The private lives of celebrities. Does the public care? How much, or how little, do you care about what a popular celebrity thinks?

On May 6, The Bajan Reporter posted a rather lengthy 'thesis' by one Roger Marshall concerning the connection between Rihanna's famous 'Umbrella' song and the occult.

This was picked up by BFP this morning and has already resulted in a few comments (no surprise, as anything that involves religion and politics is bound to stir up the emotions). I have not read Marshall's article, nor am I planning to, as it does not interest me in the least bit.

Mind you, I'm not saying that Rihanna is knowingly (or unknowingly) involved in any of the stuff that Marshall mentions, nor am I commenting on her personal beliefs, etcetera. I'm sure that other like-minded people (i.e., people like Marshall) could find links to the occult and other artists' songs as well. It just so happened that his article mentioned Rihanna's song.

What does interest me is to what extent do the beliefs and values (etcetera) of a popular celebrity, affect how much (or how little) ordinary citizens like them.

It seems like a simple and straight-forward thing, doesn't it? If a celebrity that you've always liked for years adopts a position contrary to your own on any topic (drugs, the environment, religion, politics, etcetera), will you look at them differently? Consider also if, despite their opposing view, they continue to carry out their professional life in the exact same way (e.g. movies/music), putting aside their own personal philosophy. Now that you know what they really think, would you be able to ignore their beliefs and continue to support their films/music?

Realize that whatever you (and the majority of the public) choose may impact on how much money the celebrity earns. Knowing this, the celebrity (at the request of, or on the advice of his/her agent, etcetera) may try to appear in such a way so as toavoid a potential loss (or decrease) of income as a result of his/her personal opinions. This may end up in you rarely seeing, or getting to know, the real individual behind the celebrity.

In the end, and after considering the above, who do you like, the individual with his/her private opinions, or the celebrity who will please the audience?

Labels: Barbados, Barbados Free Press, blogging, life, news, Philosophy, politics, religion, The Bajan Reporter

10:06 AM 1 Comments Links to this post

Notes From The Margin blog sails off into the sunset "So Long And Thanks For All The Fish"

The title of the last post on the NTFM blog (and also the title of the fourth book in the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, a set of books that everyone should read).

Notes From The Margin (NFTM) is, or rather was, a Barbadian blog that stood somewhere in between Barbados Free Press and Barbados Underground (in my humble opinion). Briefly thinking about it, NFTM was, as far as I can recall, never as sensational, explosive, informative, dangerous and as politically charged as BFP, nor was it as deeply critical, analytical and alarmist as BU (remember, I'm briefly thinking about the comparisons between the sites and going with the first thing that comes to my mind, so don't have a cow if I got it wrong).

Instead, NFTM occupied a unique spot in the Barbadian blogosphere and brought to it another voice and opinion on things primarily Barbadian and occasionally Caribbean. However, as of April 15, NFTM has withdrawn as a result of, it seems, the demands of their day-to-day lives. They (whoever 'they' were as NFTM, like BU and BFP, was an anonymous blog) were not able to maintain the standards they wished to have.

These standards have gotten NTFM into hot water in the past, especially with a few of the other blogs (BU, BFP and The Bajan Reporter in particular). They (NFTM) linked to other blogs which posted material that was, to put it extremely nicely, 'highly controversial.' As such, the aforementioned trio removed NTFM from their respective blogrolls, I believe, in protest of NFTM's link choice. Despite this, NFTM held their ground and did not give in. Only later when one or two of the controversial blogs stepped over NFTM's line were they removed from their blogroll.

Disclaimer BFP, BU and The Bajan Reporter all link to my little blog, although, they may reconsider after they read my 'farewell' post to NFTM (which I had always linked to even after the debacle). Hopefully the trio won't get upset because IANAA: I Am Not An Antagonist.

LOL ;-)

For better or for worse, the Barbadian blogosphere will be a bit more quiet now that the NFTM blog has departed. No doubt some will say 'good riddance,' while others will cry 'what a shame.' Either way, the World has one less opinion to consider and is thus less informed when it comes to matters pertainining to Bimshire and to a lesser extent, the rest of the Caribbean. Herein lies the real tragedy. For without several sources of opinion and thought to consider, the individual has a limited selection of choices from with which he or she can form an opinion.

