Paul from Paris

French president Sarkozy said, “There is no doubt that the eurozone is going through the most serious crisis since its creation….We can’t let the euro fall. The euro is Europe and Europe is peace”.

That’s one way to see things. Maybe it’s the majority view, but there are others:

• The European Union is not a federal system. The full faith and credit of all EU member states do not back the debts of a single member state.
• The euro is a common currency. It is not a NATO-like pact for mutual defense.
• Having a common currency does limit members’ ability to do certain things, like printing money to settle debts. Markets also discipline states who do this. Member states retain an arsenal of measures to finance expenditures, including deficits.
• EU members in the eurozone accept to follow agreed rules on deficits and public indebtedness. EU members have repeatedly excused members’ failure to meet these requirements.
• All eurozone members issue sovereign (state) debt. Each pays a distinct interest rate: some higher, some lower than others. All universally accept this to be normal.
• Greece today faces higher interest rates than other eurozone members. This is a consequence of Greek deficit spending and a high level of indebtedness, neither of which resulted from exceptional circumstances or unexpected crises. There is no economic argument why Greece should be entitled to access credit at interest rates available to Germany, or France, or Italy.

I’ve not yet met Gordon Ramsay. I haven’t read any of his books or eaten in any of his restaurants. But I have seen a few episodes of his television series, Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares. The series makes good points and raises good questions about consulting and teaching.

Gordon Ramsay is a fine European: a British chef who served in the kitchens of top French chefs before taking the helm of restaurants in Britain (and beyond). Ramsay seems to accumulate Michelin stars and accolades all the time. In addition to presiding over kitchens, Ramsay produces books and television programs.

Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares specializes in deathbed conversions. A restaurant is ailing. Ramsay arrives for an intensive, one-week shape-up. Changes are made. At the end of the week, a stress test is carried out, for example when a restaurant critic visits. A few months later, Ramsay returns for a check-up visit. If all is well, the restaurant is still in business.

Why do I admire Ramsay as a teacher and consultant? He really cares about what he does. And he cares enough about his clients not to over-emphasize technique or content. He instead stresses method, process, or experiential knowledge. From what I’ve seen on Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmare, Remsay insists on:

• motivation, boosting the motivation of the whole restaurant staff, while testing their willingness to change and grow;
• quality, especially fresh ingredients, locally sourced (which leads to mindful behavior in the kitchen);
• marketing, by offering memorable dining, without pretension.

Gordon Ramsay also displays a mercurial temper. He swears like a sailor. He threatens to abandon his mission and suggests that his client throw in the towel.

I wish I had the courage to take a cue from Ramsay. His theatrical temperament accomplishes two things:

• Ramsay conveys artistic authority; and
• he tests his client’s motivation and willingness to change.

If the client doesn’t believe that it needs to change or questions whether it has anything to learn from Ramsay, then Ramsay’s mission would be compromised. If the client wanted only to watch Ramsay in action, without questioning and changing its own behavior, then Ramsay’s work would not yield results.

Ramsay doesn’t use theatrics to instill a personality cult. He acts in the client’s interest. The proof of this is the stress test, where Gordon puts to the test, by neutral third parties, the restaurant and his work with it over the week.

An American reader pointed out to me that young people do not only excel at sports, but can also accomplish remarkable studies in math and science.

In the United States, the Society for Science & the Public has run a contest for students in their final year of secondary school. From 1942 through 1997, Westinghouse sponsored the contest; since 1998, Intel has sponsored it.

The Intel Science Talent Search fields about 1,600 entries from young people who do independent (individual, original) research in math and science. Each entrant submits:

• a 20-page research report;
• a statement from a supervising scientist;
• recommendations from teachers;
• details on educational and personal background;
• various essays that:
  • abstract the research project (akin to what a scientific journal would print);
  • summarize the research in plain-language;
  • answer the question: What is a major scientific question in your field whose answer you believe will have a significant impact on the world in the next 20 years, and why?
  • answer the question: What have you done that illustrates scientific attitude, curiosity, inventiveness, and initiative? (The STS is not for the modest.)

An initial round of judging yields 300 semifinalists; each receives $1,000, and his or her school also receives $1,000. A pool of 40 finalists is invited for a week in Washington, D.C., for additional judging, cultural events, and group interaction. All receive at least $7,500 in awards. The top ten finalists receive larger awards, culminating in a $100,000 award for the first-place winner. The awards are intended to finance higher education.

