Guilty as charged! You were found consuming a "large-size sugary drink"! Take him down, bailiff!

In what appears to be a rather shocking move, New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg is using all of his municipal power to try to impact, forcibly, the health status of the city's inhabitants. He wants to pass a law banning the sale of "large-size sugary drinks" in restaurants, cinemas, delis and mobile food carts around the city. At first glance this seemed to me to be almost outrageous, and a clear case of things going too far in terms of people being either lectured to or downright controlled by authority - irrespective of whether that control is federal, state-wide or municipal. But should a mayor, of all people, be allowed to instruct the population of a city on what it must eat or drink, and what it must not, and be able to force laws through that dictate his own agenda?

It's a matter of hot debate, but upon closer examination a few things spring to my mind. First off, people thought that cities like Dublin and New York City would never get away with banning smoking (outright) in bars and restaurants. Smoking in bars in particular, was almost seen as a basic human right. But Bloomberg did instigate a city-wide ban on smoking in those places in 2003, and even if there was outrage over it at the time, today it is merely accepted by one and all. The message behind it was clear: we all now know that smoking kills people and/or places enormous burden on our healthcare system, so it has to stop. We cannot stop it, but we can stop you doing it in places ruled by us, and it's in your own best interest (and ours) so get over it. It is very dictatorial, but when it's truly about health then that makes it somehow more digestible, eventually. People do know that he has a point, and Bloomberg does generally seem to be passionate about the health of his city and its inhabitants. The big question of course is whether such individual passion allows one to basically preach to others and effect laws that change life as they know it? He's not the government's surgeon general or minister for healthcare: he's the mayor. 

The call for a ban on "large-size sugary drinks" almost sounds like a joke, it's so general and vague, but the issue is far from funny. Although it is not at the scare level of smoking, the general phenomenon of obesity in North America has become epidemic in how widespread it is, and how acceptable it seems to have become. It is estimated that over half of New York City's inhabitants can be classified as overweight or obese, and the stats for the schoolkids there is not much better than that. So irrespective of whether it's really his job or not, Bloomberg takes the situation very seriously and has decided to get serious about it, and attack the problem. For sure, by going at it in a municipal fashion, he obviates the need for federal involvement and will not face the resistance in Albany that he has in the past. If he can get the city-wide ban in effect, and stats end up showing a major improvement in people's condition, then NYC will be seen as a new model, and the dominoes will start to come down in succession.  It remains very controversial, especially given that naysayers claim that the jury is still out on sugar and the supposed negative effects of copious soda consumption in America. But most health professionals seem to agree that there is enough mounting data to back up the need to do something about this problem, and more frequently we hear sugar being referred to as "toxic". Well, of course it is! Almost anything that humans love to consume in large quantities is toxic: it is my belief that salt, sugar, smoke, fat and heavily processed food are all toxic. The lack of exercise that seems to go hand-in-hand with the lifestyle that consumes all of the above is synergistically toxic. Sloth combined with slop is a very potent admixture.

Something simply has to be done about it, more or less everyone agrees on that. Healthcare professionals are reeling, and they seem to agree that the "something" has to be drastic or it will be pointless. I agree. Kudos to Bloomberg for being sufficiently passionate that he is going ahead, even if he's sort of going it alone for now, and no one appointed him as the surgeon general of New York. As much as I agree in principle, I am not sure how far one can go in making the selling of "large-size sugary drinks" illegal. If people cannot get more than a medium size drink, then they will buy two! Two mediums beats a large - I win! Additionally, in terms of scope, what' will be the extent of such action: is he going to go after sugar next?! "I hereby announce that sugar has been declared a toxic illegal "drug" substance, and I therefore refuse to allow it to be sold in grocery stores or seen in my beloved city, ever again!" That will be a sure way to initiate an underground black market peddling that horrendous white crystalline beauty, and it will become as expensive as heroin once was. Even if it might ultimately prove to be more dangerous than heroin in certain ways, sugar is still not the devil in and of itself. It is lifestyle and habits that are the devil, and real education is a more powerful tool than passing laws to ban components of that lifestyle. Rather than forcing people to buy two mediums, it is better to make them want to grab a V8, or for a very intriguing concept, pure clean water. 

I look forward to seeing what happens next in NYC, especially during the hotter summer season stretching out ahead of us, when soda consumption probably goes off scale. It might have been a smarter move to have raised this issue in deep winter, when it would perhaps have felt a little less painful. Now then, where did I put my supersized fizzy soda?! - Kevin Mc

A new dawn for life science innovation in Montreal/Quebec? Just don't call the new breed "Quebec Inc"!

I have been reading with great interest of the new resolve to create a new wave of life science investment here in Quebec, with the intent of re-establishing the province (as well as Canada more generally) as a key biotech and drug discovery cluster. A hub of excellence in life science research and development, and theoretically at least, in actual "product" development, which of course is what is needed for sustainability. Now while one could write a book on the history of the biopharma sector in Quebec, I don't have the time to write that book and I doubt that anyone outside of that business area really needs to read it, either. So we will skip right to the heart of the matter and get down to what needs to be done, and not done.

First of all, what better place to begin than at the end? To cut a long story short, after more than a decade of recognition as a key biotech cluster, there was a devolution and deconstruction of what had been built here in Quebec (particularly in Montreal) that corresponded contemporaneously with the recession that kicked in during late 2008, and which grew steadily worse thereafter. Now let's be clear on one major point: it was not that the biotech sector coincidentally came to it's own crossroads at the same time as the economy failed; rather it was that the people who were investing in biotech were hit by the economic crises erupting in their own financial institutions. Money dried up, life science and biotech were considered too high risk (which of course they were since day one!), and plugs were rather mercilessly pulled on enterprises that often had tens of millions (and in some cases hundreds of millions) of dollars invested in them. It wasn't so much that a magic light bulb had gone on and a sudden realization that no financial exit was in sight for investors, rather it was just a paradigm shift back to the thinking that biotech was too risky, investors had become risk-averse, therefore biotech was out. Whether the biotech companies themselves, or the investors with a keen interest in their growth (and an exit) should have been working on setting up of a longer term funding program that would have carried those companies forward in new deeper-pocket series of financing rounds is a moot point: neither did it, and the companies in general evaporated over time. 
Would you get into the car manufacturing business without fully understanding the process of building a car? It was as if no one had truly understood that developing drugs (even if you race past the risks and over the hurdles) was something that happens over a 10-15 year time frame, and/or, no one had thought about the fact that they weren't intending or capable of funding the process for more than five years. So they went ahead and began building the new cars, got maybe a third of the way in, and then when big people started banging tables that no new cars had come off the production line yet, and nobody had money to finish the job, well, what were they supposed to do? The answer in 99% of the cases was to scrap the half-built cars. No one had analysed or worried about who was going to fund the later stages of product development, they just went ahead and dug into it, and nobody seemed to mind that 99% of the appointed CEOs had never led production of a single car in their entire careers. 
It wasn't too long before big pharma followed the trend and various big names such as Merck, AstraZeneca and Pfizer (among others) announced R&D layoffs or even closed research centers in and around Montreal. The forest fire has had a devastating effect on the local industry and of course on the livelihoods of a pool of scientific talent that had been built here and lived here, most of whom were faced with moving to the USA or Europe, or going home to lick their wounds. 

It now appears that maybe that fire is just about out, perhaps with some sizzling embers remaining, but the "insurance companies" have handed over the money for rebuilding, and more or less everything is in place to begin again. Once more, to cut what could be a ten page document short, below is a list of some key points that need to be considered/addressed if this new wave is to go further than the last, and achieve some degree of real sustainability:

• The first point is one that seems to have been noticed and resolved. The names of the companies involved in this new round have both governmental-financial credibility as well as tech product development and real life science investment expertise. When you hear names such as Teralys (the giant fund of funds), Lumira Capital and TVM Capital, as well as some big pharma partners, you know that this is indeed a "new breed". 

