Dumping the tree, the pride of Longville, the brawl at the mall, the death of representative government, and everything you've heard about Ricky Rubio is true.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled a 50-year order for protection against a man does not violate his First Amendment rights.
The Court today upheld the order that prevents James Bergstrom, a Washington County man, from contacting his former wife and his two children for 50 years, an order imposed by the court after he was jailed for abuse and stalking.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals upholds the 2008 law passed by the Legislature permitting such lengthy extensions of orders for protections in cases in which a person violates an existing or previous order, engages in stalking, or is incarcerated or about to be released.
Bergstrom argued the order constitutes a "prior restraint" on free speech. But the Court said "an injunction that restricts speech in a content-neutral manner is not a prior restraint... like a protest buffer zone, an OFP extension ... that includes a no-contact order is content-neutral because it restricts contact with the abuse victim initiated by the abusing party without regard for the message the abusing party intends to express."
Men are taking over grocery stores.
The Chicago Tribune today reports on a movement to make it easier for men, now that surveys suggest they're doing more grocery shopping. The paper cites surveys showing 31 percent of men are the principal grocery shopper now, more than double what it was in 1985.
So merchandisers, like Proctor & Gamble, are creating "man aisles."
The man aisle puts all men's products, including P&G competitors, in one place, with shelf displays and even small TV screens to guide men to the appropriate skin-care items. Jones said the tests have gone well, with men spending more time in the aisles and, ultimately, more money.
On the food side, Barry Calpino, vice president of breakthrough innovation at Kraft Foods, said the company selected several products to market to men in 2011, with solid results. The Northfield-based company developed, packaged and marketed MiO, bottles of liquid flavor droplets to make water more enticing.
"Guys, when it comes to shopping and cooking, they love to customize and add their own personal touch," Calpino said, adding that the interest also extends to beverages.
Bottles of flavored droplets to make water "more enticing?" Guys!
Apparently, men simply shop differently -- more slowly, less organized.
The mindset has been that she shops, she really knows every inch of the store, she is really organized, has a list, is in a huge hurry," Calpino said. "We talk to a lot of these millennial guys about shopping, and the biggest headline is they're not as structured, not as hurried, much more experimental, more adventurous."
Men are more likely to buy on impulse, one expert says, because. "they have a little brighter outlook on the economy and their finances..."
That's a somewhat surprising analysis given that the paper says one of the reasons more men are grocery shopping these days is because they've lost their jobs and have more time to do so.(10 Comments)
When it comes to writing research papers, doctors are the medical equivalent of journalists. In the ethics department, the two often couldn't be further apart. Few news organizations would put up with a journalist reporting on products while taking money from the manufacturers of the products. But in the world of health care, that's the way the game is played and the head of health care organizations often don't seem to have much of a problem with it.
A couple of stories in the news today underscore the point.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports today on the relationship between Medtronic and Thomas Zdeblick, the chairman of orthopedics at the University of Wisconsin Madison medical school. He received more than $25 million in royalties from the company since 2003, covering the time when the University of Wisconsin Hospital spent $27 million for Medtronic spinal products
"I really don't know how you would manage that conflict of interest," said Jordan Cohen, a former president of the American Association of Medical Colleges. "It (his financial relationship with Medtronic) is bothersome."
Cohen, a professor of public health at George Washington University, said it would be
What does a conflict of interest look like? It may well be a research paper touting the benefits of a product without disclosing the author's financial interest in the product, the paper says:
Consider the issues involved in a single 2003 study authored by Zdeblick and two non-UW doctors who have received millions of dollars from Medtronic. Those surgeons and others with ties to the firm have been criticized for failing to connect the Medtronic spine surgery product BMP-2 with several serious complications in their published research.
The study was published in the journal at which Zdeblick is editor-in-chief. And the study involved another product, the LT-Cage, from which Zdeblick receives royalties. None of his royalties - or those of the other authors - is from BMP-2.
In unusually glowing language, the 2003 study declared the product could become "the new gold standard" in spine surgery - and then the authors went on to say the product was being used "exclusively" at their institutions.
But is it a situation people are concerned about? Take this comment from a reader:
Whats the issue? The guy is well regarded in the industry. The relationship is disclosed and he doesnt receive any commissions from products used at UW. This is the exact incentive you want to give people/doctors -- you want the best and you want to give them incentives to come up with new advancements in medicine. An extreme example of media bias that doesnt make sense.
The story comes just a week after the University of Minnesota announced it would not discipline a spine surgeon for failing to disclose his financial relationship with Medtronic in his two published papers presented at a scientific conference.
At the same time, the Saint Paul Pioneer Press has been reporting recently on the cushy relationship between health care institutions and drug companies, which it says involves much more money than payments to individual doctors in Minnesota.
In all of these cases, few officials seem concerned about the perception of impropriety in the relationship between drug/device makers and the doctors/institutions.
It's pretty unusual to see journalists sniping at each other across the country, but that's happening today between aviation reporter Christine Negroni and a blogger at the New York Times.
Negroni, who reported for the Times this year on a story about the electromagnetic interference consumer devices could cause for airplane navigation systems, is hitting Times blogger Nick Bilton hard for a series of posts that pooh poohs the threat.
Negroni makes a rational argument before unleashing the journalistic version of the "nuclear option."
For those who prefer their pilots not to be wetting their pants over suspected EMI flight control issues I'll point out that it is a basic tenet of aviation safety that events are more predictive than accidents. These pilots were reporting on the precursors to crashes.
But Bilton, having spoken to at last count about half a dozen people over the course of four posts tells Times readers its "time to change the rules."
He's wrong. Aviation's remarkable record is the result of eliminating anticipated risks and creating redundant systems for the risks and errors that are unpredictable. The use of portable electronic devices falls squarely in the former.
Bilton would know that if he felt the need to take his reporting even slightly off the path between his hunches and his biases. As a blogger he may not need to do that, but as someone who's opinions fall under the banner of The New York Times, he and his editors certainly ought to.
By the way, it would be "whose opinions."(6 Comments)