Green Hill Kitchen Sends Meals To Area Hospitals

first_imgMeals prepared for Stony Brook HospitalGreen Hill Kitchen & Que in Greenport is doing its part to give back to the community during the COVID-19 pandemic. The restaurant is working with local farms, fishermen, New York Prime Beef, and Peter’s Fruit Company to donate meals to healthcare workers at local hospitals.To start this initiative, the restaurant dropped meals to Stony Brook Hospital on Friday, April 3. On Monday, April 6, they will deliver to Stony Brook Southampton Hospital. On Saturday, April 11, it will be Eastern Long Island Hospital, and Tuesday, April 28, Peconic Bay Medical Center. The team plans to continue the services for as long as the community needs.“Here at Green Hill we are proud to support local healthcare workers that are selflessly working incredibly long hours and facing daunting challenges in front of them on a daily basis. The least we can do is make sure that they have a healthy, tasty weekly cooked meal with loads of love from all of us,” said a statement from Chef Matty Boudreau and Green Hill Kitchen & Que team.Chef Matty Boudreau. Independent/Isobel MediaThe restaurant has also announced it will now offer a provisions line, Green Hill Provisions, which allows shoppers to place orders on its website to be delivered across the East End. There is a $125 minimum order and delivery is available 24 to 48 hours after the order is placed. Products include non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages, dairy items, dry goods, frozen items, household essentials, produce, meat, seafood, and more. A Quarantine Que Kit is also available. Visit www.greenhillnycatering.com for a full list of products. Create a username and password to enter the site and shop.All proceeds from Green Hill Provisions will go to staff that was laid off to help support their [email protected] Sharelast_img read more

‘Stand up and be counted’ to halt Handbook reforms – Law Society

first_imgThe Law Society today called on solicitors to ‘stand up and be counted’ to oppose rule changes that could seriously damage the profession’s reputation. Handbook reforms proposed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority threaten to undermine confidence in solicitors both at home and abroad, vice president Christina Blacklaws told 300 solicitors gathered for the annual Risk and Compliance conference in London.Blacklaws cited moves to allow solicitors to carry out non-reserved legal services from unregulated entities. There is no evidence this will reduce prices, she said. Moreover, it is ‘too high a price to pay’ for clients, who will potentially be deprived of the protections currently afforded by professional indemnity insurance, legal professional privilege and the compensation fund.Blacklaws also hit out at plans to remove requirements for supervision and to enable sole solicitors to operate as ‘freelancers’ without offering the protections of a regulated firm.At present, Blacklaws stressed, it does not matter that clients do not understand the legal regulation framework, as redress mechanisms such as PII are built in. ‘If the SRA presses ahead clients will need to know they are taking a risk in using an unregulated firm,’ she said. Yet it is ‘unrealistic’ to expect clients to know the difference, she added.Blacklaws cited the reputational damage that could arise from ‘just a few’ instances of clients suffering loss when they do not use a regulated firm – such as the beneficiaries of a negligently written will going uncompensated. The fallout could seriously ‘undermine confidence in the entire legal system’, she said.’We need you to stand up and be counted or these changes will come in,’ Blacklaws declared.last_img read more

20 days after Utah basketball coach Ray Giacoletti resigned, his successor is still anyone’s guess

first_img Related As of Friday it will have been three weeks since Utah basketball coach Ray Giacoletti offered his resignation, presumably with a push from his boss.It seems like an eternity to diehard Ute fans, anxious to find out who will be leading their basketball program in the future, not to mention media guys who have to play the part of detectives in trying to find out who possible candidates are.Since March 2, a couple of dozen names have been bandied about by fans and media types, some serious, some outrageous and some just outright strange.Utah athletic director Chris Hill is keeping quiet as ever about the coaching search and because of his duties as a member of the NCAA Men’s Basketball Committee, has been out of town 14 of the past 20 days.However, earlier this week before leaving town again, he emphasized, “My first responsibility is to the