text:
'This Week' Transcript: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Transcript: HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Sen. Mitch McConnell
March 7, 2010 -- DOWD: Good morning and welcome to "This Week."
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I asked Congress to finish this work.
DOWD: The final act for health care reform.
MCCONNELL: This is politically toxic in the extreme.
DOWD: Can Democrats round up the votes?
(UNKNOWN): Assume (ph) nothing.
(UNKNOWN): We will not compromise.
DOWD: Can Republicans keep up the (inaudible) defense?
(UNKNOWN): This bill can be defeated.
DOWD: Questions for our headliners, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Only on "This Week."
REP. ERIC MASSA, D-N.Y.: Did I use salty language? Yes.
DOWD: Culture of corruption. Is history repeating itself, this time for Democrats?
That and Oscar picks from our roundtable, with George Will, Donna Brazile, Republican strategist Torie Clarke and Robert Reich of the American Prospect.
And as always, the Sunday Funnies.
DAVID LETTERMAN, TALK SHOW HOST: They are trying to get Paterson to leave early, and I said to myself, well, that sounds like a job for Jay Leno.
DOWD: Good morning, everyone. Joining me now, Secretary of Health and Human Services and former Kansas governor, Kathleen Sebelius.
Welcome to the show.
SEBELIUS: Thanks, Matt.
DOWD: Well, it's your anniversary of your nomination to the Cabinet, so happy anniversary.
SEBELIUS: Oh, thank you.
DOWD: You're ready for a vacation?
SEBELIUS: Well, it's been a very exciting and interesting place to be. I wouldn't have missed it.
DOWD: Well, I wanted to sort of start out broader, about 10,000 feet, and have you reflect back on the last year. A year ago, if you think about where things stood, the Democrats were enthusiastic, everybody was engaged, the independents were totally on board, people were (inaudible), Democrats in the administration were riding a big wave, and today a year later, things aren't as they were back then. And we put together some glass to sort of show the graph of that. If you can see from these graphics, president's approval is way down from a year ago. His approval on the economy is way down from last year at this same time, and his approval on health care reform is way down from where it was back then. And so the question I have is -- it's Oscar night today, so I'm going to paraphrase from a movie, "Wizard of Oz," we're not in Kansas anymore. And I just want to know, what do you think happened over the course of this year and why we are where we are today?
SEBELIUS: Well, Matt, I think that a lot of Americans are worried about what happens next, worried about jobs and the economy, worried about their health security, want to know, you know, will they be able to protect themselves and their families? And certainly the current situation is shaky.
The first thing the president did was a big job spill with the Recovery Act, and that is beginning to pay off. Stabilize the economy. We're seeing finally a stop in the bleeding of job loss, and hopefully we'll see a pickup in -- we've seen a huge pickup in productivity; we're going to see that followed by jobs.
But the worrying about health security is still going on. It's why the president tackled it in the beginning. You know, we see people opening their statements this year and having jaw-dropping rate increases, and they have no control over it. They feel like they are really caught in the middle.
DOWD: Do you think the administration has made any mistakes at all along the way that have led to where he stands today, that they made errors or dropped the ball on anything over the course of the last year?
SEBELIUS: Well, I don't think there is any question. The president would have loved to have the health debate move at a more rapid pace. You know, you referenced my coming out of Kansas. One of the things that happens in legislative sessions in state legislatures is that they have a timetable. We have to pass a budget. You have to move things forward. That's what I get from Americans all over the country. They want something to be done. They want things to move to the next step, and I think that's why the president now has called on Congress to have an up-or-down vote on health reform. Let's get the job done, let's finish what has been talked about for the last year, and make health reform real for American people.
DOWD: Well, do you think one of the mistakes, as you reflect on this, that maybe the president should have been more aggressive or more assertive or more clear earlier on health care, that he waited too long, until the last couple of weeks, to really engage on it and present what he thought was the right thing? Do you think that was too long of a time and ceded too much authority to Congress too early?
SEBELIUS: I think there's a balance. Clearly, the members in Congress had to arm (ph) the legislation or it was dead on arrival. It couldn't have been written in the White House and dropped on Congress. You can't imagine how many conversations I had with folks during my confirmation hearing who thought I must have the bill in my purse, you know, just waiting for it to be given. So that took a while for Congress to fully engage.
But there have been more hearings, more discussions, more debates, more ideas, more plans, and the president, I can tell you, has been fully engaged from day one. What I can tell you, because of that partnership, the bill has passed the House, the bill has passed the Senate with a supermajority. We have comprehensive legislation for the first time. We are in the final chapter, mostly because the American people are desperate. They are caught in this world where they have no control over their insurance rates. They are seeing next week, next month, their rates rise enormously, and over and over again, people are losing their coverage.
DOWD: Well, one of the things that, one of the things that people have faulted the administration for is not building a more -- bigger and stronger bipartisan coalition on health care reform, that they're faulted for that. And even if you reflect back on President Obama, then candidate Obama, talked a lot about the desire and need to build a bigger and broader coalition in order to get things done. And we have pulled something from one of his speeches there that -- let's listen to it and then I want to talk about that.
SEBELIUS: Sure.
OBAMA: (inaudible) presidential politics. (inaudible) 50 plus one, but you can't get it. (inaudible). We're not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-one strategy.
DOWD: Is it -- didn't the president, then candidate Obama, warn against just what the administration is doing and just what Democrats in the House and Senate are doing? He warned against exactly what's happening today.
SEBELIUS: Well, actually, I think part of the pace of this debate was a real attempt to have a bipartisan approach. The House bill had Republican support. In the Senate bill, there were months spent with six senators, three Republicans and three Democrats, in a room, negotiating, adding ideas to the bill, trying to figure out a strategy to move forward in a bipartisan fashion.
As you know, the Senate bill didn't pass 50 plus one, it passed with 60 votes, a supermajority, and I think the president would love to have Republican votes. What he has is lots of Republican ideas -- selling insurance across state lines, making sure that we crack down very aggressively on fraud and abuse, you know, moving forward.
But there is a fundamental difference. The Republicans feel strongly that insurance companies should have less regulation than they do now, less consumer protection, less oversight. The president feels strongly that we need to change the rules of the road, that we can no longer have a private health system where insurance companies get to pick and choose, where they can lock people out and price people out. And that's really one of the fundamental divides. And even though there are lots of Republican ideas in the bill, I'm not sure -- you know, we are hopeful that there will be Republican votes, but I'm not sure there will be.
DOWD: Well, I think one of the big Republican concerns and a concern of a lot of other people, including Warren Buffett, who mentioned it this week, is that what is going to happen with costs? Is anything getting really done with costs? I think everybody agrees that coverage will be expanded to 30 million people or so, but cost is the real factor. And what three things in the bill will lower health care costs in the next three years? In the next three years, by 2012, what three things in the bill that the president is pushing will lower costs?
SEBELIUS: Well, there are huge delivery changes in the bill. So looking at where we're spending money right now, that not only it's not adding to health quality, but drives costs. Patient readmission, the changes will be beginning, so we begin to pay hospitals based on who does good follow-up care and who doesn't. Good for patients, good for costs. (inaudible) care, working in a more coordinated fashion with providers and hospitals. The kind of medical help that people actually really like as patients that also really pays huge dividends, so you coordinate care. The introduction of health information technology, which really drives a lower error rate for docs, but also dramatic administrative simplification. Taking of that 30 cents of every dollar that does not pay for health care and taking it out of the system.
Certainly the issue of taxing insurance plans, the highest priced insurance plans, beginning to change those patterns. Economists all say has a huge cost driver. The Medicare commission is a huge cost driver.
DOWD: One of the things, the other thing that I think Republicans have raised is a concern about the expansion of the deficit by this bill, and Representative Paul Ryan, who was at that summit--
SEBELIUS: Right.
DOWD: -- spoke about that, and talked about the sort of budget shenanigans in his view that are being done to make it look better than it is. And so, let's watch that tape.
RYAN: The bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, but ten years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. Now, what's the true ten-year cost of this bill? In ten yeas, that's $2.3 trillion.
DOWD: Is he right about that, that you're basically saying we're going to have ten years of revenues, (inaudible) six years of cost, and that makes the bill look better than it is?
SEBELIUS: Actually, he's absolutely wrong about it. The neutral, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says just the opposite, that there is about $150 billion, $130 billion in savings the first ten years. But then almost $1 trillion in deficit reduction. In fact, most of the savings don't even kick in until after 2014, after the bill has expanded. They go out the full two decades. They look at all the spending, all the savings.
And I would say, Matt, that the Congressional Budget Office is very conservative in the savings. They really don't say prevention and wellness efforts save any money, and we think that saves a dramatic amount.
DOWD: But doesn't the Congressional Budget Office only make those assumptions and that analysis based on what they get? And so if the legislative leadership tells them to analyze this according to ten years of revenue and six years of expenses, they put out a bill that says it makes it -- it saves on the deficit?
SEBELIUS: What we're both talking about and what Representative Ryan referred to is the first decade, where some of the implementation strategies are measured as people have demanded, you know, look at the costs first before you add new people. That's exactly the way the bill is structured, but then they look at the second ten years.
So the notion that somehow we have tricked the American public -- I mean, when you look at 20 years and they say the first ten years is $130 billion worth of deficit reduction, the second ten years is a $1 trillion. This is hardly a gimmick.
DOWD: Well, one final controversial thing that has to be resolved, as you know--
SEBELIUS: There's not just one final--
DOWD: One very important, I think, controversial thing, is that a few votes -- Representative Bart Stupak has talked about the need that the Senate bill has to include abortion language that was in the House bill, to prevent federal funding of abortion and an expansion on services. He says he carries with him 11 votes. Can you pass a bill or can the president pass a bill and the Congress pass a bill without those votes?
