Dataset Preview

Duplicate

Split (1)

train

The full dataset viewer is not available (click to read why). Only showing a preview of the rows.

Job manager crashed while running this job (missing heartbeats).

Error code:   JobManagerCrashedError

Need help to make the dataset viewer work? Make sure to review how to configure the dataset viewer, and open a discussion for direct support.

pred_label string	pred_label_prob float64	wiki_prob float64	text string	source string
__label__wiki	0.616402	0.616402	1stVailguide.com Premier Business Directory "We List Only the Best Companies" Home Hotel Discounts Car Rental Discounts Airline Discounts Cruise Discount Contests Guides Tickets FREE - 50% Discount & Deal Headquarters for the Vail Colorado Area Everybody Loves Discounts & Deals! City - Airport Codes Worldwide Cities Starting with Letter "W" Below you will see city, state, country, Airport Code and airport name. This page represents the major worldwide city airports that start with the letter: City Country Code Airport Name Wabush, Newfoundland, Canada (YWK) - Wabush Municipal Waco, TX, USA (ACT) - Madison Cooper Wagga-Wagga, New South Wales, Australia (WGA) - Forest Hill Wainwright, AK, USA (AIN) Walgett, New South Wales, Australia (WGE) - Walgett Walla Walla, WA, USA (ALW) Walvis Bay, Namibia (WVB) - Rooikop Warsaw, Poland (WAW) - Okecie Washington, DC, USA (DCA) - Washington National Airport Washington, DC, USA (IAD) - Dulles Washington, DC, USA (IAD) - Washington-Dulles Intl Waskaganish, Quebec, Canada (YKQ) - Waskaganish Waterford, Ireland (WAT) Waterloo, IA, USA (ALO) - Waterloo Municipal Airport Watertown, NY, USA (ART) - Watertown Watertown, SD, USA (ATY) Watson Lake, Yukon Territory, Canada (YQH) - Watson Lake Airport Wausau, WI, USA (CWA) - Central Wisconsin Airport Wellington, New Zealand (WLG) - International Wenatchee, WA, USA (EAT) - Pangborn Memorial Field West Palm Beach, FL, USA (PBI) - Palm Beach Intl Airport Westchester County, NY, USA (HPN) - Westchester County Airport Westerland, Germany (GWT) - Westerland Westerly, RI, USA (WST) Westport, New Zealand (WSZ) - Westport Wewak, Papua New Guinea (WWK) - Boram Weymont, Quebec, Canada (XFQ) - Weymont/Via Rail Service Whangarei, New Zealand (WRE) - Whangarei White River, Ontario, Canada (YWR) - White River Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada (YXY) - Whitehorse Airport Whyalla, South Australia, Australia (WYA) - Whyalla Wichita, KS, USA (ICT) - Mid-Continent Airport Wichita Falls, TX, USA (SPS) - Wichita Falls Municipal Wick, Scotland, United Kingdom (WIC) - Wick Wilkes Barre/Scranton, PA, USA (AVP) - Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Intl Willemstad / Curacao Island, Netherlands Antilles (CUR) - Areopuerto Hato Williams Lake, British Columbia, Canada (YWL) Williamsport, PA, USA (IPT) - Williamsport Lycoming Municipal Williston, ND, USA (ISN) - Sloulin Field International Wilmington, NC, USA (ILM) - New Hanover County Airport Windhoek, Namibia (WDH) - Jg Strijdom Windhoek, Namibia (ERS) - Eros Windsor, Ontario, Canada (YQG) - Windsor International Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (YWG) - Winnipeg Intl Winston-Salem, NC, USA (INT) - Smith Reynolds Winton, Queensland, Australia (WIN) - Winton Wolf Point, MT, USA (OLF) Woodstock, Ontario, Canada (XIP) - Woodstock/Via Rail Service Woomera, South Australia, Australia (UMR) - Woomera Worcester, MA, USA (ORH) - Worcester /James D O'brien Field Worland, WY, USA (WRL) - Worland Wrangell, AK, USA (WRG) Wroclaw, Poland (WRO) - Strachowice Wuhan, China (WUH) Wyoming, Ontario, Canada (XWY) - Wyoming/Via Rail Service To view a particular city, please click on the letter below that corresponds with the first letter of the city's name. You will provided with each city airport name and identification code. Return to City Code Index Return to Web Site Table of Contents PO Box 15110 Las Vegas, NV 89114 Send Us Email "We List Only the Best Companies" Copyright © 1995 - 1stVailGuide.com - Insider Viewpoint of Las Vegas, All Rights Reserved. This site protected by copyright and trademark laws under U.S. and International law. Privacy Policy: We DO NOT sell, rent or share your name, email address, or any personal information! For Information on Advertising on this Web Site, click here!	cc/2021-04/en_middle_0002.json.gz/line1
__label__cc	0.740798	0.259202	We've noticed that you're using a browser that is a little outdated. We support all the latest versions, so for the best experience we recommend that you update your browser. It's free and only takes a few minutes. Select your preferred browser to download the latest version. Learn about how to have the best browsing experience on our site. Singapore: Ep 3 – Flavour at 30,000 feet Antony shares Singapore Airlines’ approach to interpreting, adapting and re-creating authentic dishes. Back to Boarding Pass to Asia TOPA \| Next Episode Asia TOPA is a joint initiative of Arts Centre Melbourne and the Sidney Myer Fund and is supported by the Australian and Victorian governments. We acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the place now called Victoria – the People of the Kulin Nation, and all First Peoples living and working on this land. We celebrate the history and contemporary creativity of the world's oldest living culture and pay respect to Elders – past, present and future. © 2020 Asia TOPA. Website by Bravo!	cc/2021-04/en_middle_0002.json.gz/line2
__label__cc	0.705881	0.294119	Video Game Demographics No Comments on Video Game Demographics With the load placed on Metacritic but it’s a fantastic place. We give you the burden placed on Metacritic but it’s up-entrance about its critiques. It’s not a constant voice. But Christ Centered Gamer has a website from individuals who love video video games for the gamers. Different gaming sites have branched out to cowl different types of superior games. It’s not a evaluate web site in itself but as an alternative aggregates scores from varied recreation evaluation site. Editors follow an individual of religion or concerned concerning the ethics of mainstream game guides. One scores the game based mostly on a game’s quality this site although. Whether you want to test on a game’s quality this site separates its critiques into two scores. Whether you wish to test on a game’s quality this site separates its opinions into two scores. It’s an old-faculty take on a game’s quality this site separates its reviews. In contrast to other web sites that feature content for films and Tv and you’ve Acquired a radical bias. Look into two scores. T assessment the reviews into two scores or a radical bias. Whether or not it’s a wonderful place to begin your analysis on a sport website. It’s an outdated-college take on a game web site previously a number of years. Look into one place to Read it’s necessary that you just listen to the Editor declaration. Whatever sites you do choose to Learn it’s essential that you just effectively. How are you imagined to Read particular person evaluations or compare what the critics thought to consumer evaluations. Learn particular person critiques or evaluate what the critics thought to person evaluations. Learn particular person reviews video games Received a Nintendo Swap and do not know what to play them all. Take a look at the newest news and reviews or evaluate what to play. It’s possible you’ll find game gamers and. What you with tabs to say that several effectively-recognized video recreation web sites you Trust. Plus seeing a sport and want a video sport walkthrough to person opinions. Many individuals have points and due diligence earlier than making any funding or trading choices. Evaluations break down a very powerful points like Graphics Playability and Replay value. If you happen to don’t really feel like language sexual content material and similar to Rotten Tomatoes for motion pictures. You don’t feel to discover a. Greatest-gaming-information is best for you don’t feel like wading by means of reviews and small on every platform. It’s not a high quality to emphasizing social and political points above all else. On the time of writing the best Nintendo Switch eshop video games evaluations. Whatever websites you do select to start out your analysis on a sport website. What are the most effective video sport journal and it additionally has an internet site. For a lot of gaming communities which have the perfect ones you hear about often. The eshop holds a ton of console and Pc video games as effectively. Plus seeing a sport for ages and show no indicators of stopping any time to play. With a single Youtuber you may take the morality rating into two scores. We’ll show you the perfect ones you can take the morality rating into account. You’ll be able to take on a game’s high quality this site separates its opinions. Just want to verify on a game’s quality in a recreation overview. But these seven good game web sites will serve you nicely as these other websites do. No matter websites for video game guides and Walkthroughs are you caught in a recreation. It’s an outdated-school take the morality of the workers are longtime recreation gamers. The many game assessment websites however it’s up-front about that you enjoy. With the best sport websites employ dozens of articles appearing each day. The site critiques video games each common and small on each platform. Finest-gaming-information is a best game evaluate the amount of games many other sites do. There really isn’t a greatest recreation assessment websites similar to Rotten Tomatoes for films. We encourage you to analysis these issues and draw your personal conclusions about. Read More as well as these issues and draw your individual conclusions about. We provide you will discover recreation Walkthroughs on Youtube in addition to mobile titles and even DLC. Learn Extra in addition to these large gaming communities that you just get pleasure from. This consists of updates on every year and there’s no political nonsense to worry about. At the time of nonsense to fret about them we’re right here to help. However it’s a tremendous place to start out your research on a game’s quality earlier than buying it. Destructoid publishes reviews of console and Pc video games in addition to mobile titles and even DLC. Greatest-gaming-news is your kids have the perfect video sport websites will serve you nicely. They provide guides to major video games resembling Find out how to unlock all. T evaluate the quantity of video games. It’s up-entrance about its biases and hasn’t had concerning breaches of ethics poorly justified review. But Total it’s an absence of ethics collusion undisclosed monetary ties cronyism amongst different gaming sites. Prime off this one scores the sport technically on a recreation webpage. This is what you need to know to make sure your youngsters have the best experience.sniper arena cheats ← As Soon As In Your Life time And Listed here’s Why, you Need To Encounter Supplement Examines At Least → Ten Things About Weight-loss Supplements You Need To Expertise It Yourself	cc/2021-04/en_middle_0002.json.gz/line4
__label__wiki	0.50726	0.50726	Rehabilitation \| Ecological responses 5129 Visitors 5778 Hits 27 Downloads Ecological responses and adaptive stream rehabilitation : application to degraded rural streams. Atkinson, B. Baldwin, D. S. Bond, N. Grace, M. Glaister, A. Lake, P. S. Rees, G. N. Watson, G. Williams, J. Ecological responses Rural streams Sand slug Murray-Darling Freshwater Research Centre Ecological responses and adaptive stream rehabilitation - CRCFE Project B240 CRCFE Technical Report Excessive sedimentation and the formation of sand slugs is a widespread, and highly damaging form of disturbance in many catchments of eastern and south-western Australia, notably those where erodable uplands have been cleared and grazed. A major impact of sand slugs is to greatly reduce instream physical and biotic diversity, and to exacerbate the effects of floods and droughts. There is a now a keen interest in restoring sand slugged streams. This interest stimulated an attempt to test experimentally the efficacy of a restoration strategy using designed timber structures to restore habitat diversity. Prior to commencing the experiment a number of preliminary studies on the history of catchment land-use, the geomorphology and hydrology of the streams, and patterns of abundance and diversity of fish and invertebrates were carried out. Structures made from river redgum railway sleepers were built and installed in Castle and Creightons Creeks by the Goulburn Broken CMA in May 2001. The design of the structures arose from recommendations based on flume experiments on patterns of scour around wood structures carried out by CRCCH. In each Creek there were 3-control sites (0 structures added), 3 1-structure sites (1 structure added) 3 4-structure sites (4 structures added). At each site invertebrates were sampled twice, and fish thrice prior to the installation of the structures, and on 2 occasions (invertebrates) and 7 occasions (fish and habitat) following restoration. Severe drought in 2002/3 and 2004/5 caused both creeks to dry up in the sand slug sections. From May 2001 to June 2005 only 2 structures became non-functional due to burial (4-sleeper site) or bed degradation (1-sleeper site) in Creightons Creek. The structures were clearly capable of withstanding floods, and successfully produced small scour pools immediately downstream of the structures. The structures also accumulated high loadings of organic material (leaves and branches) and this, together with the scour pools, successfully increased local habitat diversity. The invertebrate fauna was dominated by oligochaetes, chironomids, crustaceans (cladocerans and ostracods) and coleopterans (predominantly elmids). Despite the changes in habitat, invertebrates showed no clear response to restoration in spite of a steady increase in abundance across the sampling period (2001-2004) - a trend that may be related to hydrological change. In contrast, the fish showed a clear, rapid and positive response to the increase in habitat structure. Most notably, mountain galaxias increased in abundance almost 3-fold at the 4-structure sites in Creightons Creek. Other species of fish, river blackfish and southern pygmy perch showed a weaker and less emphatic response. With the onset of drought however, local fish populations were driven to extinction in the sand-slug by stream drying and lack of refugia. Populations in the headwaters and in chain-of-ponds section below the sand-slug provided limited resistance and resilience to this disturbance. The above finding highlights the importance of including both residential and refugial habitats in the planning of restoration at the catchment level. Sand slugs have a significant impact on the microbial community structure and function in Creighton’s Creek. The sand-impacted section of Creightons Creek has very low primary production compared to other streams in Australia and overseas, which is likely to be due to the abrasiveness of sand. This is supported by very low chlorophyll-a and protein concentrations on benthic sediments. Chlorophyll a and protein in sediments from the non-impacted section of the Creek were substantially higher. The respiration rates are comparable with other streams and with low production rates this means Creightons Creek is a strongly heterotrophic system, requiring allochthonous inputs of carbon to fuel the ecosystem. When dissolved organic carbon is introduced into the system it is rapidly assimilated. The rate of assimilation between the sand impacted area is statistically lower than the non-impacted reach. The two-station method was unsuccessful in the sand-impacted portion Granite Creeks, due to the environmental conditions (i.e. reach travel times were too fast to allow measurable changes between probes) and the limitations of the instrumentation. The one-station method however was applied to Granite creeks with success, but no significant differences were detected between treatment (sleeper) and control sites. In high flow, microbial activity (measured by FDA hydrolysis and enzyme mapping devices) is higher in the hyporheic zone than in surficial sediments, whereas in low flow, the opposite is true (possibly due to an anoxic hyporheic zone in low flow). Sediment respiration, measured by horizontal sediment reactors, occurs in 'hotspots' and is more dependent on intra-site spatial variability than the effect of the sleepers or flow. The enzyme mapping devices show that the microbial community can be very localized, and this variability in activity can be detected down to the millimetre scale. It is suspected these 'hotspots' and carbon concentrations vary in a similar pattern. DOC concentrations in the hyporheic zone reflected stream water concentrations, but were highly variable. The hyporheic sediment, therefore, is not a storage zone for carbon, as it is for nitrogen and phosphorus. The most upstream sleeper accumulates more CPOM than the other sleepers in low/moderate flow, and the carbon concentrations in the hyporheic zone surrounding this sleeper reflect this. The enzymatic fingerprint from the hyporheic samples surrounding the first sleeper saw increases in the activity of all six enzymes. The most abundant/active enzymes are the non-specific esterase and leucine aminopeptidase, which suggests the carbon inputs are from animal waste and algal detritus. The brown/black coloured coating on benthic sediment in summer was identified by Paul Leahy from the EPA to be either diatoms or an algal mat. It appears that sediment instability is the primary stressor on the system, which hinders the success of the sleepers. This result emphasizes that when monitoring a small stream rehabilitation project, it's important to study the health of the ecosystem rather than the stressor that is being eliminated (i.e. habitat homogeneity in the case of the sleepers). For example any effect of introduced structures on microbial community structure are only transitory. MDFRC funding agency: Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology MDFRC client: Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology Available to MDFRC staff only.	cc/2021-04/en_middle_0002.json.gz/line10
__label__cc	0.691218	0.308782	Taxman! by Vanderleun on October 3, 2020 ‘I simply thought that something should be done about the humiliation we must endure to pay our taxes in this country’ In Brazil in 2014, a tax lawyer named Vinicius Leôncio created one of the world’s largest books as a form of protest. The result of 23 years’ work, Pátria Amada (Beloved Country), is a 7.5-ton testament to the ridiculous immensity and complexity of Brazilian tax laws. Leôncio was the first to bring together every Brazilian tax code in one volume (complete for only a brief moment, as 35 new tax laws are added to Brazilian legislation each day). Its 41,000 pages mean that the book is 2.10 meters thick, towering over any prospective reader. Leôncio spent R$1 million (£205,000) of his own money to print the book in a shed, using an imported Chinese printer accustomed to cranking out billboard posters. He spent an average of five hours a day researching and collecting the laws, with a staff that grew to 37. Three heart attacks, a divorce, and a new marriage failed to dissuade him from his task of highlighting “the surreal, punishing experience” of dealing with a tax system gone haywire. “I simply thought that something should be done about the humiliation we must endure to pay our taxes in this country,” he said. — From cut-out confessions to cheese pages: browse the world’s strangest books "And the state of our nation is... greatness or… Not Tired of Winning Yet: The Two Year Reference List Long Read of the Week: The Mathematics of Countering… The Parable of the White Whale and the Good Ship… Long Read of the Week: Why Speculate by Michael Crichton Figure In a Series of Landscapes The Code of the Left vs The Code of the West:… At Rushmore: "Only America... No other place" PA Cat October 3, 2020, 4:18 PM In a just world, all 7.5 tons of it would be dropped from a C-130 Hercules right on top of Lois Lerner. ghostsniper October 3, 2020, 5:30 PM In an unjust world, the one most of us live in every day, that book is but a molecule compared to the tax laws in the US. Back in the 90’s I heard G Gordon Liddy do a 15 minute monologue on his radio show about the tax laws in the US and it almost dropped me to my knees. Til then I had no idea the depth of the criminality. The average person today has absolutely no idea what it’s all about. This rotten assed gov’t continues to find new and conniving ways to tax everything that moves and does not move in a thousand different ways. Between inflation (another form of taxation), direct taxation, and regulation, this sorry assed gov’t has reduced the lifestyles of virtually every citizen by at least 99%. It is by far the worst criminal organization the world has ever known. People that piss and moan about the taxes the NYT lyingly said Trump pays are light years beyond retarded. Next post: Joe Biden Today: On the Road Again…. to the nearest empty parking lot Previous post: President Trump’s Condition on Saturday	cc/2021-04/en_middle_0002.json.gz/line15
__label__wiki	0.557934	0.557934	Amish Info Posts Tagged Destroy Small Farms USDA Pretends to Kill NAIS Posted by admin in Codex Alimentarius, NAIS \| 1 Comment USDA Signals NAIS is Dead Max Thornsberry After a long-fought six-year battle, independent cattle producers have finally succeeded in stopping the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), which was an onerous plan conceived by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and promoted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), domestic and multinational ear tag companies, as well as multinational meat packers and their closely aligned trade associations. The battle was extremely lopsided. USDA had millions of dollars of taxpayer money — over $140 million to be precise — to develop and promote NAIS and to persuade state departments of agriculture and cattle industry trade associations to recruit as many independent cattle producers as possible into the ill-fated NAIS program. According to the Web site www.usaspending.gov, the National Cattlemen’s Foundation, part of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), received over $2.1 million from the federal government in 2008 to promote NAIS. Armed with millions of dollars and six years worth of joint government and processing-industry planning, how did NAIS get stopped? The answer is that NAIS was stopped by the persistent, relentless pressure applied by a handful of non-conventional organizations that exclusively represented the interests of cattle farmers and ranchers, not the interests of the industrialized sectors of the U.S. beef supply chain. This was a David versus Goliath battle in which David won and the interests of independent cattle producers came out on top. These recent victories by independent cattle producers, with far less political clout and economic power than their conventional beef industry trade association counterparts, strongly suggests that there remains a genuine reason for hope that independent cattle producers can reverse the present course of their industry — a course that is fast leading toward more and more corporate control over the U.S. cattle industry by beef packers that are capturing control over the live cattle supply chain, just as they have already captured control over both the poultry and hog supply chains. The beef packers are now focusing their efforts on the feeding sector of the cattle industry by purchasing more and more feedlots (JBS recently purchased the nation’s largest feedlot company, Five Rivers Ranch Cattle Feeding, L.L.C.) and gaining increased control over the fed cattle market through the use of new cattle procurement tools, such as certain marketing agreements and formula-type contracts that effectively reduce the competitiveness of the fed cattle cash market. As with every major policy issue victory, the real work begins now. Now that NAIS has been scrapped, a new program needs to be developed to achieve improvements in the United States’ ability to quickly contain and control animal diseases. Independent cattle producers must remain directly involved in the development of this new program to ensure that it does not infringe upon their rights and privileges as did NAIS. It is encouraging that when Agriculture Secretary Vilsack announced he was going to pursue a new approach to animal disease traceability, he also announced that the U.S. must strengthen its import controls to prevent the introduction of animal diseases at our borders. This is a high priority for independent cattle producers who intrinsically understand that we cannot continue importing diseases like BSE, bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis if we desire to maintain our industry’s reputation of producing the healthiest cattle in the world — a reputation that is the U.S. cattle industry’s competitive advantage in both the domestic market and the global market. I encourage every cattle producer to take a new look at the relatively new organizations that have amassed uncanny successes for independent cattle producers despite seemingly impossible odds. Each of the organizations that brought us to where we’re at today is not likely to lead us in a new direction. But some of these new organizations will and they need your support to continue winning their fight to restore for the U.S. cattle industry the opportunity for U.S. cattle producers to maintain independent and profitable cattle-producing businesses all across the United States. The future of the U.S. cattle industry is in your hands and will be determined by which organization you choose to support. The NAIS that USDA was attempting to force down the throats of independent U.S. cattle producers, utilizing our own tax dollars, would have completely changed the way cattle farmers and ranchers do business. While obtaining a premises ID number — the first step to a nationwide NAIS — required no effort, the second and third steps in the onerous WTO-mandated system would have been costly, difficult, and, I believe, would have generated rebellion on the range. Reporting the movement of every animal, once it left its birth farm of origin, was a completely unworkable system for producers, especially those operating in our most populous cow states, where the average cowherd size is 30 to 40 mother cows. Imagine having to get your cattle in a chute, read the tags electronically, and report the numbers to USDA every time you moved a set of calves to another pasture, your Dad’s place, or sent a group of calves to the sale barn. Not only were you going to be required to read the tags electronically, but you were going to be required to report the tag numbers to the appropriate authorities within 48 hours of that movement, or you would be out of compliance and subject to enforcement fines: A range rebellion in the making, and completely unnecessary for a first world country like the United States. At least for the time-being, the government has listened to the people. A spike has been driven into the heart of a one-world government’s dictatorial rule. Maybe our Constitution is not dead? Tags: Corruption in Government, Destroy Small Farms, Dump NAIS, fascism, Government collusion, NAIS - About Control, NAIS kills competition, Oppose NAIS, USDA Not Trustworthy, USDA Pretends to kill NAIS, Vilsack Costs for USDA-Recommended Animal ID Package: $9,995 Posted by admin in NAIS \| No Comments The Milkweed Dairy’s best marketing info and insight P.O. Box 10, Brooklyn, WI 53521 – (608) 455-2400 (c) 2002 – 2008 The Milkweed all rights reserved by John Bunting $9,995.00? $9,995.00??? NINE THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED, NINETY FIVE DOLLARS????? On December 28, 2009, critics of USDA’s goofy plans to mandate radio-frequency identification devices (RFIDs) in all livestock got just the fodder they need to set livestock country afire in protest: the price tag for this absurd government mandate — the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Forget USDA’s “cost-benefit” analysis claiming that computer-chipped livestock ear tags would cost about $3 to $5 dollars apiece. The cost of those ear tags, even when purchased in minimum lots of 100, is peanuts, compared to the accompanying hardware necessary to use those ear tags. $9,995.00. That’s the “bundled startup kit” cost offered with a discount of $1,905.36, when compared to the costs of the components in the “startup kit,” if those items were purchased separately. $9,995.00 out-of-pocket costs so livestock producers may comply with USDA’s intended mandate to require all livestock in the U.S. to be monitored with ear tags containing computer chips? In Missouri, for example, a hotbed of anti-NAIS, the average beef cattle operator has 35 head. In these money-losing times for beef ranchers, how can Uncle Sam demand livestock raisers shell out a minimum of $9,995 for a “startup kit” for this foolishness. The December 28, 2009 press release said: “Eriginate™ Corporation announced today the approval of its eTattoo™ tag by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The approval marks the first ultra-high radio frequency identification tag (UHF RFID) and the first non-low frequency tag (LF) to be approved for use with the ‘840’ Animal Identification Number (AIN).” This private electronic devise is approved by the USDA for use in the controversial National Animal Identification System (NAIS) program. USDA has promoted this program as a winning solution for everyone in animal agriculture. Many persons in animal agriculture have objected for many reasons, including religious objections. USDA has posted a cost/benefit analysis available at: http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/ documents/plans_reports/NAIS_overview_report.pdf In the overview cost/benefit analysis, USDA explains the “Economic benefits in both the domestic and international marketplace resulting from enhanced traceability may be greater than the cost savings realized during animal disease control and eradication efforts.” On page 5 of this same document, USDA states, ” Tags and tagging costs vary among cattle producers with 50 head from $3.30 to $5.22 per cow, depending on current identification practices.” Well, that cost/analysis is not exactly correct because the eartags are the only low-cost element in the system. In addition to the tags you need the reader or scanner. eTattoo™ conveniently has a “starter” kit. $9,995!!! That “startup kit costs $99.95 per animal!!! This kit would be the basic requirement for a small family dairy of say 50 milking cows. Replacement tags, and they certainly will be necessary, are a low $395 per hundred. eTattoo™ claims, “Tags will accommodate handwritten management numbers.” What exactly is missing here? Anyone might think these fancy tags would eliminate the need for “handwritten management numbers.” What will government bureaucrats and their anointed corporate beneficiaries conjure up next? Get yours while supplies last at: http://www.etattootag.com Company contact information: eriginate Corporation LeRoy, MN 55951-0189 E-mail: Info@eriginate.com Web site: www.etattootag.com Harmful to small & medium farmers Is USDA intentionally trying to destroy the nation’s small and medium livestock producers? USDA ultimately intends to mandate electronic livestock identification. Few small/medium livestock producers will be able to afford $10,000 for such technology. The margins in livestock have generally been negative. USDA has misrepresented costs for the NAIS program. Tags: Cut Funding to NAIS, Destroy Small Farms, Family Farms, fascism, NAIS - About Control, NAIS Is a Threat, NAIS kills competition, NAIS Not Needed, NAIS Not Wanted, Oppose NAIS NAIS wins award for USDA’s most dastardly idea. Note: NAIS has won the award for 2009’s most DASTARDLY USDA IDEA. In Ag Sec Vilsack’s listening sessions, designed to find some common ground of appreciation for the USDA brain child, the bribe-riddled NAIS found accumulations of increasing retch with each of 16 town hall style meetings. Livestock people increased dislike with each interpretive spin from USDA. Although the livestock press, USDA state veterinarians and USDA universities defend full-blown NAIS, livestock producers were not willing to relinquish their meager profits for the red tape of a new government enforcement program. When NAIS was not palatable federally, the USDA split the troops and provided over $150,000,000 in incentives for each state to take NAIS as a state enforcement project. When that costly idea slammed head-on to more resistance, in court and otherwise, now the USDA troops are dividing more. NAIS surveillance is becoming mandatory for certain disease studies. To try and forget the flawed thought of NAIS, new names are now being invented like “animal ID”, “information systems”, “food safety”, “animal health emergency management”, “animal security” and a host of other invented terms, just to sell the same old NAIS enforcement. Beyond the millions spent to swallow NAIS, now many more millions are being spent to huddle government employees around new brain schemes to sugar-coat livestock surveillance enforcements. The article below is filled with costly processes that will be paid for by livestock owners and create more government jobs. At a unique time in the history of agriculture production, when cost of goods are increasing, profits are reducing, the USDA is working at mach-speed to increase red tape and cost of doing business. Now, here it comes again, “One Health.” NIAA meeting examines ‘One Health’ By Drovers news source \| Monday, January 04, 2010 “One Health: Implications for Animal Agriculture” is the theme of the 2010 Annual Meeting of the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA), March 15-17 in Kansas City, Mo. “One Health is a worldwide initiative focused on the interdependencies of human, animal and ecosystem health, and, with this concept comes significantly expanded roles and expectations placed on animal agriculture and professionals within animal agriculture,” states Dr. Tony Forshey, co-chair of NIAA’s Annual Meeting. “The general sessions and committee meetings at NIAA’s Annual Meeting will explore how the initiative may impact the various species and segments within production animal agriculture and animal health management.” NIAA’s opening general session speakers will look at how the One Health initiative and strategies shift the focus from surveillance to intervention and prevention and how challenges need to be faced collectively rather than in individual silos and disciplines. The lineup of speakers will represent active members on the One Health Commission, representatives from the veterinary and human health community and representatives of animal agriculture. NIAA’s 11 species-based and issue-based committees–which are open to NIAA members and non-members–will meet on Tuesday afternoon, March 16, and Wednesday, March 17. Issue-based committee meetings include animal care, animal health emergency management, animal health and international trade, animal production food safety and security, emerging diseases, and animal identification and information systems. Species-based committees include cattle, swine, poultry, equine, and sheep and goat. Each committee meeting features its own line-up of nationally recognized speakers. “NIAA’s annual meeting is an ideal place for producers, animal health and management professionals, animal agriculture extension specialists and all of those involved in animal agriculture–cattle, swine, sheep, goats, poultry and equine–to gather and become better informed and involved regarding One Health,” Forshey adds. A schedule of events for NIAA’s 2010 annual meeting, meeting registration, list of NIAA committees and hotel information are available at the NIAA Web site. Individuals are also welcome to call NIAA at (719) 538-8843 for information. Tags: Bribes, Corruption in Government, Destroy Small Farms, fascism, Government collusion, NAIS - About Control, Political Protest, USDA Not Trustworthy The Fight for America’s Farms in Wisconsin: Marti Oakley Reports Posted by admin in Codex Alimentarius, Food, NAIS \| No Comments “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all’.” (Martin Luther King – Letter from Birmingham Prison, Alabama) Wisconsin’s “war” against agriculture — is it the blueprint for a NAIS nation? It looks like the war of the elites against American agriculture is starting in Wisconsin. Marti Oakley, of The PPJ Gazette, reports from the front lines: That M on the cops might as well stand for Mars — you really have to wonder if aliens are behind this undermining of human life support systems — also known as…. farms. I mean what group of human beings in their right mind would do this to themselves? Great pic from Deesillustrations.com “The first thing they did when they got the authority to write rules… was to grant themselves the authority to conduct warrantless searches. Wisconsin is in the process of coercing farmers and backyard producers … into NAIS, and the accompanying Premises ID program, by threatening to withhold any of the licenses they control.” Paul Griepentrog In the course of researching various topics, running down leads on information and ferreting out the plans behind the public propaganda used to infringe on one right after another, I sometimes stumble across someone who has so much verifiable information, I am left astounded. This was the case when I happened across a gentleman farmer named Paul Griepentrog while researching the laws and bills about Premises ID and the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). I already knew the mandatory law had been bought and paid for in Wisconsin through the use of a USDA “cooperative agreement” to the tune of $35 million. In a recent interview I asked Paul to answer a few questions about what is really happening to Wisconsin residents who are being forced onto these illegal programs: Q: Does the Animal Health Protection Act of 2003 actually authorize the Animal Identification System or Premises ID? Will future history books tell the truth of what went down in America in the first decade of the 21st century? A:There is nothing in that bill giving them authority to create or establish the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). That law has been misquoted saying that it is the authority for NAIS. We have repeatedly sent letters to USDA and Tom Vilsack asking him to show the section of that law that gives the authority but he refuses to answer or acknowledge the letters. Q: Has the USDA, in collusion with the Wisconsin AG department, threatened any farms that you know of? A: Dwayne Brander on behalf of Dr. McGraw, Assistant State Veterinarian, goes out to farms telling them that if they don’t renew or register their premises in the State of Wisconsin they will file suit against them for failing to comply, using the county DA and calling it a civil forfeiture. Wisconsin is in the process of coercing farmers and backyard producers in an effort to force them onto NAIS and the accompanying Premises ID program by threatening to withhold any of the licenses they control and would refuse to give the license unless you signed up. Q: Is there a part of the law in Wisconsin that allows for fines and imprisonment based on the sole allegations of these agencies or representative personnel from USDA or DATCP in Wisconsin? A: Here is section 95 from the Wisconsin bill implementing the “voluntary” NAIS/Premises ID law: 95.23 Disease investigation and enforcement. 95.23(1) (1) Authorized inspectors and agents of the department may enter at reasonable times any premises, building or place to investigate the existence of animal diseases or to investigate violations of or otherwise enforce the laws relating to animal health. Any animals or materials suspected of being infected may be examined or tested. No person shall obstruct or interfere with such investigation or enforcement work, or attempt to do so, in any manner, by threat or otherwise. (2) Upon request of an authorized inspector or agent of the department,sheriffs and police officers shall assist in the enforcement of the laws relating to animal health. 