University of Utah.”Presumably he is searching for a coach who has experience and success on the court and has the type of personality to light a fire under a basketball program that has been on a downward slide in recent years after reaching its greatest heights in the late 1990s.This is a key hire for Hill and the university. After 15 years of consistent success under Rick Majerus, including a national runner-up finish in 1998, Giacoletti produced the first two consecutive losing seasons at Utah in more than two decades. But the program’s decline wasn’t just Giacoletti’s fault.The home attendance peaked clear back in 1995-96, two years before the Final Four run and has steadily declined, dropping below 10,000 this year for the first time in 31 years. Plus, during Majerus’ last few years, the program had to put up with his frequent absences for health and family reasons, as well as the NCAA violations he incurred that cost the program scholarships and recruiting limitations.Soon after Giacoletti was let go, everybody’s favorite was ex-Stanford coach Mike Montgomery, who had 25 winning seasons in 26 years of college coaching and had recently left his job with the Golden State Warriors in the NBA. But within days he made it known he wasn’t interested in a college job.Next up was ex-Montana coach Larry Krystkowiak, who had moved on to become an assistant with the Milwaukee Bucks. Hill met with Krystkowiak a week ago, which evidently pushed the Bucks to fire coach Terry Stotts and hire Krystkowiak the following day as head coach.Other names have popped up, including coaches with local connections such as Tommy Connor, Randy Rahe, Dick Hunsaker, Jeff Judkins and Donnie Daniels. Some local fans have even been pushing to get ex-Ute coach Rick Majerus back. But Hill apparently hasn’t contacted any of these coaches and is looking outside of Utah.Among the names of successful college coaches that have surfaced are Winthrop’s Gregg Marshall, Southern Illinois’ Chris Lowery, Butler’s Todd Lickliter, Old Dominion’s Blaine Taylor, each of whom took his team to the NCAA tournament this year and Kent State’s Jim Christian.Winthrop athletic director Tom Hickman said Wednesday that he’s never heard from Hill about talking to Marshall, which makes him an unlikely candidate. Lowery and Lickliter still have teams in the tournament and could be contacted when they’re through. Taylor has told sources in Montana he’d like to come back to the West, but whether now is the time is not known.There could be several candidates that Hill is looking at, but right now, it appears Michigan State assistant coach Jim Boylen, who was interviewed by Hill Wednesday, is one of the top candidates for the job.He talked briefly to the Deseret Morning News this week and seems to have the enthusiasm and drive as well as success in assisting top coaches such as Rudy Tomjanovich with the Houston Rockets and Tom Izzo at MSU. The one thing missing from his resume is head coaching experience, but several top coaches including Izzo and Roy Williams (at Kansas) were assistants directly before getting major jobs as head coaches.The way things have been going, it almost seems inevitable that the new Ute coach will have ties to the University of Montana or the Milwaukee Bucks, or both.Montgomery, was the coach at Montana for nine years. Utah State’s Stew Morrill, a candidate three years ago who quickly made it known he wasn’t a candidate this time around, was Montgomery’s successor at Montana. Taylor, who has done well in six years at Old Dominion, coached under both Montgomery and Morrill at Montana before becoming the head coach there for eight years.Krystkowiak, Hill’s apparent first choice, who was a player at Montana and the head coach for two years before becoming an assistant with the Bucks. He flew to Milwaukee last week, and according to reports there, met for two hours with Krystkowiak about the Ute position.Boylen, the other known candidate to have been interviewed by Hill, was an assistant coach for the Milwaukee Bucks in 2004-05. He began his coaching career at Michigan State under Jud Heathcote, who coached at Montana prior to coming to Michigan State.Boylen also fits the profile of the past two basketball hires at Utah in the fact that he’s 41 years old and a native of the Midwest.Majerus was born in Wisconsin and Giacoletti in Illinois, and both were 41 when hired. Boylen, who turns 42 on April 18, was born in Michigan.Whoever gets the Utah job would likely earn somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million per year. Giacoletti received a seven-year deal that averaged $500,000, while Majerus was making close to $1 million when he left. Football coach Kyle Whittingham signed a deal