Moving on, we've seen from the above that the Internet/WWW can simply be thought of as an extension of real life. The big difference is that on the Internet, one has the ability to say what one wants alot more anonymously, easily and with access to a huge audience: the World. Whereas before, opinions would have to be toned down or kept locked away in the dark recesses of the mind of the individual, or of the crowd.

No so today. With the Internet and the Web in particular, anyone can sign up for a blog in seconds and tell the World what they think about everything no matter how controversial, disgusting, immoral, insensitive, funny, boring or silly it may seem to the rest of us. After all, what is the point of having freedom of speech and independent thinking if you are censored? Yes there are limits, certainly, but what are they and who sets them?

What is acceptable today may not be acceptable tomorrow. Our morals, values and beliefs (etcetera) change with time. Nothing is static, change is constant. especially in this day and age when thanks (or not?) to technology, we are so closely linked together and are aware of each other (with regards to cultures, beliefs, morals, values, religions, etcetera).

Which leads to my final thought for the evening: Do we have any morals or values (etcetera) that can be considered universal and applicable to every single human being and more importantly, I think, that transcend religious and cultural differences, or do we all just 'make it up' as we go along?

Labels: Barbados, blogging, Caribbean, life, news. religion, Notes From The Margin, NTFM, Philosophy, World

7:50 PM 2 Comments Links to this post

The Right Honourable David Thompson, Prime Minister of Barbados, Talks to the People (DISCLAIMER: IANAP, I Am Not A Politician)

(DISCLAIMER: IANABODE, I Am Not A 'B' Or 'D,' Etecetera)

(DISCLAIMER: IANANM, I Am Not A Newspaper Man)

(DISCLAIMER: IANAP, I Am Not A Philosopher)

I first heard of the PM's planned interview/talk via the blogs and then, I think, I read something about it in one of the daily papers (sorry, can't remember which one). It's easier and quicker (for me) to check out the local blogs for information on what's news and what's happening, than it is for me to get access to the paper sometimes.

Also, not all of the print articles make the newspapers' website editions, and why would they anyway? Why would you give away all of your content for free when you could charge for it and charge for ads in your dead-tree edition? I wonder, out of a newspapers' total revenue, what percentage of it is earned from purchasers of the newspaper and what percentage is earned from running ads in the newspaper.

A full online newspaper would certainly be cheaper to run (as they are less overheads/costs, i.e., plant and equipment, staff, utilities, etc). With the reduced costs, maybe a newspaper could shift its base of operations to the web. Let the reporters write from home, or wherever and communicate via instant messaging, e-mail and so forth. Sure you probably won't have as many ads, but that's okay, you don't have that many costs and so the 'newspaper' can still survive (and earn a profit) by running ads on the website (The Nation newspaper currently has ads on their website). Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No.

But how much revenue? Will it be enough for the business to make a healthy return for its investors? What is a healthy return anyway? 10, 15, 20 or 30%? Also, not everyone has ready access to a computer and Internet access, so a dead-tree edition still is useful and there is something to be said for lazing around on the couch on a Sunday afternoon flipping through the newspaper (and comics) instead of staring at a screen for long periods of time.

Alas, I digress. Remember: IANANM, I Am Not A Newspaper Man.

The point (if there is one) to tonight's post was to comment on the PM's appearance on the television and radio. As far as I can tell (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), this is the first time that I've ever heard of, or seen for myself, a PM sitting down to be questioned by (for all intents and purposes) members of the public. This is quite simply amazing (maybe even dangerous?). It marks a radical and significant change in the island's political landscape.

STOP. Hold your horses. Hold strain. Remeber: IANABODE, I Am Not A 'B' Or 'D,' Etecetera. This post is not about what was promised and what has been delivered (or still to be delivered). It's not about the D's manifesto and it's not about the B's either, nor any political party for that matter. Put the party politics on pause people, please (try saying that five times fast).

Furthermore, I've not heard all of the TV/radio discussion tonight (it is ongoing as I type this). But I need not. As far as I am concerned, the mere fact that this is happening tells me that The Times They Are a-Changin' But for how long? Who knows. Will anything ever change? Who knows. Remember: IANAP, I Am Not A Politician. But, as I said earlier, I cannot remember a pervious occasion where something like this happened.

This may sound silly. At least, it may sound that way to people living in 'big countries.' These folks may take it for granted that they can question their politicians and public offcials and demand answers of them, or take them to task on important issues and topics. Not so here, at least, not as far as I can remember (does anyone remember?). Personified, the size of my knowledge of the island's political history is slimmer than I am, or better yet, non-existent.