SEBELIUS: Well, the goal is the same. The president has said from the outset, we don't want to change the status quo on abortion funding. Neither the Senate or the House bill has any federal funding for abortion, none. Yes, abortion services are provided, and people will pay out of their own pockets, in both the Senate and the House, but they do it in slightly different ways--
DOWD: Is Representative Stupak wrong about this?
SEBELIUS: Well, I think Representative Stupak has worked as a member of Energy & Commerce. He wants universal health care. He wants health reform for the people whom he represents. I think we'll continue to work on getting this done. He shares the goal with the president, that no federal funding will be provided for abortion.
DOWD: Do you think a deal can be done that does not include the language he wants, but something in (inaudible), is that one of the things that can be considered?
SEBELIUS: I think the Senate bill, actually, has a different set of words than the amendment that Representative Stupak had in the House, but confirmed by legal scholars and various people that it does exactly the same thing. There are no federal funds for abortions. But I think that if that does not satisfy the congressman, the conversations will continue. But certainly, his goal and the president's goal are the same -- do not change the status quo on abortion.
DOWD: Well, lots of interesting issues to resolve and a deadline that the president set for March 17th, trying to get the House to pass the Senate bill in the House before he leaves on his foreign trip. I appreciate you being here. Thanks for coming.
DOWD: We're joined now by the Senate Minority Leader, the point person for the Republicans, Republican Mitch McConnell. Thanks for coming.
MCCONNELL: Good morning. Glad to be with you.
DOWD: Well, in the last few months, Republican have been very successful at winning some elections. Democrats have also taken on quite a bit of water on health care and politically. But we found an interesting graphic that I'd like to talk to you about. This graphic shows who does the American public trusts on health care. 49 percent say they trust President Obama; 37 percent say they trust the Democrats in Congress; and only 32 percent say they trust Republican leaders in Congress. And if you're in third place on this, even though things are politically in a good place, why is that?
MCCONNELL: Well, you see, Matthew, it's about the bill. It's about the policy. Not about the president, not about Senate and House Democrats and Republicans. It's about the bill. The American people are focused on this like a laser. Everybody is interested in health care. Obviously, when you get older, you're more interested in it, but everybody is interested in it. The American people have been deeply involved in this debate. What did they see? They see a bill that cuts Medicare by half a trillion dollars, that raises taxes about half a trillion dollars, and that almost certainly will raise the cost of insurance for those on the individual market.
They also see the way it was passed, the cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase, the gator-aid behind closed doors. They look at this whole package, both in terms of the policy and the process, and they say they don't want it.
And so what you see now, if I may just finish on this point, is an argument not between Democrats and Republicans but it's between Democrats and their own constituents.
DOWD: Well, I think Republicans have obviously put up a blockade to try to keep this from happening at all, even while the Democrats have had a majority in the Senate.
But I, sort of, want to focus on, what Republicans do to change that message in where they get some benefit out of this?
Right now, it's as if the country says "a pox on everyone," including the Republicans, who, as the graph shows, are in third place.
What can Republicans do to affect that and get -- have a better place in the American public?
MCCONNELL: Well, look, you're talking about the election in November. I'm talking about the policy in the country now. What the American people would like us to do is not make this gargantuan mistake, in spite of Secretary Sebelius's best efforts. What we're talking about here is a $2.5 trillion spending program, brand-new entitlement.
We are drowning already in a sea of debt. The Congressional Budget Office numbers just came out Friday. We're looking at $10 trillion in new debt in the next 10 years, Matthew.
People are very, very skeptical about starting a whole new government program when we're drowning in a sea of debt.
DOWD: Well, you know, if you take a look at what the American public's perception on this is, it's hard for them to trust either side on debt and on the deficit and on spending.
They saw the deficit rise dramatically during President Bush's presidency and while you were majority leader. And they see it rise even more today. And in their view, neither party can be trusted on this.
So what makes it -- what makes you seem to feel that they'll trust the Republicans when they talk about the debt as opposed to the Democrats?
MCCONNELL: Well, again, you're talking about what may happen in November. I'm talking about what's happening now. We are -- we are spending -- we are on a gargantuan spending spree. The American people would like for us to stop, quit doing it, quit spending this massive amount of money and racking up these tremendous debts.
That $10 trillion figure added to the debt over the next 10 years -- half of it, over $5 trillion, will simply be interest on the debt.
So what I think the American people are saying to us -- stop this job-killing health care bill; we know it will drive taxes up and that will not be good to help us get out of the recession; step back and terminate the spending spree.
DOWD: Well, do you think the Democrats, at this point, will push through that bill by any means necessary?
So is your expectation that you're going to try as you might to kill the bill but they will end up passing the bill by any means they can?
MCCONNELL: Well, it seems that they're certainly trying to do that. I mean, as everyone understands, if the House passes the Senate bill, it goes straight to the president for signatures. So all of this discussion about the second bill, the reconciliation bill, is really, kind of, irrelevant. If the House passes the Senate bill, it goes to the president for a signature.
That means that every single member of the House who voted for this will have voted for the kickback, the purchase, the gator-aid, all of that, and the Medicare cut.
DOWD: That's an interesting question. So how does -- if the House Democrats pass the Senate bill, it basically, at that point, can go to the president.
How -- what is the procedure, then, that would prevent that from happening?
The House Democrats, I guess, have to trust the Senate Democrats that they'll take it up again?
MCCONNELL: Yes, the House has to trust the Senate that we'll go back in and fix the most egregious political problems.
But let me tell you what won't be fixed. What won't be fixed is the half a trillion in Medicare cuts, a half a trillion in new taxes.
And also, you wanted to talk about the politics of this a minute ago. Let's turn to that. The argument, incredulously, that the Democratic leadership and the president seem to be making to the wavering Democrats is, the best way to deal with this politically is to pass it and get it behind us.
Well, look, the only way to guarantee that it's ahead of you is to pass it. That means that every election this fall will be a referendum on this bill.
DOWD: Well, yes, and I wanted to get to that. You're on record as saying that, if they pass this health care bill, that you and the rest of the Republicans are going to campaign on repealing it.
And will you message be, at that point, that we're going to take away health insurance from 30 million Americans that now have it, based on this bill?
MCCONNELL: Well, as you pointed out to Secretary Sebelius, the benefits don't kick in for four years. All the American people are going to be confronted with in the next four years are these massive cuts to Medicare, not to make Medicare more sustainable -- by the way, we all know Medicare, right now, is going broke in seven years, and they want to turn it into a piggy bank to start a whole new program for a different set of people.
The tax increases kick in immediately. So there's nothing -- just looking at the politics of it, there's nothing but pain here for the next four years. Why in the world would they conclude that that would be popular?
DOWD: Are you worried that what's going on out there in America is not necessarily anti-Democratic, even though they've suffered at the elections?
Your colleague, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, lost pretty dramatically in a primary, and lost primarily based upon her Washington experience.
So as senators and congressmen go out and campaign who are incumbent Republicans, do you think they're in danger as well?
MCCONNELL: Well, I think, you know, everybody knows who's running Washington. There's a Democrat in the White House, a Democrat House, and a Democrat Senate, by very large majorities.
I think the American people are clear about who's running up the debt, who's been on this spending spree for the last 12 months.
DOWD: Well, one of the things, I think, that's complicated it, that's come up in -- recently -- is what's happened with Senator Bunning, and his desire to, sort of, stop the unemployment benefits bill by standing alone in -- in the Senate and getting that done. He also (inaudible) abdicated on that.
What I'm trying to understand is, why, if that principle is a good principle, that we shouldn't add to the deficit, why was he basically told to stand down, by the leadership, and not do that, even though that is supposedly a Republican principle?
MCCONNELL: You obviously don't know Jim Bunning very well. Nobody tells Jim Bunning to stand down.
He had a good point. I ended up voting with him. His point was -- it wasn't against unemployment insurance. He thought we ought to pay for it, make it deficit-neutral.
And, you know, all of us are deeply concerned about this. There was a fascinating piece in the USA Today, I think it was Friday, about the economy right now, and the only entity that's doing any good is the government. This new administration's added 120,000 government jobs, while the private sector's shedding jobs.
The average government employee now makes $70,000 a year, the average private-sector employee only $40,000 a year. These are boom days if you're a government employee. And the way we're financing that, Matthew, is to borrow money from our grandchildren so we can have more government employees now.
These are the kinds of things that Senator Bunning thought ought to be addressed by making it deficit-neutral.
DOWD: I'd like to turn to one final thing that's been in the news recently, which is this PowerPoint presentation that the RNC had put together about raising money.
It's very controversial. I'd like to show it to you, if you could take a look at this. They basically, as you can see -- it's how they're going to -- they're going to appeal to fear, extreme negative feelings, "reactionary," and, basically, in a very cynical way, most of the public would think, and in a very crass way, how they're going to appeal to them.
Is that something -- the kind of messaging that you think is going to be helpful in the course of this next year?
MCCONNELL: Well, its -- that sort of thing is uncertainly not helpful. I can't imagine why anybody would have thought that was helpful.
I mean, typically, the way parties raise money is because people believe in the causes that they advocate. I think the way we raise money from donors across America is to stand for things that are important for the country.
DOWD: You think somebody should be held accountable for that?
MCCONNELL: Well, look, I don't run the RNC. That's up to them. But I don't like it, and I don't know anybody who does.
DOWD: Well, I think that's all we have for today. I appreciate you being here, and thanks for coming.
MCCONNELL: Thank you.