• One has to hope and pray that no one intends to also rebuild what was colloquially known locally as "Quebec Inc." Why? Well, first off, they failed, quite frequently and often miserably. The typical situation was a respected head honcho who was able to attract political interest in raising a fund, but who for some unknown reason surrounded him/herself with a bunch of rather averagely-talented and often inexperienced PhDs. A doctorate was seen as a sort of passport into that world, even if it was the case that many of those PhDs had not succeeded at being scientists, first, and that was why they were looking for new careers. Suddenly, they were to be the key advisers on whether to invest in this idea or that one, with zero experience in (life science) product development-commercialization? There were probably a few MBAs around also, but at least historically, they knew way more about business than life science, and had never been close to the business of life science. The outcome was the inevitable one: the head honcho made all of the key decisions while the team dozed through various meetings and always agreed with the boss. Just as they slept through board meetings even when representing that boss and his company, in various entities that they had invested in. It was a staggering mistake to not go out and hunt for the brightest PhD talent who were entrepreneurially-minded, and woo them away from the lab bench; rather than just bringing in those who had not exactly shone in their supposed single area of expertise: cold, hard science. But they were local, they knew this person, or that one, so, fine, they were in.

• There will have to be a serious, detailed due diligence done on the science, the technology arising out of that science, and the overall potential for commercialization and profitability, before placing a penny into it. Let's not repeat past mistakes, and fund our old buddies, or a politically important ally, all in the usual attempt to keep the same wheel (i.e. dirty circle) spinning round and round. Profitability? As a key determinant of life science investment? Isn't that a dirty word in academic science? Well, yes, it might have been, but now the potential for it is a must, as it has to be about profit for everyone's sake, as well as in terms of a suitable and timely exit for early stage investors. The focus must be on products, not ideas, and more than before, there should be an almost complete drug development plan in place alongside or as part of the business plan. A much greater degree of clarity on company identity, what the technology is and how it will be developed   for the marketplace, with a realistic idea of how it is all going to be funded at various stages, will be mandatory. No more of the "we will worry about that when (i.e. if) we get there" attitude that pervaded the old wave.  

• I never really got the need to always invest in a pack, with one house insisting that four other major local players equally committed to financing a new venture. Not least because they essentially could not stand each other's company, and the in-fighting began before the financing was even closed. If the need to spread the risk was so high, why invest in the first place? Or, if you prefer the positive spin, if the potential for commercialization and product development was so great, why not jump in and take all the profit and credit when it works out? This is perhaps more readily possible with the greater depth of the new funds, but still. Going into a financial investment in a local company with four other members of QC Inc. was a bit like marrying four partners and having to get into bed with all of them, at the same time. The honeymoon was terribly short, and divorces were sadly inevitable! Such practices also meant that no one had true control over the investment, and all the squabbling simply froze the company in inertia and delayed progress. It would be refreshing to see a company funded by one major player, with a majority on the board, and thus the company could be driven forward with the singular vision of a board and management who are aligned in approach, and who prefer to celebrate achievements rather than squabbling over differences. 

• Incubation for longer in well-funded institutions such as universities and research centers, until such time as it is truly ready to be transferred out, is a new given. The temptation to put in place a management team of one CEO, one CSO, and a whole slew of VPs, alongside a core research team of 10-20 people, is another classical mistake. It seems to be done simply to add credibility to a small organization, but it ends up strangling it, both fiscally and figuratively. The typical annual cost of a CEO, a CSO, VP Finance, VP BizDev and VP R&D collectively can easily approach $1M, all for a company with nothing remotely close to market. It's ridiculous! The VPs all running around like chickens with their heads cut off because they don't really have jobs to do, as the science has not gotten "there" yet. So we all get to blame the science as the reason why we cannot do our jobs, no new sources of funding or revenue were raised, and zero meaningful business relationships were established. Then when the science does get "there", but "people" tell us it's weak, we can still use it as our excuse for achieving next-to-nothing in three years. Such journeymen rarely made it to three years anyway, having zero loyalty: it was about musical offices and any company who would offer them even $10K more to achieve the same thing in different premises. The bottom line is clear: one key senior manager, such as a CEO with scientific know-how, or a CSO or VP R&D, can run the entire show, with a board, until such time as growth is needed, not just desirable. Focus on science and tech development first, before spending a million a year on talking heads.

• One must do one's best to avoid the overtly selfish and stereotypically mercenary CEO and CSO types. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against a head honcho who wants to build a mansion in the country, and who uses a company to do so, providing he or she is smart enough to realize that it has to be done by truly creating value for stakeholders via growing that company. An ambitious person who actually earns that massive bonus is okay by me. But a malingerer can be detected from a mile away: demanding maximum bonus each year for reaching rather arbitrary developmental milestones that primarily serve to guarantee the next tranche of cash. Nothing more. Spin the wheel, for three years, and then when the cash runs dry, jump elsewhere. And why not, we all know that if I am too successful and take the company too far forward, I will be "thanked" and squeezed out for a new, bigger CEO! Let's just play the game, I will get into bed with the CSO, and we can make this thing roll. 

• The CSO species is another thing entirely. They do have a much more fundamental claim than most, due to the fact their expertise garnered over many years of dedicated research is what is at the foundation of any new biotech. Such types, while often being scientifically brilliant, are used to total control and do not comfortably handle having a "boss" (the CEO) or higher order bosses (the board). They have even more reason to be paranoid and guarded because at some point, inevitably the CSO begins to get in the way of "doing business", is too possessive or controlling, and the board charges the CEO with getting rid of him. In early days, the CSO might get into bed with the CEO, but just as with other people we share our bed with, things can go south, and divorce comes-a-knocking. One or both want the other ousted, in a way to protect themselves. The CSO often has less interest in true growth because it almost always leads to their own exit, back to the academic ivory tower they came from, if that option is still wide open to them. Successive dilution in finance rounds makes the ongoing CSO salary (in addition to the university one) the prize, rather than taking the company to a sale in five years. But for such an enterprise to succeed, I feel that one must have and build a lot of confidence between CSO and potential investor, and if it doesn't feel right, don't do it. A CSO with an agenda can completely derail a biotech operation, especially because he or she was hired for scientific expertise and oversight, so we gotta believe what they are telling us to do, right? Often, wrong! Not surprisingly, the CSO often has a great deal of staff loyalty as they brought >90% of the staff with them, from their university empires. This usually includes one or two "henchmen" who are there primarily for eyes and ears to ensure ongoing control over the "situation" , all in a usually vain attempt to maintain the agenda. It's like a private little club, with management on the outside looking in. 

• One used to see a small biotech with a few million dollars of funding, a research staff of maybe 10-15, and sometimes 3-5 different programs "running". This is simply laughable. It's a bit like going to Vegas and you are in on a big game with a huge pot, but you insist on spreading some money onto nearby tables, to spread the risk. Seemingly without realizing that you are not left with enough money to guarantee success on any one of the tables! So you pour it down the tubes. There has simply got to be an investment in one major idea and technology, and an entire team focused on it, if there is to be any hope of achieving something real, and being able to build a bridge over such a quicksand-laden territory as drug discovery and development. 

• There is the whole question of pharma. Get into bed right away, or not? There are some fundamental differences (enjoyed by both entities) between big pharma and biotech, and big pharma often don't like the slightly "sloppier" practices in biotech or how they go about validating targets for drug discovery. While a degree of freedom and independence is a good thing, if the whole idea in any new model is to eventually offload drug candidates to a pharma with deeper pockets, or raise new R&D money from them, then I believe that getting into bed with pharma sooner, rather than later, is probably best. If I was a VP Biz Dev in even a brand new biotech, I would commence to build bridges and relationships with pharma as quickly as possible, even if we were three years away from having any potentially licensable asset to do business with, because, well, it's just the smart thing to do. Rather than doing what hasn't worked before, waiting two and a half years, and then realizing I now had a job to do. The sooner that a biotech can begin to build a relationship and trust with pharma, the better chances of being taken seriously and getting to the negotiating table when the time is right.  

