100th blog on the aftermath of the worst storm in over 100 years!

This picture of downtown Manhattan seems eerily appropriate for this, our EU Blog centennial! We publish our 100th blog in the aftermath of what was predicted to be the worst storm to hit the East coast in the last 100 years, but in fact Sandy turned out to be a total record breaker, and overpowered the memory of even "the perfect storm" that hit the East coast back in 1991.

This storm made landfall last night in New Jersey with sustained wicked winds of 80mph, causing power cuts to more than 8 million on the east coast from Maine down to North Carolina, had two nuclear power plants standing on edge, and so far has led to a death toll of 38, primarily due to falling trees. Early estimates of the cost of the mass destruction caused are of the order of 20 billion dollars.

Thus far, over 15,000 flights have been cancelled to/from airports on the east coast,  and hotels in major metropolitan areas have become overwhelmed with stranded passengers desperately searching for a warm, dry place to sleep. Transportation in general has also been devastated in New York and New Jersey with major bridges and railways shutting down access. This will add to the economic impact of Sandy. 

One major side effect of the this monster storm is that it has stopped the presidential race in its tracks, with the President forced to drop his campaigning and get back to his White House HQ. I could be tempted to claim that an event of this nature is about the only thing that could get him to focus on others rather than his own desire for four more years of luxury, but I shall refrain from doing so! ;)

He swallowed it, went back home, and seems prepared to do his real job, which is to provide some true leadership and resources to those in need. Even Republican Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey and putative presidential candidate for 2016, agreed that thus far Obama has been on the ball. There are many who might choose to politicize the storm, some claiming that it is the clincher for Obama getting four more years if he handles it well, with still others hoping that if the disaster is prolonged enough then it can be another example to use against his reelection. 

But that is beside the point, totally. For the millions affected today, I doubt that the election next week is of any interest to them whatsoever, seeing flood waters and/or sandy beach where there were streets and people yesterday. The boardwalk in Atlantic city is more or less gone, and it seems that the city itself was estimated to be 85% under flood waters. I saw footage this morning of a small town nearby that looked like it was a town literally on the beach, but in fact it isn't, it's simply that the beach moved up to it and replaced sidewalk with sands. 

The greater metropolitan area of NYC was hit with an historic storm surge in excess of 14 feet at times, and this led to some of the worst flooding ever seen in the 108-year history of the NYC subway system, according to MTA Chairman, Joe Lhota. It's not only that certain stations are flooded which in and of itself causes massive damage but one must also remember that this is salt water, which is even more corrosive. 

Even the "always open for business" stock exchange on Wall Street is down for a second day running, which also is a first in over 100 years - the last time was due to an also historic blizzard that hit the city and closed the exchange for two days back in 1888. It is not clear as yet whether Wall Street will open again tomorrow, but I think it is not terribly likely, and that will be historic.  

All we can do is to offer support to those impacted and send our power workers south of the border to help people get back to some degree of normality, and Quebec has already done so by sending down teams (mainly line workers) to restore power lines in badly hit areas. 

This storm has produced several "first in over 100 years" badges which I think makes it the right subject for this 100th blog in a mere six months or so. EU is here, and we are here to stay, so please keep reading us - we do appreciate your interest!  - Kevin Mc

Beware the Demonic posing as Angelic

In an increasingly scandalous and distasteful story, British police arrested one-time glam rock superstar Gary Glitter on Sunday, as part of the ongoing and expanding pedophile case that surfaced around a legendary BBC DJ and TV host called Jimmy Savile. This is a story that has shocked Britain and has rocked the hallowed corridors of the BBC itself like almost never before.  

The 68-year-old Glitter (Paul Gadd) is no stranger to such controversy, having been convicted and jailed for possessing child pornography in Britain in 1999, and later convicted in Vietnam for obscene acts involving children as young as ten, in 2006. In a move which I am sure not many people were delighted about, Glitter was deported back to Britain in 2008.

The involvement of Glitter only hardens the swirling flames around Savile, who was a popular presenter on the BBC's "Top of the Pops" and who later had his own show aptly called "Jim'll Fix It". He was known for his involvement with fundraising for various children's charities and on his TV show he would grant the wishes of mainly children who would write in with a wish, and he would then make it happen and present them with a badge to record the fact that Jim did indeed fix it. 

That show ran for almost 20 years between 1975 and 1994 and it is accurate to say that Savile was regarded as something of an angel by many; one whose purpose in life was helping disadvantaged children. It is thus shocking today that after some women came out after Savile's death last year at the age of 84, a firestorm began that expanded to include now hundreds of claims and witnesses.

The BBC is under fire because some believe that they withheld or turned away evidence raised by the staff who produced the "Newsnight" documentary that exposed some of the claims against Savile. That documentary was shelved by the BBC last December, but BBC rivals ITV released their own expose which shone an even brighter spotlight back onto the BBC. Facing a massive public outcry they have appointed former Sky News head honcho Rick Pollard to chair a new investigation, to include claims that various BBC personnel were aware of the abuse, and that some of it transpired in dingy dressing rooms on the BBC premises. 

Many women have complained that they were abused by Savile when teeenagers, on the BBC premises, but some have extended the claims as "abuse by Savile and others". This is where Glitter comes in, because one witness claimed she saw Gary Glitter having sex with an underage girl in Savile's dressing room at the BBC, while Savile himself was abusing another.  

Police have stated that they are looking into the possibility that Savile may have been at the center of a pedophile ring and used the BBC's legitimacy as an ideal cover for the nefarious activities. British police have labeled Savile as potentially the worst sex offender in UK history, with several hundred victims abused over four decades, and more than 300 direct witnesses at their disposal. 

They have also issued a warning to all of Savile's cronies and "accomplices" as far back as the 60's/70's and it's been said that many other celebrities are now in fear of facing charges themselves. The ominous words from the police were clear: "we are coming for you."

I can remember seeing Jimmy Savile on both "Top of the Pops" (along with Gary Glitter, on certain shows) as well as playing the angel on "Jim'll Fix It". It's shocking to me to imagine what was going on once the cameras were switched off, and I cannot imagine what it was like for the hundreds of victims, then or today. 

This investigation is going to rifle through the past, into many celebrity lives and the BBC itself, whose own management and personnel are not going to be exempt from potential criminal charges if appropriate, according to the police. 

This story is only going to get worse, and it inevitably raises a new-found degree of suspicion today around anyone who chooses to be exclusively around children as part of their professional lives. While that may indeed be unfortunate, if it prevents the disgraceful targeting/abuse of children from occurring so easily/frequently, then that is a necessary side-effect of such horrifying cases. - Kevin Mc

A bird's eye view of the very fine line between life and death!

In an update to my recent post on the subject of the awe-inspiring dive from the vacuum of the edge of space by Felix Baumgartner, I came across new Red Bull Stratos bird's eye video of what he saw during the free fall. This is what I really wanted to see, especially as I still hadn't heard what he experienced, if anything, as he broke the sound barrier. 

It's quite something to hear him go from almost pristine silence into the whoosh of the vortex at such speed and see what he saw during that terrifying tailspin that could have ended his life had something gone wrong or he had not been able to stabilize himself. 

At first, it seemed to be inversed, in that he appears perfectly still and it is the world that is suddenly revolving out of control, until you realize that of course the camera is on him so it's the view of the globe beneath that is in motion.  That must have been an experience truly definable as a once-in-a-lifetime affair, not least because you never want to go through it again.

"When I was standing there on top of the world, you become so humble, you do not think about breaking records anymore, you do not think about gaining scientific data. The only thing you want is to come back alive."

