Singapore Launches World's First Face Scan For Government Services
It has raised questions about privacy concerns.
In Singapore,over 400 online government services can now be accessed by facial recognition, sparking questions about privacy. Photo: AFP/Shutterstock
In something straight out from a sci-fi flick, Singapore has launched facial recognition log ins for online government services, which is a world first. This technology is being rolled out to the city-state’s SingPass digital identity scheme, offering access to no less than 400 online services, including tax declarations and public housing applications. Facial recognition is also increasingly being used to access other online services, such as banking.
This new function, dubbed SingPass Face Verification, lets users connect securely to government websites, as well as online services on private websites. The function is designed to work via home computers, tablets and cell phones, as well as at public kiosks.
According to the Singapore authorities, the technology helps ensure that the right person is genuinely present in front of their screen, rather than a photograph, a video, a replayed recording or a deepfake.
In recent years, facial recognition has made huge progress with its most widely used application today for unlocking smartphones. In China, facial recognition technology can be used to identify individuals in a crowd.
In the future, facial recognition could find other applications in Singapore, such as making sure students sit their own examinations or for verification purposes in secure areas of the city-state’s ports. The country will become the world’s first to use facial verification in its national ID scheme, but privacy advocates are alarmed by what they say is an intrusive system vulnerable to abuse.
From 2021, millions of people living in Singapore will be able to access government agencies, banking services and other amenities with a quick face scan. This biometric check will do away with the need to remember a password or security dongle when performing many everyday tasks, its creators say, and is part of the financial hub’s drive to harness technology, from ramping up the use of electronic payments to research on driverless transport.
“We want to be innovative in applying technology for the benefit of our citizens and businesses,” says Kwok Quek Sin, who works on digital identification at Singapore’s technology agency GovTech.
This is one of the most ambitious plans yet, and the first to attach facial verification to a national identification database. The technology captures a series of photos of a person’s face in various lights and are matched with other data already available to the government such as national identity cards, passports and employment passes.
Safeguards ensure the process is secure, said Lee Sea Lin of digital consultancy Toppan Ecquaria, which is working with GovTech to implement the technology. “We want to have assurance that the person behind the device is a real person… and that it is not an image or a video,” Lee said.
The technology is being integrated into the country’s digital identity scheme and is being trialled now at some government offices, including the tax authority and the city’s pension fund. Private firms can sign up to the initiative, and Singapore’s biggest bank DBS is part of the trial.
Surveillance concerns
A staff member of government technology agency GovTech demonstrates the use of facial verification technology to access government services on a computer at a community centre in Singapore. Photo: AFP
Face scanning technology remains controversial despite its growing use and critics have raised ethical concerns about it in some countries, for instance, law enforcement agencies scanning crowds at large events to look for troublemakers.
Singapore authorities are frequently accused of targeting government critics and taking a hard line on dissent, and activists are concerned about how the face scanning tech will be used.
“There are no clear and explicit restraints on government power when it comes to things like surveillance and data gathering,” says Kirsten Han, a freelance journalist from the city. “Will we one day discover that this data is in the hands of the police or in the hands of some other agency that we didn’t specifically give consent for?”
Those behind the Singapore scheme stress facial verification is different to recognition as it requires user consent, but privacy advocates remain skeptical.
“The technology is still far from benign,” says Privacy International research officer Tom Fisher . He thinks systems like the one planned for Singapore left “opportunities for exploitation”, such as use of data to track and profile people.
Kwok of GovTech insists that no data would be shared with third parties and users would be left with other options, such as personal passwords, to access services. “It is not surveillance,” he says. “The use is very specific.”
Tags: SINGAPORE, banking, SingPass Face Verification, Face verification, face scan, face recognition, DBS
Caster Semenya Cannot Compete Without Hormone-Suppressing Treatment
Samsung vs. Huawei: Battle of the Foldable Phones
By Lira Jamaluddin
Meet South Korea’s Non-K-Pop-Related Rising Star


Keegan Kuhn & Kip Andersen, Cowspiracy
https://responsibleeatingandliving.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ItsAllAboutFood_051314-Cowspiracy.mp3
Keegan Kuhn is an award winning documentary filmmaker, video producer and professional musician based in the San Francisco bay area of CA. He runs First Spark Media, a video production company tailored to creating videos and films for non-profit organizations and conscientious companies. He is the director of “Turlock: the documentary”, “Something To Be Thankful For” and co-director of the groundbreaking environmental film “Cowspiracy: the sustainability secret”.
Kip Andersen is the executive director of Animals United Movement. A non-profit dedicated to producing films and media promoting sustainable, compassionate and peaceful living. He is the co-director of the groundbreaking documentary film “Cowspiracy: the sustainability secret”
Caryn Hartglass: Hey everybody, I’m back. This is Caryn Hartglass, and it’s time for the second part of It’s All About Food here on the 13th of May, 2014. Before we get to the main part of the second part of this program, I want to direct you to my nonprofit website, responsibleeatingandliving.com. On the lower right-hand side of the website, I’ve added a couple of things. One is, if you remember—I think it was a month or two ago when we had Mississippi College professor Elizabeth Brandon and her student Bilal Qizilbash talking about kale research. Well, we know have a kale research update subscription. You could go to our website, responsibleeatingandliving.com, go to the bottom right-hand side and sign up, and any time there’s an update on their wonderful kale research, you will hear about it first. So you can visit that. The other thing I just added is, you know we’ve got hundreds of delicious vegan recipes on our website, right? I’ve compiled my personal favorites, the ones that we make over and over again in our family. If you go, again, to the homepage, right-hand side, you’ll see Real Favorites, and that’s a list of all of our real favorite recipes. Just so you know, you might want to try some of those if you haven’t already. All we want to do is make this world a beautiful delicious place with healthy, plant-based food. But. Some people make it hard. And difficult. We’re going to now talk to Keegan Kuhn and Kip Andersen, the co-directors of a new documentary: COWSPIRACY. Welcome to It’s All About Food, Keegan and Kip!
Keegan Kuhn: Thank you!
Kip Andersen: Thanks so much for having us.
Caryn: Okay, now how am I going to know the difference between Keegan and Kip? Keegan, say hello.
Keegan: Hello, this is Keegan.
Caryn: And Kip, say hello.
Kip: Hello, this is Kip.
Caryn: Okay, I think Kip is a little higher-pitched maybe. We’ll see what happens. But you both sound great, you look great on the website! Let’s hear about this film. It’s scary!
Keegan: Yeah, it’s a big film. It’s a big, scary issue. The film is an environmental documentary following my co-director Kip Andersen on a journey, finding out what is the leading cause of environmental destruction around the world, and the truth is that it’s animal agriculture, raising animals for food. We go to the world’s largest environmental organizations, because if animal agriculture is really responsible for the leading cause of rainforest destruction, water pollution, ocean dead zones, topsoil erosion, and virtually every other environmental degradation that’s happening, why wouldn’t the world’s largest environmental organizations be talking about it? So we pose a question to them, and the responses that we get are… If it wasn’t such a deadly, serious issue, they’d be very funny.
Caryn: Well, we’ve been saying this for a long time, that why aren’t the major environmental organizations talking about animal agribusiness? One of the reasons I thought was just because they all like meat and they don’t want to give it up. But I think we’re going to learn through this film it’s bigger than that.
Kip: Yup. That’s definitely part of the reason, internal habits within their own offices all the way up to the very executive directors of many of these, that’s a big part. Also, a huge part is that they are businesses and what is their priority? Is their priority making a profit or saving the planet? That’s where the kind of blurred line is that we explore in the film.
Caryn: Now, you’ve implied in the trailer that you had some funding that was taken away.
Kip: Yes, we had some funding… It’s definitely a bit of a controversial subject, and we did have some funding dropped. They don’t want to be mentioned who they are, it’s part of a reason why they wanted to be dropped, but we basically had to finance this a hundred percent on our own, that’s why we started a Indiegogo campaign to get the funding so we can release this properly, so everybody can see it.
Caryn: Okay, we can’t give away everything that’s in the film obviously, but were you surprised with some of the things you learned? Or was everything the way you expected it to be?
Kip: Oh no, absolutely surprised. I think that’s the thing. We’ve done some small test runs of all walks of life that have seen this and even people who think they’re very well-informed on the subject are blown away. Things that you just can’t believe about wildlife and the ocean dead zones—we have a big section on the ocean. And then just about the nonprofits, when we go visit them. It’s shocking yet humorous, their reactions, and so it’s a fun journey no matter where you are on the scale of education on the subject. It’s a real entertaining and educational journey.
Caryn: Okay, I don’t want to pick on any organization in particular, but I was remembering a few times I would visit the Rainforest Action Network, just as an example. I remember years ago that they had some campaigns against animal agriculture because it was affecting the forest, the rainforest, and they were talking about destroying forests to grow soy to feed animals and also the destruction of forests to graze animals. I noticed that the focus changed to palm oil. I had to dig to find some old material on the animals.
Kip: That was a big, again, almost comical if it wasn’t so serious, in particular Rainforest Action Network. There’s a couple that definitely stand out. We will go into the destruction that palm causes on rainforests and where, but a lot of this documentary focuses on comparisons. We acknowledge fracking is a huge issue, we acknowledge palm is, then we compare it to animal agriculture and there’s just absolutely, virtually almost no comparison. Then you start talking and addressing this to these people like Rainforest Action Network, and they just simply do not want to talk about it.
Keegan: When we look at the numbers for palm oil. It’s incredibly destructive, what it’s doing to the Indonesian rainforests. The devastation is undeniable. But when we look at that globally, palm oil is responsible for about 26 million acres of rainforests cleared every year. Or actually today, I’m sorry, 26 million acres. But then you compare that to animal agriculture, and we’re looking at 136 million acres. We’re looking at this astronomical impact to our rainforests—which are the planet’s lung, they produce about half the planet’s oxygen—they’re being destroyed for cattle and to grow their feed crops, and yet all we hear about from the rainforest groups is palm oil.