• I assume that people have realized by now that almost no biotech ever has the resources needed to go from drug discovery to the marketplace: it's just too long and too expensive. Thus I feel that any new model has to include the idea, right from the get-go, that we will offload (via licensing or outright sale) exciting products in mid-development to big pharma, in return for funds that provide an exit (if early investors wish to cash in) and extends the life of the company significantly. There is nothing shameful at all in offloading an exciting drug candidate at the Phase II clinical trial stage, in return for tens of millions of dollars, or for partnerships that further the company's own growth and credibility. One needs to stop daydreaming about a 50X ROI; it's 2012, not 2002. Those dreams have faded away. If one can generate even a nice little 3-5X on initial investment over a short time frame, it's perfectly acceptable, or should be. Not least because it might actually be realistic in most cases. Instead of spreading the cash far and wide, necessitating that one big win, be more cautious with it, choose your battles, and focus on your best bets. Being prepared to settle for less can end up bringing you more!

• Lastly, and by no means least, the boards that run these new biotechs must out-perform their former versions, by a huge margin. From my own experience, and from what I have gathered by talking to a bunch of people, most of the board meetings were dominated by one or two big voices, with a bunch of sheep sitting around dozing or agreeing with the big local CEO of another firm, who one might want a job with one day. Furthermore, that local CEO who was banging the table about company X not doing well, was competing via his company Y for the same funds from the same stakeholders sitting at the boardroom table of company X. It got way too incestuous, on many levels. The egos of local stakeholders physically getting in the way of doing business together, to the detriment of companies whose boardrooms they shared. Chairmen of those boards only interested in staying on good terms with whomever could serve (i.e. pay) them best. The more junior so-called scientific experts sitting silently through two years of board meetings, as the alpha-dogs barked. God knows what they told their bosses upon returning to home base, on how they were having an impact on the running of that biotech. Too many boards became almost ad hoc SABs also. There wasn't any real business development going on, so let's meet every three months and fight over scientific aspects, even though that is not our own area of expertise, so we have a nice get-out clause for suggesting something ridiculous. I could go on and on, there's enough material to fill an entire chapter on this aspect alone!

Finally, what else can I say? Well, there's a ton more to say, especially for such an historic and rather complex set of individuals and technologies and challenges. But I feel certain that if at least all of the points above are addressed in some way, and improved upon, then this new wave of life science investment might just have a better chance of going somewhere. If not all the way. We need to remember that it's not just about creating infrastructure to rehire all that scientific talent and expertise currently being unemployed, but rather, it's about using that talent to rebuild Quebec life science and innovation in a fashion that creates long-term growth and real sustainability for everyone. Now that's the kind of "profitability" that most definitely is not a dirty word! Here's hoping! - Kevin Mc

Professor Gordon Ramsay?!

Even though "angelic" is not a word people seem to associate with the expletive-driven vocabulary and aggressiveness of British chef and legend, Gordon Ramsay, he most definitely has been a blessing to many. I am of course referring to "Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares", a show that is transmitted over here on BBC Canada. While this show can be tough to watch due to his overt abrasiveness and the usual resistance or downright mutiny of the owners he is forcing to face the writing on the wall, there are lessons to be learnt from it. It's a form of culinary intervention, but  rather than forcing an addict to face their addiction and commit to rehab, it is more of a forcing of a business owner to acknowledge all of their mistakes, and their willingness to then hand over control to their biggest critic. The thing that is most interesting is how much psychology is actually involved, because invariably almost all of the problems arise out of an owner who has slid down the slippery slope from passion to inaction. Some points of note:

• Restaurant customers are not that  fickle; in fact they can be quite loyal to a place which treats them well and serves them great food, time after time.  When business suddenly slips, and then begins to fade away completely, there is usually a problem, or combination of problems, as the root cause.

• In almost every single episode that I have seen, Gordon's biggest challenge is getting the owner to firstly even admit that there is a problem with this or that, and further, persuading them to face change and drop the rigorous resistance to it. 

• In many cases, Gordon deals with nonsense and abuse from the owner, who refuses to face things, and given how wealthy GR is, I often wonder why he doesn't just let out some of his famous expletives, walk out, and go back to his own much healthier business and life. But the guy genuinely wants to help people, and he has forgotten more about passion and drive than some people ever had. So he sticks it out. Hence the "angel" reference. 

• Somewhere along the line, the owner lost all of their passion for the business, and due to losing clientele, along came a massive drop in confidence, which simply further hinders any kind of positive response. 

• A lot of the time , the staff sort of fall into alignment with their example from management, and they cease to care anymore, and everyone's just coasting until the ship begins to go under and they can all bail. 

• Even though there are often problems with the menu and food management which vary from one restaurant to another, the five points above basically apply in every case. 

What is most fascinating to me is that the bulk of the work that Gordon does is not cooking in their kitchens, but rather lies in the psychology of cuisine. Which of course, to a large extent, is not restricted to cuisine at all, because the bulk of what he lectures them on could apply to a hundred different business types. He basically forces them to look long and hard into their very own mirror, face and admit to what they really see, and resolve to get off their "arses" and do something about it. He breaks them down, shows them how far they have fallen, then provides some tools for them to build themselves back up again, and he is the first to say "well done!" when they do. The take-home point, in my opinion, is that in 90% of the cases, 90% of the problem is not inside someone's kitchen, but inside their head. The very fact that things can be totally turned around by just looking within, recognizing what stopped one caring, and what sucked one's passion out of the bones, and dealing with it, is testament to a power that lies within each and every one of us.

Instead of just plodding along and things not really working for us, or worse, being physically unhappy with our jobs and lives, we simply must "get off our bloody arses" and do something about it. If all the passion, drive and lust for one's own life has been similarly eroded, we are duty bound to face that, get down to some real hard personal work, and turn it around, for ourselves. We all don't get the luxury of a filmed intervention by Gordon, but we can learn some of the lessons he lives by every day, quite clearly, and use them for our very own "intervention". 

As talented as the big guy is, he sure ain't God. He doesn't wave a magic wand and suddenly a dying restaurant is back in business. While he does provide expert input into all things cuisine, it is the psychological aspect of what he shares that has the biggest impact on all of the individuals involved. By getting off the sofa, and doing instead of moaning, and not being afraid of hard work, and actually injecting some previously lost but new-found passion back into that work - well, it rarely doesn't get better. It just goes to show, channel hopping can occasionally be both inspirational and educational at the same time! Even though I'm now suddenly hungry again! ;)  - Kevin Mc

Excerpted from "A Quiet Resignation", by Kevin Mc

"Out of the chrysalis didst the butterfly emerge. From a rather vague, apparently functionless and motionless pupal shell, doth a butterfly eclose. Out of seeming blandness doth a magnificent creature emerge; an array of colors, all wafer-thin gossamer wings dusted in a fine powdered silk. A beautiful sight. An awe-inspiring rebirth. The most magnificent metamorphosis imaginable.

Thus didst the artist also emerge. A previously imprisoned creature, until all of the biochemical triggers fire in sequence, the chemical information present therein being translated into changes, apparently drastic physical and phenotypic changes at that. In a more evolved and higher order organism, such as the human, naturally the brain is also heavily impacted. A neural rewiring of the network, exchanging synapses, disconnecting those neurons from these ones, and patch them in over here, why don’t you? Just like the newly formed butterfly exiting the pupa to newfound freedom and billowing fresh air, there is a period of “adjustment”. One could be forgiven for thinking the poor creature is in total shock at it’s new outlook on the world, but biology is rarely that unsophisticated. It is function, not folly, my friends. The butterfly needs to sit there awhile, so that its wings can harden in fresh air, to allow take off of the maiden flight. So it was with my good self, upon the realization that my life, my purpose, were similarly altered. I suddenly had you, Charlie Springbank, in my sights, and there was no letting go of you, this time. Upon sitting on the branch for long enough, in awe and wonder at my new challenge, my wings had sufficiently stiffened to facilitate forward movement. So it was that I conceptualized The Masterwork.

