February 2014 – Page 3 – artdiamondblog.com

Organic and Kosher Chicken Have as Much Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria as Regular Chicken

(p. D3) . . . after a trip to Israel for his sister’s bat mitzvah, Jack Millman came back to New York wondering whether the higher costs of kosher foods were justified.
“Most consumers perceive of kosher foods as being healthier or cleaner or somehow more valuable than conventional foods, and I was interested in whether they were in fact getting what they were paying for,” said Mr. Millman, 18 and a senior at the Horace Mann School in New York City.
That question started him on a yearlong research project to compare the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant E. coli bacteria on four types of chickens: those raised conventionally; organically; without antibiotics, and those slaughtered under kosher rules. “Every other week for 10 weeks, I would go and spend the entire Saturday buying chicken,” he said. “We had it specifically mapped out, and we would buy it and put it on ice in industrial-strength coolers given to us by the lab, and ship it out.”
All told, Mr. Millman and his mother, Ann Marks, gathered 213 samples of chicken drumsticks from supermarkets, butcher shops and specialty stores in the New York area.
Now they and several scientists have published a study based on the project in the journal F1000 Research. The results were surprising.
Kosher chicken samples that tested positive for antibiotic-resistant E. coli had nearly twice as much of the bacteria as the samples from conventionally raised birds did. And even the samples from organically raised chickens and those raised without antibiotics did not significantly differ from the conventional ones.

For the full story, see:
STEPHANIE STROM. “A Science Project With Legs.” The New York Times (Tues., November 5, 2013): D3.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date November 4, 2013.)

The academic article on E. coli in different types of chicken, is:
Millman, Jack M., Kara Waits, Heidi Grande, Ann R. Marks, Jane C. Marks, Lance B. Price, and Bruce A. Hungate. “Prevalence of Antibiotic-Resistant E. Coli in Retail Chicken: Comparing Conventional, Organic, Kosher, and Raised without Antibiotics.” F1000Research 2 (2013).

“Innovation” Word “Is Way Over-Used”

Source of Pop-Tarts image: http://cdn.foodbeast.com.s3.amazonaws.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/poptarts.png

(p. B1) It measures nearly 3 inches by 5 inches, and it’s made from enriched flour, corn syrup and creamy peanut butter.

This is Kellogg’s Gone Nutty! peanut butter Pop-Tart. If you agree with Kellogg CEO John Bryant, it’s one of the cereal company’s important products of 2013. He went so far as to call it an innovation.
Listen to the chiefs of America’s biggest companies, and you’ll find the Gone Nutty! Pop-Tart has plenty of company. Most CEOs now spray the word “innovation” as if it were an air freshener. A little spritz can’t hurt.
In the last three months, CEOs of S&P 500 companies have put the “innovation” word on Peony & Blush Suede perfume, premium potash and higher-alcohol Miller beer. “Innovation” also describes Dun & Bradstreet credit reports and PetSmart’s temporary tattoos for pets.
Back in 2007, 99 companies in the S&P 500 mentioned innovation in their third-quarter conference calls, according to reviews of transcripts from Capital IQ. This year the number was 197.
When Boston Consulting Group asked 1,500 executives to rank their company innovation from 1-10, more than two-thirds rated themselves a seven or higher.
The word “is way overused,” says International Paper CEO John Faraci.
. . .
(p. B8) As for the peanut butter Pop-Tarts, a Kellogg spokeswoman says that it had long been one of the most-requested new flavors.
“Development challenges and nut-allergy concerns stood in the way of launching this innovation. Since its launch, Pop-Tarts Gone Nutty has exceeded our expectations.”
There’s nothing wrong with keeping pace. It’s what companies must do. But it’s worth asking at your company, no matter what words the CEO uses: Where does survival end
and real innovation begin?

For the full commentary, see:
DENNIS K. BERMAN. “THE GAME; Is a Peanut Butter Pop-Tart an Innovation?” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., December 4, 2013): B1 & B8.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date December 3, 2013.)