Caryn: Right. Just a little bit more on palm oil. What are the main uses for palm oil?
Keegan: Palm oil—if you pay attention to anything that these groups are going to be saying—is used in snack foods. But a huge part of where palm oil goes is actually for animal feed crops. A very large percent is fed to the livestock.
Caryn: I thought I was leading to that answer. It’s a really important point, because a lot of times I read these really angry posts and articles on palm oil that are targeted towards vegans because we happen to have our vegan butter, like Earth Balance products that are made with palm oil. Earth Balance, just one little company, is really trying to please its customer base and working towards sustainable palm and all of that, but the focus is in the wrong place.
Kip: Definitely. It’s the same thing. A lot of people, especially who don’t have much knowledge on the subject, they do the same thing with soy. They say, “These vegetarians eating all this soy, that’s what’s causing the rainforests…” Like, no, no…
Keegan: When ninety percent of the Brazilian soy is fed to livestock, and livestock mostly in Europe actually.
Caryn: Right. Whew. Okay, so you have an Indiegogo project and you’ve raised, you met your goal. And now you’ve stretched your goal. What can people expect and what would you like people to do?
Keegan: We would love for people to continue to support the campaign. We reached our initial goal of $54,000 in six days, which was just phenomenal. We couldn’t have imagined there would’ve been such an outpouring of support. But we realize with more money, we can reach more people and we can actually do more with the film. So we created a stretch goal of $108,000. Right now we’re at about $85,000, which again is just phenomenal. We have about, I think, 22 days left on the campaign. If we can reach that $108,000 goal, we’ll be able to translate the film into ten or more languages. We want to create a dubbed version in German, Spanish, and potentially Mandarin. We want to make the film as accessible as possible. Part of that is creating a 50-minute educational edit of the film which educators around the world, from elementary school to universities, can use to educate students about the impact of this industry. That edit will be shorter, be more concise, it’ll have some new animations and graphs in it just so that it’s less of a story and more just the facts. And then that, hopefully again if we can reach our goal, will also come with a lesson plan. And again, just to make it as accessible as possible.
Caryn: Alright. You made it sound in the trailer that people don’t want this information to get out. So when the film does come out and when your educational version comes out, is there going to be trouble?
Kip: No, we get asked that question a lot. Our goal is people are going to be inspired. People, when you find out something, when you find out the truth, sure you might be shocked and initially scared, but it supersedes it by just being inspired of things that we have to do right now. A big part of the film that was really important when we were making this is that the end ends on a very positive, all solution-based, we can do this. Real actions, real companies that are doing things, transforming the planet as we speak today, like big time, funded by people like Bill Gates and big funders and we explore…
Caryn: Beyond Meat and Beyond Eggs.
Kip: Yeah, so all these new companies sprouting out and thriving. It’s basically jumping onto something that’s already happened. Are you going to be left behind, as well as the planet? I’d like to think it’s more inspiring than…
Caryn: Right. You say that you have some actions and solutions at the end of the film, and we know that there are some businesses doing incredible things. I love the message behind Beyond Meat and Beyond Eggs because they’re creating the same products. They’re just removing the animal from the equation, which is genius. It’s cheaper, using plant-based ingredients. What other solutions are out there, not that I want to give away the ending of your film?
Keegan: We focus on a couple different options and different things that people can do on a personal level. After the film comes out, we’ll see what these organizations do and how they respond. It’ll be a call to action involving how we get these large environmental organizations to start addressing it. But that’ll be… We’ll see how things play out with the release of the film.
Caryn: Well you know it all comes down to money, unfortunately. These organizations don’t want to bite off the hand that feeds ‘em.
Kip: That’s the thing what happened with Blackfish in such a quick amount of time. It does come down to money. With this, we’ve said we’re not only making a movie, but starting a movement that they can be successful. These nonprofits can be successful. They’ll get a lot of support by doing these things of switching focus to things that are really, really important. They can be successful.
Keegan: The thing is too, though, is that their focus—you look at their mission statement is about helping the planet. First and foremost, whether it’s a popular opinion or not, we need to be addressing animal agriculture. To go after these massive industries, like the fossil fuel industry, and try and put regulations on them, like that’s all very important. It’s absolutely essential we get control over the fossil fuel industry. But let’s look at what we all can do today on a personal level and regardless of how sensitive of a topic it is or how unpopular of a topic it is, it absolutely needs to be addressed.
Caryn: Well, sometimes it just seems so impossible when you have the Koch brothers wanting to support coal and mining and squash the solar industry by putting some exorbitant taxes on them. It just all comes down to money, and it seems so hard. But. There are little pockets of hope everywhere, and I hope COWSPIRACY really makes a big change. Now you guys are young. When did you get the message? When did you get this vision of how to make the world a better place?
Kip: Well it happened a few years ago and really just a simple Google… Well, it first started with a Facebook post and that’s what’s fun about the movie, kinda follows my journey of really what happened. I saw a post about the Livestock’s Long Shadow report in 2006 and I found I was blown away ‘cause at that time I thought I was doing everything, riding my bike and…hours, yadda yadda. And then once I found this out, I really explored this and the thing was, it was an easy Google search. This wasn’t like some detective sleuth. It kinda popped up quite quickly and I was blown away, one thing after another, and I said, “Wow, if this really is true and not some propaganda, then these environmental groups that I’ve supported my whole life – Green Peace, Sierra Club – they must be screaming about this.” And then I went on their websites and I was shocked—there was nothing. That’s kinda when it started. I started emailing them, calling them, like what’s going on? They just would not reply to me. If I wanted to give money, sure they’ll talk to me, but they would not talk. Eventually I’m teamed up with Keegan and with a camera eventually kinda just have to knock on their door and go in person because they didn’t want to talk about it. It’s a film about sustainability, which it is. They’ll talk about that all day, but once you start mentioning the animal agriculture, then it gets a little funny.
Caryn: I was very excited when that Livestock’s Long Shadow report came out in 2006, as were many, many other people because it was the first time that animal agribusiness kind of was seen for what it was, something that was a big polluter and affected our climate in a negative way. But unfortunately, the people that make those reports have changed their tune quite a bit since people jumped on that one statistic that 18% of human-induced greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture, and they’ve dropped that number, in more recent reports to 4.5%. I was recently on a panel with Frank Mitloehner, who is a professor at UC Davis, and he’s been working with the Food and Agriculture Organization on this. He is a big believer in animal agriculture intensification, talks about how efficient we are here in the United States, and how we’re doing such a great job using far less water and putting out less greenhouse gas emissions making cattle than the rest of the world, and the rest of the world needs to learn to do what we’re doing. The government’s behind him, and it is scary.
Keegan: Yeah. We actually interviewed Animal Agriculture Alliance, and {16:55} sits on their board, largest animal agriculture lobby groups in the country. We asked him about that, about these studies and these statistics and about efficiency, and yet the truth is, is that if you want to raise animals, the most ecological and efficient way to do it is in extreme confinement. Pack as many animals as you can into as tight a spot as possible. Restrict their movement, prevent them from burning excess calories, and you’ll be able to conserve as much resources as possible. Clearly, that’s not beneficial for the animals. If you care about animal welfare issues at all, it’s extremely detrimental so it leaves you one option.
Caryn: Plants.
Kip: Yup. That’s what’s interesting about the film too, is we cover the whole spectrum. We get into the whole grass-fed, we get into the organic. There’s some surprising, surprising results of a lot of these foodies who think they’re doing the right thing and in fact, maybe for the animals, but for the environment it’s actually the opposite. It’s just a weird situation.
Caryn: Yeah. People don’t realize that grass-fed, “humane” raising of animals for food is not good for the environment. It’s worse for the environment than animal intensification and the only choice, the only choice for all the reasons is raising plants to feed people directly. It’s so obvious. Okay. So where do you guys live?
Keegan: We’re in the San Francisco area, Berkeley-San Francisco.
Caryn: Lots of good eating there.
Kip: Yes, there is. We’re fortunate, very fortunate.
Caryn: Very fortunate. What are some of your favorites?
Kip: Favorite restaurants?
Caryn: Yeah. I’m turning the tide here, I wanna lighten things up. I’m getting a little too depressed.
Kip: Yeah, some awesome stuff, and they all do so great. They do so well, like Café Gratitude, Gracias Madre, Source. There’s a few in LA, there’s way more than San Francisco, which is weird.
Caryn: Yeah, I heard LA is taking over New York City, which I always believed was a vegan kingdom, here in New York City.
Kip: Yeah, yeah, and it’s weird because the Bay Area, it’s easy, but nothing like LA or New York. This is so funny, that’s kinda exploring how successful these restaurants do. You can’t even get on if you’ve heard of Gracias Madre, it’s all vegan, organic—
Caryn: Yep. It’s always packed.
Kip: —Mexican restaurant. Yeah. When they started, it took a couple of months, but now you can’t get in at all. There can’t be enough of these hip plant-based restaurants.
Caryn: Right. Veggie Grill is doing great.
Keegan: There’s a little company, Cinnaholic, which is an all-vegan cinnamon roll company, and they’ve just done phenomenally well. They’re based here in Berkeley, and they just started franchising. These are growing businesses, and these are real business models where people are getting into this not just because of the environment or the animal or health benefits, but because it makes good business sense. That’s why you see people like Bill Gates and Biz Stone, who are—Biz Stone is actually vegan—but someone like Bill Gates is getting involved in plant-based companies because it makes good sense from a business point-of-view.
Caryn: Yes. Now I just have to interject here. I personally promote a healthy, plant-based, whole, minimally processed diet which is ideal for health and if people want to junk food themselves out, it’s entirely their choice, but if they’re going to do it, it should be from a compassionate point-of-view and from an environmentally sustainable point-of-view. If you want to sugar yourself out and fat yourself out and white flour yourself out, go for it. But companies like Cinnaholic are the way to do it. Meanwhile, I’m gonna stick with kale salad.