Let me be most clear, dear boy. Whilst it came to me in a vision, I had no intention of falling into the traps that others do. I never was nor ever would be or become a serial criminal. God, no. Life’s too short dear boy, and I had much work to do. But it just so happened that for a certain period you became my life’s work, and that’s all there was to it. What better way to make you pay for your sins, than to come at you where you live and work, and at your work? Find a method of attack that impacts your daily life in such a way that you cannot escape it. Many people walk out the door of a sunny morning, breathe a sigh of relief, because at least they have work, and a nice office to escape to each day. But what if I came up with an approach that hit you in the stomach, every day, in your chic office, at work? Hit ya hard enough, and on a regular enough basis, that coming home to quaint old Beacon Hill was but small comfort. Especially if the news was blaring on incessantly about it, and the wife would rattle on about when are y’all gonna get off your backsides and do something about it? Daddy-in-law starting to breathe down your neck, because His Highness, Lord Mayor, was starting to crack some heads of his own. The Chief of Police and The Mayor both scowling at you, when you dare to show up at some society function, when you should be at HQ, busting your ass. Irrespective of your acceptance into certain circles due to the wife’s family connections. Yes, this was the idea of The Masterwork. So it was conceived and designed, to pristine perfection. But the proof is in the execution, isn’t it old fruit?

While I recognized that I might rapidly ascend my very own ladder, into stratospheric levels of stardom, I was forced to consider methodology most carefully. There wasn’t any point in becoming an incarcerated star. The job only partially completed. This had to be avoided at all cost. Not least as I had zero intention of giving up even one hour of my own freedom due to the pursuit and deconstruction of yours. This was to be a win-win for me, and a lose-lose for you. Anything less than this and I would be unable to call it The Masterwork. Fast forward the tape, moron, and yes, it is today considered by one and all as The Masterwork." - EU

Expensive songs!

In what appeared to be a rather shocking move, the US Supreme Court declined yesterday to hear an appeal by a certain Joel Tenenbaum, an admitted (mini)-music pirate who had been sued by a record industry conglomerate, headed by Sony BMG, and which included Warner Brothers and Atlantic Records among others. What is not contested is that in 2003, while a 20 year old maths and physics student, Tenenbaum downloaded and shared a rather small quantity of songs, 31 in total, from a file-sharing site. After a lengthy drawn out period of legal wrangling, the bottom line was that in 2007 the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) sued him for copyright infringement, and in 2009, a jury of his "peers" ruled against him, with an outrageous penalty of some $675,000. 

It goes without saying that Mr. Tenenbaum is hardly unique: copying music "illegally" is something that kids have been doing for decades. The technology has always been there to do so, with ease! For example, in the good old-bad old days, copying cassettes with pre-recorded music on them to blank cassettes was always possible with two cassette decks, and in fact, ghetto blasters started hitting the stores that had side-by-side decks that were an explicit temptation to copy music. Recording from vinyl onto cassettes was a given when Walkmans appeared on the marketplace, because it allowed music lovers to carry their vinyl around with them, when walking, running or shopping. Even when CDs first appeared on the market and there was a magic and mystery inherent in them, it was stated that there was a loud noise that would appear if you tried to record from a music CD to a blank, and initially the technology did not exist to readily record onto a CD. But the digital age soon put an end to that, when everyone found out it was just a digital code that could be transferred onto your computer, and simply pasted onto a blank disc with no fancy recording equipment needed. Then the internet took over the world, and we didn't even have to find someone who had the CDs we wanted; there were sites like Napster, Kazaa etc. that had all the music you wanted, for download and sharing with friends. But the record companies were in free fall due to the digital age, and like all industries that previously gorged on the fat of the land, and suddenly found themselves left behind by technology and trends, they cried out in pain. That pain simply had to be transferred onto someone else. It's not that much different from the publishing industry that similarly resents the digital age of self-publishing, to the extent that many companies allegedly conspired with Apple to price-fix e-books to preserve at least some of their dwindling bottom lines. Nobody was saving money for the rainy day that came, they spent it all like there was no tomorrow. Now that tomorrow has come and we aren't making the same money, find someone to blame, and make them pay. 

Now of course, copyright exists for a reason, and protection of an artist's copyrighted material is a definite legal issue, and one which should not disappear. I think we all can agree on that. But it is clear that musicians do diverge on the extent to which they want those rights protected. One might imagine that people align along generational lines: older aligns with the record companies, younger aligns more with the rights of kids to share music. I don't think that is truly the case, and I often hear extremely different opinions on it from people from the same age group or background. I do remember hearing a very sober take on it while listening to an interview with Kid Rock, who was asked how he felt about his music being downloaded/shared, in relation to the rather rabid actions of Metallica in preventing any aspect of their brand from being used without their consent. His answer was rather illuminating, I find: "You know, man, I'm already fucking rich so why would I care about some kid in a small town in America downloading my music, I say good luck to 'em!" It's a very cool take on a very touchy subject, and one that clearly differentiates greed from copyright law. But it's also a slippery slope, and if it's taken too lightly, then all-out war against the rights of record companies and artists would ensue. Some may argue that this has already happened. But, I agree with Tenenbaum also, that in general, people who share music with their friends, and even downloaded some music, are people who are sufficiently into music that they also buy it, and often do so after hearing a few downloaded tracks. It's the age we live in. Music fans do contribute to artist wealth by legitimate purchases, even if as well, they get some music for free. 

The bottom line is that, yes, the industry and its lawyers needed to send out a message that it would not tolerate blatant copyright infringement. For sure, they got the kind of shock-and-awe penalty they wanted, to the tune of roughly $22,000 per song. But come on, a guy who only recently graduated from Boston University with a PhD  in physics is going to have to declare bankruptcy if the total of $675,000 stands. Here's my creative solution. The fine stands, and will serve as a great deterrent to others who consider trying to blatantly pirate copyrighted music. But in that list of 31 songs were some extremely rich and uber-successful music stars, who got rich out of kids like Tenenbaum buying their music. So, in a one-time gesture of solidarity with someone who is their fan, why don't the 20 or so individual artists/groups involved each cough up a measly (for them) $30,000 and pay this kid's fine for him, quietly and out of the spotlight? 

Yes, they don't need to do it. But that does not mean it's not the right thing to do. Hitting a 20 year old kid with a life-changing $675,000 fine is totally out of line, and we all know it. Violent criminals get off more easily. The message was sent, and everyone now knows the risks of file-sharing in music and what the consequences will be. So, why don't some of these stinking rich artists do a Kid Rock, get together, with their parent companies, and take this burden off a young man's shoulders, whose only "crime" was loving music and probably making some contribution (along with millions of others) to their staggering wealth along the way in any case. Letting go of greed can be a very liberating process! - Kevin Mc

Furor over Facebook Financials

It was rather inevitable that we would hear a whole lot of hullabaloo and blah-blah-blah regarding the over-evaluation of a cute little company out in Palo Alto (CA) that goes by the name of Facebook. Listening to both the clear-headed financial analyses and more heated debates on how ridiculous a valuation of the order of $100B actually is, there is really only one factor in common to all sides of the argument: a healthy dose of envy. You just cannnot get around the fact that the owner is a hoody-wearing 20-something kid with next-to-no corporate or media experience, and one who has not exactly excelled with respect to customer relations. But he is the creator and owner, and has built a brand that has almost a billion users globally, so the critiques are effectively null. Even with that billion off out in the void. 

I don't really get the consternation of the naysayers because from the start, and ever since, Facebook has been an exception and not the rule, so why would anyone expect it to perform or be handled in any other fashion than as a totally unique entity?. Mark Z. built up to this public offering with great patience, and unlike most people twice his age, was not tempted by the "get rich quick" prompting at various stages of his brand's evolution. He got this head down, got on with the work of building a following, and assumed that the rest would also gradually fall into place. As it did. Furthermore, whilst investor types seem to greatly appreciate bulging waistlines, graying or balding hair, and the prerequisite wrinkles, on their senior company executives, what they are dealing with here is a healthy kid. He is not prone to the sloth and selfishness of the classic tired senior executives who, in companies that are way more associated with building "products", sit back, building nothing except their already overstuffed bank accounts. In fact, I would argue that the selfish money-grabbing by CEOs and various senior executives across a variety of industries is precisely where investors have lost money in the very recent past. Generally speaking, the baby boomers have sat on jobs for decades, preventing younger people from rising up the ladder and even today after a lifetime of earning, all they often seem to care about is lining their retirement savings. They are still more interested in me, myself and I than they ever were in "producing" anything or driving a company forward aggressively, and they balk at the mere idea of early retirement to make room for someone younger. But that type of selfishness has played out in very negative ways and was in large part responsible for the economic crisis that began in 2008, and which was underwritten by selfishness and greed. So, I would argue that there is nothing terribly comforting about having the stereotyped aging and selfish CEO at the helm, or his similarly aged and past-it VP cronies by his side, all playing the same game, all milking the beast and bleeding it dry in the process. These are the people who got us into this mess! 