Reagan “Was Canny Enough to Take His Cues from Technicians, Who Would Be Candid with Him about What the Doctors Really Meant”

Source of book image: http://www.dispatch.com/live/export-content/sites/dispatch/life/stories/2011/03/28/2-book-rawhide-art-ga9c3l3q-1rawhide-down-large.jpg

(p. C7) It has been nearly 30 years since President Ronald Reagan was shot outside the Washington Hilton Hotel on March 30, 1981. The attack is well remembered, but the details are not. One reason for the memory lapse, according to Del Quentin Wilber, the author of “Rawhide Down,” a newly revealing account of this potentially deadly attack, is that Reagan survived it so smoothly. Twelve days after being fired upon, he was back at the White House looking sensational. He ultimately enhanced his popularity by rebounding with such courage, resilience and even good cheer.
. . .
“Rawhide Down” is a fast-paced book that captures many points of view. Nurses and medical technicians have especially candid memories of the pressure they faced, the uncertainty about how to deal with such an important patient and the ad-hoc solutions they devised. They decided to call him Mr. Reagan rather than Mr. President; the situation would be less frightening that way. They were amazed by his joking, his courtesy and his general lack of V.I.P. attitude.
They were also impressed by his bravery. Throughout the incident the president had no clear idea of what had happened to him or what to expect. He struggled to breathe, brightened at any mention of the first lady and was canny enough to take his cues from technicians, who would be candid with him about what the doctors really meant. As he got ready to undergo chest surgery, one worker assured him that being taken from the E.R. to the operating room was a good thing. If he were really in peril, she said, doctors would never allow him to be moved.

For the full review, see:
JANET MASLIN. “Books of The Times; Reconstructing the Day Reagan Fell: Chaos After a President’s Shooting.” The New York Times (Thurs., March 10, 2011): C7.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the review is dated March 9, 2011.)

The book under review is:
Wilber, Del Quentin. Rawhide Down: The Near Assassination of Ronald Reagan. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 2011.

Evidence Babies Are Born with a Sense of Fairness

Source of book image: http://news.yale.edu/sites/default/files/imce/main-bloom.jpg

(p. 15) Is morality innate? In his new book, “Just Babies,” the psychologist Paul Bloom draws from his research at the Yale Infant Cognition Center to argue that “certain moral foundations are not acquired through learning. . . . They are instead the products of biological evolution.” Infants may be notoriously difficult to study (rats and pigeons “can at least run mazes or peck at levers”), but according to Bloom, they are, in fact, “moral creatures.”

He describes a study in which 1-year-olds watched a puppet show where a ball is passed to a “nice” puppet (who passes it back) or to a “naughty” puppet (who steals it). Invited to reward or punish the puppets, children took treats away from the “naughty” one. These 1-year-olds seem to be making moral judgments, but is this an inborn ability? They have certainly had opportunities in the last 12 months to learn good from bad. However, Bloom has found that infants as young as 3 months old reach for and prefer looking at a “helper” rather than a “hinderer,” which he interprets as evidence of moral sense, that babies are “drawn to the nice guy and repelled by the mean guy.” He may be right, but he hasn’t proved innateness.
Proving innateness requires much harder evidence — that the behavior has existed from Day 1, say, or that it has a clear genetic basis. Bloom presents no such evidence. His approach to establishing innateness is to argue from universalism: If a behavior occurs across cultures, then surely it can’t be the result of culture.

For the full review, see:
SIMON BARON-COHEN. “Little Angels.” The New York Times Book Review (Sun., December 29, 2013): 15.
(Note: ellipsis in original.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date December 27, 2013.)

Book under review:
Bloom, Paul. Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil. New York: Crown Publishers, 2013.

Teles Argues the Evils of Government Arise More from Its Complexity than Its Size

(p. A21) Steven M. Teles had a mind-altering essay in National Affairs called “Kludgeocracy in America.” While we’ve been having a huge debate about the size of government, the real problem, he writes, is that the growing complexity of government has made it incoherent. The Social Security system was simple. But now we have a maze of saving mechanisms — 401(k)’s, I.R.A.’s, 529 plans and on and on. Health insurance is now so complicated that only 14 percent of beneficiaries could answer basic questions about deductibles and co-pays.
This complexity stymies rational thinking, imposes huge compliance costs, and aids special interests who are capable of manipulating the intricacies. One of the reasons we have such complex structures, Teles argues, is that Americans dislike government philosophically, but like government programs operationally. Rather than supporting straightforward government programs, they support programs in which public action is hidden behind a morass of tax preferences, obscure regulations and intricate litigation.

For the full commentary, see:
DAVID BROOKS. “The Sidney Awards, Part 2.” The New York Times (Tues., December 31, 2013): A21. [National Edition]
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date December 30, 2013.)