worth $675,000 two years ago.So the question everyone wants to know is when will Utah name a new coach? The guess from here is that it will happen by the middle of next week.When Giacoletti was hired in 2004, it was on March 31, three days before the start of the Final Four. When Majerus was hired in 1989, the official announcement came the day after the Final Four, but it was 22 days after Lynn Archibald was fired. Football coach Urban Meyer was hired 17 days after Ron McBride was fired in 2002.One thing that would prevent an announcement before the Final Four would be if one of the candidates Hill was courting happened to be involved with a team that was playing the following weekend. Coaches of interestcenter_img E-mail: [email protected]last_img read more

A Washington journal Using an Antarctic film to highlight climate change without

first_img National Science Foundation Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country A lasting impressionThe finale the next afternoon combined the depth and breadth of the two previous panels. It was held in an ornate Senate hearing room on Capitol Hill, space available by invitation only from a member of that body. Accordingly, the speakers included two Democratic senators from oceanic states, Bill Nelson of Florida and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. (No Republican legislators participated, although organizers say they invited Senator Lisa Murkowski [R–AK], who in March teamed with Senator Angus King [I–ME] to form a Senate Arctic caucus. King and Senator Harry Reid [D–NV], the former majority leader, attended a private reception after the event.)The program was entitled Living at the Extremes: Geoscience Research at the Coolest Places on Earth. And whereas the other speakers stuck to that neutral theme, Whitehouse used the setting to attack what he disparagingly calls “parallel science”—information that purports to refute the reams of peer-reviewed scientific evidence showing the negative effects of climate change on a warming planet. Any attempt to hold a dialogue with its purveyors, he warned the generally supportive audience, is a waste of time.“The last thing they are interested in is more education,” he told ScienceInsider after his speech. “They have zero interest in the truth. But they are very good at communicating their position, better than most scientists, because they are trained to do it.”NSF’s Davies, a former staffer in the agency’s government affairs shop, knows better than to comment publicly on such a political diatribe. But she readily admits getting a warm feeling from an exchange between senators Nelson and Toomey shortly after Toomey told the audience about witnessing a massive “Grand Canyon” on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico off the Florida coast during a dive last year in the research vessel Alvin.“Did you see Nelson go over to Jim after his speech?” Davies asked this reporter a few days after the event. (Toomey says Nelson asked him how far off the coast the canyon was located; the answer, Toomey says, is roughly 240 kilometers.) “He really had the senator’s attention. That image is something Nelson will carry around with him because it’s new information.”“Toomey told the story [of his 8-hour dive] in such a way that it captivated the audience,” Davies continued. “It’s the ‘wow’ factor. And that was the whole point.”Raksany agrees that the goal of the climate lollapalooza was to get people hooked on Antarctica and the wonders of exploration. What happens next, she says, is out of her control. “It’s a destination film more than a science film,” she explains. “It’s pretty landscapes and adventure. It’s a place that most people will never get to experience except through giant screen and 3D. The science comes in when you start thinking about what’s happening in Antarctica, and why you should care.”Graphic design by Juan David Romero; (Video credit: The Last Reef 3D, Courtesy of Giant Screen Films and Yes/No Productions)*Correction, 1 July, 2:12 p.m.: Deborah Raksany is vice president for development and partnerships at Giant Screen Films. Her position was described incorrectly in an earlier version of the story. Courtesy of Giant Screen Films and Oceans 8 Productions Touching the publicTerry Davies doesn’t care whether the movie makes money. But as a senior associate in NSF’s geosciences directorate, she cares a great deal about finding better ways to explain the value of the science that NSF funds. That includes the agency’s $500-million-a-year investment in Antarctic research and logistics. So when Raksany told her she wanted to bring Bowermaster’s new film to Washington, Davies saw it as a chance to expose NSF program managers to