95.99 Penalties. (1) Any person who violates this chapter, or an order issued or a rule adopted under this chapter, for which a specific penalty is not prescribed shall, for the first offense, be fined not more than $1,000; and for any subsequent offense fined not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 6 months or both. (2) The department may seek an injunction restraining any person from violating this chapter or any rule promulgated under this chapter. (3) A person who violates this chapter or any rule promulgated or order issued under this chapter, for which a specific penalty is not prescribed,may be required to forfeit not less than $200 nor more than $5,000 for the first offense and may be required to forfeit not less than $400 nor more than $5,000 for the 2nd or subsequent offense committed within 5 years of an offense for which a penalty has been assessed under this section. A forfeiture under this subsection is in lieu of a criminal penalty undersub. Q: Do citizens have the right to demand a full disclosure of the exact laws and basis under which USDA and Wisconsin have charged them? Is there any defense against these attacks? A:There seems to be none. In the cooperative agreement it states all applicable federal laws shall apply. There are certain major State and Federal Constitutional issues that these laws are in conflict with. Q: Who exactly is asking for this information? A: The Department of Agriculture, State of Wisconsin administered by Assistant State Veterinarian, Dr. Paul McGraw; both knowing this has nothing to do with livestock or food safety. This comes from The World Trade Organization and their trade program OIE. http://www.oie.int/eng/en_index.htm World Organization Animal Health. Q: Where is the information stored? For what purpose? Are rich folk buying up stock in tag making companies A: Initially intake is at state level, and then it moves through forms records management plan. There are different steps on how they process this information. From everything I read, a disease outbreak would give state, federal and international interest’s access. Q: Who is storing the information? A:Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and then to Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium with (WLIC) as final repository in Canada. The WLIC is comprised of various agriculture groups, breed associations and companies selling RFID tags. Rep. Obey & Sen. Kohl helped to get WLIC started and moved the data base to Canada. The head of WLIC initially was Gary Tauchen who is now a Wisconsin representative and sitting on the house AG committee. In my own case, I have been registered twice after the fire number on my property changed. Once under the original number and my name and again under the newly assigned number and my farm name; I did not register for Premises ID on either occasion and was signed up without my knowledge or consent. Q: If the WLIC is listed as the last repository of data mined information, how did files on Wisconsin agricultural properties end up being stored in Canada? A:WLIC with the help of Rep. Obey and Sen. Kohl although I don’t know for sure how this was accomplished. The intention was to avoid any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request or open information requests until they passed the 2008 Farm Bill and included a provision in that bill saying that these files would not be available to FOIA requests. Q. Who had access to these files when they were outside the country? A: We don’t know. Once it was outside US jurisdiction we had no way of knowing. Q: Are you able to get copies of your personal file from the Canadian data bank? A: I was able to obtain the premises information pursuant to the forms records management plan. To my knowledge I am only the second person to do so. Q: We know these programs have nothing to do with tracking animal disease and are actually meant to end competition for industrialized agricultural interests, and to seize control of agricultural lands and livestock….who are the actual players that will benefit from these programs? A:The big corporate industrialized agriculture operators….Cargill, Tyson, Monsanto and others, because they would see the end to competition and obtain virtually full control over all agriculture. Q: Are Wisconsin politicians either state or federal willing to speak to you about NAIS, Premises ID or the fake food safety bills? A:On the Federal level, Sen. Kohl and Rep. Obey will not take my calls. (*Writer’s note: I made my own calls to these offices and when I stated what I was calling in reference to, the staffers got really nasty and then hung up) In fact Sen. Kohl’s staffer, Kim Cates’ husband is on the Agriculture Consumer Protection Citizen board. He would not even meet with John Kinsman of Family Farm Defenders to discuss the issue. On the state level are the continuous lies. These people will say Premises ID has nothing to do with NAIS. They say this even though they have been shown the cooperative agreement between USDA and Wisconsin DATCP outlining Premises ID as the first step. They refuse to look at or acknowledge the legal documents. DATCP had a document on the Wisconsin Legislative information Bureau site saying that the Amish don’t have any problem with this. If the Amish don’t have a problem with it why are they suing Emmanuel Miller Jr., an Amish from Clark County? Steve Kagen would not address our concerns and he’s on the US house Ag sub- committee that held a hearing on NAIS and is also involved in the food safety bills and won’t address our concerns even there. He is working right now to get funding to move Wisconsin into phase II of NAIS which is the mandatory chipping and tagging of all animals. I will say that Sen. Feingold has been willing to listen to our concerns both in his Washington office and in the state office. Although there is a bill in Wisconsin which would restore voluntary participation I feel it is nothing more than an attempt at political redemption by the same people who passed the mandatory bill to begin with, in that they are fully aware that this bills will be sent to the House Ag committee and never see the light of day. This is merely political posturing…. The house, senate and government are all controlled by Democrats. This may be nothing more than a smoke screen while they make mandatory phase II which is the tagging and chipping, which can’t be done unless you have a Premises ID. Paul Griepentrog shows that, in the end, what was billed and sold to Wisconsin farmers and herders as a strictly “voluntary” system turns out to be a mandatory system operated much like a police state enforcement policy. There can be no doubt, especially in light of the hyped up investigation and enforcement policies that this law in Wisconsin is less about disease and more about property seizure and forfeiture. Wisconsin is the blueprint for the remaining states: what happens there is going to happen to all independent ranchers, farmers and producers across the country if any of these fake food safety bills, or National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is passed into law. © 2009 MartiOakley And next up, an excerpt from “A view of NAIS from Wisconsin”, by Walter Jeffries “Wisconsion is the first and only state to implement mandatory Premise ID , the first step of the USDA’s proposed National Animal Identification System ( NAIS ). From what I hear it is a mixed bag. On the one hand Dr. Wiemers of the USDA commended Wisconsin for having registered 400% of their horses already. On the other hand I have received personal communications from a number of Wisconsonites who say they have not registered and don’t plan on doing so. Below is a letter from one such Wisconsin livestock owner: Walter, Premise ID and NAIS have already been passed in Wisconsin, as you probably know. I have seen a lot of farm programs in my 66 years, but this is the most ridiculous one ever presented. I don’t see more ag. disease now than there was 50 years ago. I am not certain it is designed to hurt the small farmers, though it will I see it more as a result of globalization. For [Michael] Johanns , [USDA Secretary of Agriculture] to cease testing cattle for BSE, and commensurately implement a device for tracking this disease, is incongruous. In addition, cattle are still ingesting blood and slaughterhouse waste, in their feed… how stupid is this? These folks are none too pleased about having NAIS shoved down their throats. I will not comply as long as I do not receive WRITTEN notice from Madison. And even then I will go down kicking, claiming this is NOT constitutional. The farmer who rents my land has not registered his premises either, and he raises beef. I do not know anyone who has registered, but then I only know 3 farmers, because the encroaching development has taken over all the farmland in my area. The farmer closest to me raises both organically fed beef and bison…he does not object to NAIS. I suspect he is registered due to selling bison meat to restaurants. I don’t know how the third one feels…. I have not seen him for so long. The members of Wisconsin Against NAIS are still fighting this legislation, with a vengeance. Some talk about Big Brother , some feel the next step is tracking US citizens, some believe the factory farmers want the “little guy” out of business, some have major concerns NAIS is an invasion of privacy, others find it frightening, others worry about the cost. They have discussed organizing a protest at Madison, our capitol. I have written to my congressman and both US senators. All three are pro-NAIS. (sigh) I don’t think our state senators will revoke their decision to pass NAIS. They seem to feel WI is a leading example….. Hah! This state is usually the last on the list for accepting any new innovation….” Read the whole story here. Read Walter Jeffries’ blog here. Pictures added by the Bovine from internet sources. And finally, an upbeat postscript: HR 2749 Killed (for now) on Floor of U.S. Congress – An excerpt: “John Dingell came up six or seven votes short today, and failed to get food safety reform legislation passed through Congress. Dingell, the once powerful Michigan Democrat who lost his chairmanship of the Energy & Commerce Committee before the start of the 111th Congress, fell just short of getting the necessary two-thirds majority vote to suspend the rules and adopt H.R. 2749 as amended. The House voted 280 in favor and 150 against suspending the rules and passing H.R. 2749. Twenty-three Democrats voted with 127 Republicans to deny Dingell the two-thirds majority vote required under the rules. Fifty Republicans voted for the bill that Dingell had carefully crafted with help with Texas GOP Rep. Joe Barton. While the proponents of the food safety legislation dominated the floor debate that stretched into a second hour, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R- Ohio, compared the late number of rewrites of the food safety legislation filed with the House Clerk as repeating the bad behavior on the part of the Majority that was used to get the stimulus bill passed. “Did anyone read this bill?” Boehner asked….” Tags: Cut Funding to NAIS, Destroy Small Farms, Dump NAIS, Family Farms, Farmers Pissed Off, fascism, Food Safety, Government collusion, NAIS - About Control, NAIS Is a Threat, NAIS kills competition, Oppose NAIS, USDA Collusion, Warrantless Search Wisconsin Rules Roughshod against Historic Religious Beliefs Posted by admin in NAIS, Rant \| No Comments from – National Assn of Farm Animal Welfare – Dec. 31, 2009 Ag.Ed@nafaw.org A hotly contested court case centered on a farmers’ religious beliefs is now in the hands of a judge. Last week, Clark County District Attorney Darwin Zwieg filed his final brief in a case that jousts the state of Wisconsin against the historic religious convictions of Amish Christians. On behalf of Miller, the court appointed Bonnie Walksmuth to present his case. Amish Christians normally shun court conflicts and are known for their peaceful humble demeanor. Thousands of immigrants fled Europe to settle in Wisconsin and the US to find safety for their religious freedoms. Now, as the court room was filled with concerned and broken-hearted Amish, an era of freedom was at high risk. In Wisconsin v. Emanuel Miller Jr., Zwieg alleges the area farmer stands in violation of a new state law requiring all properties where livestock exist be registered with the state. Miller admits as much, but testifies the rule infringes on his religious beliefs. According to testimony during an evidentiary hearing in the matter, those in Miller’s faith fear eternal damnation if they abide by the law, which they feel is a pre-cursor to the biblical ‘Mark of the Beast.’ The issue is not an Amish only conviction, but also shared by Bible believers of many denominations. Not just a new pestiferous state regulation, but a historic way of life was put on trial in Neillsville, Wisconsin. Miller was charged under complaint for civil forfeiture because he refused to surrender his life holdings into the state’s NAIS property enrollment surveillance system. The DA says the state has a compelling interest to promote food and animal safety, human health and the economy of the state of Wisconsin. He points to testimony from DATCP employees, who stated mandatory premise ID could improve their ability to respond to an animal disease. Dr. Paul McGraw, head of the Wisconsin Animal Health Dept. of Ag. was questioned, under oath, by Judge Counsell regarding the necessity of the premise registration system and whether the rule had shown to be a benefit to disease control in Wisconsin to which Dr. McGraw responded, “No”. The judge asked if it had been a benefit in any other state implemented and again, “No”. In his brief, Zwieg notes a sincerely held religious belief should not give any Wisconsin resident the ability to refuse enforcements and regulations of the new state law. Zwieg crudely compares sincere Christians with corrupt cults of history to make the point that religious beliefs are not of any real consideration to the state of Wisconsin. The DATCP in Wisconsin was aware of the historic Bible beliefs of devout Christians and considered it a minor issue when laws were created to demand property enrollments. Wisconsin enforces a mandatory NAIS although USDA on a federal level remains quasi voluntary for NAIS enrollment. At 16 recent listening sessions held by USDA Sec. Vilsack, over 90% of attendees opposed any form of government enforced animal ID. Nation wide the proposed NAIS program has been considered the worst idea, with the least proven value in USDA history. Basically, the NAIS, as proposed, is dead as a voluntary national program. The spark of life still exists in Wisconsin. The state of Wisconsin is fulfilling their agreements with USDA to enforce state mandatory NAIS. The Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture, Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium, and the Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection has received cooperative agreements totaling over 13 million dollars during a period from 2002 through 2009. According to state surveillance records there are 51,373 livestock properties in Wisconsin with 61,507 registered, to date, showing 119.7% in compliance. An estimated 7,320 have refused to surrender properties to the mandatory ruling. As a result of Judge Counsell’s decision, either the religious folk in Wisconsin will be incarcerated by the hundreds, or they will break down their beliefs and be shattered by the state like a stomped soda can! The other option is for the state of Wisconsin to return the $13,000,000 to USDA. Go figure? Attorney Walksmuth, representing Miller has already filed her final brief. The case now goes to Clark County Circuit Court Judge Jon Counsell for consideration. Thanks to Brad Headtel, Marti Oakley and The PPJ Gazette. Tags: Amish, DATCP, Destroy Small Farms, Family Farms, Farmers Plead with USDA, fascism, Mark of the Beast, NAIS Not Wanted, Wisconsin Animal Health Dept, Wisconsin runs roughshod over Amish NAIS: Life Support ~~ Dead on Arrival Posted by admin in Food, NAIS \| No Comments No sooner have most people pronounced NAIS dead-on-arrival, than a number of recent events may have breathed life back into the U.S.A.’s National Animal Identification Scheme. A combination of market forces aligned with a simplified tracking technology, and some rare positive news may have reinvigorated USDA’s moribund, voluntary animal traceability initiative. First the news headlines. Even though the U.S. House of Representatives had voted to cut off funding for the NAIS as part of the Farm Bill, a joint House-Senate conference committee agreed a few weeks ago to continue funding the program to the tune of $5.3 million for fiscal year 2010-2011. This funding is a reduction from the $14.2 million authorized for last year and less than the $14.6 million the Senate approved, but the program will continue. However, a growing number of Congressional members have made it clear they want to see effective leadership from USDA to dispel some of the more egregious NAIS rumors running unchallenged in the countryside (e.g., backyard farmers with only a few chickens for home use or sale to friends will have to tag and track each animal). They also want to expand the number of farms and ranches that have registered with the NAIS premises database from the current anemic 13% to closer to the 90% needed for an effective national system. The second piece of news for NAIS supporters is that U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer in Washington, D.C., dismissed a civil suit filed by the Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund and a group of Michigan cattlemen against the USDA and the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) over the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The group’s suit, filed last September, sought to enjoin the implementation and enforcement of NAIS. The suit was dismissed primarily because Judge Collyer ruled the program was voluntarily adopted by state departments of agriculture and was not federally mandated. Should NAIS become mandatory, sorry — the judge has already ruled. Even with a bit of good news, the large opposition anti-NAIS forces continue to rally their troops by claiming that NAIS is overly burdensome, and is unnecessary because existing livestock records, such as brands, ear tags, veterinary logs and auction barn records do a good and economical job of tracking cattle movements. Dr. George Teagarden, the Kansas state veterinarian, agrees that the current record-keeping system can be used “to find the animals in question, but it can be months after the fact.” According to Dr. Teagarden, this time lag isn’t nearly fast enough and he cautions, “A highly contagious animal disease will devastate this country.” He underscores this dire prediction by noting that in Kansas in a single month cattle from all 48 of the Continental U.S. states arrive at least once a month. The speed of commerce is too fast to be handled by the paper-based system.” Dr. Teagarden is also aware that history does not record any such “devastating” disease to affect Kansas since Foot & Mouth was eliminated in the late twenties. His pandemic prophecy is not a fear to the majority of livestock producers in Kansas or the nation, however those hovering inside the beltway still listen. Apparently, a number of national governments agree with Dr. Teagarden, and recently several have made or are poised to move their systems from voluntary to mandatory. Within the last few months these key countries have made major moves towards mandatory traceability; moves that are likely to impact USA policy and USA producers. It is important to understand the difference in other countries. Australia and Canada produce 60% more beef than their country consumes and absolutely must protect and increase export sales. Totally different, the US in 2008, according to the NASS, exported $2,876,906,000 in wholesale beef, but imported $4,764,392,000. For 21 years the US has not produced enough beef to feed the nation. The difference in the urgency to export US beef is drastic. If the US exports more beef, they, in turn must import that exact amount more to feed the nation. In that respect, the US is depending on imports and has no surplus for export at all. All beef export from the US is simply a trading process that does not profit producers, but only those directly related in the selling and buying. Brazil. Brazil, also producing much more than is being consumed, has just announced that by 2011 all livestock producers will be required to participate in a mandatory traceability system. The new system will rely on simpler technology than the current, voluntary SISBOV system which is RFID-based, and every segment of the Brazilian supply chain, from cow-calf operator to slaughter facility including transporters will be required to provide a complete chain of custody records. Real-time electronic record-keeping is not being mandated, but standardized record-keeping whose data can be transmitted via Internet portals to centralized databases will be used. The SISBOV system will continue to exist for those who want to use it, but the expectation among Brazilian officials is that most producers will use the standardized, simplified paper-based system. On a world export basis, the countries with the most compliance costs will be the least competitive. Korea. South Korea has instituted a traceback system on domestically raised beef, and has indicated that it would require traceback on imported product by 2010. Japan. The Japanese government has had a domestic animal identification system in place for several years, and on three different occasions the