Keegan: That’s what’s exciting though can be depressing, especially when we’re doing all this research with the film, but we’re actually to walk away feeling really inspired. It just feels like this whole shift in evolution, whatever you want to call it, it’s already happened, it really has. It’s so fun to see. I believe it’s happening at an exponentially quantum-fast rate. It really is. That’s a big takeaway from all this. Just every day you see something new pop out in the store, a new restaurant opening, new things on the news, so it’s exciting times.
Caryn: Now, did you primarily focus on environmental organizations in this film; did you talk to any people who were raising animals?
Kip: Yes, we did. We explored everything. We went to an organic daily farm, went to one of the nicest, most beautiful grass-fed beef down here on the coast. We’re fortunate. Where we live, all these farms are right here in the Bay Area, so we explored every part deeply. We want to leave no stone unturned so we did visit these places.
Keegan: And all the way down to backyard animal husbandry.
Caryn: Now, I know a lot of information is available online. We’re flooded with information, and if you really want to learn about how animals are raised, everything is online and some of it is really scary. I was just recently looking about how sperm is collected from bulls and how cows are artificially inseminated. It’s frightening, it’s almost pornographic, it’s obscene—I can’t believe these people do it. When you think about how animals are raised, every step of the way somebody’s had to figure these things out and they’re working towards making them more efficient, and when you see each step…it is profoundly creepy.
Keegan: We said earlier, it all comes down to money and how do you make something as efficiently as possible. If your concern is that bottom dollar, then you can let everything else fall by the wayside, whether that’s ethics or environmental degradation or health or worker’s safety, anything. If you’re concerned about making money, then that’s all you’re gonna focus on.
Caryn: Now do your actions and solutions, any of them include what these farmers and ranchers can do if they don’t raise animals?
Kip: Somewhat, yeah. We explore different types of farming: veganic farming…
Caryn: It’s funny. When I was on that panel with Frank Mitloehner, he didn’t seem to know anything about veganic agriculture, was surprised to hear you could grow plants without animal manure.
Kip: It’s funny too when I hear people say, “If the animal agriculture industry falls apart, there’s going to be so many jobs lost.” To actually go back so we don’t have to have these GMO industrial farms because we have GMOs to feed these millions and millions of animals, going back to this really grassroots level of organic farming, veganic farming, creates tons of jobs. Tons of jobs, rather than these huge, huge industrial farming pesticide compounds that only produce a few jobs. I feel the economy will be stimulated by the shift.
Caryn: Well, it’s all a shift and part of the shift is, efficiency is not necessarily the only parameter and is not necessarily the best goal. We could be a little less efficient, gentler on the planet, have more jobs for people, everybody’s happier. We’re not treating animals horrifically. We just need a little shift. And COWSPIRACY is gonna get us there.
Keegan: Thanks. That’s our hope, that’s our plan. We first and foremost need to get people informed. They have to be aware of the situation. For the most part, many people in our society aren’t aware of this at all. If you ask them, “What causes more climate change cars and trucks and boats and planes, or cows?” They’re gonna tell you cars, trucks, boats, and planes. But in fact, the livestock industry is responsible for more greenhouse gases than the transportation sector.
Caryn: Whether those numbers are true or not, and I’ve read a lot of science and it’s really complicated and very confusing, one thing is clear: the energy infrastructure we have today is not sustainable and absolutely needs to change and the problem is, it’s going to take a lot of time and a lot of money. In order to have a cushion and be able to get there without having some crazy tipping point where the world heats up and the game’s over, animal agriculture has to go away. That will mitigate climate warming.
Kip: It’s very important at the personal level too is to demand, whether emails or calls or whatever, to demand that these environmental groups—it’s not the animal agriculture industry, they’re not going to be the one to change, it’s the ones accountable that are doing the changes, they have the manpower, they have the actions and the practice of creating huge social change—to demand that Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and Rainforest Action Network, they address the situation immediately.
Caryn: Okay, we’ve got just a few seconds, so tell me when the movie’s coming out and where can we find out more about it?
Keegan: They can find out more information on cowspiracy.com, definitely want people to go there and check it out. We’ll be releasing the film, premiering in San Francisco on June 19 and then followed up by premieres all around the country we’ll be touring throughout the summer and then internationally as well.
Caryn: Great! Well, thank you so much for telling me about COWSPIRACY, for creating it and having the courage to do so, Keegan and Kip, all the best to you.
Keegan: Bye-bye.
Kip: Great, thank you so much.
Caryn: Okay, so that’s been another It’s All About Food show. Thank you for joining me, and have a delicious week.
15 comments for “Keegan Kuhn & Kip Andersen, Cowspiracy”
Wendy Lynne Lee
Dear Kip and Keegan,
My name is Wendy Lynne Lee, and while professionally I am an academic philosopher at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, I am also an activist writer, organizer, and photo-documentarian in the Pennsylvania shale fields. Relevant here as well is that I have been a committed vegetarian for the last 40 years–and am home to currently 10 rescue animals (including parrots, and until very recently, an elderly but spry iguana).
I just finished watching Cowspiracy, and I came away from it feeling both galvanized and vindicated in a variety of ways. Probably most importantly–I have been arguing for years that if we in the anti-fracking (tar sands, unconventional oil extraction) movements do not undertake to see and act on the intimate relationship between fossil fuel consumption and animal agriculture, we will continue to see the liquidation of the lands and places we love by an industry that is as voracious as it is increasingly desperate.
This argument is met–over and over and over–with precisely the sort of response you so beautifully document in the film. Honestly, I have gone to protest after protest only to meet up with folks at a diner afterwards–and watch them order platefuls of bacon, and burgers, and chicken. When I remark on this–even in the most non-confrontational benign sort of way–all I get are stares of disbelief, a polite but dismissive glare, and an occasional suggestion that I am over-stepoping bounds and not “on topic.”
The only reaction that exceeds the dismissiveness of individual folks has been the utter push back I’ve seen from the Big (or Bigger) Greens who are so resistant to adopting the demand that fracking be banned that the prospect of even approaching them with respect to animal agriculture–well, truly, I could have told you exactly what was going to happen here. The Big Greens (Sierra Club, Food and Water Watch, Audubon–and many others) exist for the sake of continuing to exist–and they are never going to act in any fashion that does not accord with their mostly white, mostly well-connected donors. The incredible irony is that although I have worked really hard to get activists and citizens at the grassroots level to see that these Big Greenies do not have their interests, health, and welfare in mind, the response I get routinely is that I am “dividing the movement,” that “we must all row together,” and that the BIg Greens are in our camp.
What I want to make sure YOU gentlemen know is that not only is the Sierra Club, et al NOT going to ever get serious about animal agriculture–their pitch to “Beyond Coal” to “ending fracking,” to get to renewables and meaningful conservation is also far more propaganda that commitment. In other words–even the stuff they pretend to care about is more hype than substance–and I can show this over and over.
I also connect deeply with that segment of your documentary about being surveilled and intimidated. You can find the fuller story on my blog (and laid out in some of the fine work of Earth Island Journalist Adam Federman), but I was visited without warrant by an officer of the PA State Police/FBI Joint Ecoterrorism Task Force at my home last February on the pretext that they were investigating possible trespass reported by a company at a compressor station site where I photo-document illegal frack trash disposal. It became very clear that this officer knew I had not likely actually committed trespass (and indeed, I had not–I have a good Nikon and a telephoto lens, and I can climb trees)–but as he moved from a discussion of trespass to pipe bombs, it became equally clear that his visit was aimed not at investigation–but intimidation.
I have since tried under FOIA and the federal privacy acts to gain access to the information relevant to that officer’s visit–and have just this past November been informed that the state will not release the records because I am either the object or connected to an “ongoing criminal investigation.” This no doubt too is aimed at intimidation.
I have committed no crime; the gas industry–in connection with the Marcellus Shale Operator’s Crime Committee–does not like the (now thousands) of photographs I have taken of the damage the industry has done to the state (an experience I imagine rather similar is reported by folks filming inside factory farms).
In any case, I am posting you both because I very much identify with and appreciate your film–and because I think there are a number of connections to yet be drawn between industrialized carbon extraction and animal agriculture. It is precisely at that juncture, as well as the disproportionately negative effects of these relationships on those most vulnerable–women, children, indigenous peoples, and nonhuman animas) that you documentary will inform my own work.
I also appreciated the moments you took in the film to discuss animal suffering–these, for me, and I think likely for many, were my original reasons for ending any and all animal product consumption when I was 16–much to my parents horror (I grew up in a ranching state–CO). I also have as one of my fields, philosophy of mind/brain–including animal cognition and affective capacities. I am on sabbatical right now (completing a new book entitled “A Manifesto for an Ecological Humanism”), but in the Fall term, I will be teaching a pre-graduate student level seminar on Animal Cognition, Animal Welfare, and Animal Rights. My plan is to show Cowspiracy the first night of class as a way to spark discussion.
I am quite sure it will. This is patriotic, hunting/gun culture, very rural Pennsylvania out here.
In any case–thanks.
I assure you, this film will have a real affect on my own writing and photographic work.
My photographs: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wendylynnelee/sets/
Blog: http://thewrenchphilosleft.blogspot.com/
Academic Credentials and professional work: https://bloomu.academia.edu/WendyLee
As a last note–You’re right. It can’t just be about sustainability, but, as you put it thrive-ability. I’d also argue for the word “desirability” appealing to a potential future whose experiential, aesthetic, recreational, and other meaningful qualities is not one in which some may thrive–but in which all would wish for their children to be born.
Wendy Lynne Lee, professor
Vice President, National Community Rights Network (CELDF)
wlee@bloomu.edu/570-389-4332
realworldwide
Thanks for your detailed post, Wendy and for your activism. This is not the place to contact the Cowspiracy directors however. This page is for my radio program’s interview with them. You might reach them at the Cowspiracy website. It nice to hear from some at Bloomsburg University. I graduated from Bucknell in Lewisburg. I am excited to hear about your course offerings. Times are changing! – Caryn Hartglass, founder, Responsible Eating And Living
Will do, and Thanks!
