What’s New With This Story:
-Miami entrepreneur Taylor Cohen invented a new food product that is spreading fast throughout the Magic City.
-The product is a lentil based alternative to tofu called Adashah.
-Cohen and her brother Brandon started a business around the product in 2015. They now make over 600 pounds of it a week and distribute to over 15 South Florida restaurants.
-della test kitchen in Wynwood swears by the product, and it is a huge hit with customers.
Taylor Cohen was just your typical food justice warrior and outdoor educator a few years back.
Nothing typical about her.
Now Cohen, a native of Surfside, has taken her passion for making change to the business world.
Along with her brother Brandon, Taylor is poised to change the way South Florida looks at meat alternatives.
Her product is called Adashah and it is a unique lentil based food that is most similar to tofu.
She invented the product in the years following her diagnosis of Colitis.
Doctors gave her a strict nutritional regime but few of those foods spoke to her.
“I started eating more of a plant-based diet and eliminating animal proteins from my diet,” Cohen told RISE NEWS. “I was focusing on the vegan meat alternatives that are on the market right now. But what I saw was that pretty much everything either had soy or gluten or I read the ingredients and they were full of chemicals that I didn’t understand.”
Cohen said that she wanted to create something similar to tofu in how it picks up flavors, but also something that would taste great on its own.
She seems to have made just that.
In just over two years, Cohen has scaled up to servicing over 15 restaurants from Boca Raton to Doral.
She said that she creates over 600 pounds of the stuff each week.
The product is a trade secret but Cohen said that it is 100 percent organic and preservative free.
Luis Garcia, the manager of della test kitchen in Wynwood loves Adashah.
He told RISE NEWS that his customers can’t get enough of the stuff and that he likes it much more than tofu.
To learn more about how to get Adashah, visit their website: https://adashah.com
RISE NEWS is South Florida’s digital news magazine. Follow us on Facebook to make sure you never miss a story!
Have a news tip about this topic or something completely different? Send it on in to email@example.com.
Watch More: Welcome to the Italian Mecca Of South Florida
What Do You Think?
About the AuthorRich Robinson is the CEO and publisher of Rise News. He is also a journalist and a native of Miami. Robinson graduated from the University of Alabama and can be followed on Twitter @RichRobMiami.
You Might also like
Every year, thousands of young progressives descend on Washington to intern for Democratic lawmakers.
And around the country, thousands more take internships on state and Congressional races each election cycle.
For many young Progressives, an internship like this is the surest way to get a feel for politics.
Perhaps it’s that campaign fellowship with the local Democratic committee that leads to a lifelong interest in political organizing.
Or perhaps it’s that summer stint with a Democratic representative in Washington that sparks a commitment to fight for progressive causes.
That’s how it was for me.
When I first took a serious interest in politics, I was a freshman in college.
That summer, I volunteered with a Senate race in my home state of New Jersey and was immediately hooked on campaign organizing.
That position led to another, and eventually I landed an internship with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Of course, as is common with these positions, they were all unpaid.
Since then, I’ve been able to find work in the private sector – as a paid consultant for some of the very groups where I once worked for free.
While I was privileged enough to take an unpaid position for several semesters – and never worry about having to pay bills thanks to the generosity of my parents – others aren’t always so lucky.
Guillermo Creamer had an unpaid internship with a Democratic member on the Hill, and later with the DC Mayor’s office.
For him, it wasn’t always easy making ends meet.
“The lack of funds really put me against the corner at times when it came to eating lunch, dry cleaning and even paying for rent,” Creamer said in an interview. “I was working 40 hours a week while being required to work a minimum of three days a week. If I ever had a gig that would come up, I’d call out of my internship because it is really hard to turn down money.”
Having had enough, Cramer, and several other Washington, DC students founded Pay Our Interns, a bipartisan campaign dedicated to pressuring more organizations to offer paid internships.
So far they’ve has some success in getting Democrats to listen.
Several of the candidates currently in the running to be the next DNC chair have since pledged to create a paid internship program if elected.
Hopefully these actions will spur other Democratic organizations to do the same.
Yet challenges remain.
Hardly any Democratic members of Congress offer paid internships.
Neither do most campaigns or state parties.
Though there are a few exceptions.
For a party that claims to fight for the rights of workers, not paying interns is especially hypocritical.
In fact, it’s downright embarrassing.
The Republicans certainly don’t have a problem paying their interns.
The Republican National Committee runs the Eisenhower program, which pays a cohort of students to work at the party headquarters every summer.
Meanwhile, the DNC doesn’t even have an established budget line-item for its College Democrats and didn’t even have a full-time staffer dedicated to supporting these students in the midst of the 2016 campaign.
While some may say that a lack of resources are an issue, I find that argument hard to believe.
It costs less than $5,000 to hire an intern for a 10-week semester.
Meanwhile, there always seems to be enough money lying around for multimillion dollar ad buys, or lavish fundraisers at fancy D.C restaurants.
If the Democrats are going to be a party that stands for economic justice and the next generations of young leaders, it needs to first stop profiting from free millennial labor.