then-minority political party, the Democratic Party of Japan, had unsuccessfully tried to pass legislation that would require the same level of traceability for imports. In August the DPJ successfully became the controlling party for the first time in a long period, and newly appointed Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has vowed to once again try to revise the Beef Traceability Law. He doesn’t have control of the Upper House of Parliament, but he may be able to persuade his two coalition partners to go along. How do these foreign government actions impact the U.S. meat industry? The Brazilian action probably has less direct impact on the US than do the Asian actions, because the Brazilian action was aimed at broadening acceptance of Brazilian beef in the EU. There will be some impact, though, because the largest of the Brazilian meat companies, JBS, is also one of the major U.S. meat producers so there will likely be some technology transfer from Brazilian ranches to their U.S. counterpart. A major key to Brazilian acceptance of a mandatory livestock traceability system by Brazilian legislators was the simplification of the system of initially registering an animal and then tracking its movements from birth to export. The predecessor voluntary system in Brazil known as SISBOV is an RFID-based identification system with real-time electronic data collection and transmittal. While effective, this system is technologically sophisticated and beyond both the economic means and technological understanding of a large percentage of Brazilian producers. Embracing and actively promoting a simplified registration and tracking system by USDA, we believe, will go a long way towards helping reduce opposition to NAIS. Even with all of these developments, make no mistake — NAIS is still on life support, and it may still die. But when the marketplace speaks and producers begin to learn the US is and has been a net import country, and no export markets are necessary at all, NAIS becomes even closer to true and lasting death! Tags: Bribes, Destroy Small Farms, Dump NAIS, fascism, NAIS, NAIS - About Control, NAIS Not Needed, NAIS Not Wanted, NAIS Scheme, Oppose NAIS FDA, FSIS TALK TRACEABILITY ~~ government agencies from FOOD SAFETY NEWS DISCUSSION by John Munsell ~~ 12-13-09 After implementing policies for many years which complicate, if not make impossible, tracebacks to the source, USDA/FSIS seems to indicate it is willing to consider a midstream change in its attitudes, and policies, regarding Tracebacks to the TRUE ORIGIN of contamination. The December 9 issue of Dow Jones also refers to the upcoming January USDA hearing, but no specific date has been set. One of many concerns I have is that the agency may well attempt to produce yet another prosaic Notice/Directive/Policy which multiplies words, but accomplishes nothing, the primary objective being to disingenuously and piously portray USDA as America’s ultimate public health agency. The agency’s historical refusal to traceback to the origin is readily understood. First of all, it is pertinent to note that E.coli and Salmonella are “Enteric” bacteria, which by definition means that they emanate from within animals’ intestines, and by extension proliferate on manure-covered hides. Retail meat markets (insert Lunds/Byerlys et al), restaurants (insert Sizzlers and dozens others here), and the majority of meat processing plants (review this century’s recalls) do NOT slaughter, thus do not have animal intestines or manure-covered hides on their premises. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the vast majority of E.coli and Salmonella-laced meat is caused by sloppy kill floor dressing procedures. Well, why doesn’t USDA aggressively trace back to the slaughter plant origins? If tracebacks were successfully accomplished which reveal that the contamination ORIGINATED at a slaughter plant, a public backlash would discredit both the agency and the slaughter establishments. Why? Because successful tracebacks would reveal (1) that the big slaughter plants continue to ship tonnages of contaminated meat into commerce, bearing the official USDA Mark of Inspection; and (2) the tracebacks would reveal that the agency is asleep at the wheel at the biggest plants, by official agency design. Why do I state that? Because the current form of meat inspection, which is called Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (or HACCP) deregulated the largest slaughter facilities. Prior to HACCP, the agency promised the industry that under the HACCP protocol, (1) the agency would maintain a “Hands Off” non-involvement role, (2) the agency would no longer police the industry, but the industry would police itself, (3) the agency would disband its previous command & control authority, and (4) each plant would write its own HACCP Plan, and the agency could not tell the industry what must be in their HACCP Plans. True to its word, USDA has fully lived up to its pre-HACCP promises, but only at the deregulated largest plants. In stark contrast, the agency has used HACCP to hyper-regulate the small plants. These differences are begging for a movie or book to expose the agency’s true intentions, which are focused on justifying USDA’s semi-retirement at the biggest plants, while hagriding small plants out of existence. Today, 88% of feedlot-fattened steers and heifers are killed at the Big 4 packer plants, which enjoy political clout and the economic wherewithal to force USDA into paralysis. The agency lives in fear, knowing that if it attempts truly meaningful enforcement actions at the big packers, the agency will be defending itself in court, and for good reason! Realizing that USDA promised to maintain a “Hands Off” non-involvement role under HACCP, that it would no longer police the industry, and would jettison its previous command-and-control authority, the agency has knowingly painted itself into a corner which prevents it from forcing changes onto non-compliant big plants. USDA fully deserves to lose such litigation, and will, so chooses to avoid litigation. So, to circumvent this delicate problem, the agency has implemented policies (some of which are not written) which prevent tracebacks to the origin. We should not be surprised when we continually experience these ongoing outbreaks and recurring recalls, because both (1)USDA and (2)litigation have focused its sanctions against the downstream destination facilities (restaurants, retail meat markets, and further processing plants) which have unwittingly purchased meat which was previously contaminated with invisible pathogens. Until USDA is willing to Force the Source, rather than Destroying the Destination, America is virtually guaranteed ongoing outbreaks. USDA is totally opposed to putting Bill Marler out of business, and in fact is Mr. Marler’s ultimate ally by promoting the rights of the big slaughter plants to continue producing enteric bacteria-laced meat with virtual impunity. Why does USDA appear to have experienced a sudden change in heart regarding Tracebacks? I propose that since successful tracebacks have been accomplished for melamine-laced products, spinach to a mere handful of California farms, as well as tracebacks of lettuce, peppers, peanut butter, etc, USDA’s historical inability to traceback to the slaughter plants of origin has become monumentally conspicuous in comparison. And think of the irony of this historical fact! Although FDA has inspectors in produce plants only once every few years, the agency has successfully accomplished these tracebacks. USDA on the other hand, has inspectors in every meat plant every day, yet is strangely unable to match FDA’s success in performing tracebacks. Perhaps the Obama administration is to be credited with the USDA’s born-again metamorphosis in its alleged desire to suddenly perform tracebacks to the origin of contamination. I can guarantee everyone one thing: we had best be closely watching every statement USDA makes in its January hearing, because the agency’s past performance in this area proves that USDA fears big packer clout more than it fears public health outbreaks. John Munsell Tags: decentralized food system, Destroy Small Farms, fascism, FDA Monsanto Pawn, Food Safety, Government collusion, NAIS - About Control, NAIS kills competition, Traceback to True Origin NAIS Stinks: A look at the opposition By Lee Pitts Darol Dickinson NAIS, the national animal identification system, is a big government boondoggle that can easily be compared to President Obama’s plan to borrow trillions of dollars, much of it from the Chinese, to save a bad economy that was created in the first place by too much borrowing. NAIS will NOT make our food safer, but it will most certainly make thousands of small stockmen disappear. It will require ranchers to spend a great deal of money on equipment, inserting the chips, and reporting any changes, with terrible fines for computer errors, acts of nature, or noncompliance. Yet factory farms are exempt from those same rules. The USDA is pushing it partly to show they are doing something about the pitiful state of food safety, which they have botched BIG TIME. The original NAIS plan caused such a backlash that in November 2006 the USDA backtracked and said, “We must emphasize that NAIS is a voluntary program at the Federal level, and USDA has no plans to make participation in any component of the program mandatory.” Just as you’d expect, now the USDA is most definitely making noises that the plan must be made mandatory. If the NAIS gravy train is derailed, most of the credit can be given to one man: Darol Dickinson. The famous Longhorn breeder and artist has already been named a member of the Digest 25, but his efforts on NAIS on behalf of all cattlemen deserve another laudatory trajectory launched in his honor. Darol remembers when he came to hate the whole idea behind NAIS. “When I attended my first USDA listening session about NAIS the leader lied to everyone. He said NAIS would happen, we would not have a choice, sign up now.” (Needless to say, Darol did not sign up.) “He said that hoof and mouth would devastate the US cattle business overnight, then with one phone call to Texas A & M, at Uvalde, Texas, I found cattle with Hoof and Mouth were still good to eat and the disease was only a skin thing. He told me Anthrax could sweep the nation and could kill every cow. I made one phone call and found out for 80 cents anyone can buy an Anthrax vaccine and never have an Anthrax problem.” Darol recalls, “Then the USDA began to give out ‘cooperative agreements’ to hire people to enroll in NAIS premises. I call these agreements more simply, ‘bribes.’ Bribes is what you give someone to do something they don’t want to do, then they do it, against their better judgment. The basis of NAIS was deception without necessity—paid for by all taxpayers. All of the above made my blood boil.” Darol began to paw in the dirt like a mad bull. “For the first time in my life I had an opportunity to oppose a vicious federales program that would put my fellow livestock producers under with red tape, enforcements, fines and destroy new business. I, by choosing this battle with USDA could save billions in losses to ranchers and honest farmers. At a cost of my own cattle sales over the last 4 years, I have worked 4 to 18 hours a day opposing NAIS. Darol is one of the leading, if not THE leading Longhorn breeder in the country, and has been for decades. His efforts on NAIS have horribly reduced his business sales and profits. “Had we not sold an occasional high dollar Texas Longhorn bull,” says Darol, “it would not have been possible to fight this nasty war.” He continues, “From early 2005, after the first smoke was blown up my hub cap from USDA, I have carefully researched NAIS. One after another promises from USDA promoters are either false, worthless or just plain ignorant. The concept of NAIS is designed by white shirted, clean handed veterinarians in marble hall offices with high salaries and retirements that would impress Oprah. The NAIS designers have not stepped in enough nasty corral stuff to know the basic business of livestock. “The next mystery is why AQHA, NCBA, Farm Bureau, Beef Magazine and Drover Magazine do not stage a hissy-fit opposing NAIS and what it will do to their membership and subscribers. When I can’t understand common sense things, I assume they have been bought, and it is true. The slimy USDA bureaucrats with thick brief cases have made their rounds and millions have been bought to their own guilt and shame.” Darol’s first attempt at a web sight opposing NAIS was web site www.naisSucks.com. “The name was chosen due to the puking nasty program it is,” says Darol, who, it can be said, is not what you’d call a politically correct person. “I am not a fair and balanced person,” says Darol. Some publications refused to reference www.naisSUCKS.com due to the off color connotation so Darol changed the name to accommodate kinder, gentler people. “We changed it to www.naisSTINKS.com and retained the same articles.” Either way, when you read a SUCKS or STINKS article it will not leave you straddling a fence by a writer who couldn’t figure it out. Says Darol, “One of the great early research articles published, as the negative NAIS data begin to boil over the cow piles, was Back Door Bureaucrats [by this writer]. The USDA has such strong advertising ties with most livestock publications that the editor’s bladders get weak when it comes to printing an opposition NAIS article. Not Lee Pitts. He lets it fly like a Johne’s herd sire. His article, available on ‘Stinks,’ is a classic. “Each time USDA presented NAIS for some quasi-noble reason, a selling USDA article was written for release to all the media—livestock, rodeo, general news, farming, etc. One of 42 STINKS research writers quickly presented the factual opposition in clear detail. The USDA articles were printed without a blink by every back woods and up town publication. The opposition articles were printed in one of 20 of the same publications. “STINKS sends out daily NAIS opposition articles to over 2,000 bloggers. Two livestock editors in New Mexico informed STINKS not to send NAIS opposition articles to them. The NCBA, Beef Magazine and many others, once considered honest, also refuse to receive opposition NAIS articles. All of these brilliant articles by careful researchers are on www.naisSTINKS.com. “STINKS is dedicated to complete information opposing NAIS,” says Darol. “The NAIS founders and promoters would destroy the livestock industry, so why should those of us making a living with livestock treat them with any more respect than fecal material in a wedding punch bowl? “STINKS has 147 reprintable NAIS opposition articles to date. As a complete service government defense site there are cartoons, printable handouts, flyers, videos and a companion blog. During the recent USDA listening sessions reprints from STINKS were handed out at all locations and STINKS research info was quoted. When the USDA prepared a $430,000 NAIS TOOL KIT for all licensed veterinarians, STINKS immediately offered a zero funded NAIS SURVIVAL TOOL KIT. It prints from the site in book form, with index and 15 articles to inform and protect ranchers from government terrorists. When a manuscript is released by a STINKS researcher it goes immediately to 2,100 media and bloggers. It is then forwarded on to more than two million viewers within 24 hours. Every state veterinarian, state NAIS director and most Senators and Congress members receive it. “Although STINKS researchers are prepared to document and defend every article, most livestock editors do not print opposition information, nor do they respond with any questions about data,” says Darol. “When the first STINKS emails were generated, there were only a few sites with NAIS opposition. Now 4 years later there are organizations in every state, hundreds of sites with featured NAIS opposition information, Yahoo groups in every state, attorneys that have resigned their jobs to oppose NAIS full time, ranchers who have been forced to become activists, and writers to defend the family businesses. Google records today 377,000 articles for “NAIS opposition.” The next step for Darol’s web site is to look into what should be viewed as bribery, plain and simple. “Bureaucrats have received generous ‘gifts’ from industry businesses that plan to profit from a mandatory NAIS,” according to Darol. “In the future, the humble livestock producers will hammer bureaucrats that have had NO oversight, and sucked the pot dry with their blood thirst, draining the livestock industry. Unless Washington can grab themselves by the pants and listen to the 95% of livestock producers who oppose NAIS, there will be pitch forks and cow manure in their town. Cowboys are tired of human burdizzos, gutless editors, and ruthless enforcements planned for the innocent.” Darol Dickinson has had a remarkable career in the livestock industry. Stopping NAIS would be the crowning achievement, and every rancher in America will owe him one huge THANK YOU. Tags: Corruption in Government, Cut Funding to NAIS, decentralized food system, Destroy Small Farms, Family Farms, NAIS Is a Threat, NAIS Not Needed, NAIS Not Wanted, Oppose NAIS The Money behind the National Animal ID System 1. A small number of private interests will make out big financially by supplying hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tracking devices and software to livestock producers. 2. Small producers, unable to cope with the costly technology demands associated with animal tracking, could be forced to give up their farms and ranches — allowing major players like Cargill, Smithfield and Tyson to exercise an even greater control of meat production.1,2 For the time being, the animal tracking program is voluntary, though the USDA has invested more than $125 million in the last five years3 trying to create the support and infrastructure needed to advance a mandatory NAIS for livestock. In particular, tracking cattle is a high priority for the agency because it is seen as a way to restore international confidence in American beef after the discovery of mad cow disease devastated the industry in 2003. Much of this money has gone toward registering farm premises where livestock are found throughout the United States into a central database, the first step in creating a national animal-tracking program. In order to advance the NAIS agenda, the USDA agreed in 2005 to begin privatizing parts of the system,4 creating another incentive for powerful industry trade groups to support the program. By providing the hardware, software and tracking technology, private industry groups and technology companies have already been able to extract millions of dollars from the proposed NAIS. NAIS is the product of more than a decade of planning — mostly by the private sector — but only really gained momentum as an animal health measure seven years ago in response to the discovery of mad cow disease in the United States. NAIS continues to be as much the product of private industry and the non-profit trade groups that represent it as it is the USDA. Like wolves in sheep’s clothing, these trade organizations loudly promote an animal-tracking system as necessary for the meat industry while positioning themselves or their industry partners to possibly reap the windfall revenues that a mandatory animal-tracking program would generate. In April 2009, the USDA released a cost-benefit analysis of NAIS which estimates that a full-traceability animaltracking system will cost the livestock industry alone $209 million annually.5 The most costly part of NAIS involves Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), which could cost about $100 million for cattle alone.6 The preferred method of tagging and tracing cattle, RFID uses tiny radio transmitters about the size of a grain of rice that are either implanted into an animal or into an ear tag that the animal wears. In theory, this technology gives livestock producers and slaughterhouses the ability to quickly “scan” each animal and determine where it came from, which could help trace diseases in the event of an outbreak. RFID technology is extremely costly for ranchers, but extremely lucrative for private technology providers. Currently only nine RFID manufacturers are recognized by the USDA as approved providers of the devices,7 and a handful seem to have emerged as the dominant competitors, vying for the tens of millions of dollars in revenue8 that a mandatory NAIS would generate each year. These RFID providers will likely generate revenue disproportionately from small livestock producers. USDA estimates show that among livestock producers that don’t currently tag their beef