I can understand that sentiment completely, because if one thing had gone wrong, he was a goner. The technology in that suit must be something to be able to withstand speeds in excess of 800 miles per hour, and the G-forces he experienced coming down. It is also kind of mind-blowing that Joe Kittinger effectively did more or less same thing, skydiving from almost 20 miles up, as far back as 1960! 

All in all, this achievement is a landmark and needs to be remembered in the same way that we commemorated the 65th anniversary of Chuck Yeager's first supersonic flight, which ironically was on the same day as Baumgartner's record-breaking jump. But it's one thing to go supersonic inside a vehicle of some sort, but to break the sound barrier exposed out there in the rarefied atmosphere of the edge of space, well, wow!

For some unknown reason, I still don't know whether he heard anything unusual as he broke the sound barrier, and I have not heard him asked about that in any interviews by any of the many who spoke with him since. Maybe something as small as a human body that does not have a metallic skin on the outside doesn't actually create a sonic boom?

Anyway, I guess after watching that heroic fall from the edge of space, feeling in absolute awe, I can hardly claim that cleaning the chateau is beyond me on this sunny Autumn Friday. Fine, so where's that sound barrier-challenging vacuum cleaner that the cat reaches almost supersonic speeds racing away from?! - Kevin Mc ;)

Tweeting instead of bleating?

Well, if it isn't the presidential race and debates that are making the news at the moment, it's the other end of the spectrum that continues to make the news: the staggering fall from preeminence represented by the Lance Armstrong affair.

No one has been holding their breath for any form of acknowledgement (never mind an actual apology) from Armstrong, even in the midst of the USADA hurricane which revealed that the situation was worse than many expected, not better, and in spite of huge corporate sponsors subsequently running a mile away from that hurricane. 

I am not a believer in what has become established as the "American way" :when a big name superstar screws up, and is then forced by those media gurus and PR experts to face the cameras, try to explain, and offer profuse apologies to all concerned. One example is the Tiger Woods sexscapades fiasco which grew worse by the day,  and ended up with Tiger facing the media to somehow try to make amends.

For something like that, which I think is truly personal, not only does he not owe "America" or any other nation for that matter, such an embarrassing public apology, but most of us would simply prefer not to see his face on TV at all (at least except for when on the green) playing all meek, simply because he got caught. 

The person who needed to hear any explanation was his wife, and/or family, not you and me. He played brilliant golf which was sponsored by various organizations, and on his downtime, in private, he was a bad boy between the sheets with various women. I am not saying that it is totally irrelevant, but at the same time it's got nothing to do with his sporting prowess and achievements.

Armstrong is another case entirely, however. He won all those Tour races unethically and outside the rules of sport, and by his forceful denial of that he effectively entered himself into the arena of illegality, by basically sticking a middle finger up at all concerned as he repeatedly swore that he was clean, and the whole affair could be put down to the jealousy of others. This became more and more about lies, and the Justice Department claimed that such lies were in fact an act of "defrauding the American public".

So in a sense, Armstrong's hands are tied in that any big admission today could possibly open him up to criminal charges once more, and/or further demands from ex-sponsors that they want all of their fraudulently-obtained funds be returned to them. With penalties, with interest. So I doubt that we will be seeing any news conference with a tearful Armstrong anytime soon, not least because he seems way less likely than Woods (among others) to be able to sufficiently swallow his ego and his pride to do so.

But, in what might be seen as an as-close-as-possible "admission", Armstrong has just changed his Twitter bio to reflect his new-found status. Even by late Monday night, his bio read: 

"Father of 5 amazing kids, 7-time Tour de France winner, full time cancer fighter, part time triathlete."

However, if you check that Twitter account today, the bio now reads quite differently indeed:

"Raising my five kids. Fighting Cancer. Swim, bike, run and golf whenever I can."

That is one hell of a difference! It sounds much more "civilian" somehow, and there might even be a nod to a reduced level of arrogance or cockiness in that the five kids are now simply five kids, and the amazing adjective has been softened out. Not that I am doubting that they remain amazing, but it is a sign of a less chest-beating self-flagellating approach, in public. 

The last words on this day go to the ICU, which finally lived up to its responsibilities to publicly acknowledge that the sport remains extremely dirty, and to demonstrate that they intend to do something about it. 

"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling, and he deserves to be forgotten in cycling," said Pat McQuaid, the President of the ICU in a statement yesterday.

Somehow, for all the wrong reasons, I think it is going to be a long, long time before people forget Lance Armstrong. I can see the book deal coming, and that is probably the only format that he will accept to address this sorry story, simply because he gets to tell it his way, as he has always done thus far. 

No doubt it will be used to raise millions more for Livestrong, which is the stuff or pure irony in that it will effectively be the story of a cheat (maybe even laced with further half-truths, witch hunt accusations, and digs at former teammates-turned-witnesses) who used lies and deception to raise them millions in the first place. The book itself will be a modern day tragedy, Shakespearean in nature. But if it can be used to do something more for cancer patients and survivors, well, that might be one good thing that Armstrong can now do. - Kevin Mc

The soap opera of the debates - can we turn it into a weekly TV drama?!

If you ever felt kind of silly rehearsing for a job interview, seemingly back in your high school years before the big school play, and maybe even cringing at looking at yourself in a mirror answering questions to yourself - well, don't! If there is one thing that is evident from watching the recent televised debates between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, it is that everything from  posture in the chair down to facial expression use is scripted. 

These guys are preened, practiced, prodded, pushed, poked and perfected (hopefully) into shape in an intense set of rehearsals that makes the whole thing appear to be as much soap opera as it is a live debate off the top of their heads. Last night there were too many apparently scripted one-liners that I don't have time to go into them all, but if such candidates have to prepare like that for a job interview, then you and I shouldn't feel any embarrassment at our own little rehearsals!

So who won, I hear you ask? Well, the first debate was a clear win for Romney. Debate two was a much closer affair, with perhaps a slight edge to the candidate of your choice, because there were good arguments for each candidate's performance. Debate three was yet another type of beast, this time with Obama on a clearly offensive path, and Romney this time coming over more passively presidential, not rising to much of the bait dangled above him. 

It might depend on your individual view as to who got it right. Yes, Obama jabbed at him, and pointed out various holes in his statements, but as has been the case since day one, Obama prefers this approach for a very good reason: attacking the candidate means less time discussing either his own record or his agenda for the next four years. 

"Listen, attacking me isn't an agenda!" said Romney, in a rare direct response to being jabbed.

Many pundits believe that the overall approach by both individuals was a sign that Obama was feeling like he had something to prove going into this debate, placing much less comfortably in national polls than his team had predicted months ago for this stage. They thought it would be all nicely wrapped up by now. So his demeanor was that almost of the underdog, who had to attack the candidate.

In Romney's case, he adopted an already pseudo-presidential style, staying calm, acting all statesmanlike, and refusing to rise to the jabs and barbed comments. Whether this will work with the voters is not yet clear, but you can be sure it was not due to sudden exhaustion or of-the-moment thinking: this was put in place days ago.

"The Governor needs maybe to look more into how our military works today. We have less planes than 1916, but we have less horses and bayonets too! We have things called aircraft carriers which planes land on, and nuclear submarines that go under the water."" quipped Obama, referring to Romney's criticism of a dwindling military. Ouch!

Of course, inevitably, due to the fact that for very different reasons the two candidates wince a little when it comes to foreign policy, we were shifted regularly back to the economy, even in this foreign policy debate. But that was to be expected, not least given Romney's argument that weak economy at home weakens foreign policy everywhere, and due to the fact that almost 25 million unemployed Americans might not give a damn about foreign policy today - they care about domestic policy that has spent trillions on two wars while their lives were eroded to pay for it. 