Disclaimer: Conor McGrath is a graduate student at the George Washington University and Finance Director of the DC Federation of College Democrats.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: SUARTS.ORG/CAMPAIGNPost Views: 864
What Do You Think?
By Alex Austin
In the 68-year history of the Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers (the nickname makes more sense now, doesn’t it?) there have been a laundry list of excellent players. These great names have been instrumental in the franchise’s success.
With Kobe Bryant announcing that he will retire at the end of this season, now seems like as good a time as ever to list the top 5 players in franchise history.
Now this is only this writer’s personal list and there are arguments that can be made for a number of individuals.
A few things to note before the listing begins.
This will only encompass the respective players on-court careers. So as important as some people have been behind the scenes and in the front office, those achievements will not be considered.
As this is a list of all-time Lakers, the years and statistics listed will only be for those years that the players were part of the franchise.
- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, C, (1975-1989) 22.1 Pts, 9.4 Reb, 2.5 Blks
How can you go wrong with the NBA’s leading scorer? While he was originally drafted 1st overall in the 1969 Draft by the Milwaukee Bucks, Kareem spent 14 of his 20 season in Los Angeles. A major part of the 1980s “Showtime” teams, he was league MVP three times and an NBA Champion five times while playing in southern California.
2. Earvin “Magic” Johnson, PG, (1979-1991, 1996) 19.5 Pts, 7.2 Reb, 11.2 Ast
Another 1st overall pick, this time in 1979, “Magic” was a 6’9″ point guard and the distributor for the aforementioned “Showtime” teams. By the time his career ended, he was a five-time NBA Champion and a three-time MVP. One of the best play-makers of his size, Magic paved the ways for modern players like LeBron James and James Harden to be their teams’ primary ball-handlers.
3. Kobe Bryant, SG, (1996-2016) 25.2 Pts, 5.3 Reb, 4.8 Ast (as of this writing)
The “Black Mamba”, he is and has been the face of the Lakers for the majority of his 20-year career. Though he was only MVP on one occasion, he was a part of five championship teams. Bryant also holds the Lakers record for points with 32,785 as of this writing.
4. Jerry West, PG, (1960-1974) 27 Pts, 5.8 Reb, 6.7 Ast
The 2nd overall pick in 1960 (right behind fellow Hall-of-Famer Oscar Robertson), West does not have the accolades of others on this list. He was never league MVP and he only won one championship, though he was an All-Star selection every year he played. However, his pure play-making ability earned him nicknames such as “Mr. Clutch” and “Mr. Outside”. Nowadays, he is also known as the inspiration for the silhouette that makes up the NBA logo today.
5. George Mikan, C, (1947-1954, 1956) 23.1 Pts, 13.4 Reb (only BBA/NBA stats available)
Mikan was the first superstar of professional basketball. He arrived with the Lakers in his second professional season when they were part of the National Basketball League. The franchise jumped the next year to the Basketball Association of America, which the following year became the NBA. He led the Lakers to five BBA/NBA championships, while leading the league in scoring three times and rebounds twice.
Cover Photo Credit: jpellgen/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 447
What Do You Think?
By John Massey
Francis Fukuyama infamously penned his 1989 essay “The End of History?”, and expanded it into a full book in 1992 “The End of History and the Last Man”.
Very broadly speaking, Fukuyama argued a Hegelian interpretation of history, in which the ending political order would be some variation of liberal democracy.
Western liberalism had just triumphed over the Soviet defense system in Eastern Europe, without firing a shot (though with the blessing of Mikhail Gorbachev).
On Christmas Day of 1991, the last bastion of Soviet political ideology receded into the “dustbin of history”.
The political and ideological victory was complete, and even a demonstration of military victory was completed on February 28th of 1991, with the tidy defeat of the Soviet style Iraqi Military.
While I don’t intend to add my voice to the two decades of dog piling on Mr. Fukuyama, as I at the very least respect the man and lack the requisite qualification to competently critique his early work, the last triumph is an example of both unjustified and dangerous Western triumphalism.
The relative ease of the Gulf War, and the false equivocation between Soviet Forces and Iraqi forces, has made western policy makers arrogant, and can lead to chasing “easy wars” that are anything but easy.
Operation Desert Storm was a flawless execution of the doctrine of AirLand Battle (ALB).
Put over simply, ALB relies on utilization of air forces on a tactical level, special forces in the deep battle space, and a counter blitz composed of armored and mechanized units, in order to both forestall reserve units, and deplete the momentum of the breeching force.
This would negate the overwhelming superiority of Warsaw Pact forces, and resulted in the Pentagon estimating for the first time that NATO might be able to win a land war in Europe against the Warsaw Pact.
The defeat of the Iraqi Military then, was heralded by many as a proof of concept, and that Warsaw Pact forces had been overestimated.
After all, Iraqi battalions equipped with BMPs, T-55s, and T-72s melted in the face of Abrams, Challengers, AMX-30s, TOWs, Hellfires, Mavericks, Paveways, and the rest of the menagerie designed to defend Europe against a Soviet fueled onslaught.