DOWD: The roundtable is next, with George Will, Donna Brazile, Torie Clark and Robert Reich. And later, the Sunday funnies.
GOV. DAVID A. PATERSON, D-N.Y.: There are times in politics when you have to know not to strive for service, but to step back. That moment has come for me.
REP. CHARLES B. RANGEL, D-N.Y.: My issues, if they were going to impede the elections of then Democratic Party, then I would be glad to entertain a leave of absence.
REP. ERIC MASSA, D-N.Y.: There are blogs that are out there saying that I'm leaving because I harassed my staff. Do I use salty language? Yes.
DOWD: Growing political scandal. We'll talk about that in a minute.
Joining us today, is George Will, Torie Clarke, Robert Reich, University of California Berkeley professor, and Donna Brazile. Thank you all for coming.
George, health care. You saw Secretary Sebelius. You saw Senator McConnell. Can they get this done? Can the Democrats get this done? And if so, what took them so long?
WILL: Here is what took them so long. When this debate started a year ago, 85 percent of the American people had health insurance and 95 percent of that 85 percent were pretty happy with what they had. Since then, the country has become much more preoccupied with the deficit. Washington is borrowing 42 cents of every dollar it spends. Every day, today, tomorrow and for the next two decades, 10,000 more baby boomers go on the Medicare and Social Security rolls, and they are worried about this. And the president comes along and says, I've got a great idea. Let's have a $1 trillion new entitlement which, by the way, will lower the deficit, which people don't quite believe.
Finally, they've been -- we have all learned lots of new issues in this. For example, why can't we buy insurance across state lines? You turn on television, you see Geico arguing with Allstate on car insurance, arguing with Progressive on car insurance. And the American people say, a caveman can understand this. We should be able to buy in a national market.
DOWD: Do you think they will pass the bill?
WILL: It's only -- the House is all that matters. The Senate passed a bill, it goes to the president. What we know for sure, Matt, is if they had the votes today, they would vote tomorrow morning. So they don't have them yet.
DOWD: Donna? Do you think they can pass the bill? And again, what's took them so long with huge majorities they have in the Senate and the House?
BRAZILE: Well, first of all, it's been 60 years, and we have come a long way in the 60 years. And we're at the finish line. And I think with the speaker now talking to some of the Democrats who opposed it on fiscal grounds, they like the Senate bill because it's smaller. It reduces the deficit by a larger number. I think that the speaker will be able to get the House Democrats to approve the Senate bill, that will allow the Senate to go forward with reconciliation on the small items to fix the bill. We'll get a health care bill sometime within the next couple of months.
DOWD: So in the spring, a health care bill?
BRAZILE: Look, I'm not one to set deadlines. I think it's important that they get it right, that it lowers costs, provide more coverage for those without health insurance. And if they can achieve that, we'll have a bill.
DOWD: Torie, what do you think?
CLARKE: You know, I'm going to keep with the Oscar themes that you've started. Do you guys remember the movie "Ishtar?" Warren Beatty, Dustin Hoffman. They spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on it, you heard so much about it. And then when people actually started seeing it, they said, this is terrible. And the longer it hangs out there, the harder it is. Politically, Republicans and Democrats are looking to say the best and worst thing that can happen for the Democrats is that they pass this. They pass it, they can say, ah, we got it done after 60 years. And then they have to defend it from now until November. And I think it will be very tough to defend a lot of the things inside that bill.
DOWD: Well, Robert, do you think this is a political problem for them? They haven't been able to talk about jobs. Or do you think once they have passed this bill, they can quickly turn to jobs and the economy, which is what the American public seems to care about?
REICH: You know, Matt, it is possible to talk about two things at the same time. And the American public is capable of thinking about that, and two things.
Look, jobs is certainly the issue of this year and maybe next. But health care is the issue of our time, our era. And this is the opportunity to finally do something about it. The health insurers are not -- George, you said that they're popular and every likes their health insurer. They like their doctor. They hate their health insurer. And health insurance is going up in terms of rates, 20, 30, 40, 50 percent in many states. In fact, Goldman Sachs just this past week has said to its many of its investors, invest in some insurance companies because they don't have competition, and they are -- they have -- they are exhibiting huge profits.
That's money directly out of the pockets of Americans.
DOWD: George.
WILL: A, you say they have huge profits. As you know, confiscate all the profits of all the health insurance companies, with those profits, you could finance our health care for 48 hours. What you do for the next 363 days, I don't know. Second, you say there's not enough competition? Fine, let them compete in a national market across state line.
REICH: Yes, let them compete across state lines. Fine. But not a race to the bottom. Set minimum federal standards. Because we've seen over and over again, that the recipients of health insurance don't know what they're buying, very often. Until there are common standards, minimum standards, then people are going to--
REICH: And that's what's happened over and over again.
WILL: There you have the premise of this legislation and the core of today's liberalism. The American people are such dopes, they can't be counted upon to buy their own insurance.
REICH: They're not dopes. They've been taken. It's just like finance regulation.
DOWD: Donna, on insurance companies, do you think what the president and Kathleen Sebelius has done in the last week, is this purely politics? Everybody hates insurance companies, let's beat up on them? Or is there policy involved here?
BRAZILE: There's a lot of policy, Matt. The fact that women are paying much more than men for the same coverage, and just because we have, you know, certain biological needs that may need attended to from time to time. That's unfair. Pre-existing conditions. If George wants to defend these insurance companies denying people health insurance because they have a pre-existing problem and they can't find coverage, kicking people off the insurance roll simply because the insurance company decides, and not the patient or the doctor. Look,
Look, I think the Democrats will be able to defend this bill. They will be able to tell the American people that it is going to lower their cost, improve coverage for people without health insurance, and it helped businesses, small businesses who cannot find health insurance for their employees. So this is a good approach, and I hope the Democrats get it over the finish line soon, so that we can walk and chew gum.
DOWD: Torie, politics or policy on insurance companies at this point?
CLARKE: Oh, you can make a sweeping generalization about everybody, but this very conversation is emblematic of the part of the problem, which is everybody focuses on a different piece of it. And I think the majority of the American people out there are not quite sure what we're fixing anymore. Is it access? Is it cost? What is it? And the more confusion, the more they say, boy, I don't know if I really want this right now. And the Democrats are going to suffer from a lack of managing expectations. They keep making these promises, and fairly or unfairly, say the bill passes, the American people are going to say next week, where is my change? Are my costs coming down? Do I have more access to my doctor? They are not going to see changes that quickly even if it passes. And that is going to be a heavy price to pay between now and November.
REICH: Some of the changes will happen quickly. Small businesses will have access to exchanges. They'll be able to have more bargaining leverage. There are many things that Americans will be able to see, and I think Democrats will be able to point with pride at getting health care done.
But I agree with you, Torie, that in the short run, after this is enacted, there is going to be some confusion, and Republicans are going to do everything they possibly can to saw the seeds of even more confusion.
DOWD: Well, let's turn to another speed bump, as opposed to votes on health care, another speed bump that I think has gotten in the way of the Democrats, which is this slew of scandals that have come out, all seemingly based in New York, with a governor who is in deep trouble, two congressmen, including the chairman of the Ways and Means, Charlie Rangel, is in trouble. Donna, has New York become the new Louisiana? With political corruption?
BRAZILE: Is it Illinois? Is it Georgia? I mean, you know, when it comes to corruption, corruption is a bipartisan problem.
This was a bad week for Democrats when it comes to ethics. Mr. Rangel rightly stepped aside. He's a great man. I have enormous respect for him. He's a war hero, but he did the right thing by stepping aside. Mr. Massa, I think, is also doing the right thing. He went to -- his staff went to Steny Hoyer, one of the leaders in the Congress and said, hey, we've got a problem. Mr. Hoyer said, you have 48 hours to fix it. Meaning go to the Ethics Committee. He did that.
The difference is, is that when Democrats identify these problems, they quickly, you know, turn it over to the Ethics Committee and say, let's move. Unlike the Republicans who just waited and waited and waited. But I do believe at the end of the day, we're going to put this behind us and hold these politicians to the highest standards possible.
DOWD: George, does this have more of an effect, it's just a temporary thing, or can this have an effect on the election?
WILL: I think it colors the election. I mean, if people knew about New York -- I like the -- what was it, a New York City councilman billed $177 for a bagel and a soda? There's the assemblywoman who threw scolding coffee in the eyes of her staff member. One guy up there stole from the Little League. That's not good.
Now, does it color this? I think the 1984 (sic) election is often blamed because they didn't pass Hillary's health care plan. Nonsense.
WILL: '94, sorry. What happened then, 40 years of Democratic control of the House of Representatives ended because the entitlement mentality had become so strong that they had the House banking scandal, and things like that colored the election.
REICH: I find it very, very hard to believe that even the past week is on par with Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff and the moral and ethical turpitude spread over the Republican Party before 2006.
I do think that there is an ethical issue here--
DOWD: Some might say there's still plenty of time.
REICH: I think it's a bipartisan ethical issue. When the Ethics Committee in the House said recently that it doesn't matter if there are earmarks that look to everyone as if they are payments and paybacks for political campaigns, whether it's Republicans or Democrats getting those earmarks, that, to me, is really offensive. I don't know how you guys feel, but that to me is the biggest moral and ethical problem we have.
REICH: Why do we have these earmarks?
CLARKE: Neither party has the monopoly on corruption and sleaziness. The Democrats are making a very hard run for it in this last week. I think more interesting is the long-term effects. I think it adds to the cynicism about Washington. It's Washington and they play by different rules and they set up rules for themselves. I think you're going to see more of what happened to Kay Bailey Hutchison and Rick Perry. If you're not from Washington or you can pretend you're not really part of the Washington culture, you're going to do better. And it's sad more than anything else.