Maybe some people think that questions shouldn't be asked, period. After all, politicians know more than we do, don't they? They are charged with running the country and seeing to the health and wealth of its citizens. There is also something to be said about there being a time and a place for everything and as such, a certain level of decorum and respect must be given to politicians no matter what political party they belong to (or no matter what the issues are).

But does this mean that by allowing ourselves to be governed by a minority (which we choose democratically), that in turn we must give up some of our freedom (and just what is freedom anyway?), the ability to ask questions, to form our own opinions, and most importantly, to think for ourselves?

No. It doesn't. You have a brain, use it wisely and remember: IANAP, I Am Not A Philosopher (LOL!). ;-)

Labels: Barbados, life, Philosophy, politics

8:25 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Amit is... 1. thinking (which is his default Facebook message).

2. reading Sophie's World. Part fiction, part non-fiction (IMHO). The fictional bits tell the story of Sophie, a girl who learns Philosophy via a correspondence course. The non-fictional bits cover the history of Philosophy (for the benefit of Sophie and the reader). In addition to that, there are also short introductory books on Logic and Philosophy, as well as Warburton's 'Philosophy: The Basics,' to finish reading.

3. suggesting that if you want to know and understand why anyone would want to study Philosophy in the first place, then you should ask Google and spend at least fifteen minutes reading through the reasons and responses.

4. not a Fatalist and does not believe in Fatalism. Go on, click the link. Worst case, you can impress your friends by learning a new word or two. Best case, you'll learn something new and interesting (after reading it, can you see any connections between free will and the movie, The Matrix?).

5. preparing to read up on the next module in the Durham MBA (Managing Information: part information systems, part statistics).

Labels: blogging, books, life, MBA, Philosophy, reading

10:58 PM 2 Comments Links to this post

A question and a thought or two, on privatization and the RBPF DISCLAIMER: IANAE (I Am Not An Economist), IANAPO (I Am Not A Police Officer) and IANAP (I Am Not A Politician).

A few of you, by now, should know that I tend to think about random things while I'm on the road, going to and fro. These trips give me the occasion (opportunity), to think, question, reflect and generally study things while waiting at a traffic light, or while sitting in traffic (but still keeping a constant vigil on the flow of traffic in front and behind me, talk about multi-tasking!).

Today was no different. While I was not doing this sort of thinking (or philosophizing?) while driving home, the question came to me much later (at around 2:45 AM).

What would happen if we were to privatize the RBPF?

Don't laugh. I'm asking a serious question. Spare it some thought. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, Wikipedia has the following to say:

"Privatization is the incidence or process of transferring ownership of business from the public sector (government) to the private sector (business). In a broader sense, privatization refers to transfer of any government function to the private sector including hardcore governmental functions like revenue collection and law enforcement."

Why, in the first place, would a government want to transfer ownership of a business from the public sector to the private sector? If you can answer this, then maybe you can apply the same thinking to why a government would want to (OR NOT WANT TO), transfer law enforcement to the private sector.

So back to the question, what would happen if we were to privatize the RBPF? Do you see better pay for the officers? More equipment and resources becoming available? What about the negative effects, i.e., having a private company providing law enforcement services? If you've got an answer, my e-mail address can be found on the side-bar, alternatively, feel free to leave a comment. Based upon feedback, I will try to dispense my own humble opinion in a week or two, as I'm currently preparing for an exam.

However, I will leave you with one possible result of privatization: I'm pretty sure that our taxes pay for law enforcement (as well as for other social services). Privatization should, in theory, result in less taxes paid to a government, however, it would also mean no law enforcement for society unless you pay a private firm to provide such services (how would the poor be able to pay and should they even have to pay in the first place?).

In conclusion, one of the many roles of government (correct me if I'm wrong), is to provide basic protection of life and property (be you rich or poor). This is a social service. I can't remember where I read it, and I'm probably bastardizing what it is I read, but the essence of it was this: We, as citizens or members of society, in effect give up certain rights and freedoms when we agree to be governed. In return, it is the government's role to protect society from internal as well as external agression, conflicts, threats, etcetera. That is the price we pay for this security and stability.

Food for thought.