Intel and the Society for Science & the Public generously posted short presentations by finalists.

This year’s first-place winner is Erika de Benedictis, from Albuquerque, New Mexico; she investigated spacecraft navigation.

The second-place winner this year is David Liu, from Saratoga, California; he developed a system to recognize and understand digital images (and tells a great story about his consulting experience).

The 2010 third-place winner is Akhil Mathew, from Madison, New Jersey; his math project examined Deligne categories.

Nearly all the finalists would like to attend the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which deserves an award for its outreach and marketing among  scientifically inclined youth.

The Intel STS comforts those who are concerned about scientific talent in the United States. To my European friends, I would ask: why isn’t a similar contest done in Europe?

The events of 3 May 1808 made the Europe we know today. Francisco de Goya’s El Tres de Mayo de 1808 en Madrid, a painting done in 1814 and now displayed at the Prado, tells and commemorates this history.

The back story could be subtitled “The Two Joes”, for Joseph Bonaparte and Joachim Murat.

Political intrigue thickened the spring air in Spain in 1808. Napoleon’s Empire was growing, and the Emperor had sights on Spain. After confusing abdications involving Ferdinand VII and Charles IV, Napoleon had a throne to fill, and he designated as King of Spain his brother Joseph, formerly King of Naples.

This news did not sit well with people in Spain. Madrid witnessed an insurrection. For Napoleon’s emissary, Joachim Murat –who later in 1808 would become Joachim I, King of Naples– the uprising was mob violence that needed to be put down. Murat rounded up and executed several hundred insurgents on May 3. This is the action that Goya depicted.

Goya painted the scene years after the fact. It is commentary, not news. Goya’s depiction is dark,  crowded or compressed into a small area, with hardly any depth of field.

To the right, we see, from behind, the French soldiers on the firing squad. They are faceless, anonymous, a block of men extended by the cold metal of their rifles, institutional violence in action.

To the left, we see the insurgents: furthest to the left, the bloodied corpses of those already executed; to the right, a group or line of people destined for execution; and in the middle a man about to be shot.

This central figure is extraordinary. He’s dressed in white (innocence?), arms spread (suggesting crucifixion? or emphasizing that he is not armed?), eyes open: he gaze looks out to and confronts his executioners; and, through us, his gaze confronts posterity.

Goya knew something that the condemned man and his executioners (or the casual viewer) did not: the events of 3 May 1808 put into play events that led to a reversal of fortune and downfall of that day’s victors. Popular insurrection spread throughout Spain, leading to what is today known as a war of independence. British troops lent support, in what they remember as the Peninsular War. King Joseph was compelled to leave Spain, then to relinquish the crown.

Activia yogurt

Danone (known in the USA as Dannon) makes high-quality yogurts. It’s a big company that plays by the rules.

I was surprised to read, buried in a press release on a promising first quarter, that Danone had withdrawn requests pending before a European authority to make health claims about two of its dairy products.

EFSA is the European Food Safety Authority. EFSA “was set up in January 2002, following a series of food crises in the late 1990s” as an impartial, pan-EU regulatory agency. One of EFSA’s missions is to review nutrition and health claims.

Danone is committed to “nutriceuticals” or “probiotics” and has a history of making claims about health, or that suggest healthiness:

Bio brand yogurt

• A line of dairy products was long named “Bio”. In French, “bio” is shorthand for “organic”. Danone’s product was not organic. The producer said the name was derived from “bios”, Greek for “life”. But why wasn’t the name then “bios”, and why was the product name was displayed on a green background?
• Danone subsequently chose a new name for the Bio line: “Activia”. In the name, there’s “via”, “life”. Much of the product advertising has centered around “feeling better” and improved digestion.
• Danone also introduced “Actimel”, a drinkable fermented milk product. Actimel is compared to a “fortifier” in French product advertising.

Actimel product

Danone has withdrawn its applications to make health claims about Activia and Actimel before the EFSA because, the company says, the regulator’s criteria are “unclear”.

I’m torn: I’d prefer straightfoward health claims to veiled allusions (which is how I’ve understood Danone’s past product advertising), but I’d want a European regulator to apply strict rules on health claims (such as vegetable sterols that help manage cholesterol). I’m not sure whether or how the two aims can be reconciled.