Hello, this theme is just new for me.
Im just eating tradition food, meet, vegetable, eggs, milk and all that. And i think its so difficult to change habits. People usually seem to think animals are natural resource and its easy to buy cellophane wrapped meet. Who would think it was a young cow ? we are even pleased by photos with cows walking in the nature, so kind, romantic. In Paris now is a farm exposition with all farms animals from all France with a competition of the best farm animals
http://www.salon-agriculture.com/
This exposition is great in France and reveals how the tradition is strong, the politicians all go there to be seen, and all that make think that farms are working for our health. At the same time, they are bothering with some ecologic thoughts, which dont perturbe the higher economic interests.
At the moment i think we really don’t have a rigorous thinking. The lobbyists do, how to make money what ever it costs.
Thank you for your work. I hope that message is clear.
Everyone just needs to stop eating animal products.
It’s self not to.
Kerry Jorgensen
Before I comment further, I must complement you on an excellent documentary.!!!
Now to the info no one is addressing.
Humans are designed and classified correctly as FRUGIVOREs.:
“To say that humans have the anatomical structure of an omnivore is an egregiously inaccurate statement.” – The great taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus, (1707-1778), a Swedish naturalist and botanist who established the modern scientific method of classifying plants and animals, classified humans not as carnivores, not as omnivores, nor even as herbivores, but as frugivores. Carolus Linnaeus
Thus animal products should not be considered “food” for humans at all and are completely unnecessary.
Check out T. Colin Campbell’s books: WHOLE and THE CHINA STUDY
5 % protein [about the same as human mother’s milk] turns cancer off, 20% protein [slightly less than cows milk] turns cancer on.
There is no amount of plant protein that turns cancer on.
Which brings me to the issue of protein.
When we are putting on more new cells than any other time in our life is when we are babies. If, hopefully done on mother’s milk, that is only 5% protein. Many “experts” are advising more than triple this amount. It only makes our bodies more acidic and increases the cancer growth rate among many more disease susceptibilities.
Please examine your documentary for the misuse of the word ‘less’ used where correctly ‘fewer’ should have been used. I know it is a common error, but still very wrong.
And ammediately instead of immediately.
A side note: President Bill Clinton [heart issues and exercise program] is unaware of this error about protein and President Jimmy Carter [cancer] likewise.
Hi Kerry, Thank you for your post. Regarding your comment about “There is no amount of plant protein that turns cancer on.” this is actually not true. I learned the following in Dr. Campbell’s eCornell Plant-Based Nutrition course: Dr. Campbell explains that casein at 20% turned on cancer growth, and soy protein or wheat protein at 20% did not. However, we do not eat foods in isolation and it turns out that wheat protein when supplemented with its deficient amino acid, which is lysine, will act just as casein in stimulating cancer growth. This is based on his research and I don’t know if it has been replicated. One thing I know for sure is that we don’t understand everything about cancer. – Caryn.
Amarildo Aguiar
Hi Kip, I am Brazilian and I’m watching your document COWSPIRACY, besides the fighter Dorothy Stang tbm happened chico mendea also murdered. As some say the forest amazonicaé the lung of the world today, and yet still being devastated, because what we produce in the livestock and agropecuaria, 60% are for export. They are ruining my country and saw in you the first to address this question
Tamera Lemon
As I like to say, we create our own limits.
Kip you are a absolute genius what a breathtaking and eye opening documentary. One of the most brilliant works of art I’ve seen in a really long time thanks so much for doing this and casting a light over everything. Yours truly … Chuck Taylor.
Tarik Quadir
Brilliant work and to the point.
God bless Kip and Keegan.
I have known about the environmental impact of people’s huge meat consuming habit but often forgot. Your works are great reminders. I plan to talk about it when I raise other issues about the environmental crisis in the courses I teach.
I understand don’t eat meat but can you give me an idea on what we can eat?
That’s a great question and we’ve got that covered. Check out our daily blog, What Vegans Eat to see the REAL food that my partner Gary and I eat. There are close to 900 posts, and many link to recipes: https://responsibleeatingandliving.com/category/what-vegans-eat/
– Caryn
Animal product free for 1 week since I watched your films. Thank you for having the courage to tell the truth.
Congratulations! We have lots of resources here to help you in your journey.


Where Are We Now (Politically, that is)
by tonygreco November 21, 2013 1 Comment US Politics
I intended, when I first started this blog, to open with a broad overview of where US politics has been going in recent decades and where it might be headed. I didn’t get to do that because other more immediate issues kept on coming up: first Syria, then the government shutdown/debt limit crisis. Things have calmed down enough to open a window for that overview, so here goes.
The United States has moved to the right over the past 30-40 years, and it isn’t easy to foresee a significant reversal of that trend in the near future. I need to be clear, though: when I say that the United States has moved to the right, I don’t mean that the American people have moved to the right. As I pointed out in my post of 11/8, public opinion studies have consistently demonstrated that a majority of Americans lean left of center: they generally want an active government to combat the various ills of capitalism, like progressive taxation, a strong social safety net, vigorous protection of the environment, and an active government role in promoting stable economic growth.
The country’s apparent move to the right reflects the fact that the effective structure of political power has moved to the right. Political power in Washington (and in most of our statehouses) is solidly arrayed against progressive change. There is no prospect for anything like the waves of groundbreaking legislation (civil rights, Medicare, environmental and consumer protection, etc) that we saw in the 1960s and 1970s, some of it signed into law by a Republican president. And yet, so much needs very badly to be done: Most urgent is the need to reinvigorate an economy still sputtering with millions of long-term unemployed. We also need to safeguard and advance financial reform, if only to ensure against another economy-crippling financial crisis. And, while climate change is not an immediate threat, the need to address it is immediate. Of course, I could go on.
I see three main explanations for the country’s shift to the right in recent decades: the radicalization of the Republican Party,* the decline in the economic and political power of organized labor, and the increasing importance of money in politics.
Republican Radicalism—I’ve already said a lot about this, so I don’t need to add much. The Republicans’ willingness to systematically abuse the Senate’s anti-majoritarian rules and to employ extortion and sabotage as routine weapons of political combat makes significant progressive legislation practically impossible. Republican radicalism also tends to shift the terms of debate on public policy issues to the right. When one of our two major parties consistently advances extreme ideological positions, it legitimates them. The range of seriously considered policy alternatives expands in one direction and contracts in the other. Thus, the center has moved right. For example, Republicans’ demands for further drastic spending cuts during a serious, prolonged economic slump make no sense; they’re driven by radical ideology. The economy needs just the opposite. Yet, the policy debate hasn’t been about whether to increase or decrease spending, but how much to decrease it.
Organized Labor–Since the New Deal, the American labor movement, for all its shortcomings, has been the most important consistent source of support for progressive policy change in the U.S. There has been nothing to replace labor as an organized representative of mid to lower income groups in our society, capable of mobilizing a grass roots whose interests lie naturally with the left. Labor’s declining political clout reflects its reduced role in the economy, as manufacturing jobs have disappeared and the harder-to-organize service sector has become predominant. Labor’s political eclipse is also a result as well as a cause of the increasing strength of the right, which has fought government protections for unions and their right to organize.
Money in Politics–The power of money is pervasive in American politics. For most members of Congress, their single most time-consuming activity–far more time-consuming than learning about policy issues, or attending committee hearings or actually legislating–is fundraising. That fact reflects the ever-increasing cost of getting and staying elected. The average Congressional campaign now costs many times what it did in the 1970s, even after adjusting for inflation. Spending hours a day fundraising means, basically, spending a lot of time with rich people. Rich people, by and large, tend to be conservative. Even the relatively enlightened rich people who give money to Democrats are usually fairly centrist in their economic policy preferences, not to mention protective of their own special interests. (There are a lot of Democrats on Wall Street, but I haven’t heard any of them calling for stiffer financial regulation.) Our politicians’ heavy dependence on moneyed interests naturally skews the political agenda to the right.
What are the prospects for change? Realistically, not very good, certainly not in the foreseeable future. The decline of organized labor is a secular trend that could perhaps be restrained by favorable legislation, but that’s not a likely prospect. Thoroughgoing campaign finance reform could also make a big difference in American politics, but that, too, has little chance of enactment.
That leaves the Republicans. The Republican Party of today is unsustainable. Not only is it ideologically out of touch with the majority of the population, but its base, disproportionately composed of elderly white people, is literally dying out. Eventually, the party must change. I don’t know just how that will happen, and “eventually“ can be quite a long time. But it will happen. It will happen most likely only after the party suffers a succession of crushing election defeats.
Accordingly, the single most effective thing that progressives can do to alter American politics for the better is to help speed up the inevitable–to do what we can to ensure that the Republicans become a hopelessly dwindling minority at all levels of government. That is not to say that we should extend uncritical support to Democrats–sometimes you really do need to say that the lesser of two evils isn’t lesser enough. But a Democratic Party that is effectively open to the left will require a Republican Party that isn’t anchored tenaciously to the far right.
* Michael Tomasky, in the current (12/5) New York Review of Books, effectively summarizes my post of 10/9: “It is still a category error to call practically anyone in the GOP a moderate, as some press reports do. You can count the truly moderate Republicans on Capitol Hill on one hand.” In my post, I counted six, which would require two hands, but I did explicitly set a low bar for defining “moderate.”
Jeffrey Herrmann November 22, 2013 at 4:50 am
If you are a dyed-in-the-wool Repugnican and you read about the demographic trends and attitudinal trends brewing in the US, you have to conclude:
“Holy Crap! Our only chance to hang on to power for a few more decades is to employ voter suppression, gerrymandering and plutocrat-funded propaganda to rig a few more national elections. Then, like Neandertals in the last Ice Age, we can retreat to a few geographic refugia — hey! Idaho, Oklahoma and North Dakota aren’t so bad! — until we go extinct.”