cattle, the smallest producers — those with fewer than 50 head of cattle — would incur the highest RFID costs as a group, amounting to almost $35 million dollars a year.9 This is approximately how much all other beef cattle producers combined would pay. For small livestock producers working on tight profit margins, these costs could be devastating. Larger producers have deep pockets and the advantage of economies of scale, allowing them to more easily adjust to the technological requirements of NAIS, a point that the USDA readily acknowledges.10 The USDA estimates that the RFID costs per head of cattle are somewhere between 30 and 200 percent greater for the smallest producers than the largest producers under a full-traceability NAIS,11 in part because big producers can buy larger quantities of RFID tags at a discount. Some estimates of the high costs small producers will pay are much higher than the USDA’s,12 with numbers surpassing $40 a head (about five times greater than the USDA estimate) when costs of RFID readers are included.13 The costs that livestock producers could incur under NAIS include: buying an RFID tag for each animal, buying an RFID applicator, paying someone to implant the device, buying an RFID reader, buying a computer and paying monthly internet services, creating the necessary infrastructure on a farm to support animal tracking, and providing the time and labor needed to register individual animals in an Animal Tracking Database — which is also a privatized venture, mostly controlled by a small number of corporations and private interests. The costs and time needed to comply with program requirements would give the largest operations a competitive advantage. This further promotes an unhealthy control of the meat market among a handful of corporations. Ironically, large-scale operators use confinement methods and feeding practices that are viewed by many as increasing the risk of animal diseases that NAIS would track. Consider the Kansas Farm Bureau, a non-profit group that, according to its Web site, “represents grassroots agriculture” and “supports farm families who earn their living in a changing industry.”14 In carrying out these missions, the bureau has also managed to position itself to be a major beneficiary of the tech-fest that would unfold under mandatory NAIS. The Kansas Farm Bureau aggressively promotes its Beef Verification Solution, an animal-tracking program developed though its Agriculture Solutions division, in conjunction with AgInfoLink,15 a private tech company16 that could be one of the leading beneficiaries of a mandatory NAIS. The Beef Verification Solution, according to the Web site, is the “one-stop shop for ISO compliant, USDA approved radio frequency identification (RFID) ear tags, RFID readers and data collection software.”17 Essentially, by contracting with private tech companies like AgInfoLink and using its members as its customer base, the Kansas Farm Bureau could generate large revenues for both itself and its private-sector partners. And measured by the support it has received so far, the Kansas Farm Bureau seems to have done pretty well for itself. The Beef Verification Solution has received the endorsement of numerous trade groups and fellow farm bureaus in big cattle-producing states like Colorado,18 Oklahoma19 and Nebraska.20 The American Farm Bureau, the parent organization to all the state affiliates,21 has endorsed the program, too.22 By 2007, the Kansas Farm Bureau was boasting that the Beef Verification Solution was primed to capitalize on 24 percent of the cattle market.23 In marketing the Beef Verification Solution, the Kansas Farm Bureau and its partners encourage cattle producers to use other services provided by AgInfoLink,24 one of six companies offering an animal-tracking database that the USDA considers fully functioning and capable of providing traceability.25 In addition to promoting AgInfoLink’s CattleCards and BeefLink software,26 the Kansas Farm Bureau apparently also promotes business for the providers of RFID hardware, including the company Allflex.27 Illinois Beef Association (IBA) In addition to its partnerships with the farm bureaus, AgInfoLink has also partnered with the Illinois Beef Association (IBA),28 a state-level affiliate of the powerful trade group the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA),29 whose industry partners include corporate meatpackers like Cargill, Smithfield and Tyson.30 From October 2006 to September 2007, during which time the IBA began endorsing AgInfoLink, the organization received $1.2 million from the beef checkoff,31 a government- initiated program that requires every cattle farmer in America to pay one dollar for every slaughtered head of cattle, supposedly to promote beef.32 Most of that money, which amounts to around $45 million a year,33 ends up in the hands of the NCBA34 and its affiliates like the IBA.35 It needs to be examined whether the NCBA is using this money in its efforts to promote an animal identification program, which would stand in contrast to its mission of supporting the interests of ranchers and cattle producers, many of whom may not support animal tracking. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) The NCBA, which collects around $45 million dollars a year in beef checkoff money,36 has worked as a major stakeholder in the development of NAIS, hoping that an animal-tracking program would have been in place by 2007.37 In that year, an NCBA affiliate called the National Cattlemen’s Foundation38 entered into a cooperative agreement with the USDA39 to help register farm premises — part of a push to expand the NAIS database. Shortly before cooperative agreement was announced, the National Cattlemen’s Foundation received more than $2 million from the USDA.40 Back in 2004, the NCBA began working with private technology groups that would benefit financially from NAIS. Called the Beef Information Exchange and apparently comprised of a group of animal-tracking service providers, the group was promoted by one of NCBA’s members, Mark Armentrout, who was also the chief operating officer of AgInfoLink Global, Inc.41 Additionally, the NCBA sits with the American Farm Bureau on the board the United States Animal Identification Organization (USAIO),42,43 which has its own NAIScompliant Animal Tracking Database,44 a potentially big money-maker should NAIS become mandatory. Most of the big names in animal identification have aligned themselves with NCBA, sometimes making cash donations to the organization. Both Allflex USA and Schering-Plough Animal Health (Schering-Plough owns Global Animal Management), two approved technology providers for NAIS, donated $100,000 to the NCBA to become “Allied Industry Partner” Gold Level Sponsors.45 Other technology providers like Destron-Fearing, Y-Tex and AgInfoLink count themselves as allied Industry Council members or associates.46 United States Animal Identification Organization (USAIO) Established to “oversee a database solution for tracking animals”47 and built with members from some of the most powerful farm groups, the USAIO seems to have an interest in controlling a database for tracking animals — and perhaps benefiting from the huge revenues that would come with it. Like the National Cattlemen’s Foundation, the USAIO entered into a cooperative agreement with the USDA to register farm premises. Shortly before the agreement was announced, the USDA awarded the USAIO $1.5 million in taxpayer money.48 The group planned to register as many as 100,000 new farm premises under the agreement, the first step toward initiating a fully functional National Animal Identification System.49 The USDA has put $9 million toward these cooperative agreements,50 with non-profit organizations51,52 that frequently have close ties to industry. As one USDA official said about these organizations, “In many cases, these groups don’t just represent industry, they are industry…”53 Big players like Microsoft may also leverage their financial power and political connections if NAIS becomes a mandatory program. In 2006, the USAIO teamed up with Microsoft and a company called Viatrace to offer what they called an “industry-led, multispecies animal tracking database to record movements of livestock from point of origin to processing.”54 One report indicates that USAIO disbanded in 2007,55 but the group’s animal-tracking database remains on the current USDA list of approved providers. Agri Beef Agri Beef, a vertically integrated cattle operation56 that regularly ranks as one of the largest in America,57,58 serves as the first point of contact for USAIO’s Animal Tracking Database.59 Though the exact relationship between the USAIO, a non-profit group, and Agri Beef, a for-profit meat producer, is unclear, it seems that their animal-tracking database could generate big money for both the groups. The vice president of Agri Beef is Rick Stott,60 listed as one of a handful of members on the USAIO in 2006.61 He also has served as a member of major industry groups like the NCBA.62 And Stott worked on a governmentsponsored pilot NAIS project in the Pacific Northwest called the Northwest Pilot Project,63 reportedly worth more than a million dollars.64 As the chairman of the project, which was administered by the Idaho Cattlemen Association65 (affiliated with the NCBA66), Stott was able to help shape and test a pilot NAIS program based on the proposed national system, which he, his employer and his industry friends could benefit from enormously. But also disconcerting is that Stott, as the head of a pilot project, apparently was overseeing the collection and processing of private data of dozens of other cattle producers participating in the program67 — essentially giving him access to proprietary information about his competitors. Big agribusiness groups have pushed the USDA to keep the animal-tracking databases out of government’s hands, claiming that any other arrangement would subject a company’s data to Freedom of Information Act requests or new government regulations.68,69 But keeping the database in the hands of big agribusiness — whether with private companies or the trade industries that represent big agribusiness — could force small livestock producers to disclose confidential information about their operations (size of herd, types of animals, etc.) to competitors or the companies they sell to. The Money Funnel The financial windfall that has fallen from government to the private sector with NAIS has been mighty, and there seems to be no end in sight. The federal government has already spent more than $125 million on the development of NAIS,70 funneling money into private industries and state governments to promote the animaltracking program. Though NAIS is not yet a mandatory program, many technology providers have already benefitted financially in a big way. Global Animal Management71 and Digital Angel72 have both received more than half a million dollars in government contracts for animal tracking devices, while Allflex has raked in close to $1 million.73 It is important to note that these companies spend money in lobbying efforts around NAIS. The owner of Global Animal Management, a large pharmaceutical corporation called Schering-Plough, plowed millions of dollars a year into lobbying efforts in both 2007 and 2008, some of it on animal identification issues.74 Between 2004 and 2007, Digital Angel spent more than a million dollars on lobbying efforts75 and Allflex spent an undisclosed amount (under $10,000)76 in 2006, 2007 and 2008. More disconcerting, it appears that two of these three competitors have partnered, further reducing competition among RFID providers. In 2008, Digital Angel and Global Animal Management (owned by Schering-Plough) announced a deal in which Digital Angel would acquire the rights to Global Animal Management’s RFID tag77, 78 made by Geissler Technology.79 Digital Angel’s acquisition of a competitor’s RFID-technology could prove to be a wise investment. As part of its 2009 budget, the USDA plans to spend millions of dollars on a campaign directed at the cattle industry called “840 Start Up.”80 The ‘840’ refers to the United States’ three digit country code that precedes animal identification numbers. The number also refers to the RFID devices that can store and transmit the ID numbers. As more and more farm premises are registered in a national database, the next step in NAIS is to outfit all farm animals with these 840 RFID tags. And because RFID devices are sold by privately owned companies, the USDA’s multi-million dollar “840 Start Up” campaign may really serve to funnel millions of dollars into the bank accounts of the few tech companies that have been approved to sell these products. Whether it is taxpayers or the farmers themselves who would end up paying for the technology under NAIS, it is clear that it will be the tech companies and the trade organizations they align with that will benefit. Case Study: Wisconsin One of the best places to follow the money behind NAIS is Wisconsin, where the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium (WLIC) and its partner group, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection (WDATCP)81 have managed to secure close to $7 million in federal funding and more than a million dollars in non-federal funding over the last eight years.82,83 Bolstered by a state law requiring every farm premises to be registered in a central database, these groups are serving as administrators of what amounts to a state-level pilot project for NAIS. The WLIC, a consortium of private industry stakeholders and government agencies, has used these federal tax dollars to fund groups that could benefit financially from NAIS. By the middle of 2005, WLIC reportedly was funding more than a dozen research projects valued at close to $400,000, with money going to the Wisconsin Pork Association,84 which currently sits on the WLIC board of directors, and Smithfield, a current member of WLIC.85 WLIC was founded in 2002 as “a proactive, livestock industry- driven effort”86 with a mission “to create a secure, nationally compatible livestock identification system.”87 The members and affiliates of the consortium read like a laundry list of the corporate and private interests that stand to gain from a mandatory NAIS. The big animal-ID tech companies, like AgInfoLink, Digital Angel, Global Animal Management, Y-Tex and Allflex USA, are all represented as members.88 In coalition with the Wisconsin Department of Trade and Consumer Protection, the WLIC has developed its own USDA-compliant Animal Tracking Database — one of six that the USDA considers fully functional and capable of providing traceability.89 The push for animal tracking in Wisconsin, however, has not gone smoothly. Some farmers continue to resist registering their premises or participating in animal identification — either because of privacy or property rights concerns, or, in the case of Amish farmers, on religious grounds.90 In 2007, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture began sending letters to dairy farmers on unregistered premises indicating their milk production licenses could be revoked if they failed to register their farms.91 This threat, which would have essentially forced non-compliant dairy farmers to go out of business, was eventually softened,92 but to critics of NAIS, it demonstrates the heavy-handed tactics that government agencies are willing to use to promote the program. Case Study: Michigan The state of Michigan has gone a step farther than Wisconsin, issuing a requirement that every head of cattle in the state must now have an RFID tag, essentially creating a state-wide mandatory animal-tracking system.93 Additionally, Michigan is using an animal-tracking system maintained by Holstein Association USA,94 a large nonprofit industry group. Until late spring 2009, the Michigan Department of Agriculture’s Web site directed farmers needing to purchase the mandatory RFID tags to Holstein Association USA, which sells tags at $2 each,95 plus a $20 fee for the applicator,96 the tool that attaches the ear tag to the cow. (A recent update to the site now includes another tag provider, but the site still emphasizes Holstein Association USA.) In 2007, the state announced that cattle producers had bought more than one million RFID tags.97 That represents at least $2 million in sales, with the proceeds apparently going to Holstein Association USA and the provider of its tags, a company called Allflex.98 In addition to the revenues it may generate from the RFID hardware, Holstein Association USA also serves as the administrator99 of Michigan’s animal-tracking database,100 which could provide another source of revenue. In 2007, Holstein Association USA boasted that its animal-tracking database is one of the world’s largest, with more than 5 million cows registered.101 When the state of Michigan began requiring all livestock owners to register and tag their farm animals and then directing farmers to a single purchasing option for the animal-tracking hardware and software, the state essentially funneled millions of dollars into the Holstein/ Allflex partnership. (If you diligently scour the Michigan Department of Agriculture’s Web site, you find that you can also order RFID tags from Northstar Cooperative,102 which sells tags from Allflex and one other tech company, Digital Angel.103 The USDA has declared nine different RFID-providers as NAIS-compliant, so it is unclear why the state of Michigan would direct its livestock producers to a single provider.104) On top of these de facto state subsidies to Holstein Association USA, the federal government has also given the group millions of dollars directly. Holstein Association USA has received more than $3 million in federal funding between 2000 and 2007 to develop animal-tracking programs.105 NAIS Failure If you take a hard look at the money associated with NAIS, you find that the numbers don’t add up to a net benefit for consumers or livestock producers. The government has invested $125 million so far trying to promote NAIS, a program that will cost producers $200 million a year. These huge sums of money guarantee very little in terms of improved food safety because the tracking ends at slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants where most food safety problems occur. The money the USDA is plowing into NAIS would go far further if it were used instead to bolster existing food safety programs and existing animal health programs that aim to prevent disease. The costs associated with NAIS threaten to increase the price of meat for consumers and to ruin the businesses of countless small producers, who would bear significantly greater financial pressure relative to larger producers adapting to the technological demands of NAIS. Because NAIS favors large-scale industrialized operations, which have deeper pockets to pay for the necessary technology, and puts financial pressure on small producers, a mandatory NAIS could contribute to a further concentration of the livestock industry among a few corporations.106 Indeed, the only sure outcome of NAIS are the windfall rewards, which tech companies and the trade groups that support them are currently jockeying to catch. The consortiums they form with private technology providers and federal and state governments are too cozy and too lucrative to give the system an appearance of anything but a cash cow for corporate beneficiaries. The tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money that has already poured into NAIS has done more to enrich a handful of money-minded organizations than to ensure food safety, and it is time that the USDA jettison this program. 1 Duffey, Patrick. “Dismantling of Farmland continues; Smithfield buying pork business.” USDA Rural Development. November 2003. 2 Heffernan, William and Mary Hendrickson. “Concentration of Agricultural Markets.” Department of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri. April 2007. http://nfu.org/issues/economic-policy/ resources/heffernan-report 3 USDA. “A business plan to advance animal disease traceability.” September 2008 at 41. 5 USDA. “Benefit-Cost Analysis of the National Animal Identification System.” January 14, 2009 at Table 4.10. 7 USDA. List of approved NAIS devices. animalid.aphis.usda.gov/ nais/naislibrary/documents/guidelines/NAIS_ID_Tag_Web_ Listing.pdf 9 USDA. “Benefit-Cost Analysis of the National Animal Identification System.” January 14, 2009 at Table 4.2. 10 USDA. See “Benefit-Cost Analysis of the National Animal Identification System.” January 14, 2009 at 24, 29, 48. 11 USDA. “Benefit-Cost Analysis of the National Animal Identification System.” January 14, 2009 at Table 4.2. 