Thus it all comes back to the economy, ground where both would rather stand and fight, but it is where Romney does have an edge, simply due to the fact that the incumbent has had four years to show his hand and if the nation is struggling then that can be argument enough. In contrast, Obama is able to claim (as he did!) that it is ancient, outdated policy that got the country into this mess, and why would anyone want to go back to those same Republican policies again?

Of course the fact checkers went into overdrive after the debate, and I think it is accurate to say that there were inaccuracies in statements by both men; but isn't that par for the course?! When do we ever hear a vigorous political debate based on truth and facts?! It is all about perception, smoke and mirrors, twisting the truth to suit one side, and if all else fails, drop in some outright lies and hope that a certain percentage of the audience believes it and might change their minds and their votes. 

It was ironic that it was the President who attacked, via preemptive strikes, as a form of defense against predicted nastiness by Romney that would target recorded weakness in his leadership and performance. Conversely, the candidate, not the incumbent, sat back and remained calmly focused on his claim that four more years of the same was not going to be good for anybody, and seemingly put to bed fears about his volatility in the face of pressure. It was all about appearing to be presidential, more than willingness to get into a dogfight with Obama. 

Overall, if I assume that the Obama people wanted to rattle Romney via the attacks, and force some kind of unscripted meltdown which would ruin his image with the American public, then that strategy failed. Additionally, if it was the clear intention of the Romney people to appear almost more presidential than the incumbent, and confident enough in their status to not rise to the bait and get into the dirt, then it worked. On this rationale alone, Romney took it. 

I think it was a very measured debate and it had something for everyone. The general tone of keeping it civil was best, and both men resisted certain nasty digs that they could have gotten in, for the benefit of each other. Irrespective of the actual score, the clearest thing of all is that neither camp (nor the electorate) truly expected them to be where they are today - neck and neck. It is actually that close, and way too close to call.

The debates more or less have mirrored that situation. Although I think that as a candidate facing an incumbent who has had, let's say, a rough four years, Romney definitely had an advantage and he used it well to gain an edge and considerable momentum, the fact is that it has become reminiscent of Bush-Gore in 2000. Crazy kind of close. 

Crazy kind of close is right next to scary kind of close! When only a few hundred votes decide the outcome in a country of over 300 million, you know that governing is going to be far from easy considering the fact that the country is as equally split in two as the house of representatives. So it would be essentially a repeat of the mess the nation has lived with certainly since the mid-terms of 2010. Not an appealing prospect. Oh well, two weeks to the big night! - Kevin Mc

When #5 becomes a much longer way from being #1!

We often hear a lot of noise about brilliant advertising campaigns by various big brands, the summit of which is often the highlighted competitive sport of producing the best ad for the Superbowl each year. However, there seems to be more of a taboo when it comes to spotlighting those ads where a huge corporate brand clearly gets it wrong, in this case in what is a hilarious and doubly damaging production: both superstar actor Brad Pitt and Chanel subject their brand to ridicule.

Quite what the agency handling this ad campaign were trying to achieve is beyond me, and I consider myself to be a highly intelligent individual! It appears to be a completely misguided attempt to appear all mysterious and highbrow, instead streaming forth as nothing more than total psychobabble. You only have to turn to the Twittersphere to read some searing examples that I am far from alone:

•  "Brad Pitt for Chanel No. 5. Undoing three decades of hotness in 30 seconds."
•  "#Chanel is THE brand.....what where they thinking?"
•  "What a load of pretentious twaddle!"
•  "Cringing at the new Chanel ad, Brad looks weird too!"

Now we all know that Brad can act, this is not in question. But that is way too good a job of pretending to be some wane, disoriented, spaced out hippy on a bad LSD trip backflash, reading aloud from some essay on the origin of the species, from way back in the 60's! It is equal parts hilarious and cringe-inducing ridiculousness at the same time. 

"Plans disappear, dreams take over. But wherever I go, there you are. My luck, my fate, my perfume." Err, "my fortune"! 

We are talking about a perfume here, Brad, right?! Are you sure these aren't lyrics from an old Grateful Dead song?!

"It's not a journey............but wherever I go, there you are." Hmph. So how do you get there, or how does "he-she-it" get there? Without some kind of journey?

"The world turns and we turn with it." Really? Oh my God! But is that world round, and if so, why don't we all fall off it, or is it a flat planar journey we are talking about, in the higher astral planes of our being? And does one have to be on drugs or have nostrils full of Chanel #5 to be able to rise to the higher planes of existence?! Holy moly! "It's in the perfume, honey, race out to the store and grab a case of #5 before they are all gone, this new ad is gonna cause a stampede at Macy's!"

Honestly, my only conclusion after being able to watch it without laughing out loud yet another time, is that is might even be a hugely condescending ad. It is so spaced out yet apparently the result of some deep contemplation (and clearly deeper pockets) and analysis, that the idea might in fact be: "yes, it's very deep and we don't expect the average Joe (and Jane) to be able to understand Brad's meaningful words, because we are Chanel and we speak to the great minds and style of our time. But even if you don't get it, it sounds so terrifically highbrow that you will want to be associated with it, even more than before."  

Of course my argument is more in line with tweet example #3 above, which is that it does not sound terrifically highbrow but rather resembles one overlong stream of pure "twaddle"! I would smile wryly at a high school senior producing this in an English essay or poem, but anyone over 21 would be subject to the verbal mouthwash cleanse. 

"Chanel #5. Inevitable."

Sadly, for all concerned in the making of this overly ambitious/ridiculous ad, there is but one aspect of this particular Chanel journey that is inevitable: its (imminent) end. It is horrendously inevitable that this ad is going to get yanked, sparing the public from a particularly ill-conceived distraction in the middle of their favorite TV programs! My recommendation would be to do so sooner, rather than later, if only so as to not damage Brad Pitt's brand any further. Chanel's attempt to be Prada fell flat, like Brad's hair!

It must have seemed like a marriage made in heaven, the combination of the looks and talent of superstar Brad Pitt with Chanel, an historic and still legendary brand of style.. But it just goes to show that not all dream combos work, or are even meant to work, or at worst, that someone screwed up that marriage, royally. A quickie divorce would now be the best exit! - Kevin Mc

Living strong looks really weak - when it's built on lies!

In a follow-up piece to our blog of a week ago, where we covered the USADA/WADA/ICU firestorm surrounding cyclist Lance Armstrong, we now look back at one mere week later, in which his situation became even worse, yet again. But it's no real surprise, and is more or less precisely what I predicted was coming at the end of last Friday's piece.

In a single 24 hour period the superstar athlete lost both his biggest champion and sponsor, Nike, and also "stepped down" from chairmanship of his very own Livestrong charity. "A changin' day, in yo' life", it sure was. Nike had been stalwart supporters of Armstrong through thick and thin, and in fact had produced ads in which the athlete even mocked those who accused him of doping, which seems highly ironic today.

But in a curt statement they announced their termination of any business relationship with Armstrong, due to "seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade." Misled, of course, being corporate speak for "lied".

That's truly saying something for a company that ran ads with voice-overs from the athlete with mocking content such as "people say I'm a doper" or "what am I on? I'm (only) on my bike!" which today appear ridiculous. Nike got the wool pulled over their eyes, big time. But it's no shame, because so did (almost) everyone else. 