new ways of interacting with the public.Giant Screen Films is no stranger to NSF. The agency had helped to fund two of its earlier films, Dinosaurs Alive and Tornado Alley, and in 2011 the two women arranged to have the film about tornado chasers screened as part of a program for policymakers entitled Hazards on the Hill.NSF didn’t spend a dime on Antarctica, Davies says. But the film shows the work that NSF-funded scientists are doing in Antarctica and the three research stations the agency operates on the continent. Davies also knew that film can be a powerful medium. So she and Raksany decided to put together a panel, entitled Communicating Science through Art, Film, and Music, as the first event of the climate trilogy.The panel, held on 15 June, included cartoonist Jim Toomey, who draws the comic strip Sherman’s Lagoon, and musician Luke Cresswell, creator of the Broadway hit Stomp and, more recently, director of three documentaries with environmental themes. Both men urged NSF scientists to find more compelling ways to present research findings to the public than the typical lecture and PowerPoint format.“If you can engage the crowd, you can bring in a lot more money,” Cresswell said, referring to his days as a street performer in London. The success of Stomp, he noted, demonstrates the power of “speaking through rhythm, which is a universal language.” He says he works hard to integrate the visual and aural aspects of his films (see clip of The Last Reef), creating what he calls “an immersive experience. You want the film to fill your soul, so that you are inspired to change something. That’s the point.” But that doesn’t mean the sponsors, which included the American Geophysical Union, didn’t have a clear agenda. Although none of the events crossed the line into direct advocacy, each one found a way to link up with the film’s not-too-subtle message: Researchers keep adding to the growing body of scientific evidence that human-induced climate change is happening, and the world needs to act on that knowledge.It’s a message aimed at achieving much more than luring people into science museums and theaters to be wowed by a film. How did Raksany pull it off? And what does her success mean for selling science in a time of political polarization and tight budgets?An homage to AntarcticaThe 60-year-old Bowermaster first went to Antarctica in 1988, for National Geographic, to chronicle a 7-month dash by adventurer Will Steger across the continent using dog sleds. Since then he’s made several more trips as a writer, tour guide, and documentary filmmaker, most recently using sea kayaks and a 23-meter sailboat to document changes along Antarctica’s 1450-kilometer-long western peninsula. Emailcenter_img The breathtakingly beautiful images in a new documentary, Antarctica: On the Edge, are meant to appeal to anyone curious about this fragile, frozen continent. But Deborah Raksany, head of development for the Chicago-based company that is distributing the 40-minute film by Jon Bowermaster, thought that some of it might also resonate with scientists and policymakers.So Raksany reached out to a few professional friends in Washington, D.C., who know the political landscape much better than she does. After months of complicated logistics, Raksany and her colleagues got their wish: a 36-hour climate tripleheader in the nation’s capital. The three events, hosted by the National Science Foundation (NSF), AAAS (which publishes ScienceInsider) and a group of Democratic senators, played to capacity crowds earlier this month.The climate lollapalooza was not your normal science lobbying fly-in, a venerable political strategy in which advocates for a particular cause descend on the nation’s capital for a day to lobby Washington’s movers and shakers. One big difference was that the organizers added artists and entertainers to the usual lineup of scientists, legislators, federal employees, and lobbyists. There also was no “ask”—their support for a particular bill or change in federal policy. Toomey, who is trained as a mechanical engineer, says his many years as a cartoonist have taught him that a formula of “90% entertainment and 10% education” works best for weaving such esoteric topics as ocean acidification and the Census of Marine Life into his comic strip. Unfortunately, he says, most scientists reverse those percentages when they present their research to a general audience.