DOWD: Well that brings up an interesting spot -- Senator Lincoln in Nebraska -- I mean in Arkansas is in a very tight race in the primary and the general election and she just put a spot on the air, which is an amazing spot for an incumbent to run, which is basically not lauding what she's done in Washington, but stopping what she's done even though she's part of the majority. Let's take a look at that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is why I voted against giving more money to Wall Street, against the auto company bailout, against the public option health care plan and against the cap and trade bill which would raise energy costs on our kids. None of those were right for Arkansas. Some in my party didn't like it very much. But I approved this message because I don't answer to my party. I answer to Arkansas.
DOWD: George, to me, that is an amazing ad that an incumbent Democratic senator as part of the majority would run in their home state?
WILL: It's cognitive dissonance on a grand scale. Until recently it was said the Republicans are wicked because they're the party of no. She just put up an ad saying I said no to bail outs, this, this, this, and this. No is a lovely word.
Except for that last line, almost any Republican could run that ad this year.
DOWD: Well Donna --
BRAZILE: The lieutenant governor in Arkansas is going to challenge her. Within the last five days, he's been able to raise over $1 million online from liberal and progressive groups that believe that Senator Lincoln no longer stands for progressive ideals. So she's fighting for her political survival. It is going to be a very interesting primary, similar to what's going on in the Republican Party right now in terms of their primary process. But at the end of the day, the senator like Senator Hutchison and others, must demonstrate what is she doing for the people in Arkansas, what is she doing in terms of service to the country.
REICH: Exactly. There is always a strong anti-incumbent, anti- establishment current in the country, against Washington. It is not new, it's been here for over 200 years. But what's complicated for Democrats this year is you have such high unemployment. You've got that anti-establishment feeling coupled with some -- a lot of deep anxiety and you run the risk of not losing the House and Senate, but you run the risk of really having some major inroads. But the direction of the economy may, and I think, will improve by the midterm elections.
CLARKE: There's something different about this though. Candidates for years have always said, yes, I'm a good conservative or I'm a good moderate Democrat. But here's the one issue on which I bucked my party, kind of demonstrate their independence. She lists several issues. And I wonder how much heartburn does that create for the campaign committees, for the Democratic leaders in Washington going, on top of everything else, all the challenges we have.
REICH: Aren't we seeing it on "This Week?"
CLARKE: Well, I think you'll see a lot more after that.
BRAZILE: But Torie, you saw the Republicans do that in 2006. They ran from Bush and Cheney. They ran from the deficits. They ran --
REICH: It wasn't very effective.
BRAZILE: Right, but the rate that that's -- again, I agree with the secretary. This is part of how people run their campaigns. They try to establish their independence from their political party.
DOWD: Well a lot of us have watched politics for many, many years, and normally people from Washington come back to their district and say, here's everything I have done. Kay Bailey Hutchison tried to do it and she lost badly in the primary. Now you have an incumbent senator in the spot not saying here's everything I've done, but here's everything I've tried to stop. It is a big difference from what I've seen before. Usually I go back and say here's all my stuff I should do. George, isn't this like a totally different kind of messaging when you're coming from Washington?
WILL: It's a beautiful message.
DOWD: Highly successful.
WILL: There's a little dislocation on the American governments here also. More senators, a larger percentage of the Senate candidate this year are in jeopardy than the House are for a very simple reason. We have so become sophisticated with drawing legislative districts with gerrymandering that we have reversed the old axiom. It used to be the voters picked their representatives. Now the representatives picks their voters. And in the last four cycles, 95 percent of incumbents, in spite of what Bob talks about, 95 percent have been re- elected.
DOWD: Bob, that is an interesting point he's making which is nobody focuses on this too much. But in the elections in the midterm, everybody focused on Congress and the Senate. The state legislative seats are probably the most important thing that people should focus on because they're the ones that draw the districts.
REICH: Exactly. And for example in Texas, they made elusion to there's going to be four new congressional seats and who is in that governor's office makes a big, big difference.
DOWD: But Donna, are the Democrats focused on this? Focused on the state legislature as opposed to keep preserving congressman and congresswomen?
BRAZILE: To quote that famous governor now turned comedian, you betcha. There's no question that that legislative seats matter. But also the interesting thing in Texas, from my observation is that while Rick Perry is still wildly popular, who wouldn't be? He is handsome. I must say, he looks good on the eyes. You know, I look at him. It's just look looking at Scott Brown. I like all these centerfolds.
CLARKE: Just for the record, a guy could not say that about any of the female candidates. I think that's unfair, but go ahead, Donna.
BRAZILE: Thank you.
BRAZILE: -- verbal sexual harassment, I just committed it.
But I have to say that, look, he ran against Dick Cheney, he ran against Karl Rove. But he only wanted to campaign against Kay Bailey Hutchison. But the interesting thing is that there was a TEA Party candidate in that race, Debra Medina, who I think allowed the race to skew to the far right, where Rick Perry had such a hold on conservatives. It left Kay Bailey without moderates and independents to support her.
REICH: Governors races are not anti-Washington races. I mean, they are about domestic issues inside the state. That's what that issue and that race is all about.
I mean, the big question is what happens when White, Bill White actually takes on the incumbent. And that is going to be something that everybody watches.
BRAZILE: Former mayor.
DOWD: Do you think at this point in time this is not -- this is a totally anti-incumbent year, and not an anti-Democratic year, anti- Republican year? It's purely anti-Washington, anti-incumbent?
WILL: I think it's the latter, and I think I'll disagree with Bob. I think Tip O'Neill's famous and overworked axiom that all politics is local is just wrong. A lot of politics this year is national.
REICH: But George, let me go back to something you said before, because so much of what government has done is so popular. I was struck by Mitch McConnell when he was interviewed here before, defending Medicare. And, in fact, over the past six months, I keep on seeing signs from TEA Partiers saying "don't take way my Medicare."
I mean, Medicare is a government program. It's extraordinarily popular. It is also a problem. We have got to get some control over the increase in the costs of Medicare. And that's what the new bill does, the new health care bill.
But, after a while, the public takes many of these programs for granted. Social Security is extraordinarily popular. And I think we lose sight of the fact that the public depends upon government in so many ways.
DOWD: Well, we're going to turn from hardball politics to something a little softer. The Oscars are on tonight. The Academy Awards are on tonight. And I want to ask each of you all, who is your pick? We're not going to be able to go through best actor or best actress, but best picture. George, who is your pick for best picture?
WILL: The one of the ten that I have seen, "The Blind Side."
DOWD: "The Blind Side," the story of the football player who came from--
WILL: (inaudible), from Mississippi.
DOWD: Torie?
CLARKE: "Blind Side" is a great movie, and it's a great story, but I think it's "The Hurt Locker." It's an important topic. It's an amazing story, and it's just beautifully done.
DOWD: Seems to have all the buzz right now. Robert?
REICH: "Hurt Locker," absolutely. If "Avatar" wins and "Hurt Locker" doesn't, I think that says something terrible about the Academy, the Motion Picture Academy. But so many of them are actors who are going to be voting, that they don't want "Avatar," because "Avatar" says, essentially, we don't need actors anymore.
CLARKE: And we'll have to listen to James Cameron give a dreadful speech if he won, so let's hope. BRAZILE: Well, I'm for -- I'm for "Avatar." I enjoyed the movie. I will go back and watch it again and again. I like "Hurt Locker," but it kept me on edge. I don't need an edge at my age.
REICH: It's good. Edge (ph) is good.
BRAZILE: No, I don't an edge at my age. You understand that, but I'll tell you later. I liked "The Blind Side." I loved "Precious," but this year, "Avatar."
DOWD: Well, I'm going to have to -- I'll pick "The Blind Side." Any movie that makes a star out of an offensive tackle, I have to like that movie.
The roundtable continues in the green room on ABCnews.com. We've also got a poll there where you can vote for your all-time favorite political movie. That's at abcnews.com.


text:
Boeing illegally put its second 787 Dreamliner assembly line in South Carolina in retaliation for strikes in Washington and should be required to build the line in Washington, according to a potentially groundbreaking National Labor Relations Board complaint (pdf) filed Wednesday.
NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon filed the complaint after investigating a charge that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union District 751, bargaining unit, backed by the national union, filed on March 29, 2010. A board administrative law judge is scheduled to hear the case on June 14.
"A worker's right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act," Solomon said in a news release. "We also recognize the rights of employers to make business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law. I have worked with the parties to encourage settlement in the hope of avoiding costly litigation, and my door remains open to that possibility."
The board said it "found reasonable cause to believe that Boeing had violated two sections of the National Labor Relations Act because its statements were coercive to employees and its actions were motivated by a desire to retaliate for past strikes and chill future strike activity."
IAM District 751 President Tom Wroblewski welcomed the complaint in a statement Wednesday, saying: "By opening the line in Charleston (S.C.), Boeing tried to intimidate our members with the idea that the company would take away their work unless they made concessions at the bargaining table. But the law is clear: American workers have a right to pursue collective bargaining, and no company – not even Boeing – can threaten or punish them for exercising those rights."
Boeing issued a statement saying it will "vigorously contest" the complaint.
"This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both NLRB and Supreme Court precedent," Boeing Executive Vice President and General Counsel J. Michael Luttig said. "Boeing has every right under both federal law and its collective bargaining agreement to build additional U.S. production capacity outside of the Puget Sound region."
Boeing also criticized the timing of the complaint, noting it came 17 months after it announced it would put the line in South Caroline and as construction is nearly complete, with more than 1,000 new workers hired and assembly of the first airplane set to begin in July.