So, I think that a degree of youth should now be fashionable once more and the fact that this guy has done what he has done by his 28th birthday is simply staggering, and if that causes the usual underhanded comments about his dress sense, as a cover for a massive dose of jealousy, I hope he rubs their noses in it. But unlike most of that gang commenting on him, he actually has too much class to do so. I saw one commentator that was all fired up over the more or less 90X valuation over revenues, while another was shocked that it could be that much when "he hasn't really developed a 'product' or leveraged that membership". Guess what guys? As I said above, nothing about Facebook is typical, they stand alone, and yes, in many ways you might argue that an iPhone is something that has changed our lives more, but I could argue that hundreds of millions of people around the world open their iPhone each day to do one major thing: connect to Facebook! There are a variety of other smart phones, but there is only one Facebook. Additionally, when was speculation not part of the risk in investing? There's not much point in wanting in once everything has been achieved; one goes in based on good business analysis of what is likely to happen if the funding is in place. They might not have "fully leveraged their membership" but are you going to tell me their audience does not have enormous potential? Like all of those who just became millionaires (and billionaires!) in the recent offering, if you aren't willing to gamble and take a leap of faith, well then, you can't be part of the success. 

They have built a billion person global following. It is arguable that they don't need a "product" to generate $100B in a public offering, because, with a billion members, you are sitting on a goldmine and we all know it. Advertising revenue is already around a billion, and who knows what it will be that might take them into stratospheric annual earnings, but I tend to believe that they will get there. Yes, by classical standards, the company is over-valued, but that's just a hoody-wearing 20-something beating everyone at their own game. You have to smile at the image of all those 40- to 60-somethings who put Facebook down, but every single one of them would love to be CEO of Facebook today. If they actually understood the "product", that is. They might need a few years back behind a desk to catch up. 


The very fact that a relatively minor stake in Facebook just made fellow countryman Bono the "richest musician on the planet" simply says it all. Never mind Mark Z., we would also say that Bono must be one hell of a smart man and somewhat of a visionary himself. But of course he is, he's the front man of U2, and unless we are mistaken, he just happens to be Irish as well! ;))  - Kevin Mc

EU and the one-and-only Kevin Mc!

We've been blogging for about a month now, and can see that quite a few of you from various countries in the world are now keeping an eye on Evergreen Umbrella (EU), and we thank one and all for that interest. It's very refreshing indeed to see that we are being read in Canada, USA, UK, Ireland, Italy and Russia, among others! We have added a very cool Google translator at the top of the blog for that very reason: we want everybody to have access and to be able to read the often provocative thoughts of our very own Kevin Mc on a wide variety of contemporary topics.

Additionally, for those who are only just discovering EU, we are a self-branded self-publishing outfit which handles the work of new Irish writer, Kevin Mc. His first novel, "A Quiet Resignation" was published in February, 2012 and is available on our website [www.evergreenumbrella.com] via the online store [www.shop.evergreenumbrella.com]. Kevin has been working away very diligently, and his new book, entitled "The Molecules", has been submitted to EU and should hit the website sometime in June. This new book has huge potential and we will be publishing some general comments/reviews of it on both our Facebook page and on the blog. 

Kevin is a non-stop writer-communicator so keep your eyes open and read him on our new cool website, our fun Facebook page for business [www.facebook.com/evergreenumbrella], and of course here on the EU blog. He is rarely silent for long, and no doubt about it, one of the best places to read him is of course, in his books! Join the gang and get in on the excitement buzzing around this new talent, before everyone else is talking about him! - EU

From controlling the News of the World to being the news?!

I read with interest of the eventual laying of charges in the UK against Rebekah Brooks, former CEO of News International, a subsidiary of the News Corp. empire owned by the increasingly out-of-touch Rupert Murdoch. Ms. Brooks was charged along with another six, one of whom is her husband, with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by concealing important evidence from the Metropolitan Police. All of this arising out of the now infamous phone hacking scandal by both the "News of the World" and "Sun" newspapers, published by News International. It is perhaps not necessary to mention that the word "news" in relation to these two newspapers is hardly appropriate: bottom-feeding muck-raking lowest-common-denominator reporting being what sold the papers. But as the song goes: "The people want what the people get, and the people get what the people want". The hacking scandal involved a variety of celebrities, politicians, veterans and even crime victims, which led to a public outcry that enough was enough.

This story has had legs way beyond what many thought it had, after the initial outcry and investigation, followed by the mandatory slaps on wrists, one or two minor players punished, and all the "bigshots" safely ensconced in their country mansions or on their uber-luxurious yachts. But you know, ol' Rupert Murdoch does not outright close down a major newspaper that is making him money, if he does not smell trouble brewing. All the denials in the world from all the senior executives didn't appease the "bigshots" in other walks of life, including the authorities. Additionally, the closeness of Ms. Brooks, her husband and Mr. Murdoch to the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, no doubt was believed to be a security blanket that no one would have the authority or balls to rip off. Wrong. It actually has been a total embarrassment to David Cameron, one that many naturally believe he wanted covered up, given his sightings at public gatherings whispering into the ear of Ms. Brooks, or having Mr. Murdoch delivered to a side door of Ten Downing Street.

Unquestionably, when you own News Corp., you have a voice that has an extremely wide reach, and inevitably, given your power in actually persuading the nation to get certain people elected, those very same people court your approval and the publicity that goes along with it. It becomes a circle of power: you can get me elected as the new Prime Minister, and you know it, and I can confer on you a respectability in higher circles that you want so badly, and I know it. Which is all very well, and is no doubt business-as-usual in politics, except that the people who control the news and what it's content is are only useful to you when they like you and you have something that they want. If the Beast suddenly finds itself hungry with no food supply, it might just turn around and snap your head off, with one swipe of it's massive claw. Or when the beast goes rogue, or becomes rotten, on the inside, then it can turn against you, albeit unintentionally, by ruining your own reputation due to previous tight association with it. This is what happened to Mr. Cameron, and so he had no choice but to let the wheels of justice drive into the face of the wheels of conspiracy, and the outcome is more or less a foregone conclusion.

Of course it raises all sorts of questions about the level of power that people like Murdoch or Brooks achieve, even at the level of a country's government, but that is a much bigger discussion and one that is relevant all over the world. News, or more specifically, those who control the news, will always have a power that scares people in the so-called real positions of power, because even if you are totally squeaky clean (a very rare thing) there is sure to be some people close to you who are not.

The arrogance of the Murdochs and Ms. Brooks in the face of serious investigations was not something that helped their case, and in the end, nor was any perceived sense that "our David" will back us up and make this go away. They pushed the envelope so far beyond the pale, including hacking into a dead girl's cell phone, giving her poor mother false hope that she was still alive, when she was already dead. But the real kicker that probably sealed their fate was the fact that they hacked a very prominent member of the Royal Family and released some information that had to have come from phone hacking. How stupid do you have to be to realize that with that kind of power, wealth and reach at her disposal, the Queen of England herself was bound to look over her glasses sternly and demand: "Bring me the heads of those responsible, and if Mr. Cameron thinks he can intervene to protect his buddy Murdoch or that redheaded she-devil Brooks, bring me his head also!" Trust me, you don't F with HRH, or the Royal Family, in any tacky, brazen, contemptuous, sloppy manner, especially if you are the high profile executive of a sleazy lowlife rag, and expect to be able to continue such activities.

