pull! push! Adventures in Internet land :-)
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Thoughts on the 2008 US Elections
(Image from CNN.com)
WOW :-)
A few months ago Barbadians spoke and the DLP secured office during our last general election. Yesterday, it was America's turn to speak, and my how they've spoken!
IANAPP (I Am Not A Political Pundit), but both countries (America and Barbados), went through a huge, sweeping change during each of their last general elections with America under President Bush, a Republican, for two terms(?) and Barbados, under (former Prime Minister) Owen Arthur, a BLP member, for three terms(?).
Today, Barbadians have The Rt. Honorable David Thompson, of the DLP (Democratic Labour Party), as our Prime Minister and soon, the American people will have Barack Obama as their President.
Both of them, Thompson and Obama, each have long, dangerous roads ahead of them (Thompson's journey began a few months ago and while challenging, will pale in comparison next to Obama's), with both of them securing office in some of the most difficult and trying times the World has ever known. In both cases however, the people wanted a change, and acted accordingly.
Despite party politics in both countries (always unavoidable), Americans are Americans and Barbadians are Barbadians. Allow me to explain: I believe that the leader of a country owes a responsibilty to (first and foremost) its citizens (regardless of party affiliation and preference), and now, in the era of the 'global village', its neighbours, that is, the rest of the World.
Red or Blue, BLP or DLP (or none at all). Americans are Americans and Barbadians are Barbadians. Here's to a better and safer World for all.
(Image from CNN.com)
WOW :-)
A few months ago Barbadians spoke and the DLP secured office during our last general election. Yesterday, it was America's turn to speak, and my how they've spoken!
IANAPP (I Am Not A Political Pundit), but both countries (America and Barbados), went through a huge, sweeping change during each of their last general elections with America under President Bush, a Republican, for two terms(?) and Barbados, under (former Prime Minister) Owen Arthur, a BLP member, for three terms(?).
Today, Barbadians have The Rt. Honorable David Thompson, of the DLP (Democratic Labour Party), as our Prime Minister and soon, the American people will have Barack Obama as their President.
Both of them, Thompson and Obama, each have long, dangerous roads ahead of them (Thompson's journey began a few months ago and while challenging, will pale in comparison next to Obama's), with both of them securing office in some of the most difficult and trying times the World has ever known. In both cases however, the people wanted a change, and acted accordingly.
Despite party politics in both countries (always unavoidable), Americans are Americans and Barbadians are Barbadians. Allow me to explain: I believe that the leader of a country owes a responsibilty to (first and foremost) its citizens (regardless of party affiliation and preference), and now, in the era of the 'global village', its neighbours, that is, the rest of the World.
Red or Blue, BLP or DLP (or none at all). Americans are Americans and Barbadians are Barbadians. Here's to a better and safer World for all.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Thoughts on OPEC and petrol prices in Barbados
A long, long time ago (feels that way, doesn't it?), the price of a barrel of oil dominated the news. Then, the sub-prime/financial/economic crisis hit. Fears of a slowdown in the business/economic climate reduced demand for this commodity, and the price of oil fell from a high of $147 to around $63 (at the time of this post).
In Barbados, where petrol is pumped by the litre, prices are now $2.20 BDS per litre (1 USD = 2 BDS). This is the third drop in fuel prices in two weeks.
Low oil prices are obviously a 'bad thing' for OPEC (and oil companies as well). So, what does OPEC do? They cut back on oil production.
OPEC's position:
"The prices at this time, being affected by the financial crisis, (are) very low," OPEC Secretary-General Abdalla Salem El-Badri said. "We have to bring the prices up."
OPEC ministers decided to cut production by 1.5 million barrels a day because that is the amount of oversupply in the market, he said. The cartel's current production ceiling is 28.8 million barrels a day.
In announcing the cut, OPEC President Chakib Khelil said member countries had no choice but to slash production.
"What choice do they have -- see the oil price go down to the lower levels?"
OPEC cuts oil output to halt price collapse (CNN.com)
He may be right, but for the rest of the world, it's a bitter pill to swallow. Like it or not, they (i.e., OPEC and others), are operating 'for-profit' businesses.
Over the years, I learnt that businesses existed to make a profit (unless it's a non-profit organization where profit may not be the only/final goal). If the business (or any other activity), is not generating a positive return (not only in terms of money), for the person involved, then he should take his time, money and resources and invest them elsewhere.
This thought of mine was refined further during my finance classes and is essentially now: 'to create or maximise shareholder value.' Any activity in the business, no matter how small or large, be it directly or in-directly related to revenue generation, should adhere to this.
Back to OPEC. I am not defending OPEC, nor any other country, or commercial entity that produces/distributes oil. They have a product which is essential, in demand and, for the time being, doesn't face any major threat from substitutes (i.e., solar, bio-fuel, wind, etcerta).
Members of OPEC earn money from the sale of their oil and use it for, among other things, the development of their respective countries (i.e., infrastructure, education, health, security, etcetera).