Boeing is confident that federal courts will reject the complaint, Luttig said. "We fully expect to complete our new state-of-the-art facility in South Carolina in the weeks ahead, and we will be producing 787s – America's next great export – from our factories in both Puget Sound and South Carolina for decades to come," he said.
The time lag and issues involved in the case surprised Lea Vaughn, a University of Washington School law professor who focuses on labor law.
"I'm flabbergasted," she said Wednesday. "This is potentially groundbreaking."
The board historically has given companies a lot of latitude in making capital decisions, Vaughn said.
Harley Shaiken, a labor professor at the University of California at Berkeley, gave a similar response to Bloomberg news.
"This is a very critical, precedent-setting situation," he said. "This would have been unusual at any moment, but it's especially unusual with the backdrop where collective bargaining is literally being unwound for public- sector workers in Wisconsin and Ohio."
While Boeing executives were mulling where to put the second 787 line, executives repeatedly said they needed to reduce the company's vulnerability to strikes and that a no-strike agreement was the key requirement for Washington to win the line. After announcing on Oct. 28, 2009 that they would put the line in South Carolina, they again pointed to labor stability as a key factor in the decision.
The complaint calls this retaliation for past strikes and says that Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and Chief Executive Officer Jim Albaugh, in a 2010 video-taped interview with The Seattle Times "threatened the loss of future Unit work opportunities because of such strikes."
Boeing decided to put the second line in North Charleston and move a 787 sourcing supply program there or to subcontractors because Washington workers supported the union by "engaging in the protected, concerted activity of lawful strikes and to discourage these and/or other employees from engaging in these or other union and/or protected, concerted activities," the complaint says. It says that violates worker rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
In putting the line in South Carolina, Boeing legally considered the possibility of future strikes but did not engage in retaliation, spokesman Tim Neale said. "It was not a retaliatory move. It was a business decision based on multiple factors and, yes, one of those factors was concern about labor stability."
Boeing also noted that no job created in South Carolina has come at the expense of jobs in Puget Sound and, in fact, IAM employment in Puget Sound has increased by approximately 2,000 workers since October 2009.
Making such a decision based on retaliation could expose a company to potential liability, Vaughn said. "That may be, in fact, the crucial distinction: whether its looking back (as retaliation) or looking forward" to avoiding future strikes.
The NLRB pointed to a 1974 case in which it set aside a union election where an employer raised concerns about possible future strikes and said the plant's nonunion status was a primary reason for putting a production line there. It also noted a 1989 case where it found "disfavoring employees who were likely to strike, is the kind of coercive discrimination that ... discourages ... protected activity."
But that was just about overturning a union election, not forcing a company to put an aircraft assembly line somewhere.
The complaint calls for an order that Boeing "have the Unit operate its second line of 787 Dreamliner aircraft assembly production in the State of Washington, utilizing supply lines maintained by the Unit in the Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, area facilities." It does not seek to close the South Carolina facility or keep Boeing from assembling planes there, the NLRB said.
Boeing's decision to put the second line in South Carolina "came after it was made clear to workers there that the only way they could ensure their future work on the 787 would be if they left the Machinists Union," the IAM said in its statement.
While workers in North Charleston did vote to leave the IAM after Boeing bought the facility from Vought Aircraft Industries, Boeing denies that it conditioned future 787 work on the vote.
Back in Washington before Boeing's decision, discussions over a no-strike deal failed, with Boeing saying the IAM made unreasonable demands and the union saying the company didn't take the talks seriously.
The union continues to be open to talking with Boeing about a long-term solution to its Puget Sound labor issues, but Boeing has not been willing to have serious conversations about its future in the area since the Charleston announcement, Wroblewski said. "We need to sit down and talk about our shared future, and what both sides need to be successful long-term. That kind of conversation is what's in the best interest of our company, our members and our communities."
Asked if it had requested such a meeting, the union said: "Our lawyers offered, through the NLRB, to enter talks to resolve the differences. (To settle out of court, as it were.) Boeing wasn't interested."
Boeing spokesman Tim Healy countered that the company offered to talk with the IAM after the union initially filed its complaint.
"We tried to heat this thing off and we were rebuffed," he said.
The board said its investigation did not find merit in the union's charge that Boeing failed to bargain in good faith over the decision, because the union's contract waived its right to bargain on this issue.
Read more aerospace news. Visit seattlepi.com's home page for more Seattle news.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Sales Home
Gardens staff, instructors and docents share with you their knowledge of and passion for plants, horticulture and art. We offer a variety of guided tours at our urban site and throughout the Front Range.
Tours at York Street:
Guided tours are an insightful view of the Gardens and its collections. These informative conversations also allow you to share your thoughts, ask questions, and uncover lesser-known spaces.
Offsite Tours:
Explore the beauty of Colorado! These guided walks take you away from the bustling of the city to learn from and reconnect with nature.
Tour Policy:
Payment for pre-scheduled tours is required upon registration.
Payment for private group tours requires a deposit (15% of your total cost) at the moment of reservation and payment of the balance five business days before your tour.
Cancellation Policy:
Cancellations more than one business week prior to a tour are subject to a 15% cancellation fee.
Cancellations with less than one business week prior to a tour are non-refundable.


text:
A Brief Account of the Wartime Record of 7th Battalion Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry 1940 – 1945
One of a a range of SOFO Museum's Battalion Booklets which each give an overview of the history of particular Oxford and Buckinghamshire LI battalions during the World Wars.
Researched and written by James Pearson BA (Hons), previously an Archivist at the museum.
23 pages.


text:
"The power behind the US Economy is its 'creative class' – scientists, artists, engineers, technologists and designers to name a few. The creative sector accounts for nearly half of American wage income." Richard Florida, The Rise of The Creative Class
"Humor is showing itself to be an accurate marker of managerial effectiveness, emotional intelligence, and the thinking style of the brain's creative right hemisphere."
"Levity is the link between trust, respect,
Humor, fun, and levity can re-ignite creativity, innovation and high performance in your organization. That's critical to your organization's strategic advantage in the marketplace. Fun is also at the center of successful improvisation tools that enhance individual and team creativity.
Humor, fun, and levity are also powerful communications tools that tell your marketing story to the world creatively and authentically. All marketing is about great storytelling and delighting your customer. Whether your needs include print or social media, marketing that delights your customer helps you stand out and deliver results.
Located in Silicon Valley, Powerfully Funny delivers programs to enhance your fun, innovation and marketing success!
Innovation Services
StandOut Stratgic Marketing Services
marketing your business, let's talk.
"You know when you need an extra brain to get that strategic
writing done? Kathy was it! She was concerned about meeting my needs,


text:
Apple is no longer the dominant player when it comes to the US online movie business. According to a new report by market research firm IHS iSuppli, Netflix was crowned the new king in 2011 after a meteoric rise in popularity throughout 2010. The firm credits Netflix's success with its focus on TV-like subscriptions, which it sees as superior to the company's DVD mail service or iTunes' more traditional video on demand (VOD) model.
According to IHS' numbers, Netflix's share of the online movie market jumped from a mere 0.5 percent in 2010 to 44 percent in 2011. Comparatively, Apple fell from 60.8 percent in 2010 to just 32.3 percent in 2011. The number three player, Microsoft, also fell between 2010 and 2011—from 16.7 percent to 7.6 percent. The only other company in the IHS ranking that grew year over year was Vudu (owned by Walmart), which went from 2.7 percent in 2010 to 4.2 percent in 2011.
The market itself expanded during that time—in fact, it more than doubled to $992 million in 2011, and is expected to double again for 2012. This was apparently thanks to huge growth in subscription video on demand (SVOD) services, which is what IHS categorizes Netflix as, and has played into Netflix's success over the last couple years. Not only did Netflix bump its prices for video streaming during that time, it also made numerous deals with companies like Apple, Microsoft, Roku, and others to be included on their set-top boxes. As such, Netflix was suddenly everywhere in 2011, which boosted its popularity.
One thing IHS points out is that SVOD services like Netflix tend to carry older movies while VOD services like iTunes focus more on new releases. "Effectively the market has split," IHS Director Dan Cryan said in a statement. "Netflix and Apple are competing for some of the same consumer time and money. However, the core value proposition of the two services is actually very different."


text:
American Scientist Comment Policy
Stay on topic. Be respectful. We reserve the right to remove comments.Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
PERFECTING SOUND FOREVER: An Aural History of Recorded Music. Greg Milner. x + 416 pp. Faber and Faber, 2009. $35.
The story goes that, late in his life, Guglielmo Marconi had an epiphany. The godfather of radio technology decided that no sound ever dies. It just decays beyond the point that we can detect it with our ears. Any sound was forever recoverable, he believed, with the right device. His dream was to build one powerful enough to pick up Christ's Sermon on the Mount.
Thus begins Perfecting Sound Forever, Greg Milner's cultural and technological history of the sound-recording industry. As far as I know, the original-cast album of the Sermon on the Mount has not yet been released on CD, but plenty of acoustic waves emitted in our own era have been captured and preserved, to become the golden oldies of future generations. Neil Young said it: Rock and roll will never die.
Living in an age of ubiquitous recorded audio, it can be hard to appreciate that sound was once the most evanescent of sensory experiences. Faces could live on in portraiture (even before photography), and words could be written down, but until Edison dreamed up his phonograph, the human voice never survived except in memory and imagination.