“I think you underestimate the impact of a wonderful story that gets the audience to the point where it can sympathize with the characters and then, boom, you insert this little message,” Toomey told his NSF audience. “It can be 30 seconds in an hour-long movie, or one panel in a cartoon, that says, ‘Look at this disturbed world,’ but that’s enough to make the point if you already have everybody listening to you.” Panel discussion with NSF geosciences head Roger Wakimoto (top) and (from left) Rush Holt, Representative Jerry McNerney (D–CA), Luke Cresswell, artist Amy Lamb, Jim Toomey, and Jon Bowermaster. Looking for common groundBowermaster spoke at all three events, and at NSF he started with an apology. “To quote my friend Luke and many Republican politicians, I am not a scientist, I’m a storyteller. So the only thing I’ll say today about the big C—climate change—is that it’s happening. The climate along the peninsula is changing rapidly. And it’s really easy to see its impacts if you come back year after year.”Although current attempts by the Republican majority in Congress to reduce funding for climate science at NSF and other federal agencies was on the minds of the audience, none of the speakers mentioned it directly. In fact, Representative Jerry McNerney (D–CA), the only Ph.D. mathematician in Congress, actually defended his colleagues across the aisle and scolded President Barack Obama for the way in which he’s lobbied Congress on the issue.“If you say somebody is a member of the Flat Earth Society, that’s an insult,” McNerney said, referring to speeches in which Obama uses the phrase to describe opponents of his climate policies. “I think the president has made that mistake. And if you insult somebody, they close the shutters and the conversation is over.”Maintaining a dialogue is crucial, McNerney said, because he thinks some Republican legislators are inching toward a possible compromise. “A few years ago they were arguing that there’s only a tiny fraction of carbon in the atmosphere and that adding a teensy weensy bit more won’t make a difference,” said McNerney, citing members of the House of Representatives commerce and energy committee on which he serves. “Now they are saying, well, there is something happening and we know the climate is changing. They are not ready to reduce consumption of fossil fuels or invest in carbon sequestration. But I think they’re turning a corner.”His was a solitary view among the panelists, however. AAAS CEO Rush Holt, who retired last year after serving 16 years as a Democratic congressman from New Jersey, made perhaps the most politically provocative statement of the forum when he answered a question about ways to appeal to legislators who have criticized NSF’s support for an off-Broadway play about climate change. “I would like to suggest that some of the opposition to gripping, moving art sponsored by NSF is not so much because it’s inappropriate but because it’s too effective,” Holt said.That evening, an event at AAAS offered the most traditional form of Washington political entertainment—a screening of the entire film, followed by presentations from polar researchers Robin Bell of Columbia University and Brendan Kelly, chief scientist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium in northern California. The public was invited, although the audience was heavily weighted toward scientists and science policy watchers. Toomey also had some advice for scientists who find it difficult to explain their work to a lay audience. “Everybody has a camera in their pocket,” he says, referring to a smartphone. “So take a picture of what you’re doing, and send it to us. We’ll take it from there.”After the talk, Toomey expanded on his suggestion. “I’m doing a video on the deep ocean, and looking for pictures of deep-sea animals,” he explained. “If scientists would just post, license-free on Wikimedia, what they have already taken, it would make my life much easier.”  The new film, which took him 5 years to make and posed numerous logistical challenges, is an homage to the changes that he’s seen over the years. But Bowermaster, who has spoken at all three events, says it isn’t preachy. “I’ve been a journalist all my life, and I think I know where the line is,” he says.He readily admits he crossed that line into advocacy in 2012 when he teamed up with his live-in partner, musician Natalie Merchant, to film a rally/concert by those opposed to hydraulic fracture drilling, or fracking, in New York state, where they both live. (Merchant was a last-minute cancellation to the recent festivities, because of what Bowermaster called “exhaustion” from the strain of making a documentary about her reworking of a 20-year-old hit album, Tigerlily.)“But the Antarctica film is apolitical,” he says. “I put up half of the money,” he says about his joint venture with Raksany’s company, Giant Screen Films, “and we hope that it will be a profitable venture.” Courtesy of Giant Screen Films and Oceans 8 Productions last_img read more