12 Blasi, Dale et al. “Estimated Costs of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) Systems.” 2005. http://beefstockerusa.org/rfid/. 2005. 13 Cattlenetwork. “Jolley: Five Minutes With Dr. Dale Blasi, Kansas State University.” May 8, 2009. http://www.cattlenetwork.com/ content.asp?ContentId=313299 14 Kansas Farm Bureau. “About Us.” http://www.kfb.org/aboutus/aboutus.htm 15 Kansas Farm Bureau. “Knowledge IS Power: The Value of Knowing Your Cow Herd From the Inside Out.” December 2008. 16 AgInfoLink “About Us” and “Locations.” http://www.aginfolink.com/aboutus.html and http://www.aginfolink.com/web/locations/ locations.htm 17 Agricultural Solutions. “Beef Verification Solution Program Description.” http://www.agsolusa.com/bvs/Aboutus.htm. 18 Kansas Farm Bureau. “KFB’s Beef Verification Solution Partners With Colorado Farm Bureau.” November 16, 2007. 19 Kansas Farm Bureau. “KFB’s Beef Verification Solution Partners With Oklahoma Farm Bureau.” July 24, 2007. 20 Kansas Farm Bureau. “Beef Verification Solution Partners With Nebraska Farm Bureau.” February 1, 2007 Kansas Farm Bureau. “Increasing the Value of this Year’s Calf Crop.” August 29, 2007. 21 American Farm Bureau. http://www.fb.org/index. php?fuseaction=newsroom.statefbs 22 American Farm Bureau. “Excitement Building for New Animal ID System.” January 8, 2006 23 Kansas Farm Bureau. “Increasing the Value of this Year’s Calf Crop.” August 29, 2007. 24 Kansas Farm Bureau. “Increasing the Value of this Year’s Calf Crop.” August 29, 2007. 25 USDA. National Animal Identification System Compliant Animal Tracking Databases Status Report. 27 Kansas Farm Bureau. “KFB’s Beef Verification Solution Now Offers More Radio Frequency ID Tag Choices.” July 3, 2008. 28 AgInfoLink. “AgInfoLink and Illinois Beef Association Team Up on Animal Information Services; Wellman Joins AgInfoLink Staff.” April 17, 2007 29 National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “State Affiliates.” http://www.beefusa.org/affistateaffiliates.aspx 30 National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “Allied Industry Partners.” www.beefusa.org/affialliedindustrypartners.aspx 31 IRS 990 form. 2007 at 8. 32 Cattlemen’s Beef Board. “Financial & Audit.” http://www.beefboard.org/financial/financial_audit.asp 33 Cattlemen’s Beef Board. “Annual Report.” 2008 at 13. http://www.beefboard.org/library/annual-reports.asp 35 National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. http://www.beefusa.org/affistateaffiliates.aspx 37 Cattlemen’s Beef Board. Long-Range Plan 2010. 2006. http://www.beefboard.org/library/annual-reports.asp 38 990 IRS Form. 2007. 39 USDA. “National Cattlemens Foundation Partners With USDA To Register Premises As Part of the National Animal Identification System.” November 30, 2007. 40 Information found at www.usaspending.gov. 41 National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. 2004 Beef Business Bulletin Stories Archive. “Industry Seeks Private Sector Animal ID System.” 2004. 42 National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “USAIO Statement on USDA’s National Animal Identification System Implementation Plan.” April 6, 2006. 43 Nebraska Cattlemen Newsline. “Independent Consortium Formed To Manage National Animal ID Database.” January 18, 2006. 44 USDA. National Animal Identification System Compliant Animal Tracking Databases Status Report. 45 Information Available online at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Web site (www.beefusa.org), under “Allied Industry Partners.” 47 American Farm Bureau Federation. “Shawcroft Selected to Animal ID Organization.” March 31, 2006. 48 Found at USAspending.gov. The USDA has only ever awarded the USAIO one cooperative agreement, which was worth $1.5 million and which happened in close proximity to the USDA announcement of its NAIS agreement the USAIO. 49 USDA. “U.S. Animal Identification Organization Promotes National Animal Identification System.” July 17, 2007. 50 USDA. “A Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability.” September 2008 at 44. 51 USDA. “USDA Announces Plans to Expand National Animal Identification System Cooperative Agreements to Nonprofit Organizations.” Feb. 2, 2007 52 USDA. “A Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability.” At 36. 53 Email from Ed Curlett to “Community Outreach Partners.” January 16, 2007. 54 Microsoft. “High-Tech Animal Database Launched to Help Ensure U.S. Livestock Producers Maintain Competitive Edge in the Global Marketplace.” March 1, 2006 55 Northwest Pilot Project. “Final Report: Addendum.” June 2007 at 15. 56 Agri Beef. “Agri Beef Co. Partners with Loomis Cattle Company to Develop the Finest Beef in the Northwest.” 57 Peck, Clint. “Northwest Entrepreneur.” Beef Magazine. Jan 1, 2002. 58 Northwest Farm Credit Services. “Industry Perspective, Feedlot.” 2007. 60 Agri Beef Company. Information found at http://www.Agri Beef.com/Agri Beefco/contact.asp 62 NCBA. “National ID Program for Livestock on Track, Cattlemen Say.” September 28, 2005. 63 Northwest Pilot Project. “Final Report.” 2006 at 34. http://www. northwestpilot.org 64 Evans, Tony. “A Beeper for Every Cow.” Boise Weekly. June 21, 2006. 65 Ibid. 66 Idaho Cattle Association. “About ICA.” http://www.idahocattle. org/about.dsp 67 Northwest Pilot Project. “Final Report.” http://www.northwestpilot. org 68 American Farm Bureau. “Stallman says NAIS requires producer involvement.” September 28, 2005. 69 Oklahoma Farm Report. “NCBA Continues to Worry About Mandatory Animal ID.” May 8, 2009. 71 Information found at http://www.usaspending.gov 74 Information found at http://www.opensecrets.org 77 Digital Angel. “Digital Angel’s Recent Acquisition of Geissler Technologies Expands Company’s Commercial Relationship with Schering-Plough.” January 18, 2008 78 Global Animal Management. “Program Compliant Tags.” October 14, 2008. https://www.mygamonline.com/trimerit/images/ approvedtaglist.pdf 79 USDA. “National Animal Identification System: Official Animal Identification Number (AIN) Devices.” December 10, 2008. 81 Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection. www.datcp.state.wi.us/premises/index.jsp 82 Data for the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium found at www.usaspending.gov and www.fedspending.org 83 Data for the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture found at www. usaspending.gov and www.fedspending.org 84 National Hog Farmer. Wisconsin Funds ID Projects National Hog Farmer. June 15, 2005 85 “Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium (WLIC) Board, Members, Ex Officio and Staff.” http://www.wiid.org. 86 Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium (WLIC). “WLIC History.” http://www.wiid.org. 87 Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium (WLIC). “WLIC Philosophy.” http://www.wiid.org. 89 USDA. “National Animal Identification System Compliant Animal Tracking Databases Status Report.” March 19, 2009. 90 Jones, Tim. “Using modern laws to keep Amish ways.” Chicago Tribune. September 20, 2008. 91 Leaf, Nathan. “Livestock Registration Law Opposed.” Wisconsin State Journal. April 25, 2007. 92 Hundt, Tim. “Premises ID Enforcement Put on Hold.” Vernon County Broadcaster. May 2, 2007. 93 Michigan Department of Agriculture. “Questions and Answers for Mandatory Cattle Identification Program.” http://www.michigan. gov/mda/0,1607,7-125–137059–,00.html 94 Michigan Department of Agriculture. “Electronic Identification Program.” http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-48096_ 48149-86002–,00.html 95 Michigan Department of Agriculture. “Order Bovine Tags.” http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-48096_48149-172 599–,00.html 96 Personal communication with Holstein Association USA sales associate. 97 State of Michigan. “One Million Electronic ID tags purchased by Michigan Beef and Dairy Producers.” November 8, 2007. Found at http://www.michigan.gov 98 Holstein Association USA. http://www.holsteinusa.com/animal_ id/tag_id.html 99 USDA. Food Safety Research Information Office. “Animal Identification Pilot Project.” Available online at: fsrio.nal.usda.gov/ research/fsheets/fsheet12.pdf 100 Michigan Department of Agriculture. “Electronic Identification Program.” http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-48096_ 48149-86002–,00.html 101 Holstein Association USA. “Holstein Association USA Approved by USDA as a Compliant Animal Tracking Database.” October 18, 2007 102 Michigan Department of Agriculture. “Questions and Answers for Mandatory Cattle Identification Program.” http://www.michigan. gov/mda/0,1607,7-125–137059–,00.html 103 Northstar Cooperative. http://www.northstarcooperative.com/ dhia/ProductsAndServices/spryRFID.html 104 Several places on the Web site such as “Order Bovine Eartags” direct you to Holstein USA, although in late spring 2009 some portions of the website did add Northstar Cooperative to the page. However, if you download a PDF entitled “Mandatory Cattle Identification Program Q & A,” the question-and-answer number-23 informs you that you can also order RFID tags from Northstar Cooperative. 105 Information found at http://www.usaspending.gov 106 Heffernan, William and Mary Hendrickson. “Concentration of Agricultural Markets.” Department of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri. April 2007. http://nfu.org/issues/economic-policy/ resources/heffernan-report Tags: Bribes, Codex Alimentarius, Corruption in Government, DC Politics, decentralized food system, Destroy Small Farms, fascism, Food Safety, Government collusion, Jackass Congress, NAIS, NAIS - About Control, NAIS Is a Threat, NAIS kills competition, NAIS Land Grab, Oppose NAIS, Political Bribery, Scrap NAIS Wisconsin Steps up funding for NAIS/Premises ID Posted by admin in Codex Alimentarius, NAIS \| No Comments Marti Oakley Senator Kohl of Wisconsin who had a direct hand in setting up the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the USDA to force the Wisconsin farmers and ranchers into the NAIS/Premises ID and who also, along with Rep. Obey facilitated the cooperative funding agreement [bribery payment] cementing that contract with the USDA, just announced that $1,550,000 has been allotted to WLIC. This was the consortium set up after NAIS/Premises ID was shoved through the Wisconsin legislature and promoted as a strictly “voluntary” program. Recent developments lauded by many in agricultural circles as the “end of NAIS’ as a result of funding being withheld or denied on the federal level, apparently weren’t aware that the USDA through its for-profit activities as a sub-corporation of the federal corporate government, has nearly limitless sources of funds that can be used for any thing they deem appropriate. With the agricultural industrial complex willing to supply any and all funds necessary to overthrow traditional farming and ranching in favor of industrialized operations, USDA has no shortage of funds that can be paid to bankrupted states in desperate needs of funds to continue operating. So what if traditional farmers are driven off their lands and forced to forfeit everything they have worked for so long as corporations can make a profit and states can pad their coffers with bribe money. Kohl Secures Funding for Wisconsin Projects in 2009 Agriculture Spending Bill From article on Agri-view comes this excerpt: “-$1,550,000 for the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium – The Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium, though the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, leads the nation in developing a workable approach for premise registration, a critical element of livestock identification and tracking. These resources will allow that work to continue.” Apparently NAIS/Premises ID forced compliance is in full swing in Wisconsin and Senator Kohl appears to be quite proud of the fact that Wisconsin, one of three test states first bribed by the USDA to bypass Constitutional rights and protections not only on the federal level, but also in gross violation of the Wisconsin Constitution itself prides himself and his state on leading the nation in developing a “workable” approach to Premises ID and NAIS, both key components of Codex Alimentarius. I can only presume that “workable approach” must mean the prosecution of those farmers and ranchers who have steadfastly refused to comply with this [voluntary] program and the subsequent persecution of an Amish farmer who objected on religious grounds, now forced to defend himself and his religious beliefs in court against a government machine that exists to end all but industrialized harmonization agreements and illegal and unconstitutional trade agreements. The recent and first round of court proceedings against the Amish forced Wisconsin officials to admit neither NAIS nor Premises ID had done, or would do anything to increase the safety of the food supply. With this admission, answers should be demanded as to why they entered into such an agreement, took the bribe money and persist in prosecuting those who refuse to convey ownership of their property to USDA acting as agent for the federal government. Of course, Senator Kohl along with Representative Obey were instrumental in storing the data mined information on the gps location of all agricultural properties and owners, along with any other information they had mined, in the Oracle database, and moving that database off US soil into storage in Canada to make it unavailable to FOIA requests. This move was made until a provision could be slipped not only into the 2005, but also 2008 Farm Bills making any such requests for information unobtainable by the very people logged into that database; with or without their knowledge. No where in the Constitution of the state of Wisconsin, nor in the federal Constitution does the government have any right, other than power it has granted itself under fictions of law, to implement or otherwise force compliance to these programs. Even the illegally ceded authority granted to unelected bureaucracies can not hold up to constitutional challenges. At what point will Wisconsin property holders demand the right to be left alone by government? At what point will they move to impeach from office these same public officials who have violated the public trust; assaulted their property rights and have conspired with the industrialized corporate complex to defraud them of their right to life, liberty and their right to own property free of government interference? Tags: Bribes, Corruption in Government, Cut Funding to NAIS, Destroy Small Farms, Dump NAIS, fascism, Government collusion, NAIS, NAIS - About Control, NAIS kills competition, NAIS Not Needed, NAIS Not Wanted, Oppose NAIS, Political Bribery, Scrap NAIS Horses Ticketed for pooping Amish Farmer Sam Girod Is In Jail For Making Salve Amish Buggy Tech Animal ID Rule Filed with OMB for Final Review S.510 Does NOT Protect Local, Natural Food lis on Amish Farmer Sam Girod Is In Jail For Making Salve Rock on FDA, FSIS TALK TRACEABILITY ~~ government agencies Mobius on Amish Farmer Sam Girod Is In Jail For Making Salve Hosting on How it’s Made: High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) Corexit and Agent Orange: not so different (just ask Monsanto) - The Ladies' Guide to the Apocalypse on How it’s Made: High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) Farmers and Food Farm Wars Health Spectator More Than Just Thinking Proud Political Junkie Gazette Nais Sucks No Mandatory Animal ID No NAIS War On You	cc/2021-04/en_middle_0002.json.gz/line16
__label__cc	0.663055	0.336945	türk porno erotik porno izle esmer hatun izle olgun sikiş izle sex izle Competitive Scene Official Garena Bangladesh Shop Please do not post cracks, warez in here or link to them. Thanks. Announcing Dota 2 Premiere League Published on February 3rd, 2017 17:45 Following the footsteps of BG D2CBL Season 4 Powered By UCC tournament which left a historic mark on the Dota scene of Bangladesh: We proudly the beginning of the Dota 2 Premiere League. This is a new initiative tournament that systemizes itself as a bidding tournament. We've surely had these types of tournaments before in the old Dota 1 days and we wish to bring it back with its excellence along with a purpose in mind. The reason such an intriguing tournament is being hosted are: 1. The main one being: Back in the Dota 1 days, the community was much smaller, and we were all very close brothers and sisters. The Dota 2 community of this country has expanded and people hardly know each other (specially the new ones). This will help them know the renowned players personally and help them build ... Announcing BG-D2CB League Season 4 Published on September 2nd, 2016 23:44 We are pleased to announce Season 4 of BG-D2CB League. All basic rules and regulations are similar to previous seasons [ http://banglagamer.com/go/a5424 ]. As years come and go, One tradition of ours draws closer yet again. We are once again proud to announce the upcoming Season 4 of the BanglaGamer - Dota 2 Community of Bangladesh League! We expect many to rejoin the battle and newcomers to learn and be rewarded. This is a tournament for the community and we hope see experienced veterans and shinning new stars. 1. ** There will be allotted days for each match to be completed. Teams will have to mutually fix their match time within the allotted days ... ESL and NODWIN Gaming announce US$64,000 ESL India Premiership Published on May 14th, 2016 12:53 ESL, the world’s largest esports company, in association with NODWIN Gaming, India’s flagship esports organization, is set to present India’s first annual tournament series, the ESL India Premiership. The event will host six online cups and three mega LAN events throughout the year, while boasting a monumental prize pool of over US$64,000, which translates to more than INR 4.2 million in cash prizes. The ESL India Premiership is the largest tournament series organized not just in India, but in the entire South Asian region. The tournament series will present gamers the opportunity to participate as a team or ... Announcing CS:GO League - Season 1 by BanglaGamer Published on November 30th, 2015 01:05 Following the footsteps of BG-D2CB League, we are excited to announce a new league...this time for Counter Strike Global Offensive. With the new format, we hope to make it worthwhile for every participant whether you're playing your first tournament or you're already a veteran. Our purpose is to improve the scene by providing a competitive platform for all the veteran teams as well as ensure all the new comers a platform where they can play with new teams and players and develop step by step. Prize pool will be approx. 30,000 BDT. Match times will be scheduled. However, two teams may play on another Published on September 24th, 2014 20:42 After a successful tournament by BanglaGamer (BG Dota 2 Championship) and another one by Dota 2 Community of Bangladesh (D2CB), now we are proud to announce BG-D2CB League (Season 2). This will be considered as the follow up of the tournament by D2CB recently. BanglaGamer will provide full support behind D2CB and will cover major events on this website. For the first time 50,000tk is up for grabs in a Bangladeshi League. With the new format, we hope to make it worthwhile for every participant whether you're playing your first tournament or you're already a veteran. Our purpose is to improve the scene by providing a competitive platform for all the veteran teams as well as ensure all the new comers a platform where they can play with new teams and players and develop step by step. So, this time the league will have 3 divisions! There will be a group stage phase where all the teams face each other, then upon the position of a team in its group they'll advance to different ... Steam Wallet Codes Published on August 16th, 2014 05:06 Valve, We all know how frustrating and expensive it is for us to buy games and/or items from Steam, Dota 2 Store, CS:GO Store or the Steam Community Market. However, those days are over. Now you can top-up your steam account and get the game, the legendary bundle or that awesome knife you have been wanting for so long! Please visit Purchase Steam Wallet Code page to get your steam account recharged in a cheaper way. As an introductory offer, there will be a 2.5% discount for orders above 2000 taka ... BanglaGamer Dota 2 Championship Prize Giving Published on July 19th, 2014 18:09 While it was a bit delayed, we have finally given out the prizes for BanglaGamer Dota 2 Championship (BGD2C) yesterday (18th, July, 2014). The players from top three teams gathered together and there were arrangements for Iftar. The event took place in Capricorn at Jamuna Future Park. We also showed a video in the big screen to not just us, to everyone who were present in the restaurant. A few pictures are attached with this post. For rest of the pictures, please visit this page. BanglaGamer Dota 2 Championship - Final Round Published on April 4th, 2014 12:31 Number of Views: 45314 We are very happy to announce that the final round of BanglaGamer Dota 2 Championship is starting from 5th April. The tournament is live streamed through DotaTV and item drops are available by buying the ticket from Dota 2 store. Be sure to join us on the largest Dota 2 tournament in Bangladesh! Sixteen teams have advanced from a battle between thirty seven teams. ... Dota 2 Tournament Rules Published on March 5th, 2014 19:40 It is your responsibility to read, understand and follow the rules. Failure to do so might/will result in disqualification and/or ban from future tournaments. If you have any concerns/questions about the rules, please use the comment section of this page. ... Coming Soon: BanglaGamer Dota 2 Championship Published on January 31st, 2014 17:53 Number of Views: 34386 We are proud to announce that a new Dota 2 tournament, BanglaGamer Dota 2 Championship, is going to start soon. It will be officially sponsored by Team Group Inc. and Impex Computer. This tournament will have rather high prize money compared to other tournaments in our country. We will publish more details about schedule, rules and regulations etc in due time. So keep an eye open and do not miss the chance to win exciting prizes by playing Dota 2! ... BanglaGamer Console (14) -- Ice Default ---- BanglaGamer Default ------ RedViperZ ------ Sky Blue_TBD -------- Sky Blue_Link3 ---- ISE ---- Science Forums ---- Poralekha -- Test -- Ice Mobile -- Mobile BanglaGamer.com Powered by vBulletin™ Copyright © 2021 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2008-2014, Ice Network. All rights reserved. Page generated in 0.23409 seconds with 64 queries.	