But once the rats start to leave the sinking ship, watch out, it's only a matter of time. Within hours of each other, beer giant Anheuser-Busch, Radio Shack and Trek bikes all departed this sinking ship, and in total we are talking about a collective loss of around $15 million from sponsorship deals alone. 

Oakley sunglasses apparently remain on board, for now, but they are awaiting a decision from the ICU, which effectively means they want another entity to make the decision for them, and in that case, well, it is essentially 100% certain that Oakley will walk too. At this stage (no pun intended!), the next move by the ICU is hardly going to be vague: their hands are tied. 

Last night, Armstrong spoke publicly for the first time in recent weeks, standing in front of Livestrong employees (most are cancer survivors) at their 15th anniversary fundraising gala. It was hardly the joyous affair that was initially planned, and in fact, Armstrong now sort of stands in the way of his own charity and has become both a negative and a distraction. 

Whether you like this fact or not, if he is officially separated from his seven Tour "victories", then the person who this charity uses (or has used) to be their superstar fundraising champion will have been declared a serial liar and cheat, and an extremely arrogant one to boot. 

"It's been a difficult two weeks. I've been better, but I've also been worse." said Armstrong last night at the Austin convention center hosting the gala. 

Somehow, it's still as much about him, as it is about anything else. He should either come out and address the charges, or slip off into the background. His speech was mainly notable for one aspect: no hint of any apology or regret, not even to the charity whose future is now in question solely because of his lies. 

Funnily enough, today, I think that the people who feel most cheated are actually his general public. Everybody in cycling and huge companies well connected to top level information knew that today was coming, as the charges mounted. But if you use social media, it's so easy to lose count of the millions of people who blindly refused to believe any of it, and boldly claimed that the USADA is corrupt, Lance is incredible, and leave him alone you guys, this is a witch hunt! And so on. 

It's funny how the public blindly believes things about celebrities that most would snicker at if it came from one of their friends. Even in the face of never-ending accusations and witness statements, so many refused to believe. Or perhaps just didn't want to believe, because of the guy's "legacy" and for how long they supported him. 

If you refer to the Nike quote, he's been lying for over a decade. People don't accept that from others in their everyday lives, but yet they stand up and offer blind support for a guy like Armstrong? It's the power of celebrity, in this case combined with being a superstar athlete who appeared to be superhuman. People need heroes, and this guy sure looked like one. His story was irresistible.

But today, all of those millions are thinking a little differently, it seems. Some of the very vocal tweeters seem to have gone silent on the subject, perhaps feeling a little embarrassed or foolish for their aggressive support of a (now fallen) hero. As recent weeks passed, it became more and more obvious that he not only "misled" giant corporate sponsors, but he actually did so to every one of his staunch supporters. 

Now it's not so much the fact that he lied to corporate giants that is most poignant, but rather the arrogance with which he dismissed the allegations (to the cheers of his grand public) in the media, all because of the cycling omerta which he was convinced would keep his backside covered. But the sad fact for all those blind supporters is that every time he stared right into the TV camera and convincingly refuted any/all such allegations, he was lying outright to each and every one of them.

So what's next for Livestrong? Well, they did raise another $2.5M last night at the gala, but the future is looking far from rosy today. How far can you go with a disgraced athlete at the helm of what is a charitable organization? He's still around for now, even if exited as chairman, but what do you think is going to happen when the ICU step in and strip him of all of his titles and ratify the lifetime ban from competitive sport?

Once that happens he will be formally labeled as a doper, cheat and liar, and how can any legitimate charity continue to use him as their poster boy? Especially if entities such as the Sunday Times or the SCA serve new lawsuits to reclaim back monies that would then have been fraudulently taken from them? The whole mess will just go on and on.

I am sure that there must be quiet moments these days when Armstrong sits back in his sofa and wonders how it all came to this? He is a victim of his own outlandish success and by becoming such a superstar he ultimately became the target of many who probably were/are jealous of how much he got from the sport, while they were sidelined. The very fact that they knew it was one massive lie must have eaten at their insides, until the insides started spilling out onto newspapers and microphones. 

There are many lessons in this story, one of which surely is that it is better to be unknown and less wealthy than becoming a rich superstar but getting there illegitimately. The vultures will always circle around what appears to be a source of the most juicy flesh, and in contrast, one should learn that one can never trust a vulture to not turn on you in the end, when it helps their survival. That lesson is one that Armstrong learnt recently, and I am sure that it tears him apart metaphorically as much as a real vulture's beak does when ripping into open flesh. Kevin Mc

PS [Monday, October 22, 2012] - In an update to this blog, as predicted, by its decision to waive the right to take the Armstrong case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the ICU have today officially upheld the USADA ruling that Lance Armstrong be stripped of all Tour de France wins between 1999 and 2005, and handed out a lifetime ban from Olympic sports and cycling. This is the end that was totally predictable since this sorry story began, and it's just a shame for all concerned that it took so long to get there.

Like bullies in a bullring - debate round two!

And so we came to round two of the job interview for leader of the free world, last night. After a lackluster and essentially anemic showing by the big O in the first round, all were expecting this one to be a spark-filled encounter between the two men in Hempstead, New York. 

Well, we got more or less what was predicted, and unquestionably Obama did give the impression this time that he actually wants the job, and the four more years of livin' large that comes with it. His demeanor now shows that he has begun to take his opponent more seriously, at least, and finally sensed that he has a real fight on his hands. Duh.

The Gallup poll taken before the debate showed Romney in the lead, perhaps for the first time clearly, with the numbers being Romney 50% Obama 46% and that represents a lead outside the margin of error in the polling. But only just! Nevertheless, the country is as split down the middle as ever, and it is all up for grabs in these critical debates. 

This encounter was as much a political rumble as it was a so-called "town hall debate" with the two men sparring, jabbing, and even circling each other as if in a boxing ring proper. Once again I found the moderation to be on the edge of adequacy, as each man interrupted and refused to listen to the moderator, Candy Crowley, and on occasion, both men spoke over each other while each ignored Candy totally. 

Reading reports this morning, of course everyone is eager to give a win to Obama. This guy has it so easy compared to almost any other I can think of, and I am not sure if it is because of his reputation as "a nice guy" and/or his Hollywood-sanctioned "star power". So this time, now that he showed up, showing even a little aggression over trying to keep his job, the pundits go all oh-ah over him. This is not enough to classify it as a Dem win, however, in my book!

This isn't about the big O showing up, and arguing a little. It is about addressing the lack of progress in four years under his regime, and what he is going to do in the next four years to help the struggling American public. I find it incredibly disingenuous that he continues to criticize Romney for lack of details in certain aspects of his "five point plan" while he (even last night) basically said nothing new about how he intends to make the second four years better than the first. It's a tactic that the Obama campaign lives on, and I don't get it at all. 

It takes some balls to be told by millions of people that they aren't happy with what you have done, and haven't done, over a four year term of livin' large, but stand on a nationally-televised debate and demand four more without specifying what you are actually going to do differently, to improve their lives. The very fact that the Obama campaign has been 90% focused on negative campaigning against Mitt Romney says it all. It is the ultimate sign of political weakness, based on  weakness in one's own record. 

Romney was also light on specifics, but what Obama doesn't seem to get is that there is a certain luxury in facing an incumbent who has hardly excelled at keeping his rhetorical promises. The challenger is of course expected to attack the record of the incumbent, but the sitting President should limit outright attacks on his opponent and focus instead on what he has achieved, or more particularly in this case, on what he intends to do next. I found Obama to be severely lacking in the capacity to convince people that anything will change in the next term.