Edison thought he had invented a dictation machine; his business model was to sell recording equipment and blank media on which people would make spoken memos to themselves or perhaps to posterity. The recording of music was an afterthought; almost 25 years passed between the first version of the phonograph and the release of the first commercial music recordings. After that, though, it wasn't long before the "phonograph" became the "record player." This was not to be an instrument with which we would record our own voices; instead, a few star performers—from Enrico Caruso to Hannah Montana—would sell millions of copies of recordings, which the rest of us would listen to over and over. The process of creating those sound recordings became an art, a science and an engineering profession.
Edison's early phonographs recorded on wax-coated cylinders; the rival gramophone machines of the Victor company played shellac-coated discs. The competition between these two recording formats was the first of many contests for market share that occupy much of Milner's history. Over the years, consumers of recorded music have been confronted with a long series of choices: 78s versus 45s versus 33s, mono versus stereo, tubes versus transistors, tapes versus discs, cassettes versus eight-track, CDs versus vinyl, analog versus digital, and now MP3s versus WAVs and a dozen other digital file formats. Behind the scenes, equally contentious issues have divided the community of producers and sound engineers. Should the studio be a performance hall that contributes ambience to the sound, or an anechoic chamber? Do microphones belong out in the auditorium where a listener would sit or close to the voices and instruments? Should a performance be recorded all in one take or assembled from bits and pieces?
My own exposure to recorded music began around the time that the "record player" turned into the "hi-fi." That term "high fidelity" made the aims of the enterprise seem simple and obvious: A recording should capture the sound of the original performance and reproduce it faithfully in the listening room. When you closed your eyes, the cabinet full of glowing and blinking equipment was supposed to disappear, to be replaced by Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic, or by Buddy Holly and the Crickets. If this illusion was hard to achieve, that meant you needed to work on your turntable's rumble and wow and flutter, or suppress your amplifier's interharmonic distortion, or get yourself some better woofers and tweeters.
Milner traces the idea of the hi-fi illusion back to an invitation-only performance in Montclair, New Jersey, in 1915. Three musicians, including contralto Christine Miller, shared the stage with a new Edison Diamond Disc Phonograph. At one point Miller sang a duet with her own recording of an aria from Mendelssohn's Elijah.
The record began, and Miller let it play for a while. She began singing along with it, and then stopped. There were audible gasps from the audience. It was uncanny how closely Miller's recorded voice mirrored the sounds coming from her mouth onstage.
The stunt was so effective that such "tone tests" became a popular road show, with Miller and others playing hundreds of towns across the country over the next 10 years. And the notion has been revived many times since then, as in the long-running advertising slogan, "Is it live, or is it Memorex?"
Can we really believe that a phonograph in 1915 reproduced sound so accurately that it fooled a theater audience? Milner points out that if the tone tests were not exactly fraudulent, they were very carefully staged. The record always played continuously; it was the singer who stopped and started. In effect, what was being tested was not the ability of the phonograph to mimic the live human voice but the ability of the singer to imitate the tonal characteristics of the recording device, "such as the 'pinched' quality it lent to voices."
Today, ironically, musicians are again struggling to imitate their own recordings, often with less success. In modern studio practice, a piece of music is sliced into separate tracks for each instrument and diced into multiple takes for each phrase or even each note. The sounds are digitally processed and enhanced. Software can rescue a vocalist who wanders off key or a drummer who can't keep the beat. The final product is a seemingly flawless performance, which the musicians may be hard pressed to duplicate on stage without all the technological aids. Hence the recent flurry of controversies over lip-synching—or, in the case of Yo-Yo Ma at the Obama inauguration, bow-synching.
The 1950s quest for perfect audio fidelity—for the illusion of the concert hall in the living room—was doubtless naive, but there are worse alternatives. Milner discusses several of them at length. He gives the overall impression that records have been getting worse and worse even though the tools for making them have become steadily more powerful and more widely available.
The most egregious example is a pursuit of loudness at any cost that overtook some genres of pop music in the 1990s. Ultimately, of course, loudness is still under the control of the listener, who can turn the volume up or down at will. But record producers found that they could make some songs seem louder than others, even at the same playback setting, by compressing the dynamic range. In essence, if you can't boost the peaks of the signal, you can boost everything else until it's as loud as the peaks. And then some bands went further still, boosting the peaks even though there was no room left for more signal. The result is "clipping"—sine waves with their heads cut off—which creates audible distortion. An engineer remarks: "The music we listen to today is nothing more than distortion with a beat."
Milner is inclined to blame the march of technology for many of the excesses and deficiencies of current recorded music. Almost every step along the way, he suggests, took us in the wrong direction. The tape recorder allowed sound to be edited and spliced but sacrificed the immediacy of live performances. Multitrack recorders allowed each element of the music to be adjusted independently but "ended the idea that the sound of recordings bore any relation to a real-world event." And then came all things digital, as CDs replaced vinyl LPs and as computer programs called digital audio workstations replaced both the tape recorders and the giant mixing boards that were once the heart of a recording studio. Milner notes, "Many pros . . . feel that something ineffable has been lost to a generation that both makes and consumes music that has never been outside the digital domain."
"Something ineffable": These debates always seem to come down to factors that can't be measured or clearly defined. Milner writes about CDs:
As for their sound, the problem for me isn't so much the harshness, a common complaint. It's more the sensation of distance I feel between me and the music. There's a disagreeable, frictionless quality to the sound that may be the downside of substituting a phantom laser for the diamond stylus.
Milner also gives a fair amount of space to the loony views of John Diamond, a psychiatrist who maintains that something in digital audio induces "a state of hatred" in the listener and "is increasingly killing our society." It's all those digital signals we hear that cause events such as the shootings at Columbine High School, he says.
I don't mean to suggest that the resistance to digital audio is nothing but nostalgia, mysticism and nuttery. Milner cites some plausible speculations that the noise and distortion of some analog recordings may create effects that listeners find pleasing; one musician remarked that the soft background hiss of vinyl "has the tendency to feather the edges of things." In other words, vinyl records are the heirloom tomatoes and organic apples of the audio world, whose very blemishes bear witness to their wholesomeness. CDs are the pesticide-laden produce of industrial-scale farming; because they are cosmetically perfect, everyone knows they must be lacking in flavor and nutrients.
Milner's dour and sometimes dire view of the state of the recording industry is backed up by considerable technical expertise and many hours of attentive listening. His assessment is to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, I want to end on the upbeat. It seems to me there are at least two important trends of recent years that give cause for encouragement. First, as Milner concedes, the digital audio workstation has democratized the production of recorded music. We have moved a few steps back toward Edison's vision of a recording device that would allow anyone to be a performer as well as a listener. Second, we are in the middle of a great renaissance in live performance in many genres, from baroque to bluegrass. To hear someone actually strumming on a banjo or sawing on a cello is the ultimate corrective to whatever distortions might lie in the grooves of the recording.
Brian Hayes is Senior Writer for American Scientist. He is the author most recently of Group Theory in the Bedroom, and Other Mathematical Diversions (Hill and Wang, 2008).
American Scientist Comment Policy
Stay on topic. Be respectful. We reserve the right to remove comments.Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Click "American Scientist" to access home page


text:
Spicy Black Bean Cakes
\"I attended a function that featured wonderful hors d'oeuvresamong them, spicy black bean cakesfrom chef Matthias Radits of The Breakers in...
cumin, +eggs, +garlic, +green onion, +black beans, +cornmeal, +salsa, +jalapeno, +red pepper, +sour cream
www.epicurious.com - Similiar recipes
Spicy Black Bean Cakes
"These baked black bean cakes are easy to make and less fat than fried cakes."
cumin, +cake, +eggs, +garlic, +green onion, +jalapeno, +lime juice, +sour cream, +olive oil, +bread crumbs, +sweet potato, +salt
Spicy Black Bean Dip
cumin, +black beans, +salsa, +garlic, +carrot, +crackers
www.kraftfoods.com - Similiar recipes
Spicy Black Bean Dip Recipe
This bean dip tastes sensational, and it is also nutritious. This is a low calorie, no fat dip your guests will appreciate. Prep:10m
cumin, +chili powder, +garlic salt, +oregano, +red pepper flakes, +tomato
www.grouprecipes.com - Similiar recipes
Spicy Black Bean Empanadas
"Spiced black beans, ground pork and vegetables are wrapped in flaky puff pastry before baking to a golden brown."
cumin, +cheddar cheese, +chili powder, +eggs, +garlic, +green onion, +guacamole, +ground pork, +red pepper, +sour cream, +tomato sauce, +water
Spicy Black Bean Salad
cumin, +black beans, +orange, +green onion, +salsa, +lime juice, +cloves, +lettuce, +cracker
www.kraftfoods.com - Similiar recipes
Spicy Black Bean Burger Recipe
This is a dish I use a lot on my meat eating friends and family. It's spicy and delicious and I haven't heard a complaint yet! Prep:15m
cumin, +black beans, +corn, +bread crumbs, +salsa, +garlic, +flour, +jalapeno, +olive oil, +onions, +chili powder, +paprika
www.grouprecipes.com - Similiar recipes
Spicy Slow Cooker Black Bean Soup
"This soup can be served as is or run through the blender for a creamy version. You can adjust the spice to cool it down."
cumin, +black beans, +black pepper, +cayenne, +chicken broth, +chili powder, +garlic powder, +jalapeno, +hot sauce
Spicy Black Bean Salsa
A wonderful salsa recipe that is easy to make and very flavorful. It has been a hit with tortilla chips every time I've made it for an occasion.
cumin, +black beans, +tomato, +cilantro, +lime juice, +olive oil, +picante sauce, +red onions, +salt, +corn
www.recipezaar.com - Similiar recipes
Spicy Black Bean Soup
This is so good and different.
cumin, +black beans, +butter, +chicken broth, +tomato, +thyme, +garlic, +olive oil, +onions, +hot sauce
www.recipezaar.com - Similiar recipes
Can't find what you are looking for? Try our custom google recipe search:
Custom Search
Your Ingredients:
Legend: click ingredients to include or exclude
have this
need to use this
exclude this
Ingredient Informationcumin
AboutAbout Us
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
On the WebFacebook
Twitter Recipe Search Bot
ToolsAdd to your Website
Search alongside Google
Recipe Puppy for iPhone
Vegetarian Search
Vegan Search
MoreSubmit your Recipe
Cooking Q&A
Online Grocery Delivery
Restaurant Gift Certificates
Restaurant Coupons


text:
Shalom Strictly Kosher Market was established in 1974. When Max and Anita Z"L Dekelbaum opened Shalom Kosher, the store was only half the size and offered only fresh meats and chicken as well as deli, smoked fish, and sliced cheeses. Thirty years ago, there was a very limited selection of kosher packaged grocery items available to consumers. Today is a different story. Now Shalom stocks a wide variety of grocery items, meats, chicken, fish, as well as a full-service bakery, deli, and frozen items. Max and Anita Z"L have passed the store down to a second generation. Their two sons, Larry and Steve started working right out of school, and Shaukat Karimi joined the ranks over 25 years ago. With 5 Dekelbaum grandchildren, there is sure to be a third generation to follow in their footsteps.
