Home Blog Page 2

The Celtic festival of Samhain

Celtic festival of Samhain

The Celtic festival of Samhain is an ancient Gaelic celebration that marks the end of the harvest season and the beginning of winter, or the “darker half” of the year. Traditionally observed from the evening of October 31 to November 1, Samhain is considered the most significant of the four major Celtic seasonal festivals, and it plays an important role as the precursor to modern Halloween.

Origins and Historical Practices

Samhain, pronounced “SAH-win,” stems from pagan religious roots and is first described in Irish literature from the 9th century. It marked the end of the agricultural cycle and involved great gatherings, feasts, and major communal bonfires led by Druid priests.

Traditions included leaving hearth fires to die while the harvest was brought in, then relighting them with the new communal fire as a symbol of renewal. Offerings of food and drink were made to honor ancestors, while costumes and masks were worn to ward off harmful spirits who were believed to walk among the living as the veil between worlds thinned.

Samhain was also linked to divination rituals and beliefs about the supernatural, with omens and fortune-telling featuring prominently. Cattle were returned from summer pastures, sacrifices were offered, and the festival often featured excess in food and drink as part of the celebration.

Spiritual and Cultural Significance

The festival symbolized the transition from summer to winter and, for many Celts, represented the start of the new year — a time when boundaries between worlds dissolved.

Samhain was a deeply spiritual occasion, believed to open burial mounds as portals to the Otherworld, and was associated with ancestral spirits and supernatural entities. Its customs included offerings for the dead, the lighting of bonfires, and the avoidance of places believed to be haunted or supernaturally charged, such as crossroads and burial sites.

Connection to Modern Halloween

Samhain’s customs and beliefs transitioned into Christian traditions, especially All Saints’ Day and All Souls’ Day, and later evolved into the secular holiday of Halloween.

Many modern Halloween practices, such as wearing costumes and carving lanterns, originate from Samhain rituals to ward off or appease spirits, though pumpkins replaced turnips in the Americas.

The Celtic New Year aspect and the honoring of the dead are echoed in how some contemporary pagan and Wiccan groups celebrate Samhain as a spiritual festival focused on remembrance, divination, and seasonal transition.

Samhain remains a foundational festival in Celtic culture and has had a lasting influence on Western traditions surrounding the end of October and the start of November.




 

Tariffs and Their Impact on American Farmers

How tariffs are impacting farmers

Tariffs are having a significant negative impact on American farmers, mainly by driving up costs, reducing export opportunities, and creating deep financial uncertainty across the agricultural sector. While some relief packages have been announced, many believe these measures are not enough to offset the widespread losses caused by trade barriers.

Increased Input Costs

Farmers are facing higher costs for essential items such as fertilizers, seeds, tractors, and other machinery; tariffs on steel and other materials are causing prices of farm equipment and repair parts to climb sharply. This squeeze on production expenses has led many to worry about the ability to break even, especially small and midsize farms.

Reduced Export Markets

Tariffs, especially those between the U.S. and China, have drastically reduced American exports of major crops such as soybeans, corn, and pork. China, previously the biggest buyer of U.S. soybeans, has turned to South American suppliers, causing U.S. soybean exports to drop by over 23% and forcing domestic prices down to levels that threaten farm viability. Many farmers are struggling with the loss of access to international markets, resulting in substantial drops in income and mounting financial stress.

Regional and Commodity Variation

Not all commodities and regions are affected equally. Farmers producing more permanent crops like orchards and dairies have less flexibility to shift production in response to trading hurdles and price drops, making them more vulnerable to losing markets. In states like North Carolina and Wisconsin, entire communities dependent on soybean and grain production are experiencing acute financial crises.

Government Response and Bailouts

President Trump has announced several aid packages, promising billions in bailouts for farmers, with the latest proposals ranging up to $15 billion. However, experts and farm leaders warn that these interventions may not reach all those affected, and that Congressional approval and administrative delays could make the support less effective than intended. Many farmers remain concerned about the long-term stability and future of their operations as trade tensions persist.

Consumer Impact

Tariffs have also led to an increase in consumer food prices, with predictions that the average household will lose about $2,400 in buying power this year due to tariff-driven inflation. This is an added pressure not only on farmers but on the broader U.S. economy.