There were a few memorable moments that included Romney's "binders full of women" and the spat over the Libyan affair in Benghazi. Commentators were quick to jump on Romney claiming that he made an error and then was not the same candidate in the debate afterwards. It's simply a case of trying to find something to hold onto: the number of errors (by omission) of Obama in the first debate, or walking away from real numbers in this debate on coal, gas and oil drilling reductions (among other items Romney threw at him) under his leadership thus far, hardly confer any victory to Obama.

One of the most interesting aspects of such debates is the very fine line that the participants have to walk. It is a very, very fine line between the anesthetized anemic of Obama's first debate persona, and a nastier, more combative one who showed up for the second. Already, pundits are wondering if he took a step too far and sacrificed his likability to please political commentators everywhere.

In Obama's case, he has ridden a massive wave due to this likability and sacrificing it to please hardliners could be very costly, because if you combine his record with decreased or sacrificed likability, well then, it would be like Romney fighting for the job with someone like George Bush! For all the talk of likability and nice guy style, don't forget who approved all of the mud-slinging and low ball attacks on Mitt Romney: Barack Obama. 

I prefer my dirty fighters out front with no apologies. I don't like the backroom dirty fighters, who sanction all the nastiness and personal attacks that we have seen, but then appear out in public all smiles, all touchy-feely, celebrity-huggin' and butter-doesn't melt-in-my-mouth, folks. He isn't that nice a guy, when it comes to keeping his job and lifestyle for another four years - he just wants y'all to think that he's like that. It's good for "bidness"!

Overall, this debate for me mirrored the polls: more or less 50-50. At best (worst), a split decision with the edge given to Romney due to Obama's missing statements on what he intends to do in the second term. Sorry, but by default, as sitting President, the onus weighs more heavily on you than on the candidate because you have a record and it simply must be addressed moving forward. 

The saddest thing about the numbers, and the debates, is that they just illustrate how divided the country actually is, and how much that neither candidate in the end is clearly identifiable as the one best suited to lead the nation back towards prosperity, growth and health. Dare I say it, if ever there was a moment for a third party, it is now. 

So we now move on the final and deciding encounter, debate #3, scheduled for next Monday night in Boca Raton, Florida. This is probably going to be the one that counts, given that it is the last round and everything is so tight thus far. Round one went to Romney clearly, and I think most would agree that round two was more or less a tie. So it's down to the wire. 

I expect there to be some real fireworks on Monday night, but my message to the two candidates would be clear: be ready to get specific and show even a little of what you do intend to do and why it will work, or get ready to either go back home to sleep or go back home to pack! - Kevin Mc

Amazon ready to rekindle e-readers!

Sometime ago, we reported on the price-fixing scandal that was allegedly directed by Steve Jobs of Apple Inc. to artificially drive up the price of e-books for the consumer. This was achieved in collusion with various big brand publishers who collectively exerted their influence on the Amazon brand, thereby ensuring a higher base price for e-books sold on their Kindle reader. 

In what seems like only the right thing to do (which does not mean that one is not a little surprised to actually see it happen!), Amazon has now stated in emails to members that Kindle customers are entitled to a purchase credit for transactions made on Kindle between April, 2010 and May, 2012.

The relevance of this time frame is that it correlates with the release of Apple's iPad tablet in 2010, for which Jobs et al. allegedly wanted to fix a price for e-books that kept them all happy, at the expense of the reading public. For those who saw Steve Jobs as nothing but an angel, albeit a brilliant one, well, a new face of unseemly greed raised its ugly head thus tarnishing the previously glowing halo.  It appears as a very cheap and trashy move from both a man and a company that are rich beyond the dreams of almost all others.

Back in September a federal judge upheld the settlement of three such publishers (HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster and Hachette) with the US Justice Department, and it was stipulated that they not only eliminate the unethical pricing fix put in place with Apple, but also that the publishers fund the credit now offered by Amazon. Quite right too! It is estimated that as much as $100M was bilked out of those unsuspecting e-book customers. 

"We think these settlements are a big win for our customers and look forward to lowering prices on more Kindle books in the future", said the Amazon Kindle team in their communication with their clients. 

The exact amount of the refund will await some legal ratification in February, 2013, but it is expected to be not much more than around the dollar mark for most eligible e-books purchased during the applicable period. The customer can have the amount applied to their Amazon account or if a refund is demanded, then this will be acceptable, says Amazon. 

Of course, the one thing missing from this positive move is Apple, who are refusing to settle and are set to go to trial on these charges in June, 2013. They will do so alongside the other two big publishing houses implicated, Macmillan and the Pearson-owned Penguin group. Given Apple's litigiousness of late (look at the ongoing global legal war they instigated against Samsung), I don't find the fact that they are going to trial to be any indication of innocence. 

They are richer than God's banker, so why not take one's chances and hope to spend one's way out of it? But one is forced to ask why three other big ticket publishers walked early, and wanted to settle out of court, if (a) there was no truth in the charges, and, (b) they could count on the weight and financial clout of Apple to stand behind them?

It smells dirty, and the fact that three out of five publishers settled out of court is by itself an admission of the alleged collusion. So do the others expect any of us to believe that only HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster and Hachette conspired to fix e-book prices, but the others were innocent?! Even given that it was the iPad that was at the centre of the need to raise prices across the board, to prevent Amazon-Kindle from undercutting them?

We can just hope that if found guilty, given the extra delay incurred in delivering refunds to clients who got screwed by refusing to settle and going to trial, that the court levies additionally punitive damages against the parties involved. 

Self-publishing is supposed to be a movement that is separated from the money-grabbing artistically bereft goals of major corporations, and the thought that a giant such as Apple (or the others) would attempt to tweak it to their advantage is totally disgraceful. It is not only artistically bereft, but rather it is equally as morally bereft if not outright bankrupt.

Now that's an interesting but hardly atypical irony: become ethically and morally bankrupt as part and parcel of the attempt to become even richer than God him/her/itself. One of the accounts is stuffed full to the brim, and the other is drained to the very bottom of the barrel. As Roger Waters sang in a classic old tune - "money.... is the root of all evil today" - sadly that truth seems to pervade even the supposedly independent world of self-publishing. As long as it's making money, corporate greed will always target it and start to eat it alive from the inside out. 

But we must rejoice at any exposure of such shenanigans that seek to use advances that sideline the traditional industry from actually benefiting from them, if not screwing the system completely. Ditto any positive outcome from that exposure which in this case means Amazon returning to being an amazing outlet for self-published works at an extremely competitive price point. That can only be good news, for both authors and customers alike!

EU is proud to say that our two books are available on Amazon-Kindle, and we are delighted that the dark shadow hovering over the Amazon brand due to the alleged Steve Jobs/Apple conspiracy is now evaporating. Cons, piracy......indeed!  
Kevin Mc

Jumping through Hell in the Heavens, touching down so sweetly on Mother Earth again

Irrespective of the perceived wisdom in outrageous daredevil stunts or what wisdom (if any) is gained by mankind in achieving them, one simply cannot let this Monday morning pass without commenting on the spectacular space jump of Austrian Felix Baumgartner.

You simply have got to have some pretty big ones to ascend into the real deathzone, more than three times higher than the one where many have exited this mortal coil, on Mount Everest. Baumgartner took almost two and a half hours to reach a height of around 128,000  feet, or 24 miles, in his capsule that was carried upwards by a helium balloon. 

The mere concept of standing on a ladder 24 miles above the Earth and jumping off into nothing for a free fall that would last barely four minutes due to the speed achieved on the way down, is quite simply mind blowing! One of the most newsworthy aspects of the jump is that Baumgartner was expected to break the sound barrier by exceeding a speed of around 700 mph, thus making it the first supersonic space jump ever. 