In 1994 Max's Kosher Café was created as a kosher fast casual restaurant. The restaurant is very spacious and can accommodate large groups. The menu includes schawarma and falafel, hamburgers, deli sandwiches, fried chicken, soups and salads, and a great dinner menu. Max's also operates in several venues including FedEx Field, Nationals Park, and even the National Mall.
Signature Caterers was established in 2000. It serves as a full catering service for the Washington Metro area. We have become one of the top kosher caterers in the area and are known for a creativity, quality, and service.
In 2008 Shalom Kosher, Max's Kosher Café, and Signature Caterers became The Shalom Group.
On October 29, 2012 Shalom Kosher closed its University Boulevard Location to prepare for the move to the new location. On October 31,2012 the new Shalom Kosher opened its doors in Kemp Mill Shopping Center, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Thank you for visiting The Shalom Group. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us or fill out the form below. We'd love to hear from you.
* Orders cannot be placed online. To order, call 301.946.6500. *
Shalom Kosher
1361 Lamberton Drive
Max's Kosher Café
2319 University Blvd. W
Signature Caterers
5412 Randolph Road
eMail SignUp
Join our email club to receive updates on weekly sales and special offers.
Sun. 7:30am - 7:00pm
Thursday 7:30am-9:00pm
Fri. 7:30-3:00pm
Senior Hours, Weekdays 7am-8am
Please Call For Hours During COVID
1361 Lamberton Drive
Under the Supervision of
©Copyright 2010 all rights reserved | Photography©Jack Hartzman


text:
Home Tags BIP Capital
Tag: BIP Capital
Popular Articles
Outlook negative for global asset management industry in 2021 amid wavering investor appetite for...
A wavering investor appetite for risk and a deteriorating competitive environment are leading to a negative outlook for the global asset management industry next year, new research from Moody's shows.
Greenbriar Equity promotes Burke to managing director after 10 years with firm
New York investment house Greenbriar Equity Group has promoted Matthew Burke to managing director after a decade with the firm.
CenterOak Partners exits FullSpeed Automotive to MidOcean Partners after three-year hold
CenterOak Partners has sold FullSpeed Automotive to fellow private equity investor MidOcean Partners after three years in its portfolio.
Hot dog, sausage maker Salm Partners gets Entrepreneurial Equity Partners backing
Sausage and hot dog maker Salm Partners has picked up investment from food and consumer packaged goods-focused private equity house Entrepreneurial Equity Partners.
Venture capital firms help cybersecurity platform EclecticIQ to $20m Series C
Global threat intelligence, hunting and response technology developer EclecticIQ has scored €20m in its Series C round.
Arcano Capital cites 'favourable market timing' amid €292m sustainability fund close
Spain's Arcano Capital has hit a €292m final close for a new fund of funds targeting sustainable infrastructure investments.
AIIM expands third flagship Africa infra fund to $400m through capital increase
African Infrastructure Investment Managers has brought its third flagship pan-continental infra fund to $400m through a capital increase.
Danish pension giant PKA reveals $3.5bn private equity investment plan
Danish pension fund investor PKA said it plans to launch a DKK22bn ($3.5bn) fund for investing in private equity vehicles.
Former teen startup founder Josh Buckley eyes up to $200m for second venture capital...
Buckley Ventures, the early-stage investment firm launched by former teenage entrepreneur Josh Buckley, could collect up to $200m for its second fund.
Certior capital closes €35m fund backed by pension funds and family offices
Finnish private equity firm Certior has announced the first close of its Certior Special Opportunities Fund (CSOF) on €35m. The fund is backed by a...


text:
If you're feeling acute pain in your wallet from Tuesday's hikes in B.C. Hydro rates and ferry fares — not to mention recent Insurance Corporation of B.C. and Medical Services Plan increases — try to look at it from the government's point of view.
Where do you think the money comes from to send MLAs and their spouses to Africa so they can tickle giraffes and pet lion cubs?
Where do you think they get the cash to funnel into Downtown Eastside "charities" run by people who eat at Gotham Steakhouse, ride in limos and vacation at Disneyland?
Where are they supposed to get the big bucks for bonuses and double-dip pensions to reward executives running government monopolies?
Do you think it all grows on trees? Do you think they find it in loose change under sofa cushions in the legislature's new MLA TV lounge with the $733 snack rack to hold their free muffins?
Running this B.C. government costs a lot of money. That money has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is you and your wallet.
The April Fool's Day increases — including today's nine-per-cent hydro-rate hike and four-per-cent ferry-fare increase — are bound to inflict significant hurt on anyone whose income hasn't increased at a similar rate. That's most of us. And the government can't ignore it.
"There is an impact when rates go up," Energy Minister Bill Bennett acknowledged Monday. "I don't want to say anything that would minimize the impact on people."
But he also says B.C. Hydro needs money to build new dams and repair old ones. B.C. Ferries needs money to subsidize money-losing ferry routes.
ICBC must pay out higher injury claims and MSP faces increased demand for health care from an aging population of baby boomers.
Yes, the demands for more money are everywhere. But the government's siphoning of your bank account would be easier to accept if they led by example, eliminated waste and told the whole truth about where your money goes.
For example: Not all the loot you fork over to hydro and ICBC pays for new dams or car-accident claims. Billions will be transferred directly to government in the form of "dividends" and "excess optional capital" — also known as "stealth taxes."
At the ferries, top managers continue to bank performance-driven "salary hold-backs" — the government's new name for "bonuses."
But why you need to pay bonuses to managers of a government monopoly is beyond me (especially when they don't pay any bonuses at all to ferry executives in neighbouring Washington state).
At the Health Ministry, they're jacking up MSP premiums at the same time that they're pumping millions into barely accountable organizations like the Portland Hotel Society, where audits revealed lavish personal spending, but no government appetite to dig deeper into the scandal.
And at the legislature itself, MLAs from both major parties have been forced to pay back money to taxpayers for dubious personal spending, including that giraffe-cuddling trip to Africa.
So crack open that wallet and dig a little deeper, tax slaves. They couldn't have picked a more appropriate day to make us all feel a little more foolish.


text:
Results from a recent study have revealed a close relationship between pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH)—a rare and deadly disease characterized by exceedingly high blood pressure in the arteries carrying blood from the heart to the lungs—and abnormalities of the blood-forming cells in the bone marrow (known as myeloid abnormalities). The study, which was conducted by a team of researchers at the Cleveland Clinic and Vanderbilt University, showed that blood progenitor cells (cells that are capable of forming white blood cells, red blood cells, or platelets in the bone marrow and are reported to affect blood vessel formation), are increased in the bone marrow, blood, and lungs of patients with PAH. These findings suggest that the disease processes in the bone marrow and the lungs are related. "This research pieces together a number of previous studies and observations suggesting a very close relationship between PAH and underlying bone marrow abnormalities," said Dr. Serpil Erzurum, a co-author of the study and Chair of the Department of Pathobiology at the Cleveland Clinic. "Our study honed in on the stem cells involved in blood vessel maintenance to identify factors that might be involved in bone marrow stem cell abnormalities as well as progressive arterial disease."
The researchers examined production of hypoxia-inducing factors (HIF, protein complexes that govern the body's response to low oxygen concentrations, which are activated to help heal damaged tissue) in patients with PAH. They found that levels of HIF and proteins whose production HIF regulates, erythropoietin (EPO) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), were all increased in PAH patients. Because individuals with this disease often require lung transplantation, the investigators were able to examine the lung tissue of the patients and found that blood vessel-lining cells in the lung produced more HGF and stromal-derived factor a, a protein which plays a crucial role in the formation of new blood vessels by recruiting progenitor cells from the circulation. Because HIF, EPO, and HGF can affect bone marrow progenitors, it appeared that there may be an abnormal feedback loop connecting blood and lung cell behavior. The presence of such an abnormal loop could provide a previously unrecognized opportunity for intervening in PAH, depending on the results of further investigation.
"Continued research will help us gain a better understanding of the level of cross-influence between these two conditions in order to improve treatment strategies and, ultimately, the quality of patient care," said Dr. Samar Farha, a co-author of the study and staff physician in the Respiratory Institute at the Cleveland Clinic.