Any other Repugnican survival strategy (like appealing to Latinos/Hispanics to achieve an electoral majority) must rely on wish-fulfillment and fairy dust.
Your call to speed up the inevitable is unwittingly being answered in their own way by Repugnican governors like Rick Perry, who is making sure that the life expectancy of Texans will be well below the national average due to lack of health care. Which illustrates just one of the many ways in which the death-throes of the current Repugnican Party wIll cause tragic and avoidable suffering.


Why size matters - single-deck vs multi-deck Blackjack
There's no denying Blackjack's popularity and it's always been a casino favourite amongst players who are looking to get one over the dealer.
By Brian J. Stone
There's no denying Blackjack's popularity and it's always been a casino favourite amongst players who are looking to get one over the dealer. While the rules have stayed much the same since its inception, Blackjack has evolved through the use of multi-decks and side bets. If you're playing Blackjack online, you'll find lots of innovative twists on the classic game - in order to make it remain popular and appeal to the 21st century gamer. If you're playing a new variant, you'll notice the number of decks varies from one game to the next. So, let's take a look at why, when it comes to Blackjack, size really matters.
Fewer decks = more chance of Blackjack
You are more likely to land a natural Blackjack when fewer decks are in play. In a single deck, there are four aces and 16 cards with a value of 10 (the 10s of each suit, as well as Jacks, Queens and Kings) - so 20/52 cards can create a natural. With two decks, it's 40/104 and so on, with the probability decreasing with every additional deck.
If we look at it by the law of percentages, the probability of landing a natural Blackjack with a single deck of cards is 4.83%. This decreases to 4.78% with two decks, and could drop as little as 4.75% with six decks. If you're looking to land that 3:2 pay-out, the single-deck Blackjack is the one to play.
But don't play single-deck games if the pay-out for a natural is 6:5 - if that's the case, you'd be better off sticking to multi-deck games!
Fewer decks = more chance when you double down
By a similar reasoning to above, if you're dealt a 5, 6 and choose to double down, you're more likely to land that 10-value card if you're playing single-deck Blackjack, in comparison to multi-deck games. Dealers don't have the option of doubling down either, so the odds are very much in your favour.
Fewer decks = lower house edge*
*Sometimes
There was a time that single-deck Blackjack was the holy grail of all casino games, but multi-deck games were introduced to make it harder for players to count cards, or use strategy, and also increase the house edge.
Single-deck Blackjack games can have a house edge as low as 0.15%, but as soon as additional cards are thrown into the mix, this can increase. Games that utilise up to six or eight decks can have an increased house edge of 0.50% - over three times that of a single-deck game.
Although, interestingly, we mentioned the different pay-outs for a natural earlier and if you're playing a single-deck game which offers a pay-out of 6:5, as opposed to the usual 3:2, the house edge jumps from 0.15% to 1.45% - crazy, huh.
Fewer decks mean a greater chance of being dealt a natural, but adding decks can affect your odds. Unfortunately, the 6:5 pay-out is more common in single-deck games so if you're wanting better money, multi-deck Blackjack is more favourable. If you can find a single-deck game offering a pay-out of 3:2, or you're a basic strategy player, you should plump for single-deck games. At the end of the day, it's all about preference and whatever game you choose to play, you'll always have the same aim - to beat the dealer!


KISS Frontman PAUL STANLEY Talks ‘Monster’ In New Video Interview
April 16, 2012 0 Comment Kiss
Fox News‘ Fox 411 recently spoke to KISS vocalist/guitarist Paul Stanley about the band’s forthcoming studio album, “Monster”. You can see the segment below.
KISS has completed recording its new album, “Monster”, for a summer release. Songtitles set to appear on the CD include “It’s A Long Way Down”, “Back To The Stone Age”, “Shout Mercy”, “Out Of This World”, “Wall Of Sound” and “Hell Or Hallelujah”.
Speaking to VH1 Radio Network‘s Dave Basner following the March 20 press conference at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel in Hollywood, California to officially announce details of KISS‘ summer co-headlining tour with MÖTLEY CRÜE, KISS vocalist/guitarist Paul Stanley stated about the band’s new CD, “‘Monster’ is really the culmination of everything this band has been in the past and where we’re going. When we did [2009’s] ‘Sonic Boom’, it was a big task for us because we were saying, ‘How do we define who we are today without losing who we’ve been?’ So, that was a tall order for us, but once we got that under our belts, we wanted to go back in and ‘Monster’ is far, far beyond anything we’ve done in terms of ‘Sonic Boom’ and yet it’s right up there with some of the best stuff we’ve done. It’s KISS.”
In a 2011 interview with Classic Rock magazine, Stanley stated about the band’s decision to return to the studio so soon after releasing “Sonic Boom”, “I wasn’t interested in making an album unless I was in charge and no one agreed to it half-heartedly. The band’s all there, all the time, and we cut the tracks all facing each other in the same room. Chemistry and camaraderie, that’s essential. That’s what made ‘Sonic Boom’ so great, and this album is thunderously better.”
← STEVEN ADLER Talks About Bands That Have Yet to Be Inducted Into Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame
NASCAR Presents FOREIGNER’s MICK JONES With Three Platinum Singles And Gold Award →
KISS To Perform On Monday And Tuesday’s Episodes Of ‘Dancing With The Stars’
Original KISS Guitarist ACE FREHLEY Faces Foreclosure Conference On Yorktown Home
KISS To Guest On ‘Late Show With David Letterman’


An Introduction to Indian Languages
Ever wondered why some words are similar across Indian languages? Do all of our languages have the same root? Let us take a bird’s eye view of the history of language and in particular, of Indian languages, to find some answers!
Translated by: Raghunath J
Every living creature on the earth thinks of food, sleep, reproduction and self-preservation. It is only the human species that has the brain power to think beyond these instincts. Compared to a human, an elephant is larger in size, however its brain can’t think beyond a limit. But, the human brain broke off the limits, approximately 70,000 years ago in the course of evolution. This is sometimes called ‘Cognitive Revolution’. With a newly evolved brain power, humans began to settle in fixed geographical locations and began to learn about their surroundings. The knowledge thus gained, needed to be shared with fellow humans. This knowledge transfer, first took the form of ‘signals’ and therefore came to be called ‘Signal Language’. Later, it took the form of ‘words’ and came to be known as a ‘Language’. Initially, it didn’t have a script at all, it was only when the language evolved to a certain stage that linguists designed one. It is not clear as to which language is the very first one developed on this earth. This is because, humans developed many languages in the early stages after ‘Cognitive Revolution’, but many of those could not survive beyond a limited period of time. So, it is impossible to determine if a particular language is the very first one. But, we can still estimate which language among the existing ones has the longest recorded history.
The current population of the world is around 770 crores and they speak more than 5,000 languages. In our country, the population is 130 crores and the number of languages is more than 780, as per People’s Linguistic Survey of India (PLSI), carried out between 2010 and 2013. From a number of 1650 as of 1961, tens of languages have been withering away each year into non-existence. If it continues this way, after about 100 years, it would not be surprising if the number of languages-in-use drops down further to below 500. The Indian Constitution, in its 8th schedule, has recognized 22 ‘official languages’. They are 1) Assamese 2) Bengali 3) Bodo 4) Dogri 5) Gujarati 6) Hindi 7) Kannada 8) Kashmiri 9) Konkani 10) Mythili 11) Malayalam 12) Manipuri 13) Marathi 14) Nepali 15) Oriya 16) Punjabi 17) Sanskrit 18) Santhali 19) Sindhi 20) Tamil 21) Telugu and 22) Urdu.
Based on their roots, Indian languages are classified into 4 categories : 1. Indo-Aryan language family 2. Dravidian language family 3. Astro-asiatic language family 4. Tibeto-burman language family. We can learn about most of the indian languages by understanding these 4 families.
Indo-Aryan language family
First, let us look into the Indo-Aryan family. This family is part of the Indo-European language family, which is the largest in the world. In the Indo-Aryan family, the first language is Sanskrit. Rig Veda is the first piece of literature in this language. There are those who would call it the very first piece of literature in the entire world, but that is contested by many other scholars. Sanskrit in the vedic era was primarily intended at performing religious rituals and associated worship. The time period associated with this, was between 1500 and 1000 BC. Later, Vedic Sanskrit evolved into a version of itself that is separate from religion, called Classical Sanskrit, a language of poetry. This sustained from 1000 BC to 600 BC. From this version of Sanskrit, the languages Pali, Prakrit and Apabhramsha evolved during the period 600 BC to 1000 AD.
Pali : Between 563 and 483 BC. It was in this language that the Buddha taught his followers.
Prakrit : Between 600 BC and 1000 AD. It was formed from Classical Sanskrit by either losing some alphabets or changing its form. It appears in many Buddhist and Jain texts such as edicts, inscriptions and plays.
Apabhramsha : These languages were born out of Prakrit. Since these were different from the Prakrit language used in literature, they got the name Apa-bhramsha.
Modern Languages : These were born out of Apabhramsha languages. Prominent ones among these are 1. Hindi 2. Urdu 3. Bengali 4. Punjabi 5. Assamese 6. Gujarati 7. Oriya 8. Marathi 9. Kashmiri 10. Konkani 11. Nepali 12. Sindhi and others.
Hindi : Dating back to around 1000 AD, Hindi is spoken by around 65 crore people, who reside largely in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh. Dialects of Hindi are classified into two prominent categories. The western region has the dialects like Rajasthani, Vraja, Bunderi, Malavi, Bhojpuri, and Mewari. Because it is spoken by a large fraction of the population, there is a misconception that Hindi is the only National Language of India. In fact, all the 22 languages recognized by the Indian Constitution are National Languages. Belittling other languages because they are spoken by fewer number of people is a sign of narrow-minded view point.
Urdu : About 11 crore people scattered across the country speak Urdu, which originated from soldier camps, shops and baazaars after the Allauddin Khilji’s invasion of South India. In the deccan region such as in Hyderabad, it is also referred to as Dakhini.