The article praised by Brooks is:
Teles, Steven M. “Kludgeocracy in America.” National Affairs 17 (Fall 2013): 97-114.

Trying to Inspire “Parents to Raise More Walts and Roys”

“A rendering of the Walt Disney Birthplace, a planned private museum in Chicago.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. C3) LOS ANGELES — The on-again-off-again campaign to turn Walt Disney’s Chicago birthplace into an attraction has taken an unexpected new turn. And two theme park ride designers who mostly work for Disney rivals are at the wheel.
. . .
“We don’t want to disrupt the neighborhood with a big attraction,” Mr. Young said. “But we’re also not interested in just putting a plaque on a house.” Ms. Benadon added: “Our dream is that this house becomes a place that inspires creativity. We want to inspire parents to raise more Walts and Roys.”
The couple have worked on attractions like SeaWorld shows; Madagascar: A Crate Adventure, a water ride at Universal Studios Singapore; and theme parks in China that are seeking to compete with Shanghai Disneyland, which is under construction.
. . .
So far, . . . , they have not contacted the Walt Disney Company. “We wanted to do this ourselves,” Ms. Benadon said.
. . .
But Ms. Benadon and Mr. Young do have one important ally: Roy P. Disney, whose grandfather, Roy O. Disney, and great-uncle, Walt, founded the company. “On behalf of the Disney family,” Mr. Disney said in a statement, “we are so pleased to see Walt Disney’s historic birthplace and family home being restored to its humble origins.”

For the full story, see:
BROOKS BARNES. “A Chance to Step Into Disney’s Childhood.” The New York Times (Weds., December 4, 2013): C3.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date December 3, 2013.)

Carnegie “Spoke Positively of Socialism”

Carnegie is a mixed bag for several reasons. Here is one more:

(p. 256) “A MILLIONAIRE SOCIALIST. MR. ANDREW CARNEGIE PROCLAIMS IN FAVOR OF SOCIALISTIC DOCTRINES.” So read the headline of the January 2, 1885 front-page story in the New York Times, occasioned by Carnegie’s remarks “in favor of Socialism” at the December meeting of the Nineteenth Century Club. One of the guests at that meeting was John Swinton, the publisher of a rather obscure radical weekly named Swinton’s. Swinton invited Carnegie to sit for an interview and again he spoke positively of socialism.

Source:
Nasaw, David. Andrew Carnegie. New York: Penguin Press, 2006.
(Note: the pagination of the hardback and paperback editions of Nasaw’s book are the same.)

Twitter Founders Were Outsiders and Unafraid of Risk

Source of the book image: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-AF602_bkrvtw_GV_20131031131314.jpg

(p. 20) . . . “Hatching Twitter,” a fast-paced and perceptive new book by Nick Bilton, a columnist and reporter for The New York Times, establishes that uncertainty and dissension about its true purpose has characterized Twitter from its inception.
. . .
The company was financed by Williams, who made a bundle selling Blogger to Google and was intent on proving he wasn’t a one-hit wonder. It rose from the ashes of a failed podcasting enterprise, Odeo, which Williams had bankrolled as a favor to his friend Noah Glass. Bilton sketches the founders’ backgrounds and personalities in quick, skillful strokes that will serve the eventual screenwriter, director and storyboard artist well; these are characters made for the big screen.
None came from money. Ev Williams was a shy Nebraska farm boy whose parents never really understood their socially awkward, computer-obsessed son.
. . .
Having known hardship, none of the four founders were afraid of risk. To join the ill-fated Odeo, Stone walked away from a job at Google, leaving more than $2 million in unvested stock options on the table.
Twitter began with a conversation. Dorsey and Glass sat talking in a car one night in 2006 when Odeo was on the verge of collapse. Dorsey mentioned his “status concept,” which was inspired by AOL’s Instant Messenger “away messages” and LiveJournal status updates that people were using to mention where they were and what they were doing. Glass warmed to the idea, seeing it as a “technology that would erase a feeling that an entire generation felt while staring into their computer screens”: loneliness.

For the full review, see:
MAUD NEWTON. “Four Characters.” The New York Times Book Review (Sun., November 3, 2013): 20.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date November 1, 2013.)

Book under review:
Bilton, Nick. Hatching Twitter: A True Story of Money, Power, Friendship, and Betrayal. New York: Portfolio, 2013.