Labels: Barbados, economics, law, life, Philosophy, police

2:42 AM 1 Comments Links to this post

Question(s) for the People's Democratic Congress (PDC) UPDATE, Jan/5/08: Finished the post.

DISCLAIMER: IANAE, I Am Not An Economist.

DISCLAIMER: IANAP, I Am Not A Politician.

DISCLAIMER: IAJAQAATPACOB, I Am Just Asking Question(s) As A Tax Payer And Citizen Of Barbados.

DISCLAIMER: IAJAQAACIWNPA, I Am Just Asking Question(s) As A Curious Individual With No Political Agenda.

The last disclaimer is important. This is a non-partisan (non political) post. I am not interested in the BLP, DLP, nor PEP. I am only interested in what the PDC recently had to say (at the time of this post, I cannot recall the exact date of The Nation's article which carried the PDC's comments), with regards to their goal of abolishing taxes (as well as interest rates and foreign land ownership, but I am interested in their abolition of taxes proposition and I will be focusing primarily on that).

My interests are purely academic. Not political. With respect to politics, I ask that reader's take note that, as far as I can recall (but correct me if I'm wrong), none of the other political parties (BLP, DLP and PEP), have ever discussed abolishing taxes.

It is only the PDC that has made this statement.

Now, why am I asking the PDC this question? Because (oops, sentences are not supposed to start with 'because', are they?), I am genuinely interested and curious, in trying to understand:

1) Why the PDC would want to abolish taxes and

2) How they (the PDC), intend on paying for and providing social services to the public if their party were ever to come into power.

Remember folks, I'm just a layman, seeking a little clarification and knowledge. That's all. No harm, no foul.

Before we go any further, what are taxes? From Wikipedia (albeit, not the most professional, nor academic site to reference, but a quick and easy one to use nonetheless):

"A tax may be defined as a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government […] a payment exacted by legislative authority."[1] A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government […] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name."[1]"

I underlined 'support the government' because the government needs support in providing certain social services (police, fire, health, education, etcetera). The economists, politicians and academics can debate this definition and my addition, further. I however, will not. I will use the above definition as a suffice explanation of what a tax is.

NOTE: I am not saying that taxes are fair, or unfair, or that they are easy to pay, or that they are equally distributed amongst all of the different classes of society (i.e., low, mid and upper class, and everything in between). I am not interested in that. I'm not even interested in debating the tax rate in Barbados (for companies and individuals), nor am I interested in comparing it with other countries. No, take that discussion elsewhere, please. Better yet, go and debate it with a Tax Attorney or an Accountant :-)

To the PDC, I say unto thee: This, as far as I understand it from a layman's point of view, is why taxes are necessary and what they pay for: (Anyone out there is free to offer a counter arguement)

1. Roads. Taxes pay for the roads that we drive, walk, cycle and drive our donkey carts on. The roads may or may not be perfect (leave the politics out of this), but if the government decided to let a private sector company (i.e., companies that exist primarily to increase shareholder value, and to generate profits), take over the development and maintenance of the island's road network, what do you think will happen, PDC? Who do you think the bulk of the burden fall upon? The low, middle or upper income classes, PDC?

2. Water. Taxes pay for the water you use. Who will be able to afford, or have access to water supplies if there are no taxes to pay to the government (which uses tax revenue to provide these services)? Yes, I know that our water 'services' may or may not be the best (leave the politics out of this), but they are being subsidized and/or provided for, by the government. Can you imagine a privatized (or non-nationalized) water company? I recall from my CXC POB (Principles Of Business) studies that private companies exist to make a profit. I further recall from my MBA studies that private companies, of all shapes and sizes, are primarily interested in increasing shareholder value (shareholders are the people that own the company). The have to have increase the value that the shareholders made in the company, else they will investment in another business. Do you, the PDC, think that shareholders of a private water company (unless they are very morally and ethetically minded) are interested in the good of the people, or are they more interested in the bottom line?

3. Police. PDC, the taxes that you want to abolish help pay for the protection and security of life and property. The police also maintain law and order in society. (Leave the politics out please, remember this is purely an academic discussion). How, PDC, do you plan on maintaining law and order in society, as well as protecting life and property, when there are no taxes to pay for the police force? Do we then depend on private security firms, firms like Blackwater?