Overall, tariffs have triggered higher costs, lower prices for crops, and major disruptions in farmers’ ability to access international buyers, leaving many farming communities in financial distress despite government efforts to provide aid.

sourced – AgAmericaNCDPFarmAid




 

Coal Leases: Senate Overrides Biden’s Ban

Biden-era ban on BLM coal leases overturned

The Biden-era ban on BLM coal leases has been overturned — On October 8, 2025, the U.S. Senate voted to nullify a Biden administration Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource management plan amendment that had effectively banned new federal coal leases on approximately 1.7 million acres in eastern Montana’s Powder River Basin.

This amendment, finalized by the BLM’s Miles City field office in 2024, cited climate change concerns and declining coal demand as reasons for prohibiting future leasing beyond the existing Rosebud and Spring Creek mines.

The Senate’s action, taken under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), followed House approval last month and passed on a party-line vote, with Montana Republicans like Sen. Steve Daines and Sen. Tim Sheehy supporting it as a means to protect jobs, energy production, and local tax revenues.

The resolution now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk for expected signature, which would not only reverse the ban but also bar the BLM from issuing any substantially similar rule in the future.

A parallel CRA effort is underway for a similar BLM amendment in Wyoming’s portion of the Powder River Basin, where the Buffalo field office’s 2024 plan locked up nearly 50 billion short tons of coal from future mining.

Wyoming’s Republican delegation, including Sen. John Barrasso, Sen. Cynthia Lummis, and Rep. Harriet Hageman, introduced legislation on October 8 to overturn it, criticizing the Biden-era rule as an attack on energy independence and local economies.

Democrats have opposed these moves, arguing they undermine extensive public input processes and could create legal uncertainty for land use permits.

Separately, on October 10, 2025, the BLM rejected the sole bid in a Montana coal lease sale — $186,481.59 from an unnamed company — for failing to meet Mineral Leasing Act requirements, while also postponing a planned Wyoming coal auction. This occurred amid the ongoing CRA process, suggesting the full effects of the overturn have not yet taken hold.

Details on Mineral Leasing Act Requirements

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as amended (most recently through P.L. 119-21 on July 4, 2025), governs the leasing of federal public domain lands for the extraction of certain minerals, including coal, oil, gas, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil shale, gilsonite, and sulfur. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (typically through the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM) to issue leases while ensuring public interest, environmental protection, fair market returns, and compliance with other laws.

The Act applies to U.S. citizens, associations, corporations, and municipalities, but prohibits foreign entities from countries that deny reciprocal privileges to Americans. Below is a breakdown of key requirements, focusing on coal leasing on federal lands, drawn from the Act’s provisions.

Bidding Processes and Bid Evaluation

Federal coal leases are generally issued through competitive bidding to ensure fair market value (FMV) and public benefit. Key requirements include:

    • Lands classified as containing coal must be divided into leasing tracts based on economic recoverability and public interest. At least 50% of annual leased acreage must use a deferred bonus payment system.
    • Leases are offered via public notice (published weekly for three weeks in a local newspaper) and require public hearings in the affected area.
    • Bids must be competitive, with no acceptance of offers below the Secretary-determined FMV, which incorporates public comments but does not require pre-issuance disclosure of the determination. The Secretary evaluates bids to confirm they meet or exceed FMV, rejecting those that do not.
    • In recent context, such as the October 2025 Montana coal lease sale for a tract in Big Horn County (estimated at 167.5 million tons of recoverable coal), the BLM rejected a sole bid of $186,481.59 from Navajo Transitional Energy Company (NTEC) because it failed to meet MLA requirements — specifically, it did not represent FMV (equivalent to about 0.1 cents per ton, underscoring coal’s declining market value).
    • Exceptions allow negotiated sales at FMV for incidental coal removal tied to rights-of-way, but competitive bidding is the norm. If identical high bids occur, tying bidders may be required to rebid.
    • A Wyoming lease sale planned for the same period was postponed amid similar low-interest concerns, highlighting broader industry challenges.
Qualifications for Lessees
    • Applicants must be “responsible qualified bidders” under the Act, demonstrating technical and financial capability. This includes U.S. citizens or entities, with restrictions on railroads (limited to their own use, up to 10,240 acres total) and entities holding non-producing leases for 10+ years (barring new acquisitions unless exceptions apply).
    • Antitrust review is mandatory: The Secretary consults the Attorney General before issuance, renewal, or readjustment to avoid violations, potentially requiring public hearings.
    • Disclosure of ownership (e.g., partners, shareholders with 3%+ voting shares) is required. No leases on wilderness study areas or certain restricted lands unless compatible with preservation.
    • Exploration licenses (up to 2 years) are needed for pre-leasing activities, with conditions to minimize disturbance and no automatic right to a lease.
Lease Terms
    • Duration: 20 years, renewable if producing commercial quantities of coal annually; non-producing leases terminate after 10 years.
    • Acreage limits: Up to 2,560 acres per lease (contiguous or operable as a single unit); aggregate holdings capped at 75,000 acres per state or 150,000 nationwide per entity (including affiliates).
    • Diligent development: Lessees must pursue operations diligently, with possible suspensions for public interest (e.g., conservation), but advance royalties apply during halts.
    • Logical mining units: Leases can consolidate into units up to 25,000 acres (including non-federal lands) for efficient mining, requiring full reserves extraction within 40 years (extendable).
    • Modifications: Existing leases can add contiguous lands (up to 960 acres) if in public interest and without displacing competitors.
    • Operations and reclamation plans must be submitted and approved before significant surface disturbance, with consent from other federal agencies if they manage the surface.
Rentals
    • Annual advance rentals, credited against royalties, start at rates prescribed by regulation (e.g., historically 25 cents/acre year 1, rising to $1/acre after year 5 for similar minerals).
    • For deferred bonus bids, no surety bond is required if the lessee has a history of timely payments; defaults lead to automatic termination without refunds.
    • Waivers or reductions possible to promote development or conservation, but not for advance royalties.
Royalties
    • Minimum rate: Not less than 12.5% of coal value (reducible to 7% through September 30, 2034, or lower for underground mining).
    • Minimum annual production or royalty required, except during excused interruptions (e.g., strikes).
    • Re-adjustable every 20 years (then every 10 years if extended). Advance royalties during suspensions are based on spot market prices and creditable against future production.
    • Revenue distribution: 50% to the state (prioritizing impacted areas), 40% to a reclamation fund, remainder to federal miscellaneous receipts (with variations for Alaska).
Environmental Compliance
    • Leases must align with comprehensive land-use plans assessing recoverable coal, environmental impacts, and alternatives (e.g., surface vs. deep mining). Public input and state/local consultations are required.
    • Provisions mandate compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Clean Air Act, and other laws. Operations must prevent waste, protect miners’ welfare (e.g., 8-hour workday, no child labor under 16 underground), and include reclamation bonds.
    • Environmental impact evaluations consider effects on communities, agriculture, economy, and services; plans must mitigate damage.
    • Exploration and rights-of-way (e.g., for pipelines) require NEPA compliance, erosion control, revegetation, and protection of air/water quality, health, and subsistence resources.
Other Key Requirements
    • Production in commercial quantities: Mandatory after 10 years to maintain the lease.
    • Forfeiture and penalties: Leases can be canceled for noncompliance (e.g., after 30 days’ notice), with fines up to $1,000/day for unauthorized exploration or up to $500,000 plus imprisonment for fraud.
    • Rights-of-way: Granted for related infrastructure (e.g., coal transport pipelines) up to 30 years, with common carrier obligations and environmental safeguards.
    • Enforcement: Includes judicial review limits (e.g., 90 days for challenges) and state involvement in civil actions.
    • Data handling: Exploration data remains confidential until leasing, with public geological reports required.

These requirements aim to balance resource development with fiscal responsibility and environmental stewardship. For full text, refer to the compiled Act.

In practice, as seen in the 2025 Montana rejection, FMV enforcement prevents speculative or undervalued leasing, reflecting coal’s economic decline.




 

Bozeman’s ban on urban camping has arrived

urban camping

Bozeman implemented a citywide ban on urban camping effective October 1, 2025, following years of escalating issues with homeless encampments on public streets and rights-of-way.

The ordinance prohibits sleeping, camping, or storing personal belongings in public spaces, with penalties including daily fines up to $500 and potential jail time of up to 10 days for repeat violations. This builds on a 2024 permit system that already restricted such activities, but the full ban marks the end of any temporary allowances.

Background and Lead-Up

The problem intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, with urban camping peaking at around 244 people in July 2023, often in makeshift camps or vehicles due to a severe affordable housing shortage — where securing an apartment might require $3,500 to $5,000 upfront for first and last month’s rent.

This led to community complaints about safety, sanitation (including human waste removal and over 110 tons of trash hauled away), and criminal activities like drug use and disturbances. In October 2023, local business owners sued the city, claiming it failed to enforce existing laws, which pressured officials to act. The city spent over $220,000 on responses since 2022, excluding staff costs.