Bengali : About 30 crore people in West Bengal and Bangladesh speak this language. It dates back to around 1000 AD.
Punjabi : About 10 crore people speak this language. It also dates back to around 1000 AD.
Gujarati : About 6.5 crore people speak this language. It dates back to around 1100 AD.
Assameese : About 2.5 crore people speak this language. It dates back to around 1200 AD.
Oriya : About 4 crore people speak this language. It dates back to around 1200 AD.
Marathi : About 8 crore people speak this language. It dates back to around 1100 AD.
Kashmiri : About 0.5 crore people speak this language. It dates back to around 900 AD.
Konkani : About 0.5 crore people who reside largely in Goa and to a smaller extent in Mangalore, Mumbai and Kerala, speak this language. This is largely spoken by the Christian community.
Nepali : About 1.7 crore people speak this language.
Sindhi : About 2 crore people across the country speak this language.
Dravidian language family
After the indo-aryan language family, the dravidian family is the next in terms of size. In this family, 23 languages have been identified. Prominent among them are 1. Tamil, 2. Telugu, 3. Kannada, 4. Malayalam.
Tamil : It is one of the oldest languages in the world. About 8 crore people residing in India, Sri Lanka, Singapore and Malaysia speak this language. It has literature dating back to the BC era.
Telugu : About 8.5 crore people who reside in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana speak this language. It dates back around 2,000 years.
Kannada : About 4.5 crore people speak this language. Its history almost equals that of Telugu.
Malayalam: About 4 crore people who reside in Kerala speak this language. It was born out of Tamil, about 1000 years ago.
There are a few similarities in the scripts of Tamil and Malayalam as well as in those of Telugu and Kannada.
Astro-asiatic language family
From the astro-asiatic language family come the languages Santhali, Mundari, Hu, Savara, Kork, Jwang, Kaasi, Nicobaris.
Tibeto-burman language family
From the tibeto-burman family, the languages Bodo, Manipuri, Lushta, Garo, Bhutima, Newari, Lepcha, Asmaka and Mikir are the prominent ones.
Post Script : Among the most spoken languages in the Indo-Aryan family, most of them have roots in Sanskrit. Because it gradually lost its prevalence in the society, the number of its speakers today is estimated at 15,000 only and is therefore close to extinction today, largely used in religious contexts.
Author AdministratorPosted on November 29, 2018 Categories English
Previous Previous post: ഏകത്വത്തിലെ ഭാഷാവൈവിധ്യ സൗന്ദര്യം
Next Next post: ಭಾರತೀಯ ಭಾಷೆಗಳ ಕುರಿತಾಗಿ ಒಂದು ಕಿರುಪರಿಚಯ


HomeNewsTrophy weekend heads to Widnes for 2019
Trophy weekend heads to Widnes for 2019
20th March 2019 Lucy Gordon News 0
The EIHA Women’s Leagues are pleased to announce that the 2019 Women’s Trophy Weekend will take place at Planet Ice Widnes on the weekend of June 1 & 2.
Trophy Weekend is the finale to the domestic season and features ten games across the weekend and no fewer than four playoff finals on the Sunday.
Although the event is moving to a new venue, the format will remain unchanged from previous seasons.
Saturday’s six-game schedule will comprise semi finals from the Women’s Elite, Premier and Division 1 competitions.
Sunday’s action will comprise the Division 1 Trophy Final, Premier Trophy Final, U16 National Final and lastly the Elite League final for the Bill Britton Trophy.
Admission to the weekend will continue to be free for spectators, so fans can see the best women’s hockey in the country and a large number of Great Britain senior and U18 internationals in action.
Women’s League manager Sally Taylor said: “We are excited to take the Trophy Weekend to Widnes and look forward to another great weekend of women’s ice hockey.
“Thanks to the management at Planet Ice Widnes for their help in making this happen and thanks to the teams in the women’s leagues for their patience while the final details were ironed out.
“We are looking forward to the remainder of the regular season and look forward to players and supporters joining us in Widnes.”
Planet Ice Widnes rink manager Vernon Neil added: “Following successive NIHL playoff weekends, we are thrilled to be able to bring another showpiece of the EIHA calendar to Widnes.
“Planet Ice Widnes looks forward to welcoming the teams and supporters to our rink and our town and we can’t wait to share the event with the hockey fans of this region.”
The full schedule for Trophy Weekend will be confirmed in due course.
EIHA Women


Home > Company > Management Team > Joe Coughlin
Joe brought more than 30 years of financial experience when he joined Ergotron in March 2019. As executive vice president and CFO, he leads Ergotron’s global finance organization and is responsible for overall financial strategy, including long-range business planning, to position our company for ongoing success.
He began his career at McGladrey and Pullen, LLC., as an auditor and rose to the position of senior manager providing team-based audit and consulting services. Joe also served as chief financial officer of Bermo Inc., an area manufacturer of enclosures and other engineering products. His notable achievements at Bermo included facilitating the startup of a Mexican manufacturing facility, serving as interim president, and spearheading several meaningful process improvements.
Most recently, Joe served as executive vice president and chief financial officer at Twin City Fan Companies, Ltd., an international fan manufacturer, from 2007 to 2018. He was instrumental in several process improvements and investments, including overseeing a strategic international acquisition for the business.
Joe and his wife, Shannon, and their youngest daughter live in Maple Grove, Minnesota. They also have an adult son and another daughter in college. Joe enjoys spending time with his family at the family’s lake home. Closer to home, he can be found cross-country skiing, biking and golfing.


How to do Research for Your Novel
Kerstin said: Hi, I recently stumbled over your blog when I was researching dieselpunk for our online rpg and not only did it answer my question, it also revived my buried passion for writing. Well done!
But that also revived the old problem I always had when I sat down to put pen to paper:
How do you do research for your story?
I don't mean mere facts - we all know how to google. I'm talking of the little details in the setting and interactions of the characters that make the world you create "real."
. . . Say I want to write a sci-fi story that plays on a space station. The closest real world example could be an oil-platform, but to the average writer it's as exotic and unapproachable as the space-station itself. If you want to write something in a milieu that has nothing to do with your own life, how do you research that, especially when you're not an established author that can ask for interviews or an "externship"?
Glad my blog was helpful and revived your writing passion! Yay!
Finding Exactly What You Need
Yes, a problem that many writers face. While Google might not pull up all the real details we are looking for (the kind that you can only know if you've experienced it), the internet can help lead you to people who do have the experience. One site I like, Jobstr (not to be confused with Jobster), centers on people being able to ask others questions about their jobs. They have private detectives on their site, police officers, referees, forensic scientists, magicians, gynecologists, flirting/relationship coaches and the list goes on. Sometimes doing research can be as easy as going on this site and asking them questions.
For places and methods on how to do things, Youtube can sometimes be a great source. People make videos on almost everything. Actually, I'm surprised about the kinds of things people do make videos of. The other day I was trying to figure out how to use a carpet shampooer that's decades old. I Googled it, and while I found the owner's manual, I went to a Youtube video instead. It was easy, simpler, and I was able to get personal insight from a person instead of text that sounded like it was written by a soulless robot. I have a character who has a hobby of breaking into places and things. I've learned quite a bit about bump keys and how to make and use them off Youtube. Of course, you have to be careful, just because it's on the internet and has a lot of views doesn't mean it's the most accurate or best way to do it.
For places, you can sometimes find vlogs. With these sorts of details, I feel like you are looking for the personal tidbits and insights--not the type of stuff you'd find in an encyclopedia. So personal videos, like vlogs, or even personal blogs, can be sources to get details like that. If you can't find exactly what you are looking for, you might be able to find someone who would know, and with social media and the internet, hopefully you can connect with them. You might not have a family who has served in the military, but chances are, you can find a family who has.
New York Times bestselling author, Brandon Sanderson, has an expert on poisons, remedies, and medicines (or things of the sort) that he regularly contacts when he needs help with them in his high-fantasy books. It's true, he's a very established writer, but you might be surprised who is willing to answer your questions about a topic they love or have spent years studying. (Sometimes the trick is to get them to stop answering.) With that said, it's also true that some experts, if you are looking for a very specific one, are unreachable. Then you have to settle for the next best person.
When You Can't Find the Exact Thing You Need
But maybe the details you are looking for are even more evasive. Maybe it is a place that next to no one can go, or a job that people aren't allowed to talk about. My recommendation is to try to find the closest thing you can. And don't forget, your job as a writer is often to make things up. Often that means just making them realistic enough. "God is in the details," they say. So try to imagine the firsthand details. Appeal to the senses--sight, smell, touch, taste, sound--that's often a great way to ground the reader and make whatever is happening in the story feel real.
Little Side Note: Sometimes you don't need to make anything up if you can get the personal details you are looking for. One writer said he was trying to figure out how to get the dialogue right for some characters (let's say they were truck drivers--I can't remember what it was), so he went to a truck stop and just eavesdropped on truckers for a while. Instead of trying to write new dialogue like them, he just used their actual dialogue. The result? Readers raved about how realistic the dialogue was. The author laughed because he basically wrote it word for word from real truck drivers.
When You Can't Find What You Need
If you really can't find what you are looking for, try looking for other novels that write about the same thing and see how they did it, how they handled it. You can learn from their examples. No one has personal experience with cryosleep. And yet the term is common knowledge and universal in the science fiction world, and writers still make it seem very real. We've never terraformed a planet, but dang, there are some convincing "firsthand" experiences from fictional characters. One trick to making these things realistic is to use comparisons--similes and metaphors--that the reader can relate to. "The walker moved in a swaying motion. It was more like riding an elephant than a tank." Comparisons can go a long way to making something feel very real in writing. Sometimes, you might have to resort to bluffing or BSing your way through it (which is actually acceptable if you don't have other options and you aren't just doing it because you are being lazy and you do it well). Again, remember to appeal to the senses. Your job is to make things up. It just needs to be realistic enough.
