypses.

8 years after the Syrian civil war started, these Syrians are still protesting

Want the best from VICE News in your inbox? Sign up here.

Eight years after President Bashar Assad responded to peaceful protests with violent force, the Syrian civil war slowly grinds on, and so does the protest movement.

The first, consistent armed rebellion against Assad’s brutal regime began in Idlib — now one of the last rebel strongholds. And there, demonstrations haven’t stopped.

Abu Maher Saleh was among some of the first protesters in the early phases of the war, but after the government besieged his hometown in Eastern Ghouta, he was forced to flee.

Today, he leads small protests in Idlib, inspiring other Syrians who fled there to rally around their original cause.

“The demands we had in 2011 are still the same in 2018: to topple Bashar Al-Assad’s regime, to hold the criminals accountable,” Saleh told VICE News. “ We should protest every single second, whenever we have the chance.”

Saleh has been able to hold protests in Idlib because of a ceasefire that Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan brokered in September. In hopes of preventing around 3 million possible refugees from streaming across its border, Turkey agreed to try to disarm hard-line fighters in exchange for Russian support in holding back an Assad offensive.

But that deal is all but completely broken. Russian and Syrian regime warplanes started bombing Idlib last week, claiming extremists have increased attacks since the ceasefire was agreed upon.

Saleh hopes his protest will be heard, but it’s unlikely they’ll hold off an offensive.

“We still want to tell the people, and not the government, that we’re not terrorists,” Saleh told VICE News. “We’re people who rebelled to get our rights. And we won’t stop until we get them.”

This story was edited by Ross Laing and Kimmy Gorden and aired on March 11, 2019.

Trump’s Silly and Dangerous Venezuela Ultimatum

Trump just made some more irresponsible threats over Venezuela:

U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday called on Russia to pull its troops from Venezuela and warned that “all options” were open to make that happen.

Trump’s demand is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because Russia is all but certain to ignore it and keep the troops they have sent to Venezuela where they are, and it is dangerous because it suggests that he might try to use force to expel Russian troops that are there are the invitation of the de facto government. The presence of Russian forces in Venezuela drives home that the U.S.-backed “interim” president is still completely powerless two months after the U.S. recognized him. It also tells us that Maduro and his supporters in the Venezuelan military have no intention of giving up anytime soon, and they are instead hunkering down for a prolonged standoff.

When the president says, “Russia has to get out,” this is more of the same “do something” rhetoric we have heard in the past when a president declares that such-and-such leader “must go” without having any idea how difficult or costly it would be to make him go. Russia doesn’t “have to” withdraw its forces from Venezuela, and it makes no sense for the U.S. to be risking conflict with the Venezuelan and Russian governments over their presence. The Russian deployment is a small token force, but it shows that they are going to lend some tangible support to Maduro that the regime changers in the administration failed to anticipate. The administration’s misguided and wrongheaded push for regime change in Venezuela keeps running into predictable obstacles, and it ought to be abandoned before it gets the U.S. into another unnecessary war.

There will now inevitably be more demands for U.S. intervention to “counter” Russia’s support for Maduro, but further escalation and militarization of the crisis are the very last things that Venezuela needs. Many administration officials and allies are looking for an excuse to escalate U.S. involvement, and Congress needs to make clear that they won’t support any military options in Venezuela. The president is foolishly making threats that he can’t back up without risking a war, and Congress needs to step in and explicitly reject intervention before things get out of control.

No one knows why prosecutors dropped the Jussie Smollet case

Tuesday was a bewildering day in — what used to be — the criminal case against Jussie Smollett.

The black and gay “Empire” actor was facing up to five years in prison for allegedly faking his own hate crime. Smollett told police that two masked men, who screamed “MAGA Country” and other racial and homophobic slurs, beat him, poured bleach on him, and put a noose around his neck one night in January. But Chicago police later said that he’d paid his alleged assailants and arrested the actor on charges of staging the whole attack.

Less than five weeks later, and seemingly out of nowhere, state prosecutors dropped all 16 charges against Smollett on Tuesday, without offering any legal explanation.

Afterward, Smollett gave a heartfelt press conference in which he maintained his innocence. Hours later, Chicago officials seethed, in their own press conference, about the lack of transparency surrounding the decision to drop his charges.

“I’ve never seen a case like this,” said Bennett L. Gershman, a former prosecutor at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and a national expert in prosecutorial misconduct. “Where the prosecutor throws in the towel and says, ‘Forget about it,’ without explaining why.”

In a statement Tuesday, the Cook County state’s attorney’s office said that its prosecutors had reviewed “all of the facts and circumstances of the case,” including Smollett’s record of community service and his agreement to forfeit his $10,000 bond payment. “We believe this is a just and appropriate resolution to the case,” the office said of dropping the charges.

Assistant State Attorney Joe Magats, who took over the case after State Attorney Kimberly Foxx recused herself, told news outlets that his office had no problems with the police investigation or with the evidence that led a grand jury to indict Smollett. “We didn’t exonerate him,” Magats said. “Here’s the thing: We work to prioritize violent crime and the drivers of violent crime. Public safety is our number one priority. I don’t see Jussie Smollett as a threat to public safety.”