4. Fire. PDC, a government typically provides a fire service (leave the politics out of this please), do they not? What happens when someone's house or business burns down. Without taxes to pay for that fire service and the people that operate the fire service, who will put out the fires and protect life and property? Or are you, PDC, saying that this sort of service is best left in the hands of a private sector company? What if the less fortunate cannot afford to pay the bill after having a private fire company put out the blaze, what then? Or better yet, when someone's house or business is burning, they call the private fire company and negotiate a rate before putting out the fire. Remember, a private company is interested in their bottom line. Maybe it would be more competitive and beneficial to the public if there was more than one private fire company. That way, you'd have competition and one could always go to 'the other guy' for a cheaper price (you better hope that your house doesn't completely burn down while you haggle over price).

In conlusion, PDC, consider what I've said above, and apply it in turn to other issues like: Education, NIS, Health Care and whatever other government provided services you can think of (please leave the politics out). When you abolish taxes, let me know what you intend to substitute them with in order for Barbadians to have access to social services.

P.S., I'd like to wish everyone all the best for the new year!

Labels: Barbados, economics, humour, life, Philosophy, politics

12:39 AM 1 Comments Links to this post

Zen Occasionally, I mouse-over to the zen habits blog and skim through a few "life changing" or "productivity enhancing," posts. Then, I snap out of it and return back to the real world. :-)

After checking out the zh blog this evening, I looked up Zen on Wikipedia and eventually found a link to several Zen proverbs (courtesy of Wikiquote). Why the interest in Zen? It may have to do with with the fact that I am also somewhat interested in Philosophy, although according to Wikipedia, it appears that Zen is very anti-philosophical.

Maybe we should all spend a few moments reading through each quote. I'm not suggesting that you waste the entire day (or night) sitting in a trance, completely zoned out, but just have a look through. Find one or two that really stand out, and spend a few moments thinking about them.

Who knows, maybe you'll learn something, or come to some sort of realization (as to what specifically, I don't know, that's for you to find out).

"Zen proverbs:

Unsourced

A samurai once asked Zen Master Hakuin where he would go after he died. Hakuin answered 'How am I supposed to know?'
'How do you know? You're a Zen master!' exclaimed the samurai.
'Yes, but not a dead one,' Hakuin answered.

Do not seek the truth, only cease to cherish your opinions.

If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.

In the landscape of spring, there is neither better nor worse. The flowering branches grow naturally, some long, some short.

It takes a wise man to learn from his mistakes, but an even wiser man to learn from others.

Knock on the sky and Listen to the sound.

The ten thousand questions are one question. If you cut through the one question, then the ten thousand questions disappear.

The tighter you squeeze the less you have.

The ways to the One are as many as the lives of men.

Though the bamboo forest is dense, water flows through it freely.

To do a certain kind of thing, you have to be a certain kind of person.

To follow the path, look to the master, follow the master, walk with the master, see through the master, become the master.

To know that there is nothing to know, and to grieve that it is so difficult to communicate this "nothing to know" to others - this is the life of Zen, this is the deepest thing in the world.

When the pupil is ready to learn, a teacher will appear.

When you reach the top, keep climbing.

Why do you ask questions? If you already knew the flame was fire then the meal was cooked a long time ago.

I only know a snowflake cannot exist in a storm of fire.

A weed is a plant whose virtues are only waiting to be discovered.

Women may spend their whole lives looking for true love. If you wish for true love, learn to love yourself.

You do not wait for fulfillment, but brace yourself for failure.

At first, I saw mountains as mountains and rivers as rivers. Then, I saw mountains were not mountains and rivers were not rivers. Finally, I see mountains again as mountains, and rivers again as rivers.

Zen students must learn to waste time conscientiously.

No yesterday, no tomorrow, and no today - Sheng-ts'an

If the problem has a solution, worrying is pointless, in the end the problem will be solved. If the problem has no solution, there is no reason to worry, because it can't be solved."

Labels: blogging, life, Philosophy

10:47 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Random Post (DISCLAIMER: IANAP, I Am Not A Philosopher)

Despite this, I couldn't help but feel philosophical and curious when I noticed the status message of a friend on Gmail Chat. If I remember correctly, it read: 'Stoicism.'

So, I asked Google, and read a bit about it on Wikipedia. After which, I crafted my own little status message, which I felt was an appropriate (from my point of view) response in relation to the subject matter.

"Be like the rock in the ocean. Eventually, you will transform into the pebble."

Labels: Barbados, education, life, Philosophy

11:25 PM 0 Comments Links to this post