Just the idea of breaking the sound barrier as an individual, shielded from infinity by nothing more than a spacesuit, is such a daunting prospect that only a very unique breed of human would ever consider it a realistic challenge. But Baumgartner is known for daring skydives and had been preparing for this jump for five years of his life, and it was clear he was going to go through with it.

In some cool nods to history, the jump took place on the 65th anniversary of the first supersonic flight by Chuck Yeager in 1947, and was directed in mission control by fellow skydiver Joe Kittinger whose record-breaking skydive from 19 miles (around 100,000 feet) still stood at the time of Baumgartner's ascent. 

As can be seen in the video, everything was proceeding nicely until Baumgartner went into a tail spin, and one cannot even imagine what that man went through up there in that spin, at speeds in excess of 700 mph. Baumgartner described it as being "like Hell", and for those scary few moments I am pretty certain that more than a few people (including himself) thought he was off to meet his maker. 

This was uncharted territory and scientists were worried that a more-or-less exposed human body pulling such heavy G-forces out of control could basically have its blood boiled or the eyeballs exploding due to the pressure. But Baumgartner showed his true mettle by stabilizing himself, and continuing on until his parachute opened to the enormous relief of all involved. At that point, barring a totally unforeseen disaster, we all knew that he had done it. The relief was completely clear in his mother's eyes.

Felix then put the cherry on the cake by delivering himself back onto the sands of Roswell, New Mexico, in one of the most elegant touchdowns imaginable after a supersonic free fall from 24 miles above. The feeling of those sands under his feet must have been orgasmic, and his reaction on the ground implied that was indeed the case.

I haven't heard much yet about whether he heard himself breaking the sound barrier or what he felt when he did it, but I expect that is something that we will hear more on in coming days. One thing is certain, irrespective of what he heard, we are all going to hear a lot of noise about this incredible achievement that has again taken the human experience one step further. 

Congratulations to the entire Red Bull Stratos team on this monster success; however, I somehow doubt that Felix will be needing any Red Bull for a few weeks because he surely must be completely pumped with energy and life today!
Kevin Mc

When enough just isn't enough

The Lance Armstrong affair is definitely becoming annoyingly the gift (not!) that keeps on giving. There's a large part of me that believes this should all have been put to bed when the US Justice Department dropped their case against Armstrong after almost two years of investigation, back in February.

Quite why they dropped the case when essentially they had the same evidence that the USADA has today is not totally clear. It may well be the case that even the public had no stomach for actual criminal charges being levied against a superstar athlete, and it was felt best left to a sporting authority to go after it citing their rules and regulations rather than actual criminal law. Did anyone really want to see Lance Armstrong put in jail for defrauding the American public?

This summer the USADA revitalized (for want of a better word) the case, and made it clear that not only did they have evidence "fully consistent with blood manipulation, including EPO use and/or blood transfusions", but also stated that they had proof of illicit use of EPO, testosterone, corticosteroids, as well as the use of masking agents. Armstrong came on strong, citing the Justice Department's withdrawal as part of his toolbox, and sued the USADA back claiming they were not in a position to come after him. He had two such countersuits thrown out, one in early July and the other around mid-August.

Notwithstanding the fact that a judge actually did question the ethics of the USADA, wondering whether it was politics and media attention that the USADA were pandering to, rather than any real pursuit of "justice", he sent the matter back to Armstrong's camp, saying that he had to now face arbitration. As we all know today (not least because I reported on it in an earlier blog!), Armstrong, facing perhaps the biggest fight of his career, simply walked away.

It was a shocking response, and one which definitely left a very sour taste in the mouth. A de facto admission of guilt, whether you are a fan or not. Now the fires were further stoked this week when the both the USADA and WADA came out and essentially accused Lance of essentially having led one of the most sophisticated doping/drug rings ever seen. WADA Director General David Howman even implied that the very people who were supposed to be monitoring/checking for such fraud were in on the act, and that is hardly surprising given how untouchable Armstrong seemed to be. 

“What seems to have happened in this particular scenario is that it went on for many years under the noses of those who were supposed to be detecting it and at times probably with their knowledge,” said Howman from WADA headquarters in Montreal.

Howman acknowledged that it was only now going to be possible to tackle the problem, because finally the code of silence, a cycling omerta, had now been broken by fellow riders, all of whom seem to be very keen indeed to spill the dirt on Armstrong. Tyler Hamilton, who has been on somewhat of a campaign against his former fellow rider, said recently on TV that he knew of at least one case where Armstrong had paid his way out of a positive test result. 

It's beginning to get really sleazy, and I imagine it will only get worse. One thing is certain: Armstrong is toast in terms of his Tour de France titles, and his reputation as superstar athlete will remain only for die-hard fans. Anyone who was on the fence or found him smug and arrogant in the face of serious charges will no doubt have made their minds up already. 

The damning details in the more than 200-page report compiled by the USADA are claimed to be definitive proof that Lance Armstrong was a "serial cheat" and "doping program ringleader" for basically his entire professional career. Underlining that fact is testimony from some 26 witnesses whose statements were included in the report. It is one thing to find out that he was apparently not innocent after all, but quite another to hear that he was considered a "ringleader" and "enforcer" of a team doping program! The USADA goes as far as to state that Armstrong bullied teammates into doping so that they could help him win, and if they refused they were sidelined. Quite shocking indeed. 

In typical fashion, Armstrong refused to respond to or face the more recent statements made by the USADA/WADA, instead claiming he is not going to discuss it any further and is focused entirely on his charity. Even if that charity was set up around his fame, which derived from his sporting success, which Howman translates today as "conspiracy to defraud the sport" of cycling. So even the fundamentals of that charity are based on lies and cheating, if you choose to believe what the USADA and WADA claim.

The almost laughable (I said almost!) aside to this is that when you go back and remind yourself of who were the runners up in the Tour between 1999 and 2006, it is nauseating to see that basically in each case that rider has already been either implicated in or banned due to doping. The total irony is that if Armstrong's titles were to be given to the runner up, it would simply be swapping one doper for another doper. If they have to find a clean rider to name as the new runner up? Well, somebody who came in at 64th place is going to have a real payday! It's ridiculous, sadly, but it's probably close to the truth. 

The sport is dirty, and everyone (now) knows it. It remains up to the ICU to formally come out and respond to or appeal the stripping of Armstrong's seven titles, and it really has to be them who do it. They got all the dirty work done for them, their hands were washed of it, but now they have been sideswiped by authorities who do get to shove this mess right back at them. The ICU is more or less boxed in, and will have to remove Armstrong's legacy, publicly.

It is a most shocking, sleazy and scandalous end to what had been a stellar superstar career. One can only imagine how Armstrong must have felt, after the Justice Department backed down, and he took a deep breath, only to see it all resurface mere months later. As much as his cocky arrogance to everyone he spoke to about it on TV was annoying (if you weren''t a fan) or proof he was innocent (if you were), one cannot help but feel for him. He was in a dirty sport, so he played dirty like everyone else. But as King of the Hill, your downfall is always gonna be more "delicious" than for the others. The rats come scurrying out of the hole, and they all want a piece of you.