But the state attorney’s office apparently hadn’t shared those sentiments with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson. The two officials said the news caught them completely off guard. Richard A. Devine, who served as the state’s attorney in Cook County from 1996 to 2008, told Time that it was “unusual” for the mayor and cops to be kept in the dark.

Smollett’s continued assertion of his innocence particularly distressed Emanuel. “There’s no sense of ownership of what he’s done,” the mayor said Tuesday. “No sense of moral responsibility, besmirching the name of the city.”

Prosecutors could have, for example, tried to secure a plea deal with Smollett and his lawyers, according to Gershman. “You plead guilty. You admit guilt, and show remorse. Say, ‘I’m so sorry, I shouldn’t have done it, it was improper,” he said. “But he’s still claiming his innocence. And prosecutors aren’t demanding any kind of admission. At all. That’s pretty weird to me.”

“I’ve never seen a case like this.”

The brutal nature of Smollett’s alleged attack comes against a backdrop of rising hate crimes across the country, which catapulted the case to a national flashpoint for conversations about race and the Trump administration. In the days immediately following the alleged attack, Chicago police said they were struggling to locate video evidence to help them identify Smollett’s assailants, which fueled speculation, mostly on the right, that the whole story was a hoax. Weeks later, police said that Smollett paid two brothers, Olabinjo and Abimbola Osundairo, who he knew through his work on “Empire”, $3,500 to stage his attack.

Police reports, obtained via FOIA by CWB Chicago, a local network reporting on public safety, and released Wednesday, shed a little more light on the investigation: For example, one of the Osundairo brothers told police that he’d put bleach into a bottle of El Yucateco hot sauce, and poured it on Smollett. (A reporter from the New York Post located that same bottle at the scene of the alleged crime.) Chicago Police also received a warrant to search Smollett’s iCloud account, which they shared with the FBI.

On Tuesday, Smollett’s lawyers said that the Osundairo brothers were Smollett’s trainers and did not deny that they had attacked him. But they said the $3,500 payment was for “nutrition and training.” In the police report, one of the brothers told detectives that he generally charges between $20 to $50 an hour and only had two clients, including Smollett. The other brother told detectives that he was training 11 people on a trial basis, for free.

1553707938201-AP_19085738287938

In this image taken from video, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, right, and Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson appear at a news conference in Chicago, Tuesday, March 26, 2019, after prosecutors abruptly dropped all charges against “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett. (Mitch Armentrout/Chicago Sun-Times via AP)

The lingering confusion from Tuesday’s announcement has only exacerbated existing conspiracies that have swirled around the Smollett case from the get-go. Some right-wing pundits have argued that Smollett belongs to a vast, liberal, elitist conspiracy to malign the GOP through “hate hoaxes” and that the state’s attorney’s office acted on behalf of a long list of conservative boogeymen, including billionaire philanthropist George Soros, presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, and the Obamas.

Meanwhile, leftists have asked why anyone should trust Chicago officials or police, given the city’s history of corruption and brutality (including the cover-up of the death of Laquan McDonald, a black teenager who was shot dead by Chicago police in 2014).

“This is a very unusual case which raised all sorts of clamor, and questions about the conduct of people in Chicago and whether the streets are filled with racist hate crimes: dramatic, serious issues of race and policing,” Gershman said. “I”m not saying they did the wrong thing, but I’d like to know the reasons why he [Assistant State Attorney Joe Magats] did what he did. And without that, we can speculate, and the kind of speculation here can be very damning. You want the public to understand and trust the prosecutor.”

But, Gershman added, it’s also prosecutors prerogative to offer an explanation for their decision to charge or not charge someone.

“A prosecutor doesn’t have to give an explanation. That’s part of their discretion. They can decide to charge, drop charges. And they never really have to give a reason,” Gershman said. “But when prosecutors make decisions like this, I think the public demands a clear, fuller explanation.”

Cover image: Actor Jussie Smollett talks to the media before leaving Cook County Court after his charges were dropped Tuesday, March 26, 2019, in Chicago. (AP Photo/Paul Beaty)

Top Marine: Troops at Border 'Unacceptable Risk'…

Commandant of the Marines Says Deploying Troops to the Border Poses ‘Unacceptable Risk’

U.S. Marine Corps Commandant General Robert Neller speaks during a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C, on Jan. 25, 2018. (Credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

U.S. Marine Corps Commandant General Robert Neller speaks during a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C, on Jan. 25, 2018. (Credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

The commandant of the Marines has warned the Pentagon that deployments to the southwest border and funding transfers under the president’s emergency declaration, among other unexpected demands, have posed “unacceptable risk to Marine Corps combat readiness and solvency.”

In two internal memos, Marine Corps Gen. Robert Neller said the “unplanned/unbudgeted” deployment along the border that President Trump ordered last fall, and shifts of other funds to support border security, had forced him to cancel or reduce planned military training in at least five countries, and delay urgent repairs at bases.