To prepare, Bozeman hired a dedicated manager in late 2023 who issued hundreds of warnings and citations, reducing the camper count by 90% to just 16 people in one remaining site by late September 2025.

Many relocated to private property, family homes, or public land outside city limits. A key support was the opening of the $16 million Homeward Point shelter about two weeks before the ban, providing 130 beds, meals, laundry, and day services—already housing over 100 people nightly, including more than 30 former urban campers.

Nearby Gallatin County also passed its own ban on public camping in July 2025, aligning with Bozeman’s efforts.

Impacts and Reactions

City officials express optimism that the ban will restore public spaces without solving broader homelessness, which continues to worsen in the region. Mayor Terry Cunningham noted in July that addressing camping is distinct from ending homelessness: “Anyone who thinks we are solving the homeless problem by addressing the urban camping problem is missing the reality.” The manager emphasized compassionate enforcement, focusing on connecting people to services like HRDC (a local nonprofit) rather than immediate arrests, but acknowledged some individuals resist help.

Among those affected, there’s significant concern. One long-time camper, John Wallace, who survived a violent attack in camp and works at a gas station, worries about fines derailing his housing search: “Honestly, I just want to get a place. That’s all I want to do … It’s getting bad.” Advocates highlight the shelter’s role but stress the ban doesn’t address root causes like housing costs.

Business leaders and some residents welcome the change, citing reduced nuisances since enforcement ramped up — from 300 campers down to 22 permitted ones earlier in 2025. Online discussions reflect broader anti-encampment sentiments, with one user praising community efforts to clear parks by confronting campers directly and involving law enforcement. However, critics argue such bans are “misguided” and lack support from police in some contexts, potentially just displacing people without solutions.

Overall, while the ban has cleared streets and directed some to shelters, it underscores ongoing debates: proponents see it as reclaiming public order, while opponents view it as punitive amid insufficient affordable housing.

Montana PBS plans a special on Bozeman’s homelessness efforts airing October 16, 2025.

sourced – Montana Free PressDaily Montanan




 

Starbucks to close over 400 shops

Starbucks

Starbucks is in the process of closing over 400 stores across North America as part of a major restructuring effort led by CEO Brian Niccol.

Reports indicate that more than 450 locations in the U.S. alone shuttered in late September, with total closures potentially reaching up to 568 company-operated stores when including Canada. This represents about 1% of the company’s North American footprint, which stood at nearly 18,300 locations (company-operated and licensed) in the U.S. and Canada as of late September 2025.

Globally, Starbucks operates over 32,000 stores, so these closures are a relatively small adjustment but part of a broader $1 billion plan to revitalize the brand.

Reasons for the Closures

The decision stems from several challenges:

Underperformance and Shifting Consumer Habits:

Many stores were not meeting customer expectations or generating sufficient profits, exacerbated by post-Covid changes like reduced urban foot traffic and a preference for drive-thru or mobile orders. CEO Niccol noted that mobile ordering had “taken a lot of the soul out of the brand.”

Economic Pressures:

Inflation and higher menu prices have deterred customers, especially those earning under $100,000, with over 70% in surveys planning fewer visits.

Increased Competition:

Rivals like independent artisanal shops (e.g., Blue Bottle, Blank Street Coffee) and drive-thru chains (e.g., Dutch Bros) are gaining ground.

Financial Struggles:

Starbucks has seen declining same-store sales for six straight quarters and a 9% stock drop in 2025.

As part of the restructuring, Starbucks is also laying off about 900 non-retail (corporate) employees, cutting 30% of its menu, ending open-bathroom policies for non-customers, and renovating 1,000 U.S. stores with more seating and power outlets to restore the “third place” vibe.

The company does however, plan to open new stores in fiscal 2026, aiming for growth despite the cuts.

Affected Locations

Starbucks hasn’t released an official full list, but crowdsourced trackers and media reports have compiled details on hundreds of closures, mostly company-operated stores closing on or around late September, early October.

The bulk of these shops are in the U.S., with some in Canada.

To check if a specific store is affected, use the Starbucks app or website, or refer to your local news. Closures have been described as abrupt in some areas, like NYC, leading to employee and customer disruptions.

Even in spite of market saturation, Starbucks expects to maintain it’s growth, with analysts optimistic about the long-term turnaround.