Reversing the Process: Pulling from Your Experiences, First
While you brought up writing in milieus that have nothing to do with your own life, you can make even those milieus seem more realistic by pulling from your own experiences. One thing I love about The Hunger Games is how Suzanne Collins (who has obviously never lived in a place like Panem or been through the Hunger Games herself) clearly pulled from her own experiences to make her world. Her dad often talked to her about war and war tactics. Her mom was into fashion and taught her about the fashion world. Suzanne Collins worked in the t.v. industry before she ever penned novels. She pulled all those odds and ends into the milieu--she worked what she did know into that milieu, and it made it very real.
Okay, I've been pulling a lot from science fiction, but this can apply to other genres too. What if your setting is in a different century in Asia? If you've studied martial arts, chances are you can pull firsthand experiences and knowledge you have about martial arts into your story, to give your story that touch of insider's knowledge. So you can think about what you do know and what you have experienced and try working it into the story. That's a different angle to come at the story, but it's an option.
Be as Accurate as Possible, but Don't let Inaccuracies Stop You
One thing that I want to point out though is that I believe it's better to write a story that has some "insider" errors than it is to not write a story at all. I've seen movies where the character is playing the guitar and their fingers don't match the music--or at least that's what my brother tells me. It bugs him because he's a guitarist. But that little error doesn't stop me from enjoying a good story. Sure, the filmmakers should have just had a stand-in guitarist, or cut the scenes in a way that it wasn't noticeable; they could have fixed it. (And frankly, sometimes you need to just "cut the scenes" differently to get away with it even in fiction writing.) But I still left the movie feeling good inside.
One of my favorite bands, Muse, has a song that has some sciencey lyrics in it, and someone (my brother again--guess he notices these things) pointed out to me that the science was wrong. We laughed for a second, but moved on. Muse is still one of our favorite bands, and we both still listen to that song. Basically, what I'm saying is, we should all do the best we can, but even then, there are going to be things from time to time that we get wrong. Don't let it stop you from telling a great story. Chances are that the worth of the story and what it does for you and others outweighs any little "insider" errors.
So those are my thoughts on the topic. I hope they help or at least give some direction. But I'll be honest, most of the settings I've dealt with haven't been too extravagant, so I actually asked some other writers who have more experience than me on it so they could give us their advice:
I would look for personal narratives or memoirs from people in those fields. My debut is set in 19th C. Hungary, and one of the best resources was 19th century travel narratives, published by British travelers through Europe. - Rosalyn Collings Eves, (The Blood Rose Rebellion)
Read other books that do it well. Don't knock google either. You can find snippets of blogs, journals, and more of people who have been where you want to write from. Talk to people who live in a similar world. Imagine yourself in the environment and how you would interact. Watch documentaries and films that are acclaimed for getting things close to reality. - Charlie Pulsipher,(Zombies at the Door, Crystal Bridge)
I've found websites for enthusiasts of things, like 18th century warships, and have emailed or even facebooked them with technical questions. I think people actually love being able to share their expertise with outsiders! And then, there are always small things you can do to give you a feel for bigger things. For instance, I went deep sea salmon fishing to help get a feel for what it's like to be on a small ship in the ocean, and did a weekend of SCUBA because I have some underwater scenes. YouTube is also an awesome resource where you can get lots of opinions and viewpoints on all sorts of things, and often raw footage with the sights and sounds as well. - Christine Tyler
Two suggestions I use come to mind: street view in Google Maps and travel podcasts.
Street view allows me to visit cities I can't afford to travel to. I've wandered Dublin, Ireland and Ronda, Spain, each time getting a flavor for the locations and people on the streets.
Tourism podcasts are helpful too. Not only for information, but speech patterns. Sometimes you can even find local interest podcasts on politics or cultural heritage. Tourism websites can even mail you brochures and maps for your areas of interest. - Tony Dutson
In writing the Setting Thesaurus books, Becca and I tried to visit each location we profiled to make sure we got the smells and sounds right, along with the terminology, but there were some we couldn't access for one reason or another (a funeral home--asking for a tour of their embalming facilities and crematorium? um...no. A Psychiatric ward? They aren't big on letting people see inside those. A submarine and tank just wasn't doable for either of us (but I did check out a military helicopter).
In these cases, we found you tube videos to be very helpful. There are walkthroughs and tutorials on just about anything. (I have the unfortunate life skill now to actually process a roadkill squirrel after watching a few videos on taxidermy for that setting, LOL.) For some settings, we then also sourced experts. For my ambulance entry, I had a paramedic go over my content for the book because I wanted to make sure I'd gotten the terminology right and I was able to ask about if there are smells or tastes associated with the oxygen mask, a detail I can't get from a video. For the police car entry, I was pranked by relatives who knew I needed the details and falsely arrested so I could get the "real experience." Anyway, the point is, think creatively about locations that might be like your sci-fi locations (jobs that are similar, people who would have similar "real life" roles as those on your spaceship or space station, things like that) and then find people who do these jobs/have these roles, or search them on google. You can also find experts through twitter too. - Angela Ackerman, (The Emotion Thesaurus)
And there you have it. Good luck!
6:25 AMSeptember C. Fawkesask September, How to Research, Research, The Hunger Games, Writing TipsNo comments


The Birth of Washington, D.C.: 10 Things You Didn’t Know About the Nation’s Capital
President George Washington signed the Residence Act 230 years ago this week on July 16, 1790. The Act provided for the establishment of both a temporary and permanent seat of government for the young United States. The temporary seat moved from New York to Philadelphia, but the new and permanent seat would be built by the Potomac River. The site became Washington, D.C., and as famous as it is, there are still facts that many Americans may not realize about how it came together, and what it might yet be. Here are ten things you didn’t know about the nation’s capital.
1. It’s in the Constitution
Article I of the U.S. Constitution (Archives.gov; Public Domain)
Article I of the United States Constitution immediately concerns itself with the establishment of the legislative branch and the creation of the House and Senate. In Section 8 of Article I, the powers of Congress receive some fleshing out (like the laying and collection of taxes, war declaration powers, post office creation, etc.). Clause 17 of that section also gives Congress the ability to create a federal district for the nation’s capital with the phrase “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States.”
2. Maryland and Virginia Donated the Land
Map of Washington, D.C. from 1893 (loc.gov; Public Domain)
The language in the Clause that indicates “by Cession of particular states” meant that pre-existing states would donate the land for the new federal district. Maryland and Virginia donated the land that comprised the 10×10 mile square, which was also stated in the Constitution.
3. The Residence Act of 1790 Made It Official
Signed 230 years ago this week by President George Washington, the Act fixed the future seat of government at the Potomac site. A deadline of December 1800 was established for the new capital to be in use. The Residence Act also gave Washington the authority to appoint commissioners to run the project.
4. Why It’s the District of Columbia
Surveying and construction was soon underway. The appointed commissioners chose a name for the new federal city and district on September 9, 1791. The city itself was named after the first president (who had, after all, signed the Residence Act into law). The federal district was named the District of Columbia for reasons that run from obscure to uncomfortable now. For quite some time, “Columbia” was a nickname for America as a feminine form of Columbus (which is, of course, a controversial topicThe song “Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean” was even a contender for the official National Anthem. So, the city is called Washington, D.C. with the city and district in the same way that you would identify a city in a state as, for example, Indianapolis, Indiana.
5. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 Covered the Details
The Alexandria, Virginia skyline (Shutterstock)
Congress finalized the fine points with the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801. An organic act determines the necessary pieces of how a territory is defined, including what body has authority over it. Being a federal district, Washington, D.C. is overseen by Congress. The Act also created two counties within the district, Alexandria County (south and west) and Washington County (north and east), each with a court. As the district encompassed the pre-existing cities of Alexandria and Georgetown, they hewed to their already established local laws. However, as the district, including those cities, fell under federal control, Congressional representation was removed since the cities were no longer part of the states that they were originally in. The fact that D.C. residents pay taxes without representation has long been a bone of contention and is one of the primary drivers behind the “D.C. Statehood” movement.
6. John Adams Was the First President to Live There
John Adams was the second president, serving from 1797 to 1801, but he was the first to live in the White House in Washington, D.C. Adams and his wife, Abigail, moved into the House in 1800 before it was even completed. In the widely acclaimed HBO mini-series John Adams, which won 13 Emmys and four Golden Globes, the arrival of John and Abigail at the White House was dramatized. The scene makes a point of the irony that enslaved people built the “free” nation’s capital; while John and Abigail Adams were not slave owners themselves, they occasionally paid slaves owned by other district residents to do work at the property. The scene is reportedly accurate in its depiction of the conditions around the White House; while the building proper was finished, the surrounding area was largely muddy and uncleared upon their moving in.
7. The War of 1812 Wrecked the Place
The War of 1812 ran from June of that year until 1815, pitting the young United States against Great Britain. In 1814 on August 24, British troops made it to Washington and set about burning the city. The Capitol building suffered tremendous damage, including the loss of the then-current 3,000 volumes of the Library of Congress. The White House burned, as did the U.S Treasury, the Department of War, and other buildings. Fortunately for what was left, an enormous storm broke loose over the city and the pounding rain put out many of the fires. The storm touched off at least one tornado in the city, and the British withdrew to their ships, which were taking damage from the storm. All told, the British occupation of D.C. lasted just over a day, but much of the city, particularly the government buildings, would have to be completely rebuilt in the aftermath.
8. D.C. Had Famously Bad Water
A Killer in the White House. (Uploaded to YouTube by The Saturday Evening Post)
As documented in a Post story from 2019, early D.C. had no sewer system. The White House itself would have no running water for years; water was still being carried in by buckets before the fire in 1814. The Jefferson administration had looked into pumping in water as early as 1807, but no running water came until 1833. Unfortunately, there would be several problems with that over time, as the video above documents.