This was all accomplished with great speed, and few casualties.
Western military superiority should not be taken for granted however.
First, it should be noted that Coalition Forces were: more numerous, better trained, and had a much better developed doctrine in the way of ALB.
These are all qualities that would not have been shared by Warsaw Pact forces. What the Iraqis did share with the Warsaw Pact was equipment, to an extent.
Saddam intentionally kept the Iraqi Air Force weak, for fear of an Air Force sponsored coup. As a result, pilots of Iraqi’s most valuable air superiority fighters, their MiG-29s, proved ineffective against Coalition aircraft.
This is epitomized in one instance in “an early engagement in which a MiG-29 pilot shot down his wingman and then flew his own aircraft into the ground some 30 seconds later”.
Furthermore, despite having the 6th largest air force in the world at the time, less than half of Iraq’s aircraft were third or fourth generation aircraft, leaving the Iraqi Air Force both incompetent and technologically outpaced in comparison to Coalition forces.
The situation on the ground was much the same for the Iraqi Army. Top of the line Soviet armor, then and to this day, out range their NATO peers due to the utilization of Anti Tank Missiles fired from the gun barrel, like the 9M119 Svir.
The Soviet Union was also one of the first pioneers of Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA), and used it extensively.
An often copy and pasted, but thus far elusive, article purportedly in “Jane’s International Defense Review” by Richard M. Ogorkiewicz and entitled “Impenetrable Russian Tank Armour Stands Up to Examinination”, claims that tests conducted on Soviet T-72s outfitted with Kontakt 5 ERA were able to defeat anti-tank munitions available to NATO in the 1980s when Kontakt 5 would be top of the line ERA.
I cannot find the original article, if it exists, and the results may be dubious even if it does. In any case, top of the line Soviet armor would have been highly impressive in combat against NATO units in both firepower and protection.
The Iraqi Army however, did not have top of the line Soviet armor. Much like the Iraqi Air Force, the Iraqi Army’s armor was a mishmash of old and new, and with terrible training. An infamous report of an engagement between a single American M1A1 and three Iraqi “Asad Babil” T-72s recounts the Iraqi tanks ambushing the Abrams.
The first two fired high explosive rounds, ill suited for fighting armor, and the final engaging with a sabot round.
All three were destroyed, including the last tank being killed through a sand dune. Iraqi’s tank force, in addition to being unaware of what types of rounds to use against modern main battle tanks, was partially composed of somewhere in the range of 3,000 T-54s and its derivatives, as well as 1,500 T-62s.
The Iraqis also had around 1,000 T-72Ms imported from Poland. T-72Ms were a variant of the Soviet main battle tank designed for export, and to be inferior to their Soviet counterparts.
Dubbed by Viktor Suvorov as “monkey models” in his 1982 book “Inside the Soviet Army”, the Soviet Union exported these simpler tanks to its allies, and would be mass produced for usage by the Soviet Union itself should a large scale war break out and last for more than a few weeks.
As a result of these simplifications, monkey models: do not have stabilized guns, cannot fire anti-tank missiles, lack composite armor, lack NBC protection systems, have inferior radio and optical equipment, and exclusively manual turret traversal, among other simplifications.
There is also some merit to the claim that domestically produced “Saddam” and “Asad Babil” T-72s were further downgrades of the T-72M, though this claim is contested.
As a result of all of these factors, we can conclude that the Iraqi Military was ill equipped and ill trained to engage Coalition forces who consistently outgunned and outclassed them.
But this is not representative of the quality of competent usage of technologically relevant Soviet equipment.
Why then does the myth of Western invincibility exist?
In particular the American M1A2 Abrams is susceptible to this myth. The hulking tank, weighing 70 tons, can only be airlifted one at a time by a handful of aircraft in the US arsenal, which makes rapid reaction near impossible.
This is all worth it though, because its impervious to incompetent Iraqi tank crews and insurgents with RPG-7s, thanks to depleted uranium armor, right?
The only variant of the M1 Abrams used by the Saudi Army is the M1A2, seen here cooked off by a Houthi ATGM:
The ATGM in question is likely a variant of the 9M133 Konkurs, based on the infrared bulb on the back of the warhead. Granted, it appears that this Saudi Abrams was not utilizing any kind of appliqué armor, but an $8 million vehicle was destroyed by a Soviet era ATGM all the same.
Perhaps then, Western policy makers should not give in to the attractive vision of an easy war? Perhaps planners should not presume full spectrum dominance when charting out plans for the defense of the Baltic states, Taiwan, or Seoul?
Perhaps being humble in our capabilities, and meticulously planning alongside friends, the hopefully infrequent and necessary wars we fight is a better use of our blood and treasure than chasing “easy wars”?
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in public affairs. Anyone can write for us as long as you are fiercely interested in making the world a better place.
Cover Photo Credit: Bryan Dourrough/Flickr (CC by 2.0)Post Views: 663
What Do You Think?