In any case, his arrogance in outright denials of ever having been involved in any form of doping now appears to be either sheer stupidity or just typical of the man, or both. There is nothing joyous about what has happened or is coming next, because the world needs over-achieving superstars such as him, and the most tragic aspect of this entire sorry story is that on a level playing field he would still have beaten them all. Instead, he is now in the midst of being beaten by them all. Not on bikes on a hill, but by words of betrayal. Et tu, Brute? - Kevin Mc

PS In an aside, this story is very likely to keep on giving. Why? Well, show me the money! Let's not forget that in either a move of pure arrogance, or a strategic attempt to make him appear clean, Armstrong sued the prestigious Sunday Times over implications that he was a doper. The outcome? Armstrong won almost one million dollars as part of that settlement. Additionally, SCA Promotions refused to pay out as agreed after Armstrong's fifth Tour win in 2004, due to rumors that the wins were not clean. Guess what? Armstrong took legal action again, and won! SCA ended up paying out the $5M plus a further $2.5M in interest charges and legal fees. In total, the SCA paid him around $12M during his Tour years. 
Especially given the fact that Armstrong had the brass to sue to get that money, I can only imagine that it is just a matter of time till someone gets pissed off enough to want their money back. Ditto all sorts of sponsorship and advertising deals that involved Armstrong's champion athlete persona. It is inevitable that there is more to come, and I think that the LiveStrong Foundation may end up having to quietly separate themselves from their founder, if they wish to retain credibility as a legitimate charity, and not be seen as part of some elaborate drug money laundering scheme. 
I wonder how long it will take for all those business types in their crisp suits, including many talking heads on TV, to suddenly feel less "cool" with what appears to be their teenager's rubber wristband poking out of their shirt sleeve? Given that in many, many cases, they weren't worn for any other reason than wanting to look cool, I think that they will be going into the drawer in increasing numbers each week!

From "completely ridiculous" to the Nobel Prize - now that's what I call differentiation!

It's no surprise to the scientific community that pioneering work in the area of stem cell biology has been formally acknowledged by the Nobel Prize committee in Karolinska, Sweden, who announced yesterday that the 2012 prize for medicine is shared between two groundbreaking individuals: British scientist John Gurdon and Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka. 

These scientists discovered that specialized terminally differentiated adult cells can in fact be reprogrammed and turned into what are termed pluripotent stem cells (pictured above) that can be differentiated into cells of any another tissue. Obviously this has crashed open previously closed doors that were sealed with not a little controversy, not least as it allows researchers to sidestep the ethical and similarly controversial issues surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells. 

Most of us are probably aware that George W. Bush radically banned federal funding for the use of embryonic stem cells (those derived after a given date) in research, which thankfully was overturned by Barack Obama. This has made many more such cell lines available again to researchers and that can only be considered a very good thing. Come to think of it, Obama should consider bringing that up in some of his debates: it might help swing people his way a little! 

The potential in such stem cell technology is clearly huge in situations such as Parkinson's or heart disease, MS and diabetes where the capacity to grow new tissue to replace the old (or lost) tissue could theoretically have life-changing outcomes for patients. Imagine if we were able to replace damaged neural tissue in Alzheimer's disease patients, thereby restoring them to a more normal quality of life? While we are a long way off still from routine stem cell therapeutic intervention in such conditions, it is probably only a matter of time due to such breakthroughs as these.

It was Gurdon who showed in 1962 (amazingly, the same year in which Yamanaka was born) that DNA from adult tadpole cells could be used to make another tadpole, basically paving the way for the famous cloning experiments that produced Dolly the sheep in 1997. That was proof positive that the process also worked in mammals, and thus began the frenzied debate about "human cloning" which has captivated us ever since. 

In much more recent times, Yamanaka showed in 2006 that a fairly simple process could be used to convert adult mouse cells into a form of immature stem cells capable of differentiation into any cell type, and he later repeated the experiment in human cells. It truly now seems to be the case that each of our cells, even when supposedly terminally differentiated into a skin cell, for example, retains all of the information to become another cell type and can be induced to do so. Such so-called "blank slate" stem cells were considered a dream by many for a long time. 

That the two researchers cited come from entirely different generations might seem surprising but it is in fact illustrative of the cumulative effect of a given major discovery, not only in and of itself, but further what other major breakthroughs it nucleates. Such is the scientific process. Yamanaka might owe Gurdon in a certain fashion, but one could also argue that more recent breakthroughs by his team (among others) are what shone the spotlight back onto Gurdon's initial work. In any case, both men were clearly delighted with the news. 

Developmental biology just got a huge boost from this shared prize, and it ought to further legitimize the entire realm of stem cell therapy as an exciting, transformational tool in modern medicine. Hopefully, the fear mongers and those who choose to believe their hysterics will be sidelined into silence once sick or dying patients are cured by novel therapeutics derived from stem cell research.

I had to smile at Gurdon's anecdote that his headmaster at high school considered his desire to become a scientist as "completely ridiculous". That headmaster should be turning in his grave tonight! Us "fledgling scientists" never have it easy, and my own recollections of such dismissal are woven into my new book "THE MOLECULES", which got published on the same day that the Nobel Prize for Medicine went to Gurdon.  Now that is definitely a mere coincidence, but it is one that I can surely live with! - Kevin Mc

PS Today we heard of the 2012 Nobel Prize for Physics which was (also) shared between American David Wineland and Serge Haroche of France for their work on quantum particle physics. Keep your eyes peeled for the Chemistry prize tomorrow, Literature on Thursday and the Peace Prize on Friday!

A war over colour? It's one with a sweet outcome!

Here's an interesting question for you: can you trademark a colour? The answer should be "yes" is the contention of legendary British chocolate company, Cadbury, who have been in litigation on this very issue for the best part of the last eight years.

The British Intellectual Property Office (BIPO) agreed that this particular "royal purple" color (Pantone 2685C) was part of its trademark, and granted exclusive rights to Cadbury back in 2008, which was immediately contested by Nestle, a major competitor brand. This set off a legal battle between Kraft Foods Inc. (owners of Cadbury since 2010) and Nestle that has only just been settled this week. 

In a landmark decision, the High Court of England ratified the earlier ruling by the BIPO and clarified that Cadbury will be the only company allowed to use that distinctive color on candy bar wrappers. Cadbury were naturally delighted and released the following statement:

"We welcome the decision of the high court which allows us to register as a [trademark] and protect our famous colour purple across a range of milk chocolate products. Our colour purple has been linked with Cadbury for more than a century and the British public have grown up understanding its link with our chocolate."

It's a very intriguing argument, particularly today. When Cadbury started using this colour effectively a century ago, we were far from the digital age of today where you and I can go onto our computer and have full access to a massive colour spectrum on any of quite a few programs. These colors were created by someone else, so why would we have the right to trademark one of them as our own, and claim it as part of our brand?

But then again, this royal purple has been in circulation for about one hundred years, and back then, it would have required original design to create and print that particular colour because it came from somebody's head, not their computer. History does count also, and after a century, it is unquestionable that this colour is burned into all of our memories as pure chocolate and totally Cadbury.

So while the colour itself cannot be trademarked, per se, if it is associated directly with a brand's products then other confectionery manufacturers should be prevented from using it. In any case, why would you want to put another company's colour on your products, other than to take advantage of their clientele? It's almost an admission of either brand jealousy or wanting to mislead the public, or both.

Nestle should not pursue this any further, and should get on with life. Guess what? This has opened the door in a way, in that Nestle could now insist that the distinctive red and white wrapper of KitKat should also be trademarked, for example. But Cadbury was smart because they took one major colour and associated it with a whole slew of their products, and in fact with the entire brand. This was a contributing factor in the decision by the High Court, I am sure. 