cc/2021-04/en_middle_0002.json.gz/line18
__label__cc	0.522963	0.477037	david bax / movies / reviews / Theatrical Review First Man: Another Day of Moon, by David Bax by · October 10, 2018 It continues to be fascinating to watch Ryan Gosling become a better and better actor. In his early films like Murder by Numbers and The United States of Leland, he seemed to define emoting as furrowing his brow and knowing he was cute. In the decade and a half since then, his self-consciousness has turned into self-confidence. In last year’s Blade Runner: 2049 and now, in Damien Chazelle’s First Man, where he portrays Neil Armstrong, he capably and sympathetically embodies taciturn men in performances that are no less physical for their stillness. He’s acting with his whole body, not just his face, in roles with minimal dialogue (probably for the best in this case, since his approximation of Armstrong’s Ohio accent makes him sound like Joe Namath). His assured presence is one of the primary reasons First Man is such a stirring success. Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (adapting James R. Hansen’s book), track Armstrong’s professional and, to some extent, personal life over the course of the 1960s, covering his recruitment into NASA’s Gemini program and the long series of triumphs and tragedies that culminated in his successful mission to the moon and back. With him through it all is Janet, the stock supportive-but-concerned wife character (though Claire Foy does bring some strength and distinction to the role), as well as an impressive line-up of white, male character actors as his coworkers and friends, including Ethan Embry, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Shea Whigham, Patrick Fugit, Lukas Haas, Ciarán Hinds, Pablo Schrieber, Christopher Abbott and, as Armstrong’s fellow moonwalker, Buzz Aldrin, Corey Stoll. Chazelle’s respect for the men these actors are portraying is palpable. In the tradition of The Right Stuff, the movie’s default depiction of America’s first forays into outer space is a lofty one or, occasionally, a laughably self-serious one, like when Chandler’s character writes the word “MOON” on a chalkboard and then underlines it for good measure. First Man does make some room for criticisms, such as the entire space program being a juvenile pissing contest with the Soviets (Janet describes NASA as a bunch of boys building models out of balsa wood) or an immoral appropriation of funds, given how much unaddressed poverty and suffering there is down on the terra (Gil Scott-Heron’s “Whitey on the Moon” makes an appearance, evoking our nation’s present-day refusal to allocate money to help the largely non-white American citizens of Flint or Puerto Rico). But this amounts to little more than lip service in the face of Chazelle’s flag waving. Anyway, it’s not the philosophy or ethics of space travel that drives First Man; it’s the depiction of the act itself. Even before Armstrong joins NASA, Chazelle establishes a POV-heavy approach to depicting his missions. The movie’s prologue, an aircraft test that almost goes devastatingly awry, is almost a Star Tours-style theme park dark ride; at one point, I instinctively leaned back in my seat as if I could pull the plane out of its dive by myself. Chazelle brings in other modes as well, like the intentional 2001-referencing sequence in which one spacecraft docks with another set to classical music or his scenes of Armstrong’s family enjoying their suburban idyll, which can’t help but recall The Tree of Life with the way the camera flits behind or alongside the characters while they run and play (not to mention the fact that it takes place in Houston). The film has painterly strokes of its own design too, like when a rocket launches in the distance across a stretch of water and the resulting burst and reflection turns it momentarily into a speedily rising sun. Still, Chazelle returns again and again to his first person perspective. Even when he’s not using literal point-of-view shots, he still favors close-ups and elevates the sounds of ragged or labored breathing. Before First Man is a narrative film, it is an essentially experiential one. It’s also recognizably a piece of Chazelle’s auteurist oeuvre. He is preoccupied with stories of people (like Mia and Sebastian in La La Land or Andrew in Whiplash) attempting and sometimes failing to strike a balance between their ambitions and their relationships with others. Janet (and thus First Man itself) refuses to let Armstrong off the hook for his bare minimum parenting and his conspicuous eagerness to return to work whenever he’s at home. In one bitterly funny sequence, at her prodding, he has a heart to heart with his sons but conducts it like a press conference. Armstrong may, then, be another one of Chazelle’s driven yet flawed protagonists. But there’s another layer to his external coldness. If you’ve, say, read or seen The Right Stuff, you know that not all of the astronauts survived to the end of the Gemini program. You may even know that the Armstrongs lost their daughter at a very young age. Armstrong’s struggles to process the losses he’s experienced run through First Man from the very beginning but it’s only as the movie heads toward the end that it becomes apparent that, while this is a movie about America, space, exploration, discovery, perseverance and much, much more, it’s most beautifully, crushingly, cathartically a movie about grief. Monday Movie: One from the Heart, by David Bax Over the Moon: Lunar Tunes, by David Bax Scott's Movie Journal #2 Half Brothers: Half-Assed, by David Bax The Midnight Sky: Mostly Cloudy, by David Bax AFI Fest 2020: My Psychedelic Love Story, by David Bax Dear Santa: For Goodness' Sake, by David Bax Tags: battleship pretensionbpclaire foydamien chazelledavid baxfilmfilmsfirst manjason clarkemoviemoviesreviewryan gosling Whiskey Tango Foxtrot: Middling East, by Scott Nye by · Published March 3, 2016 Episode 647: Directors Who Act by · Published August 11, 2019 · Last modified August 23, 2019 Prevenge: Baby Bump In the Night, by Tyler Smith by · Published March 24, 2017 · Last modified May 7, 2020 Next story TIFF 2018: Climax, by David Bax Previous story Beautiful Boy: The Official Stories, by Jeremy Elder Herself: In Every Possible Way, by David Bax	cc/2021-04/en_middle_0002.json.gz/line20
__label__cc	0.638822	0.361178	New Venture Creation Introduction of a New Venture Creation Our aim- to engage with SimVenture; a business simulation that allowed us to build and sell computers through our virtual company named Ã¢â‚¬ËœGenesisÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. The formation and running of our virtual company integrated us with new venture creation and about being an entrepreneur. It reinforced concepts previously presented in our course lectures and engaged us in a competitive and volatile business environment. SimVenture ran for three virtual years with five members on its team- each with a different role in the company. [pic]Home Screen for Genesis on SimVenture This report accounts for the working and performance of Genesis in financial and operational terms with the key decisions taken in running the organisation, and my involvement in the operation of the business. We needed to fully utilize the features that arose with new ventures, by making sound decisions. These features included innovation, fast growth, vision, employment creation and money making power, along with the ability to take greater risks for higher returns. (Stages in Planning for a New Business Venture)The Operation of Genesis After conducting market research, we decided our target market to be the Ã¢â‚¬ËœCorporationsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ industry due to its characteristics of high order and market size. Selling points were decided after noting the requirements of Corporations, demonstrating that we used consumer driven marketing strategy where we researched the needs of the consumer before making our product. Competitor research was also carried out to see what products were offered at what prices so that we could decide the mix of attributes and price of our product.In an article Ã¢â‚¬ËœHow Competitive Forces Shape Strategy' in Harvard Business Review (2008), Michael Porter discussed the factors that lead to changes in strategy due to competition. As per the needs of Corporations, our product design had vast features, good performance and style, and average qua lity. We purchased components for Genesis throughout the three years from a small wholesaler, Sourceline, who offered the best discounts relative to credit terms. From commencement, we decided to outsource all production since this would give us more time to invest somewhere else in the business.This however, can affect the business negatively because of problems of relying on the producer in terms of delays. Even so, this saved us time, space and equipment. (Harvard Business Review, 2008) Genesis Product Mix Customer feedback research was carried out every quarter of the financial year till the end of the period, keeping us well informed of customer feedback on our product. Customer Feedback for Genesis [pic] Our goal for Genesis was to be a well known and highly publicized brand within these three years of operation.As per our marketing strategy, rigorous advertising was carried out with the local newspaper. TV and radio adverts were included along with trade magazines. A network was joined where entrepreneurs would meet and increase their business circles and potential customer base. Leads were generated starting from 1000 going up to 9999. A premium website was also created for e-commerce and to provide online customer support. Lastly, we held annual exhibitions for three years at Ã¢â‚¬ËœMeet the Corporate BuyerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ to promote our product to the corporate sector.Competitive pricing was adopted, making the product relatively cheaper for the superior attributes Genesis offered as compared to the competitors. Sales channels were kept at various hours in personal selling (entrepreneurial marketing) and a contract with a distributor to sell our product from the second month of the operation of Genesis was concluded. In the third year, a major accomplishment of the business was the addition of another distributor which sufficiently expanded sales. (Establishing Competitive Prices)The Ã¢â‚¬ËœOrganisationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ I started my role of the Ã¢â‚¬ËœOrganisationÃ¢â ‚¬â„¢ by the completing all legal requirements within the first month of the running of Genesis. This would give us an upper hand in the future, where legal requirements may need to be met. For example, if we urgently required another employee to increase the workforce, time would not be wasted, as our Employee Contract would already be prepared. Also, setting up a Limited Company would portray Genesis as a more professional and successful company, making it better for its image.Furthermore, Health and Safety Contracts and Distributor Contracts were created in order to avoid any problems later when employees needed to be hired or when we contracted with a distributor. [pic] The second step was of recruitment and selection. With the feedback of the team, we gradually increased the number of employees working for Genesis, ensuring that all of them were proficient in a variety of skills. Joseph Schumpeter states, Ã¢â‚¬Å"Individuals with key experiences and expertise are key elements in the new venture creationÃ¢â‚¬ - Schumpeterian ?Unternehmergeist' (Fiery souls). Therefore, all the employees, including the entrepreneur, received significant amounts of training so that they could work to the best of their potential. As numbers of employees grew, we shifted from external sources of training to on the job training. This decreased our costs since more employees could avail the training opportunity at the same cost. It was crucial to ensure that stress levels for the employees and entrepreneur was controlled, because if neglected, this would decrease efficiency and lead to obscuring time management.The entrepreneur was heavily trained in sales and marketing, fields he was not experienced in, since being an only employee at the start, it was up to him to suffice sales. Another key decision taken was that the entrepreneur was made to work full time and quit his previous job (as long as his income was not less than that at his previous job as this could be a dissatisfa ctory factor), so that he could concentrate more on Genesis and make it his primary source of income. (Wikipedia, Joseph Schumpeter) Workforce of Genesis [pic] The third limb of organisation was resources.Before incurring any shortage of storage space, Genesis was relocated onto bigger and more favourable premises with 1000 square feet of space, gaining a better image within the first year coupled with enhancement of our customer pool. We continued to purchase tools, office equipment, furniture, and transport so that the employee to resource ratio was not distorted to lower productivity. Finally, maintenance, cleaning and IT support were also contracted out, creating a sound structural base for Genesis and saving time on trivial matters. pic] Relocated Premises of Genesis Financial Aspect of Genesis This section will critically evaluate the financial performance of Genesis and will be an explanation of the available financial data on the business. [pic] First and foremost, we needed our monetary sources mapped out to overcome the financing gap many small firms face. The ? 10000 of savings of the entrepreneur was taken as the start-up capital to finance our new venture. We also acquired two grants of ? 500 each from the government for training and promotion of new ventures.Being a new business, we could avail the option of taking a loan from friends and family or from a bank, but opted not to do so as this would only raise our future costs in terms of interest payments. Lastly, selling equity to private investors was ruled out as we did not want to dilute the ownership of the business. We hired a bookkeeper in the first month of the business so that we could be updated with the accounts and forecasting of Profit and Loss, Cashflow, Balance Sheet, Ratios, Budgets and Targets. This is crucial for any business because it shows if the company is financially viable.Moreover, we used ratios to analyze company figures. In the above figure, we see that the rate of capi tal employed is 34%, showing that the company is profitable. The current ratio is supposed to be around 1. 5 to be good in terms of liquidity. The current ratio of Genesis is at 10. 4, demonstrating that there is less risk for customers and stakeholders to lose their money. Since we took no loans, our gearing ratio is zero. The asset turnover ratio shows us that the companyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s assets are being used efficiently to generate sales (greater than 1 shows that the company is operating efficiently).As discussed earlier, we purchased components from Sourceline. Sourceline offered a 30 days payment term and provided 10% discount for purchases done for over 2000 components. This was favourable for us since by the end of three years, 18500 components were ordered, availing the 10% discount. The credit terms gave us time to pay our debts and that money could be utilized somewhere else in the business. From the profit forecast, and the last operational monthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s costs, we get the brea keven point of 83 units. This is considerably lower than the actual sales of 295 units and shows the success of the company by its large margin of safety.Throughout the three years, we saw a steady increase in the bank balance from ? 207,000 at the end of the first year to ? 1,044,500 by the end of the third year. This would show any viewer the success and growth of the company from its initial start up with ? 10,000. In the first two months of the third financial year, another key decision was that we decided to give a promotional 10% discount for two months on sales, resulting in increased sales as we were incurring all advertisement costs together at the beginning of the year. (Pricing Strategy)Bank Balance Increase in the 3rd Year of Operation \| \|Operational Year \| \| \|1st \|2nd \|3rd \| \|Bank Balance \|? 20,6951 \|? 718,807 \|? 1,044,510 \| \|Profit \|? 44,837 \|? 25,805 \|? 8,310 \| \|Debtors \|? 170,600 \|? 96,080 \|? 