While ol' Rupert may still be able to claim that he certainly was not key to the day-to-day running and reporting practices of a rag like "News of the World", his son is not quite so immune to such scrutiny, and for sure, Ms. Brooks, by her own alleged behavior, simply had to be aware of what was going on. But the money was pouring in, and like all such types, that was all that mattered in the end. - Kevin Mc

Today, music is living in the past

At the risk of being labeled old or past it (which in this case will be shown to be a wonderful thing), I continue to be disappointed with the state of musical affairs in 2012, which is rife with nostalgia and looking backwards, not forwards. Now, you can argue that it is because the people driving the entertainment world today all grew up in the 80's or 90's (or even 70's!) , i.e. they are all old, and perhaps in mid-life crises, that they want to look back longingly to their days of youth and wonder. With so many has-been bands concurrently reforming, it is the perfect mix: let's celebrate the 80's once again, people! My argument, considering that it is young people who ultimately drive the success of any such trip down nostalgia's creaky lanes, is that the real problem has got more to do with the serious lack of music of any real import that pervades that machine that today's kids are stuck in front of, the TV. 

I was working on my laptop last night, with DWTS on in the background, and three very different musical spots caught my attention. Let's get the worst out of the way first! I watched in horror at what appeared to be some kind of rip-off sing'n'dance pastiche of the glory days of rock, entitled Rock of Ages, but when I saw Mary J. and Julianne Hough up there, I realized that this was probably not meant to be a joke. At all. It was such a boringly horrific spoof of what had not been that great (in the case of certain songs) the first time around, and I could not believe that this was viable today. What self-respecting 16-24 year old who thinks of themselves as "cool" would ever be seen dead, walking into the cinema to see that drivel? Yes, some of those bands were musical monsters, never to be seen again in terms of sheer multifaceted talent, and hopefully never to be seen again via some shambolic reunion tour, or way worse, via an ensemble the like of which I saw last night. And do kids really want to be rocking out, enjoying the same music with perhaps  sexually explicit lyrics, and looking around in the concert and seeing Dad also singing along to "Squeeze my lemon, till the juice runs down my leg...."? 
Regarding the reformation of old bands with/without all original members, well, it's all about the money, isn't it? Nothing to do with the art they were previously known and loved for, especially as they often ruin the memory of it with lacklustre faded renditions today. You only had to see The Who on the Superbowl a year or two ago, with a white-haired (not even grey!) Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey physically unable to reach the high notes of his past, to realize that not having seen The Who live was a better thing than having done so, 30 years too late.  

Next on the list was a semi-forgotten old familiar face, Alanis. You know, at one point, she was on the raw edge of women's "pop" music, and seemingly had a brilliant future ahead of her, but frankly, since the heady days of her first album, I feel that she more or less has gone nowhere. Even after the first verse was over and before the chorus kicked in, I felt like it could have been Alanis from more than five years ago. In a way it was, as it's her first release inside 4-5 years. Her very stylized phrasing and lyrics just somehow sound old-fashioned today, so ingrained were they in an earlier time and sound. To hear it played out today, as a clearly more mature adult woman just doesn't work anymore. Where is the progression? Lyrics like "you, you in the chaos feigning sane" or "now, no more smiling mid-crestfall" just tend to make me reach for the sick bag. But to be fair, she never was the future of rock'n'roll, she was an old hippy at heart, but one without a fraction of the real genius and unending inspiration of fellow Canadian songstress Joni Mitchell, for example. Alanis was relevant back at Jagged Little Pill, but today she is as relevant as the next musical item on the list. 

Carrie Underwood. Well, I am not a huge country fan so I am biased perhaps, but guess what? It doesn't matter as it wasn't country! This was some sort of young-guys-with-guitars pop-rock mish-mash but with the prerequisite countrified lyrics thrown in for at least a smidgen of authenticity: "You better git to gettin' in your goodbye shoes", yawn. I felt that the song was yet another attempt at crossover by someone who is better off staying in their comfort zone, because no one is ever going to take her seriously as some kind of bad-ass rock chick, even if she's acting it okay. But like all major stars today, greed for more fame and  money dictates that singers in one genre want to conquer another, singers want to be actors, actors want to be singers, dancers want to be singers, and on and on and on. In any case, I just cannot see why anyone under 30 would ever want to have friends at home rifling through their CD collection, and finding three Carrie CDs. The music and lyrics speak to young people and their concerns about as much as candyfloss does for nutrition. It doesn't fill the void, and there's nothing of any real substance in it. It was also messy, just like candyfloss. Noisy and messy. Not noisy in a good way, like say, Green Day. Ex-AI girls take note, neither Clarkson or Underwood are the Lavigne a big part of them would love to have been. She is in another league entirely: one that begins with an A, not only for Avril, but also for authenticity. Artistic authenticity, as opposed to the manufactured airbrushed version.

But my main point? Well, given the terrible economic times that today's young people are now growing up in, with their own futures very much in jeopardy even with a college degree, where is either the musical rebellion or at least a slew of music that is more sociopolitical in nature and actually speaks to the developing sense of despair of the 16-24 year olds? It doesn't have to be the firestorm that was the punk explosion back in 1976 onward, but we could use something a little more current and relevant than the crap shown on TV all of the time and played on the radio most of the time: 99% of which will not be looked back on nostalgically, by anyone, ever. That is probably the point: with so little true brilliance out there today, we may as well just look back and relive the past, because the bulk of the great bands in the 70's, 80's and 90's simply have no equal and no replacements, even today in 2012. Which brings me to my conclusion: thank God I got to grow up when and where music mattered, to us, the young, because it spoke to us about things that mattered, to us, the young, and which was also music that, rather magnificently, our parents couldn't stand. That was the whole point and on that note, I can finish by saying that given the state of things today, it sure feels great to be old! ;)  - Kevin Mc

Business as usual, at JPJ Morgan Chase, and Wall Street!

What a shocker to hear of the monster $2B  trading loss recently by JPMorgan Chase et al? Not. Most of these people barely got a slap on the wrist by Obama, as per Tim Geithner's wishes, when the financial sector collapsed a few years ago. While that strategy may partly be seen as having provided a degree of (apparent) stability at a very shaky time, it continues to pervade the financial sector today in that shameless greed and the ravenous desire to make more money by such types is undersigned and underwritten by the US government itself. We all heard that derivatives and credit default swaps were supposed to be financial instruments that were now to be looked at like upside down crosses, and not the tools on which to place unnecessary risk, so why did the normally conservative JPMorgan empire allow such a massive exposure to toxic assets and risk, again?

It seems that we are supposed to be thrilled that for once, heads are going to roll, and the first to go has already been canned: their Chief Investment Officer (CIO), one of the most powerful women on Wall Street. Well, it only seems fair and proper in some ways, I mean, how can you be called an "investment" officer, when you just repeated past mistakes and incurred a multibillion dollar loss? Damage control also seems to fall very heavily on the side of media-friendly Jamie Dimon (CEO), who one and all appear to see as the man who is sorting it all out. Yet, he is the BOSS. By default, he authorized such "investments". Additionally, mere weeks ago, he said that he stood by his CIO and their recent transactions, and that time would prove them all right. Not. Again. 

It is always the same with such types and with Wall Street in general. When it goes well, we don't hear too much about it, other than the occasional outcry at massive sums of money being handed over in bonuses. But it's your retirement fund or my insurance company that also got boosted, so, fine. Then when disgrace occurs, well, it's all part of doing business, and Obama et al. tell us it's okay, and we disown this or deny that, wait for the hue and cry to die down, and then we get back to business as normal. It's all in a day's work, on Wall Street. But Jamie Dimon, as capable a banker as everyone seems to claim that he is, is the boss, and has too much power: that is the problem. For sure, the roles of CEO and Chairman should be split at an institution the size of JPMorgan. It is not in their interest to have one person in control of all of it, who then basically turns around and says it is too much for one person to oversee, as his excuse for a monstrous loss in the billions. Additionally, we need to see that he forces through clawback clauses in rogue executive contracts, and takes back the bonuses already paid to these people, who have just cost them billions. He may be popular, today, but if he doesn't appear to take this as seriously as it merits, the cries for his own demise will get louder and louder, and we think that's exactly how it should be. 