The outcome underlines the fact that while words and logos are key components of a company's branding, there is an increasing significance being attributed to colour trademarks. We here at EU have always felt that way, which is why we came up with a brand identifier that includes logo, words and colour. It is our hope that one day that distinctive EU umbrella triangle in double green and white will be as indisputably linked to EU books as royal purple is to Cadbury.   

Having said that, don't ask me what the Pantone numbers for our two greens are; we don't think we will be heading off to court to fight for them anytime soon! ;) - Kevin Mc

Debating with a ghost - round one to Romney!

Well, well, well! It was impossible to go to bed last night or wake up this morning, with anything other on my mind than the great presidential debacle of last night. Oops, did I just say debacle?! I am not sure that the slip can even be deemed Freudian, because in many ways it actually was a presidential debate debacle!

I know that I was expected to tackle this subject this morning by my faithful readers, but I almost don't know where to start. There is so much to say that it is almost overwhelming. The thing that I love is that politics, like life itself, cannot always be predictable and just when we think that we have something or someone figured out, we get spun around in all directions.

Firstly, once again, seemingly perennially, the moderation of these debates needs sorting out. We get the usual blah-blah about two minute rules for initial responses, then back and forth, and we have to change topic each fifteen minute section. The whistle is blown, and then the usual free-for-all kicks in, with a hapless moderator barely able to moderate, and in fact even being moderated to, very efficiently, by Mr. Romney in this case. 

It has got to be clarified. There is no point in stating two minute rules that we all know will be meaningless two minutes into the proceedings. The candidates should have a timer in front of them during those minutes, and be aware that at 120 seconds they will have a very brief period before their microphone is turned off. We then move over to the other guy, same thing. I am all for allowing a certain leeway but if we rampantly ignore the original agenda of the debate then we all lose out on discussion of all of the substantive issues, as time runs out. 

Substantive is the right word, because it may have been one of the more substantive presidential debates in (recent) history. Just as I said that he had to, Mitt Romney went on the attack with cold, hard facts at hand, and came across cool, calm and collected while doing so, and never once stepped out of the silhouette of being a true gentleman. This is the way that a true leader does it, and dare I say it, he even came across as "presidential" for much of the time. 

He was brilliantly prepared, nothing threw him off guard, and for each accusation pushed at him by Obama, he often had a laundry list of points/facts by way of response. He even coolly pushed back, asserting that just because Obama was the President, it does not allow him to fabricate his own reality and fact base.

"Listen, as President, you do get to have your own airplane, and your own house, but you do not get to have your own facts!"

What astounded me more than I thought possible was the totally lackluster, almost hangdog no-show of the incumbent himself. It was either an unbelievable act of hubris from someone whose team are telling him that the polls show it's all wrapped up already, so don't sweat it, or, it was a calculation to tone down all the negativity inherent in the campaign thus far, and once again charm the pants of the American people. 

Let me assure you all that in whichever case, it was a massive backfire that resulted in the most one-sided debate of it's kind in modern history. Obama could not even look his opponent in the eye when he was being berated by him, choosing to instead purse his lips in an almost grandfatherly beaten dog fashion, and stare head down at his notes. I simply couldn't believe it. He was too busy fact checking, or desperately searching for his next point, to stand head up like a leader and face his opponent with defiance in his eyes. He suddenly seemed old, tired and weak.

A key moment came when Obama accused Romney of having some $2-3B in mind to help some oil business infrastructure suppliers as part of his energy plan, and on a dime, Romney turned it into a question about the $90B already spent on various failed green energy ventures run by Obama "friends". Solyndra, anyone? The President did nothing more than almost grimace knowingly down at his lectern. He was not prepared for this at all, and Romney was on fire. 

Let's talk about preparation for a second, as it is a key component of the approach by the two sides. We heard much this week from the Dems, about how almost "unfair" it is that Team Romney have been working so hard on debate preparation. What? David Axelrod, on NBC's Today show this morning, used it as distraction from a direct question about whether the President was pleased with his performance. We instead got some new moaning about preparation by the Reps. What? A default admission by Axelrod that Obama tanked? 

They moaned about how much money Romney raised. Now they moan about his debate preparation? This is starting to look as weak and pathetic as Obama's facade was last night. Can someone remind me when preparation became a dirty word? When it is for a debate on massive national issues and a country's entire future; a debate that will be watched by some fifty million voters?! I have never heard anything more ridiculous in my life. Can you imagine Muhammad Ali similarly complaining after a lost heavyweight world championship?

"It wasn't fair! Smokin' Joe Frazier put in more preparation than me for the big fight, he got an extra month in training camp, I want this victory to be revoked, man!"

It truly is as ridiculous as that. Guess what, Mr. Axelrod? The nation expects preparation from someone whom they are about to put in a position of extreme power, prominence and luxury, and your side has disrespected that by almost claiming that preparation is a dirty word, so didn't do it. Certainly, Obama came across as not just a tad unprepared, but totally unprepared. A man out of his depth, no less!

He was almost unrecognizable alongside Obama 2008, and he seemed completely subdued to the point of needing to be shaken not stirred, and asked whether he actually wants a second term at all! At times, it was if he was the intimidated challenger, facing a strong, successful incumbent. One thing that is certain is that if he does have any passion left in him for a second term and badly wants to lead the nation for four more years, it was (a) not evident at all, and, (b) not the way to go about getting it. From months of arrogant negative ads to suddenly playing the beaten down worn out candidate, who could barely rise to the occasion?

My dear readers, I could go on at length about the various actual issues that were discussed but we would run into a chapter length, I am afraid! I will leave all such details to the abundant press and online forums that are exploding as we speak. Suffice it to say, that effectively what I have said above, by and large applies to the entire debate. Romney did get way more specific than previously, but yes there are still areas that need elaborating upon if he is to persuade the electorate to swing his way. But in terms of sheer charisma, preparation, energy, passion and enthusiasm to get this job? It was a no-brainer by the end of the debate as to who seemed to want it most. 

I am delighted simply because we now have a race and are going to see a real fight for this prestigious position. It is not going to be the shoe-in that the polls predicted, and yes, as he godamn should, if Obama wants four more in the big white house, he is going to have to not only get off his backside and work for it, but he is going to have to do some persuading that he actually deserves it! That is not obvious this morning. 

Based on last night's performance, not only does he not deserve it based on his own record over the last four years, but he does not deserve it in terms of showing such little drive and passion to get the job in the end. This is a total no-no in any job interview, and why does he think it should be any different for the top job in the nation? Newsflash, it isn't!

Read my lips, people. Now we are going to see some real sport! The Dem team must be reeling in panic this morning, and you can bet your (last) bottom dollar that poor old O is going to be holed up in some bunker having facts and issues drilled into him. "Aww, you guys told me it was gonna be a breeze, I don't wanna have to study all this crap about jobs and the economy! Come on guys! I am O! We gonna win, by doin' nothin'! Rah Rah!"

Sadly for him, that time of him being all things to all people have passed, as one Ben Affleck said so eloquently this past week. Now we are going to get down to some serious sparring on the real issues, and you can expect the thermometer to rise in debates #2 and #3. I am all for keeping it gentlemanly and civil, but with a razor's edge sharpness for the facts and for political attack on the opponent. The nation needs to see it to make a decision.

Never has the nation been more divided, yet almost equally. The most recent polls showed nationally that the numbers are Obama 49% Romney 46%, with a 3% margin of error: incredible! This makes these debates an absolutely critical affair, and the candidate who can come out of even the last debate with the glow that Romney did last night could swing the whole thing in his direction. On that note, it is time for someone to swing a west coast dark roast in mine! ;) - Kevin Mc