The study was published online on January 21, 2011 in the journal Blood. [Press release] [Blood abstract]


text:
Blog Archive
- ► 2018 (17)
- ► 2015 (26)
- ► 2014 (64)
- ► 2013 (124)
- ▼ April (4)
- ► 2011 (119)
- ► 2010 (95)
- ► 2009 (167)
Informative Blog Posts
Sauce-Sational: An Experiment in Applesacue
- Akane
- Arlet (Swiss Gourmet)
- Baker's Mix - August
- Baker's Mix - October
- Bella
- Bonnie's Best
- Braeburn
- Cameo
- Chenango Strawberry
- Cortland
- Cox Orange Pippin
- Crimson Crisp
- Crimson Gold
- Dandee Red
- Duchess
- Empire
- Fireside
- Frostbite
- Fuji
- Gala
- Ginger Gold
- Golden Delicious
- Golden Supreme
- Granny Smith
- Haralson
- Hazen
- Honey Gold
- Honeycrisp
- Idared
- Jonagold
- Jonamac
- Jonathan
- Jumbo
- Keepsake
- MacIntosh
- Macoun
- Melrose
- Northern Spy
- NW Greening
- Overall Summary
- Paulared
- Red Gravenstein
- Regent
- Sansa
- Scarlet
- Shizuka
- Silken
- Smokehouse
- Smoothee
- Sno (Famuese)
- Snow Sweet
- Spartan
- Sweet 16
- Tolman Sweet
- Valstar
- Wealthy
- William's Pride
- Wolf River
- Zestar!
Popular Posts
The 2018 apple season started out with not the best weather – it rained and rained and rained some more. One afternoon on a whim, my mother...
The Northern Spy is a variety we're just finally starting to get a decent crop off. Northern Spy is an heirloom apple that characteristical...
The Crimson Crisp is another new variety in our shop this year. It seems to me that the majority of the people that sample them end up buyi...
For all current information on Lapacek's Orchard please visit our new website www.LapaceksOrchard.com Thank you all so much!
Since the orchard now has ground cherries, I wanted to share this easy jam recipe. Ground cherries are delicious as a raw fruit, but they ma...
We had our last Kids in the Garden session today. Before I tell you about it I'm going to share with your some recipe's we made: Cucu...
Facebook Badge
Our Blog List
Gingerbread Cinnamon Rolls7 hours ago
Last market1 week ago
Lapacek's Orchard In the News!
Our Favorite Websites
Sunday Recipe's
- Amish Apple Grunt
- Apple Butter Madness
- Apple Cheddar Bread
- Apple Chicken Salad/Sandwiches
- Apple Cider Donuts
- Apple Crisp Parfait
- Apple Danish Pastry Bars
- Apple French Toast
- Apple Fritter Rings
- Apple Harvest Blondies
- Apple Nut Bread
- Apple Pecan Quick Bread
- Apple Pie Cake
- Apple Pie in a Jar
- Apple Raisin Loaves
- Apple Salad with Blue Cheese Dressing
- Apple Strudel Puff Pastry
- Apple Toss
- Apple Upside-Down Cake
- Apple-Jalepeno Preserves
- Apple-Pecan Cheesecake
- Baked Oatmeal
- Bavarian Apple Torte
- Blueberry French Toast
- Blueberry-Raspberry Streusel Muffins
- Brandied Apple 'N Cream Cheese Pie
- Caramel Apple Bars
- Coconut Apple Cake
- Cranberry Apple Bread
- Cranberry Apple Salad
- Creamy Apple Squares
- Crispy Festive Apple Salad
- Cucumber Tomatillo Salsa
- Dill Dip
- Dinner in a Pumpkin
- Easy Waffles
- Egg-cellent Apple Salad
- French Apple Pie
- Fresh Apple Salsa
- Great Apple Dessert
- Great Apple Dessert
- Hot Cinnamon Cider
- Hot Pirate Cider
- Kelly's Favorite Apple Pie
- Maple Roasted Acorn Squash
- Marinated Zucchini Salad
- Microwave Apple Muffins
- Pumpkin Cheese Ball
- Pumpkin Gingerbread
- Pumpkin Pie Cake
- Quick Apple Dumplings
- Scalloped Apples
- Sour Cream Apple Coffee Cake
- Spiced Apple Bagel
- Spicy Apple Pancake with Cider Sauce
- Strawberry Chocolate Mint Lemonade Cooler
- Tangy Ham in Cider
- Tomatillo Salsa Verde
- Warm Apple Pudding
- Wilted Swiss Chard with Fresh Basil
- Zucchini Bread
Where Can you Find Us?
(608) 635-4780
Operation Fruits & Veggies – Sweet & Sour Salad Recipe
We'll be growing at least a few of these ingredients during our Kid's in the Garden Program…
Sweet & Sour Salad
from Jenny Bormett of The Painted Daisy
3/4 c. Shredded carrots
4 c. Mung bean sprouts
1/2 c. Thinly sliced bell pepper (I use red and green)
1/4 c. Chopped scallion
1/4 c. Thinly sliced banana pepper (this is a little spicy but not bad)
1/2 c. White wine vinegar
3 T Sugar
1 T dark sesame oil
1/2 tsp. Salt
1/8 tsp Tabasco
1 clove crushed garlic
Best if it marinates a few hrs.
Be sure to stop by Apple Blossom Days this weekend – lots of fun planned!
2012 Apple Blossom Day Schedule and Events
Happy Sunday everyone! I hope you all enjoyed the weekend. We did around here – our beautiful baby, Persimoni turned ONE yesterday! I can't believe how fast the year went. I'm posting today so you know that there is a fun special event at the orchard for the next two weekends. We miss you all and hope you can stop out, visit and play awhile!
Apple Blossom* Days and Multi-Family Garage Sale at
Lapacek's Orchard
Saturday & Sunday
May 5th, 6th, 12th & 13th
from 10am to 4pm
WHAT's Happening?
· Multi-Family Garage Sale
Family FUN!
· Scavenger Hunt
· Make and Take Craft Table
Bird House from a Gourd ($12)
Source: learn2grow.com via Diane on Pinterest
Tin Can Wind Chimes – two different style options – you get to choose! ($3)
· Canned Goods
Be sure to try our new Raspberry Rhubarb Spread and Chocolate Raspberry Topping!
· Honey
· Maple Syrup
· Handmade Items from KimsCraftyApple, The Apple, Diane and other artists.
· LOTS of Play Equipment for the Kids
· Meet our new goats – Jack Jack, Buster, and Gus
· Visit our emus and chickens
· And MORE!
Info Sessions for this Summer's 'Kid's in the Garden' Program at 10am and 2pm each day!
Lapacek's Orchard
N1959 Kroncke Road
Poynette, WI 53955
*Apple Blossoms were early this year so unfortunately there won't be an orchard full of blossoms for you to visit – but there are still lots of family fun things to do!
***Be sure to head over to my Crafting Blog to enter to WIN a copy of Marie Bostwick's new book – 'Ties that Bind'!
2012 Planting Season
A few weekends ago we had the whole crew out planting over 300 new apple trees.
It take about an hour to plant 20 – 25 trees. First – Frank spades out a hole for the trees with the tree spade attachment on the skidster. Then, the tree goes in the hole and we have to make sure that all the roots are spread out and not twisted around each other. Then of course we have to fill the hole shoveling the dirt back in. Of course – most of our dirt is clay so this is a bit daunting at times.
Cedi, Capri and Persimoni were very patient and understanding during the full day of planting. I must say – we've been blessed with some really well behaved kids. We barely even heard a peep from Pip – she just hung out and watched us all work!
The trees we planted this season included more -
- Haralson
- MacIntosh
- Cortland
- Jonathan
- Jonagold
- Snosweet
- HoneyCrisp
- Fuji
- Paulared
And two new varieties:
- Smoothie
- Golden Supreme
These are both types of Golden Delicious. I can't wait to try them!
Have you read about the new 'Kids in the Garden' Program we're starting this year? Still plenty of time to sign up your kids!
Operation Fruits and Veggies – Kids in The Garden
Before I get to telling you about the new and exciting program we're offering at the orchard this season I want to extend a 'Happy Easter' to you all! I had to include a picture of Persimoni all dressed up on her very first Easter!
As you all know one of my new missions is to help encourage the young generation to eat and enjoy fruits and veggies. I know from my own kids, one of the ways to do this is to let them grow their own food. Not everyone has the time or space to do this so, we're going to offer our time and space to help with this! Read on to find out what I'm talking about!
Operation Fruits and Veggies – Kids in the Garden
A new summer program at Lapacek's Orchard for kids ages 5-9.
Help plant a special kid's garden and care for it every week.
Special hands on learning activities in all the other gardens at Lapacek's including apples, pears, peaches, blueberries, raspberries, squash, pumpkins, gourds, cabbage, sunflowers, herbs, tomatoes and peppers. We'll even keep an eye on the ornamentals.
Learn about the life cycle of plants, how to build great soil, pollination and lots, lots more.
Explore whether critters are friends or foes.
Sample fruits and veggies right after picking (sometimes raw and sometimes cooked) with the kids involved in every step.
We will be holding informational sessions during Apple Blossom Days – the first two weekends in May if you want to find out more about this program before you sign up. Times of these sessions will be announced soon!
Thursday afternoons, June 14, 21, 28, July 12, 19, 26, August 2 and 9 from 2:00-3:30. Cost is $25 per child for the entire season. Come as often as you can. An interested adult is required to accompany the child(ren) at no charge.
If you already know that you and your child (or children) are definitely in please send Kim an email at (lapaceksorchard {at} gmail {dot} com) to reserve your space. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
I hope you all are as excited about this new venture at the orchard as we are! I can't wait to see how our first season goes!