Greed is one thing, but greed that is so overboard that it becomes incompetence by the sheer nature and degree of the risks incurred to feed that greed? Well, that type of greed needs to be sent home hungry and locked out of the kitchen for sufficiently long to remind it of the staggering failure that this greed just delivered onto the dining table. It is, quite frankly, a rotting, stinking slice of humble pie, very well earned to boot! Eat that for a few months, and then we will see if there has been a change of heart, or not. - Kevin Mc
Footnote: Later today, even with 40% of shareholders supporting a split in roles as discussed above, Jamie Dimon got to keep his double job, as both CEO and Chairman. Again, hardly shocking. They also voted in approval of his salary for the past year, a "healthy" $23.1M. Cough. But I bet the fact that the FBI are now stepping in to dig through the matter and see if any Federal Securities laws were broken will make tonight's champagne taste slightly less sweet. 

Pay me, and I will do my grieving in public?

We recently commented on Whitney Houston's untimely demise and how different the private and public images of celebrities often are, even when that private life is sticking out like a sore thumb in their public life. In a certain fashion, it now comes as no surprise at all to learn that private grief is to become fodder for what will no doubt be the next generation of reality TV shows: mourning the loss of a family member who was famous. It's therefore probably no shock either to hear that my reference to Whitney is not a random one, because, yes, Lifetime has announced it will run "The Houston Family Chronicles". It's an in-your-face study of a grieving family, barely three months after the superstar's sad passing, and starring her very own teenage daughter, Bobbie Kristina, center stage. A girl who by some accounts has already commenced her own struggle with addictive substances, and who now wants to be thrust into the bright lights and intense scrutiny that many blame for her mother's self-destructiveness. This simply sounds crazy. 

We think it has gone too far already, but perhaps the only good thing about this being scheduled is that if we are very lucky, it might be the first sign that reality TV has run its course and is on its own last legs, ready for its own deathbed. Once we get to death as a reality TV concept, well, where do we go next? The afterlife?! We now have people who were total non-celebrities using a superstar's death for profit and promotion of themselves as somebody worthy of even fifteen minutes of media attention? The mere idea is so ridiculous as to be laughable: anyone who is truly grieving does not want a camera stuck in their home and in their face, 24/7. It is probably the last thing that "normal" people would find acceptable.

One can only hope and pray that after the inevitable initial curiosity of the public for the first two or three episodes, interest will wane and the show will be cancelled. Thus ending any network's wild dreams that death might just be the future of the reality TV genre. What else can we say? There's no future in death!  EU

Same-sex marriage for votes, anyone?!

I have been silent for a few days, but I also have a very good excuse: I was finalizing the author's draft of my new book for submission to Evergreen Umbrella, and it is now in their capable hands. So I am back in the hot seat and ready to go once more!

It was with next-to-no surprise and certainly no shock and awe that Barack Obama came out (pardon the pun!), as it were, and stated his new-found support for same-sex marriage. Notwithstanding the fact that his hand may have been tipped by that old loose cannon, Joe Biden, the song remains the same: that he suddenly had one of his pal Oprah's "Aha!" moments; the Red Sea parted, a massive million watt light bulb shone down on him, and he completely changed his opinion on this very sensitive issue. While most in the media are now fawning over him for doing so, I cannot help but remind them all that he is known as the campaigner-in-chief with very good reason. Extremists claim that he would change his religion if it guaranteed him four more years living in the lap of luxury in that big old white house. I am not sure that I believe that, but I do believe that if he could turn brushing his teeth into a vote-catching moment, he would. Oh my God, POTUS uses the same Aquafresh toothpaste that I do, wow, I can't believe that, he's so amazing, four more years, four more years, rah rah rah! The famous supermodel, Linda Evangelista, once said "We don't get out of bed for less than $10,000 a day". I doubt that anyone has trouble believing that either, especially with her recent gold-digging demands for a staggering $46,000 a month from the father of her one child. In Obama's case, it seems that his version would be "Honey, I don't get out of bed (or lift a finger) for anything other than the votes that guarantee me four more years!". 

Everything is always so perfectly (i.e. badly) timed that he leaves himself wide open to accusations of totally transparent campaigning. Campaigning, for his job and his personal wealth and security, not yours, nor for any of the hot current political reasons why you are out of a job or you can't afford to pay for your medication. Some say that even the taking of Osama Bin Lid In was timed to restore his popularity in advance of the big year and general election ahead. Again, an extreme idea, maybe, but not so ridiculous as to be actually funny. It took him to just prior to his disastrous mid-terms to do something or anything to relieve some of the financial hurt in the country, suddenly announcing new measures to put people back to work and to help certain key sectors. But the people are smarter than he seems to think, they no longer bought in to his media darling approach, and they voted in droves in an outright rejection of someone they railroaded into power less than two years before.   

So here we are today, with mere months before a general election, and he was suddenly "enlightened" to see the purpose and benefits of same-sex marriage? We are truly expected to believe that he "came out" in such a fashion for anything other than the shameless attempt at vote-grabbing that it surely has to be? He is so transparent that he makes plastic film seem cloudy by comparison!

Don't get me wrong, people, there is no question that the Democrats are always a safer bet than going Republican, but it's sort of annoying that there isn't a better competitor to face BO, and that the election was not such a foregone conclusion. It's not that I want to see BO exited from his beloved big white house, it's more that I think he should face some real fear, some real fight, some real warnings, that if he doesn't get off his rear end and start delivering on so many of the things he promised which were subsequently swept under the rug, that he will face a firestorm of votes against him. In politics, one learns that whatever comes out of someone's mouth a few months before a general election is likely to be the equivalent of mouthwash. Swirl it around for a few minutes, spit it out again, and forget about it. 

I prefer to remind him of something he said, cockily, just after an election: a time when they can usually be trusted to spout more realistic pearls of wisdom. "If we are not able to turn the economy around inside four years, then clearly we are talking about a one-term proposition." If I was Mitt Romney and the Republicans, I would have this soundbite gem playing on repeat, on all major networks, from yesterday to the general election itself. BO will win, but let's see him sweat it a little, in return for four more years of luxury, hanging out with celebrities at the parties, and thinking that now with four more years, he and Michelle can try again to achieve their very own dream of being remembered as the JFK and Jackie O of their time and this generation. The reality being, of course, that he's just a very lucky guy who got promoted ahead of his time (we have all seen that before in everyday life); one who is a fairly average politician but who knows how to both handle the media and spout campaign rhetoric, and alas, sadly, one who has also turned out to be rather forgetful in the category of being a great leader. He's so busy trying to please all of the people, all of the time, that by default, he simply cannot lead effectively. The total mess in Congress over the last two years is a very different kind of glaring spotlight: one that underlines his fundamental weakness as a leader. - Kevin Mc

Students and Joe Public seeing eye-to-eye?

The demonstrations (more recently tinged by violence) by students in Quebec over tuition fee hikes invoked by the Charest government is an interesting phenomenon. Irrespective of one's tendency to support one side or the other, the thing that strikes us as interesting is that for once, Canadians, albeit primarily Quebecers, are standing up and saying "we aren't going to take it anymore!" For sure Quebec has been more associated with political unrest than most other provinces, and also for sure, there are more issues at stake here than just the fee hikes, per se. It might be as much to do with the socioeconomic situation generally, where young people are feeling like they now graduate into a world that has little to offer them, particularly outside the few key subject areas where a degree is a passport to a job. But, still. 

It has always amazed us how people accept ever-higher taxation rates, municipal taxes doubling over five years (downtown Montreal), the Mayor introducing never-ending new charges for living in the city, even when it is to cover all the traffic that drives in each day, from outside the city, or admission of fixing of gas prices on the island, etc. - but apart from an irate driver or two at a gas station on the early evening news complaining, the matter evaporates. Canadians are so nice that it is somehow not seen as acceptable to scream out one's opposition? Suck it up, and get on with it, we have no choice. In places like even the UK, there would be massive demonstrations and clashes with the police over such never-ending screwing of Joe Public. 

These people, the government included, or especially, are democratically elected, by us, and strictly, they are answerable to Joe Public: he/she who pays for their cushy little jobs, their bigger pied-a-terres and their huge expense accounts. It is not because they were elected two years ago that we somehow lose the right to make them answerable to us, because they still work for us. Theoretically. So, we have to say that we think that it is a really good thing that the students stood up for their rights, and even if the outcome is an inevitable one, it will be on the record that they screamed out their disapproval, collectively. Way to go, people!