186,180 \| Conclusion Even though we had a faced a major problem after the first mentoring session, we succeeded. Our problem- we had lost the venture on the computer! We had to play it all over again and just hope that it kept going as smooth as it did in the previous game. And it did. That being said, there were still decisions that we could have taken differently to provide a different outcome for Genesis.Perhaps we could have decided differently with respect to costing strategies, for example by dividing the costs of the business (advertising etc) evenly throughout the year instead of incurring them together at the start of each year. Also since there were a lot of leads generated and not enough sales in comparison, advertising could have been decreased, allowing more resources to be available for the business. Furthermore, we could have not implemented just-in-time (JIT) stock and kept stocks so that the first two months could have been utilized for production even though there were no sales.Another decision taken differently could have been that we c ould have started doing partial in-house production after the first year since significant idle time emerged. The product of Genesis could also have been altered to a different mix of attributes to show an innovating product which has reached its maturity period and now wants to sustain its growth. When we decided a 10% decrease in price for two months, our product was Ã¢â‚¬Ëœbetter than it needed to beÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, showing that we were bordering the line of giving the customer too much for its price. Lastly, we neglected to conduct a SWOT and PEST analysis.These could have provided us with a major competitive advantage if we were in the real world and in fact, would have been a necessity. Although spoken about in general, it was not officially conducted which I could say, was a mistake. PEST Analysis SWOT Analysis [pic] Every member of our group felt that our business was running like a well-oiled machine. The team worked well together and gave a professional and productive environment , as demonstrated by the outcome of Genesis. It was established that together we were going to gain much more than we could alone and that unity is what would get us ahead- be it a game or real life.For this very reason, I can call myself a team player. References 1) All business, Ã¢â‚¬Å"Establishing Competitive PricesÃ¢â‚¬ , Retrieved on 26th April 2010 from 2) New Venture Creation, Webct, Ã¢â‚¬Å"SWOT AnalysisÃ¢â‚¬ and Ã¢â‚¬Å"Pest AnalysisÃ¢â‚¬ Illustrations Porter, Michael E, Harvard Business Review (2008), Ã¢â‚¬Å"The Five Competitive Forces That Shape StrategyÃ¢â‚¬ , Retrieved on 25th April 2010 from Ã¢â‚¬Å"Pricing StrategyÃ¢â‚¬ , Retrieved on 26th April 2010 from 3) Ã¢â‚¬Å"Stages in Planning for a New Business VentureÃ¢â‚¬ , Retrieved on 25th April 2010 from Wikipedia, Ã¢â‚¬Å"Joseph SchumpeterÃ¢â‚¬ , Retrieved on 27th April 2010 from New Venture Creation Introduction of a New Venture Creation Our aim- to engage with SimVenture; a business simulation that allowed us to build and sell computers through our virtual company named Ã¢â‚¬ËœGenesisÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. The formation and running of our virtual company integrated us with new venture creation and about being an entrepreneur. It reinforced concepts previously presented in our course lectures and engaged us in a competitive and volatile business environment. SimVenture ran for three virtual years with five members on its team- each with a different role in the company. [pic]Home Screen for Genesis on SimVenture This report accounts for the working and performance of Genesis in financial and operational terms with the key decisions taken in running the organisation, and my involvement in the operation of the business. We needed to fully utilize the features that arose with new ventures, by making sound decisions. These features included innovation, fast growth, vision, employment creation and money making power, along with the ability to take greater risks for higher returns. (Stages in Planning for a New Business Venture)The Operation of Genesis After conducting market research, we decided our target market to be the Ã¢â‚¬ËœCorporationsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ industry due to its characteristics of high order and market size. Selling points were decided after noting the requirements of Corporations, demonstrating that we used consumer driven marketing strategy where we researched the needs of the consumer before making our product. Competitor research was also carried out to see what products were offered at what prices so that we could decide the mix of attributes and price of our product.In an article Ã¢â‚¬ËœHow Competitive Forces Shape Strategy' in Harvard Business Review (2008), Michael Porter discussed the factors that lead to changes in strategy due to competition. As per the needs of Corporations, our product design had vast features, good performance and style, and average qua lity. We purchased components for Genesis throughout the three years from a small wholesaler, Sourceline, who offered the best discounts relative to credit terms. From commencement, we decided to outsource all production since this would give us more time to invest somewhere else in the business.This however, can affect the business negatively because of problems of relying on the producer in terms of delays. Even so, this saved us time, space and equipment. (Harvard Business Review, 2008) Genesis Product Mix Customer feedback research was carried out every quarter of the financial year till the end of the period, keeping us well informed of customer feedback on our product. Customer Feedback for Genesis [pic] Our goal for Genesis was to be a well known and highly publicized brand within these three years of operation.As per our marketing strategy, rigorous advertising was carried out with the local newspaper. TV and radio adverts were included along with trade magazines. A network was joined where entrepreneurs would meet and increase their business circles and potential customer base. Leads were generated starting from 1000 going up to 9999. A premium website was also created for e-commerce and to provide online customer support. Lastly, we held annual exhibitions for three years at Ã¢â‚¬ËœMeet the Corporate BuyerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ to promote our product to the corporate sector.Competitive pricing was adopted, making the product relatively cheaper for the superior attributes Genesis offered as compared to the competitors. Sales channels were kept at various hours in personal selling (entrepreneurial marketing) and a contract with a distributor to sell our product from the second month of the operation of Genesis was concluded. In the third year, a major accomplishment of the business was the addition of another distributor which sufficiently expanded sales. (Establishing Competitive Prices)The Ã¢â‚¬ËœOrganisationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ I started my role of the Ã¢â‚¬ËœOrganisationÃ¢â ‚¬â„¢ by the completing all legal requirements within the first month of the running of Genesis. This would give us an upper hand in the future, where legal requirements may need to be met. For example, if we urgently required another employee to increase the workforce, time would not be wasted, as our Employee Contract would already be prepared. Also, setting up a Limited Company would portray Genesis as a more professional and successful company, making it better for its image.Furthermore, Health and Safety Contracts and Distributor Contracts were created in order to avoid any problems later when employees needed to be hired or when we contracted with a distributor. [pic] The second step was of recruitment and selection. With the feedback of the team, we gradually increased the number of employees working for Genesis, ensuring that all of them were proficient in a variety of skills. Joseph Schumpeter states, Ã¢â‚¬Å"Individuals with key experiences and expertise are key elements in the new venture creationÃ¢â‚¬ - Schumpeterian ?Unternehmergeist' (Fiery souls). Therefore, all the employees, including the entrepreneur, received significant amounts of training so that they could work to the best of their potential. As numbers of employees grew, we shifted from external sources of training to on the job training. This decreased our costs since more employees could avail the training opportunity at the same cost. It was crucial to ensure that stress levels for the employees and entrepreneur was controlled, because if neglected, this would decrease efficiency and lead to obscuring time management.The entrepreneur was heavily trained in sales and marketing, fields he was not experienced in, since being an only employee at the start, it was up to him to suffice sales. Another key decision taken was that the entrepreneur was made to work full time and quit his previous job (as long as his income was not less than that at his previous job as this could be a dissatisfa ctory factor), so that he could concentrate more on Genesis and make it his primary source of income. (Wikipedia, Joseph Schumpeter) Workforce of Genesis [pic] The third limb of organisation was resources.Before incurring any shortage of storage space, Genesis was relocated onto bigger and more favourable premises with 1000 square feet of space, gaining a better image within the first year coupled with enhancement of our customer pool. We continued to purchase tools, office equipment, furniture, and transport so that the employee to resource ratio was not distorted to lower productivity. Finally, maintenance, cleaning and IT support were also contracted out, creating a sound structural base for Genesis and saving time on trivial matters. pic] Relocated Premises of Genesis Financial Aspect of Genesis This section will critically evaluate the financial performance of Genesis and will be an explanation of the available financial data on the business. [pic] First and foremost, we needed our monetary sources mapped out to overcome the financing gap many small firms face. The ? 10000 of savings of the entrepreneur was taken as the start-up capital to finance our new venture. We also acquired two grants of ? 500 each from the government for training and promotion of new ventures.Being a new business, we could avail the option of taking a loan from friends and family or from a bank, but opted not to do so as this would only raise our future costs in terms of interest payments. Lastly, selling equity to private investors was ruled out as we did not want to dilute the ownership of the business. We hired a bookkeeper in the first month of the business so that we could be updated with the accounts and forecasting of Profit and Loss, Cashflow, Balance Sheet, Ratios, Budgets and Targets. This is crucial for any business because it shows if the company is financially viable.Moreover, we used ratios to analyze company figures. In the above figure, we see that the rate of capi tal employed is 34%, showing that the company is profitable. The current ratio is supposed to be around 1. 5 to be good in terms of liquidity. The current ratio of Genesis is at 10. 4, demonstrating that there is less risk for customers and stakeholders to lose their money. Since we took no loans, our gearing ratio is zero. The asset turnover ratio shows us that the companyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s assets are being used efficiently to generate sales (greater than 1 shows that the company is operating efficiently).As discussed earlier, we purchased components from Sourceline. Sourceline offered a 30 days payment term and provided 10% discount for purchases done for over 2000 components. This was favourable for us since by the end of three years, 18500 components were ordered, availing the 10% discount. The credit terms gave us time to pay our debts and that money could be utilized somewhere else in the business. From the profit forecast, and the last operational monthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s costs, we get the brea keven point of 83 units. This is considerably lower than the actual sales of 295 units and shows the success of the company by its large margin of safety.Throughout the three years, we saw a steady increase in the bank balance from ? 207,000 at the end of the first year to ? 1,044,500 by the end of the third year. This would show any viewer the success and growth of the company from its initial start up with ? 10,000. In the first two months of the third financial year, another key decision was that we decided to give a promotional 10% discount for two months on sales, resulting in increased sales as we were incurring all advertisement costs together at the beginning of the year. (Pricing Strategy)Bank Balance Increase in the 3rd Year of Operation \| \|Operational Year \| \| \|1st \|2nd \|3rd \| \|Bank Balance \|? 20,6951 \|? 718,807 \|? 1,044,510 \| \|Profit \|? 44,837 \|? 25,805 \|? 8,310 \| \|Debtors \|? 170,600 \|? 96,080 \|? 186,180 \| Conclusion Even though we had a faced a major problem after the first mentoring session, we succeeded. Our problem- we had lost the venture on the computer! We had to play it all over again and just hope that it kept going as smooth as it did in the previous game. And it did. That being said, there were still decisions that we could have taken differently to provide a different outcome for Genesis.Perhaps we could have decided differently with respect to costing strategies, for example by dividing the costs of the business (advertising etc) evenly throughout the year instead of incurring them together at the start of each year. Also since there were a lot of leads generated and not enough sales in comparison, advertising could have been decreased, allowing more resources to be available for the business. Furthermore, we could have not implemented just-in-time (JIT) stock and kept stocks so that the first two months could have been utilized for production even though there were no sales.Another decision taken differently could have been that we c ould have started doing partial in-house production after the first year since significant idle time emerged. The product of Genesis could also have been altered to a different mix of attributes to show an innovating product which has reached its maturity period and now wants to sustain its growth. When we decided a 10% decrease in price for two months, our product was Ã¢â‚¬Ëœbetter than it needed to beÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, showing that we were bordering the line of giving the customer too much for its price. Lastly, we neglected to conduct a SWOT and PEST analysis.These could have provided us with a major competitive advantage if we were in the real world and in fact, would have been a necessity. Although spoken about in general, it was not officially conducted which I could say, was a mistake. PEST Analysis SWOT Analysis [pic] Every member of our group felt that our business was running like a well-oiled machine. The team worked well together and gave a professional and productive environment , as demonstrated by the outcome of Genesis. It was established that together we were going to gain much more than we could alone and that unity is what would get us ahead- be it a game or real life.For this very reason, I can call myself a team player. References 1) All business, Ã¢â‚¬Å"Establishing Competitive PricesÃ¢â‚¬ , Retrieved on 26th April 2010 from 2) New Venture Creation, Webct, Ã¢â‚¬Å"SWOT AnalysisÃ¢â‚¬ and Ã¢â‚¬Å"Pest AnalysisÃ¢â‚¬ Illustrations Porter, Michael E, Harvard Business Review (2008), Ã¢â‚¬Å"The Five Competitive Forces That Shape StrategyÃ¢â‚¬ , Retrieved on 25th April 2010 from Ã¢â‚¬Å"Pricing StrategyÃ¢â‚¬ , Retrieved on 26th April 2010 from 3) Ã¢â‚¬Å"Stages in Planning for a New Business VentureÃ¢â‚¬ , Retrieved on 25th April 2010 from Wikipedia, Ã¢â‚¬Å"Joseph SchumpeterÃ¢â‚¬ , Retrieved on 27th April 2010 from	cc/2021-04/en_middle_0002.json.gz/line25
__label__cc	0.612546	0.387454	Then she 1 died in Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan. Abraham went to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her. 2 She died at Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan, and Abraham went to mourn for Sarah and to weep over her. Sarah died in Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan; and Abraham went in to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her. she died at Kiriath–arba (now called Hebron) in the land of Canaan. There Abraham mourned and wept for her. Sarah died in Kiriath Arba, present-day Hebron, in the land of Canaan. Abraham mourned for Sarah and wept. And Sarah’s death took place in Kiriath-arba, that is, Hebron, in the land of Canaan: and Abraham went into his house, weeping and sorrowing for Sarah. And Sarah died at Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan; and Abraham went in to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her. So Sarah died in Kirjath Arba (that is , Hebron) in the land of Canaan, and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her. And Sarah in Kirjatharba the same [is] Hebron in the land of Canaan <03667>_: and Abraham to mourn for Sarah and to weep in Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron ) in the land ; and Abraham in to mourn htkblw hrvl dpol Mhrba abyw Nenk Nwrbx awh ebra tyrqb tmtw (23:2) apeyanen sarra {N-PRI} en polei arbok {N-PRI} h R-NSF estin T-DSN koilwmati {N-DSN} auth D-NSF cebrwn {N-PRI} en hlyen abraam koqasyai V-AMN sarran {N-PRI} kai penyhsai V-AAN Then she in Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron . Abraham 1 tn Heb “Sarah.” The proper name has been replaced in the translation by the pronoun (“she”) for stylistic reasons. 2 sn Mourn…weep. The description here is of standard mourning rites (see K. A. Kitchen, NBD3 149-50). They would have been carried out in the presence of the corpse, probably in Sarah’s tent. So Abraham came in to mourn; then he rose up to go and bury his dead (v. 3). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ALL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20	cc/2021-04/en_middle_0002.json.gz/line38
__label__cc	0.738172	0.261828	Meet Debra Cash of Boston Dance Alliance Today we’d like to introduce you to Debra Cash. Debra, can you briefly walk us through your story – how you started and how you got to where you are today. For three decades, I held down at least two jobs. During regular work hours, I was a corporate customer experience researcher with an international clientele. At night and on weekends, I was dance critic for the Boston Globe and many other publications. I taught as an adjunct at a number of area colleges, and give preshow talks before World Music/CRASHarts dance performances at the Institute of Contemporary Art. I am the Scholar in Residence at the Bates Dance Festival in Lewiston, Maine during the summers and have had a similar role at Jacob’s Pillow in the Berkshires. I have always been an advocate and activist for fair treatment of creative professionals, especially since the internet has had an impact on publishing and the arts. I have won prizes for my poetry, and have one book out, with a second slowly taking form. If I had to name a category, you could say I am a “culture worker.” In 2015, I was ready to commit all my energies to work in Boston’s cultural sector. While it meant taking a pay cut, it also meant that I could wake up every morning committed to helping the arts that bring me such joy, and collaborating with colleagues who believe in the power of the imagination. That has been very rewarding. Dance is the most ephemeral of artforms. In order to thrive, it requires tireless devotion by its practitioners and its supporters in the audience and across our community. Securing funding for the arts is never easy. It is especially challenging for an organization like Boston Dance Alliance that makes its impact behind the scenes, and supports a huge range of organizations from youth organizations to professional artists. In recent years, BDA has received generous funding from local foundations, but are always working to diversify and increase our sources of support so that we can sustain our unique programs and expand the good work we do every day. Since 2015, we have been able to take advantage of technological advances. We completely redesigned and relaunched BDA’s website so that it shines a brighter light on the wealth of dance activity going on across the region. A CRM system has increased the efficiency of our back office activities and our tiny staff. But as anyone who has ever built a database from scratch can tell you, it’s a process something like birth — it hurts while it’s happening, but you have something to celebrate when it is complete. Alright – so let’s talk business. Tell us about Boston Dance Alliance – what should we know? Boston Dance Alliance improves the conditions for dance so that it can thrive across the metropolitan area. Our community spans ballet to hip hop and culturally specific forms as well as social dancing in the sunlight and under the moon. We provide information in our website and weekly newsletter to dancers and audiences. We support professional dancers, choreographers, and teachers with the tools they need to create their entrepreneurial small businesses. We have created unique programs including a Dancewear Distribution program that last year provided over $26,000 worth of tap, ballet, jazz shoes and sneakers, tees, tights and more to financially disadvantaged dancers of all ages. We encourage and welcome dancers of all abilities through our dance and disability referral service. And our special portable dance floor let’s dance happen anywhere, inside or outdoors. BDA’s Raise the Floor! fund solicits donations so that we can loan our t floor to the Boston Public Schools at no charge. Not at all least, we are proud of having been able to advocate for dance and dancers in Boston’s Cultural plan. Founded as a volunteer organization in 1984, we have come a long way. In 2017, BDA was one of four small nonprofits in the state to be finalists for the Massachusetts Nonprofit Network’s award for Excellence. It was wonderful to receive our citation at the MA State House alongside other hard-working nonprofits. Persistence. We know that dancers never stop reaching for their best, and neither do we. BDA is always looking for ways we can identify and share resources that will make dance possible for dancers of all abilities, backgrounds, genres, and neighborhoods. Like public radio, we rely on our members! Basic membership starts at $50, with more for premium and organizational members. Join us! Website: www.bostondancealliance.org Email: dcash@bostondancealliance.org Instagram: BostonDanceAll Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/bostondancealliance Twitter: BostonDanceAll Kim Maroon Liza Voll Alicia Downey Ann Wicks	cc/2021-04/en_middle_0002.json.gz/line44

End of preview.

No dataset card yet

Downloads last month: 3