The border deployment and funding transfers, as well as recovery costs from hurricanes Florence and Michael, new housing allowances and civilian pay raises, are taking a toll on combat readiness, Neller wrote to Navy Secretary Richard Spencer and Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan.

The Times obtained copies of the memos, dated March 18 and March 19.

Read the internal memos from Marine Corps Commandant Robert Neller here: https://t.co/7wM3eC7HfD

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) March 21, 2019

Read the full story on LATimes.com.


IBM Accused of Violating Federal Anti-Age Discrimination Law

A group of former employees has filed a lawsuit against IBM that accuses the tech giant of failing to comply with a federal law that requires companies to disclose the ages of people they lay off who are 40 or older. The suit, filed in federal district court in New York City, also alleges that the company has improperly prevented workers from combining to challenge their ousters.

It is the second broad legal action against IBM since a 2018 ProPublica story that documented widespread age discrimination by the company in its global restructuring. The former employees are asking the court to invalidate a written agreement that IBM requires its employees to sign to receive severance pay. Under the document’s provisions, workers agree to give up any right to challenge their dismissal in court.

Until now, most age-related legal actions contesting an IBM layoff have been brought by the rare ex-worker who refused to sign the agreement and left without severance. If the district court were to agree that IBM’s separation agreement is invalid, it could open the company up to lawsuits by tens of thousands of older workers IBM has laid off in recent years.

Today’s lawsuit and the string of other cases filed in the wake of ProPublica’s story face steep odds as a result of decisions by the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts that curtailed workers’ ability to challenge employers’ staffing decisions. The rationale is to limit what federal judges view as cumbersome, costly cases that hamstring both employers and the courts.

“The Supreme Court is hostile to class action, to collective action and to employees,” said Cliff Palefsky, a prominent San Francisco attorney who frequently represents employees. “Congress needs to step in to preserve the integrity of its own civil right laws, not just involving age, but also race and gender. So far, it hasn’t.”

ProPublica reported in March 2018 that IBM, which had annual revenue of $79 billion last year, had ousted an estimated 20,000 U.S. workers ages 40 and over during the preceding five years. In some instances, it used money saved from the departures to hire young replacements to, in the words of one internal company document, “correct seniority mix.”

The new lawsuit follows legal action last fall by Boston class-action lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan, who filed a class-action case on behalf of 60 ex-IBM employees who had not signed the severance agreement and argued they had been discriminated against because of their age. In tandem, Liss-Riordan filed scores of arbitration claims for ex-employees who had signed the document, which only permits workers to pursue age claims in individual arbitration hearings.

The New York lawsuit opens a new legal front, challenging the IBM agreement’s one-at-a-time restriction as a violation of workers’ rights under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The law allows laid-off workers to take legal action against their employers as a group, either in court or arbitration.

“IBM against one person is not a fair fight,” said David Webbert, an Augusta, Maine, lawyer who, together with his partner, Jeffrey Young, and a Washington-based law firm, filed the new case. “IBM against thousands of people who’ve been laid off because of their age, that’s a legitimate legal proceeding.

“IBM is afraid of a fair fight,” Webbert said.

A spokesman said the company had no comment on the latest lawsuit. In response to ProPublica’s initial findings in 2018, IBM said: “We are proud of our company and our employees’ ability to reinvent themselves era after era, while always complying with the law. Our ability to do this is why we are the only tech company that has not only survived but thrived for more than 100 years.”

The new suit is filed in the name of four ex-employees who were in their mid-50s when they were ousted by the company, including Cheryl Witmer of Firestone, Colorado.

Witmer said in an interview she began her career repairing IBM Selectric typewriters in 1984 and was a program manager in the company’s cloud division in 2016 when she unexpectedly received a bad job-performance rating and was told she was retiring.

“But I’m not retiring,” she said she told her manager.

“Yes, you are,” she quoted the manager as replying. ProPublica documented dozens of similar employee ousters that began as layoffs but were converted to retirements, a change that kept down IBM’s layoff counts, where high numbers can trigger public disclosure requirements.

Witmer said she felt she had little choice but to sign the company’s severance agreement because she needed the money while she looked for a new job. “I couldn’t afford not to” sign, she said.

The ADEA requires that workers over 40 who are being laid off be told the job positions and the ages of the position holders who are being laid off with them so they can decide whether to pursue an age-discrimination case or to waive the right to do so.

IBM stopped providing this information to employees in 2014 when it rewrote its severance agreement. Under the previous agreement, departing employees could not receive severance unless they agreed to waive their right to pursue legal action. The new agreement employees were required to sign to receive severance did allow them to file claims of discrimination, but only in individual hearings before an arbitrator.

IBM executives appear to have concluded that this change in the document permitted them to stop providing the ages of employees were being laid off. Legal experts say this made it much harder to find evidence of age discrimination, which requires establishing a pattern drawn from large numbers of layoffs.

Until the newly filed suit, IBM’s decision to stop disclosing age information has not faced legal challenge.

Home Ethos About Contact
Terms Policy GDPR RichTVX
© Saeculum XXI U.S. Intelligence News