As a footnote, it goes without saying that once violence did tinge the proceedings, this is where the line has to be drawn. The credibility and underlying reasons for demonstration are undermined by the introduction of violence, and support begins to drain away. It must be kept in perspective, especially as this is not some primitive country where basic human rights, starvation, or genocide are the main issue or where crimes against humanity are being committed. It is Canada, and it is over being asked to pay more to attend a great university. Demonstration, yes, violence, no. There is no excuse for it. But there is a perfect excuse to stand up and let elected officials know they do in the end answer to Joe Public, or should.  EU  

Screaming all the way to the bank, for the rare few!

How lovely to see that Edvard Munch's seminal artwork known as "The Scream" has sold for the princely sum of almost $120M! No question about it, it is one of the most recognizable pieces of art in the world, and is as much part of pop culture as it is happy being the showpiece in the rarefied airs of velvet-lined showrooms for the art-collecting elite of that same world. While everyone is free to do whatever they want with their money, whether hard-earned or not, there is simply an astonishing divide today between the have and have-nots. So many people in America, or in various countries in Europe, worry if they will ever have a job again, and whether their $120 weekly budget for groceries will be able to feed the family this week. While the talking heads of early evening news cheerfully announce that someone just spent $120M on some colored canvas: one that looks shockingly like some of the kids' drawings stuck to their own empty fridges. 

One is forced to ask what the particular fascination with this artwork might be, and why it is now #1 of all time in works sold at auction. Well, the title might give the game away, and/or the image itself does. It probably appeals to many because of the supposed anxiety and despair that underlines it, and this always has been, and probably will ever be, to greater degree or less, a part of the human condition. Surely everyone has felt that loss of control at some point in their existence, or been racked with the fear of impending doom and gloom over any variety of life-threatening possibilities or situations. The truly ironic thing might be that in such tough economic times, where "The Scream" could well be the logo (Facebook timeline picture, anyone?) for modern life for so many, that it is someone with ridiculous levels of wealth who paid outrageous amounts of money for it. Thus, someone who lives in the stratosphere of financial security and comfort now gets to stare into the face of despair of millions of people who live in the valleys below them, every morning before breakfast? It is not quite as simple as that, however. We have all learnt that money, while surely easing some pains, is not the creator of happiness. That comes from a very different and much more fundamental source than the wallet or the bank, but makes one richer in a way that dollar signs never could. "The Scream" could also depict the mental torture of those who apparently have achieved so much in life, of which so many are so jealous, and yet many of them are racked with depression, loathing, greed, disease, or some other affliction. Quite often, the poor are not happy, and the uber-wealthy don't seem to be that much happier either. So be careful what you wish for, people. 

But "The Scream" might well cross that great divide, appealing to one and all, because we can all find at least a little part of ourselves in it. It is the human condition, and well, we are all human in the end. The luck is just doled out in an unfair and less humane fashion, and a few get so much, if not it all, while many get little or nothing at all. But we are all responsible for creating our own happiness and not letting the scream(s) take over and run/ruin our lives. It all comes from the inside, and that is maybe what is so engaging about this artwork: it does seem to speak from the inside, and that inside is inside each and every one of us. Unlike many static works, this one truly does seem to communicate, and in today's world of social media and non-stop sociovirtual interactions, well, it seems very much of the moment. 

And so, today? That scream just got an extremely high value placed upon on it, and it is screaming all the way to the bank, where the collective screams of 120 million people (at least) have been converted into a stockpile of $120M. Not a bad day's screaming! ;)  - Kevin Mc

The Death of Celebrity

I suppose it's just another aspect of society's fascination with and adoration of celebrity that we don't want to believe the truth, even when it's staring us in the face. This becomes particularly evident when a beloved star passes on, and where there are unusual circumstances including the usual addictions, as part and parcel of the package. People either refuse to believe that the person is really dead (Elvis faked his down death, and is a bartending karaoke singer in a club in southern Texas - I saw Jim Morrison in "Le Cafe des Artistes" near the Sorbonne, etc) or they have to find some non-celebrity to blame (who killed Jimi Hendrix? - that doctor murdered Michael Jackson - Amy Winehouse was killed by that jailhouse boyfriend, etc). It is highly ironic that one chooses to believe that the superstar is the one who is most vulnerable and more easily manipulated, than their apparently much less successful other half. I cannot help but believe that anyone who has the talent, drive and ambition to get to the heady heights inhabited by the likes of Elvis, Michael, Jimi or Jim is not likely to be some mindless softy who does not do what they want and get what they want, on a regular basis. Why would we prefer to believe that they were cruelly laid astray by some devious, jealous or simply stupid partner?

Well, the answer lies in our perception of them as the celebrity that they are, and not as the human beings that they are. Image over content, once again. Most celebrities have very carefully constructed media images which the masses inhale like oxygen, and those images quite naturally are designed to portray all of the good, and hide all of the bad. Pile on top the genuine fact that they do touch people's lives with their art and talent, so then the formula is a perfect one for unbridled adoration and love. Only the best is believed of them, because they are stars, unlike the rest of us; they have the perfect, ideal life, the one we aspire to, where all of our problems evaporate in the flash of cameras, under the heat of the spotlight. Right? Even if there are some rumblings or rumors or photos, they are either ignored or excused in a rabid response by hordes of fans. Until they can no longer be totally ignored because the star is dead. Then the rabid response is inverted into needing to find someone to blame.     

Such seems to be the case with the recent sad parting of Whitney Houston. Let's blame everyone, except her: the doctors, the entourage, the assistants, the hangers-on, close family, and of course, everyone's "favorite", let's blame Bobby Brown. Now, I am not saying that I think of Bobby as some angel, but to jump on him when he has been narcotics-free for seven years is hardly appropriate. Ditto the assumption that because Bobby had a much less "protected" public image, it had to be him that introduced her to the wild life of drugs and non-stop partying, right? How surprising to hear the stories appearing now that Bobby had never done narcotics, prior to his meeting Whitney?! He has substantiated that fact, furthermore, while having kept silent on it during many years of such accusations from those close to her. 

Once again, it comes back to how the public is the party being manipulated, either by the carefully directed image presented to and by the media, or by that elusive, intoxicating whiff of superstardom itself, or both. It can't be her fault, it just has to be ol' Bobby! It reminds me of an oft-mentioned interview of Whitney, way way back, which told me quite clearly that she was far from the innocent, virginal, religiously normal, choir  singer she had been portrayed as, to that point. I think it was in Rolling Stone or NME, and it was a shockingly profanity-laced discussion, including her describing "I will always love you" in terms like "honey, I sang the shit outta that song, let me tell ya", and so on. While we all would agree that she did, it was a different side to her that we saw in that perhaps overly relaxed interview. The guard was let down a little, we got to see a little more of the inside, which of course was less shiny clean than we had expected. Little did we suspect back then, just how much more we would get to see of the inside, and how much less shiny clean it may well have been. 

We don't seem to attack people who got their girlfriend hooked on burgers, fries and donuts, or their boyfriend hooked on smoking, and then they die, in the same way. We see it more as it was a case of clear, personal choice. They chose to do that to themselves, even if their partner had been involved at the start, but it was their decision to slowly kill themselves. But, when it's an Amy Winehouse or a Whitney Houston, well, that's totally different: they didn't have minds of their own, they were not free to choose, they must have been manipulated, if not downright controlled, and it's not their fault, at all: it has to be someone close to them who is to blame. In many ways, this is an insult to the very memory, talent and living strength of the star themselves, no doubt totally underestimating the forcefulness and fierce independence that were hallmarks of how they became a superstar in the first place. 

I saw Bobby Brown in his first interview since the death, and I have to say that he came across as very humble, very grounded, very stable, clearly very sad and rather articulate. Give the guy a break, let him grieve in peace, and let the world grieve her loss (which is in no way a loss that can be compared to his) by remembering her for her greatest gift, her music, and not insulting it by needing to find someone to blame. Especially as that blame will unquestionably turn back in a direction that no one seems willing to go towards. - Kevin Mc