9. The Smithsonian Institution Started with a British Donor
Smithsonian Castle in Washington, D.C. (Shutterstock)
Washington, D.C. is also home to The Smithsonian Institution, which was founded in 1846 and continues to be administered by the U.S. government. The name comes from James Smithson, a British scientist who made the original donation for a national museum. The Smithsonian as a whole includes 19 museums and galleries, most of which have enormous digital collections and videos that you can see at their sites online.
10. They’re Still Building Monuments
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial (Shutterstock)
One could be forgiven for thinking that monument-building in D.C. has come to an end, but the city continues to add monuments and memorials to important people and events. The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial is still scheduled to open in September of 2020. Among the projects currently in the works is a National World I War Memorial that will be located in Pershing Park and memorials to Gulf War/Desert Shield/Desert Storm veterans, Native American veterans, and both free and enslaved Black Americans that served in the Revolutionary War. The Korean War Veterans Memorial is also slated for a “wall of names” like the one already featured at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
Buddies for life: President and CEO of Miami Lighthouse, Virginia Jacko, with her guide dog Tracker. Photo by Scherley Busch.
Virginia Jacko was going blind. She knew it, but not everyone else did. Since the mid-1990s, her vision had been steadily deteriorating. Though capable of seeing people and objects in front of her, she might not recognize a person standing at her side. Finally, in 1998, then in her 50s, Virginia was diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa, an irreversible disease affecting about 1 in 4,000 people in the United States. The disease attacks the cells controlling night vision and peripheral vision first. But in advanced cases, such as Virginia’s, it robs central vision, eventually leading to blindness.
So it was with trepidation that Virginia arrived at the office of the incoming president of Purdue University for an initial meeting with her new boss. She wanted to assure the president that she could still fulfill her responsibilities as the financial advisor to the president and provost.
For years now, she’d found ways to adapt her personal and professional life to an increasingly narrow visual world. She scouted out meeting sites ahead of time. She’d stopped driving, relying on taxicabs if she needed to get somewhere quickly. She prepared for meetings at night, her face close to the monitor so she could read words on the screen and memorize data on Excel spreadsheets. “I never got depressed or felt sorry for myself,” says Virginia. “Negative energy is just a waste of time.”
But that fateful morning in late 2000, as she reached the office of the president’s assistant, her heart sunk. The president had ordered new furniture that completely changed the layout of the room. Virginia realized she would not be able to navigate the space without help. So, thinking fast, she pretended to be running late for the meeting and waited for the president to step away from his office. When he did, she slipped in, guided by the assistant, and sat down on the couch. When he returned, she merely had to stand up to greet him.
The plan was a success, but the experience was a loud wake-up call that Virginia couldn’t ignore. She needed to learn to live as a blind person if she was going to succeed in a sighted person’s world. Her vision was getting to be too much of a problem to conceal. After the meeting, she called her husband Bob, a professor of civil engineering at the same university. She told him she needed to take a three-month medical leave. She would study at a vision rehabilitation facility.
One of her three children, Julie, urged her to check out the Miami Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired. Virginia and Bob owned a condominium in Miami, so she would have a place to stay. Once there, Virginia immersed herself in the world of the blind, honing skills she once took for granted, such as baking oatmeal cookies and sewing buttons on clothes. She soaked up everything she could learn about computer programs for the blind, including programs that convert text to speech. After the three-month program, Virginia felt a renewed sense of confidence. “I learned that a blind person can do anything a sighted person does. They just have to learn to do things differently,” she says.
At the end of her medical leave, Virginia was at a crossroads. She could return to her job at Purdue and continue to advise the president and provost on financial affairs. Or she could continue her efforts to regain her mobility by enrolling in a one-month, 24/7 intensive training program with a guide dog. She chose the latter.
By then, not only was Virginia completely blind but for the first time in her life, she was stepping into the future without a clear career path. Yet she was at peace with her decision. “I had changed. Walking out the doors of Miami Lighthouse as a graduate of the program, I realized that my passion was helping the blind,” she says.
Virginia’s husband Bob spent three months with her in Miami while she completed the program but, as a tenured professor, he had to return to Purdue for the new school year. Virginia would stay in Miami with her new guide dog Tracker, immersing herself in work at the Miami Lighthouse. She began as a volunteer, but such was her financial experience—and drive—that she soon became treasurer and a member of the board.
Not everything went smoothly for Virginia as she adapted to her new life. Once, while out on a stroll along a coastal walkway, Tracker stepped aside to avoid colliding with a woman pushing a stroller. The sudden move knocked Virginia off the breaker wall and she plummeted into the sea. Virginia calmly treaded water until someone lowered a ladder, allowing her to climb back up to solid ground.
Another time, she attempted to sit down for lunch at a restaurant in a major department store, only to be told she couldn’t bring Tracker into the restaurant. Not one to be easily thwarted, she stood her ground and seated herself with her guide dog at a table. That day, she called the company’s headquarters and advised that the incident would result in a public relations fiasco unless changes were made. In no time, the chain changed its policy, and it now provides Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance training for all employees.
In early 2005, the president and CEO of Miami Lighthouse left unexpectedly for personal reasons. The chairman asked Virginia to serve as president and CEO on an interim basis until a permanent replacement could be found. Following a nationwide search, the board selected Virginia, making her the first blind president and CEO in Miami Lighthouse’s 81-year history.
Virginia wasted no time in growing the organization by offering innovative programming as she deepened relationships within the philanthropic community. “When I took over in 2005, we had one grant and today we have more than 30 active grant awards,” she says.
Thanks to her outreach efforts, revenue has nearly tripled, allowing the organization to vastly increase the scope of its services. Today, Miami Lighthouse teaches rehabilitation skills to people of all ages—from blind babies to seniors with low vision—allowing them greater mobility and self-reliance. Miami Lighthouse has become a center of excellence in vision rehabilitation because of its innovative programs, such as sound engineering and mobile eye care for low-income schoolchildren. All told, under Virginia’s leadership, the organization has increased the number of people it serves fourteen-fold to about 10,000 annually.
All of this on a budget that Virginia watches like a hawk. For five consecutive years, Miami Lighthouse has received the highest rating from Charity Navigator, America’s largest independent charity evaluator of financial health and accountability.
Virginia’s disability has never slowed her down. “Virginia is such a determined person. Having a deep faith; supportive family; and positive, can-do attitude are at the core of her success,” says Doug Eadie, co-author of Virginia’s autobiography, The Blind Visionary.
“I am so blessed,” Virginia says today. Her blindness, she feels, was a gift that allowed her to find a new mission and purpose in life. “We transform people’s lives at Miami Lighthouse every day. I lost my vision, and I found my passion.”


Federal Funding Announced to Support Indigenous Businesses
On April 18, 2020, the Federal Government announced $306.8 million dollars to be provided in order to support small and medium-sized Indigenous businesses that have been affected by COVID-19.
The financial support will be made by way of short-term interest free loans and non-repayable contributions. Funding will be provided by existing Aboriginal Funding Institutions, a list of which can be found here, and administered by the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association (“NACCA”) and Métis Capital Corporations.
Information regarding eligibility criteria is limited; however, the following details have been released:
Loans will be provided to those businesses that pass a business viability assessment; and
Non-repayable contributions will be assessed on a case-by-case basis and given to those qualifying businesses that have been hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic.
It should also be noted that those businesses that access this stimulus package will not be able to also access the Business Credit Availability Program (“BCAP”). The determination of which stimulus package to access should be made on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration your business’s unique needs.
Clark Wilson’s Indigenous Law Group has experience supporting Indigenous entrepreneurs with joint ventures, business structuring, tax planning, and other corporate and personal matters. To help support Indigenous entrepreneurship during COVID-19, we have published a list of resources available to Indigenous communities, businesses and individuals. We will continue to update this list as additional sources of relief are made available.
Sam Shury
Saul Joseph
Reopening Businesses in BC: Key Points to Consider as Commercial Space Reopens
On May 6, 2020, Premier John Horgan announced B.C.’s plans for lifting restrictions on social distancing, with a goal of reopening certain economic sectors, while ... Continued
Re-Opening Strata Corporation Amenities: Guidelines and Considerations
Many strata corporations have started to re-open their recreational amenities now that we are in Phase 3 of the BC government Restart Plan. While it ... Continued
Articles July 8, 2020
COVID-19: Federal Government Announces Further Details on Wage Subsidy Program
Note: On July 13, 2020, the federal government announced an extension of the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy Program until December, 2020. You can find our ... Continued


Seattle Storm executive Karen Bryant announces resignation, effective at the end of the 2014 season
Seattle Storm president and CEO Karen Bryant announced that 2014 will be her last season with the team, marking 15 years with the franchise.
“I feel that now is the right time to step away from the Storm,” said Bryant in a statement. “I am so proud of all that we have accomplished the past 14 seasons. Right now, I am focused and excited about the upcoming celebration of the Storm’s 15th anniversary season.”
She will remain in her current role through much of the 2014 season while Force 10 Hoops conducts a search for a replacement.
Bryant helped make Seattle one of the most successful teams in the league with a large, loyal fan base and profitability. She joined the team in 1999 overseeing two championships, drafting marquee players Lauren Jackson and Sue Bird while surviving three ownership changes.
Seattle ownership group, Force 10 Hoops co-owner, Lisa Brummel
“Karen has been an integral part of the Seattle Storm since the beginning and we have had the great pleasure of learning from her over the past six years. We look forward to continuing our partnership as we start the 15th season of Storm basketball in Seattle and will support her in all that she wants to do as she moves on with her life pursuits.”
Storm head coach and general manager Brian Agler
“Karen has had the greatest impact on the success of the Seattle Storm over the 14 seasons of its existence,” said Storm head coach and general manager Brian Agler. “With this being Karen’s last season, we want to continue to make her proud of how this team plays on the court. I have total confidence that our ownership group will conduct a national search and put time into finding the right person and formula to take the Seattle Storm into a very successful future!”
Tags: Karen Bryant
Sign up for Hoopfeed's Weekly Newsletter