On a related note, I wonder how much trade these OPEC members engage in with the rest of the world? In other words, they export/sell oil for money, this money can be (is) used to purchase goods and services that they themselves cannot produce (or don't want to).
So if you take away OPEC's oil revenues, or reduce them, it should, I think, reduce the amount and monetary value of trade that occurs between OPEC members and the rest of the world.
If this happens, could this not cause a problem for those countries that benefit (via trade), from OPEC's wealth? I mean a slow-down in business for the companies that produce and sell goods and services that end up (directly or in-directly), in OPEC member countries.
That's not good for the shareholders and employees of those companies. Nor is it good for the other businesses that provide services to those companies (the ones that depend on sales to OPEC members), nor is it good for the governments that depend on taxes revenues from those companies (and individuals) that then use those taxes to provide services (i.e., health, infrastructure, education, etcetra) to its citizens.
I'm grateful for the reduction in prices at the pump (it means I can spend my money on other things, which in turn generates business activity and benefits the local economy). Also, tourism is a major foreign exchange earner for Barbados, and here is where low oil prices help: there are only two ways to get to Barbados, either by sea, or by air. Both methods require fuel and high oil prices make it more costly for tourists to get here. High oil prices translate into high ticket prices and tourists may end up staying at home, or spending their money elsewhere.
In conclusion, I'm mindful that while high oil prices may not be good, there are usually two sides to any issue and in this case, I have to also wonder what 'high' is, and who is it not 'good' for? Everything, it seems, is relative. But what do I know? After all, IANAE (I Am Not An Economist). ;-)
In Barbados, where petrol is pumped by the litre, prices are now $2.20 BDS per litre (1 USD = 2 BDS). This is the third drop in fuel prices in two weeks.
Low oil prices are obviously a 'bad thing' for OPEC (and oil companies as well). So, what does OPEC do? They cut back on oil production.
OPEC's position:
"The prices at this time, being affected by the financial crisis, (are) very low," OPEC Secretary-General Abdalla Salem El-Badri said. "We have to bring the prices up."
OPEC ministers decided to cut production by 1.5 million barrels a day because that is the amount of oversupply in the market, he said. The cartel's current production ceiling is 28.8 million barrels a day.
In announcing the cut, OPEC President Chakib Khelil said member countries had no choice but to slash production.
"What choice do they have -- see the oil price go down to the lower levels?"
OPEC cuts oil output to halt price collapse (CNN.com)
He may be right, but for the rest of the world, it's a bitter pill to swallow. Like it or not, they (i.e., OPEC and others), are operating 'for-profit' businesses.
Over the years, I learnt that businesses existed to make a profit (unless it's a non-profit organization where profit may not be the only/final goal). If the business (or any other activity), is not generating a positive return (not only in terms of money), for the person involved, then he should take his time, money and resources and invest them elsewhere.
This thought of mine was refined further during my finance classes and is essentially now: 'to create or maximise shareholder value.' Any activity in the business, no matter how small or large, be it directly or in-directly related to revenue generation, should adhere to this.
Back to OPEC. I am not defending OPEC, nor any other country, or commercial entity that produces/distributes oil. They have a product which is essential, in demand and, for the time being, doesn't face any major threat from substitutes (i.e., solar, bio-fuel, wind, etcerta).
Members of OPEC earn money from the sale of their oil and use it for, among other things, the development of their respective countries (i.e., infrastructure, education, health, security, etcetera).
On a related note, I wonder how much trade these OPEC members engage in with the rest of the world? In other words, they export/sell oil for money, this money can be (is) used to purchase goods and services that they themselves cannot produce (or don't want to).
So if you take away OPEC's oil revenues, or reduce them, it should, I think, reduce the amount and monetary value of trade that occurs between OPEC members and the rest of the world.
If this happens, could this not cause a problem for those countries that benefit (via trade), from OPEC's wealth? I mean a slow-down in business for the companies that produce and sell goods and services that end up (directly or in-directly), in OPEC member countries.
That's not good for the shareholders and employees of those companies. Nor is it good for the other businesses that provide services to those companies (the ones that depend on sales to OPEC members), nor is it good for the governments that depend on taxes revenues from those companies (and individuals) that then use those taxes to provide services (i.e., health, infrastructure, education, etcetra) to its citizens.
I'm grateful for the reduction in prices at the pump (it means I can spend my money on other things, which in turn generates business activity and benefits the local economy). Also, tourism is a major foreign exchange earner for Barbados, and here is where low oil prices help: there are only two ways to get to Barbados, either by sea, or by air. Both methods require fuel and high oil prices make it more costly for tourists to get here. High oil prices translate into high ticket prices and tourists may end up staying at home, or spending their money elsewhere.
In conclusion, I'm mindful that while high oil prices may not be good, there are usually two sides to any issue and in this case, I have to also wonder what 'high' is, and who is it not 'good' for? Everything, it seems, is relative. But what do I know? After all, IANAE (I Am Not An Economist). ;-)
Labels: Barbados, business, economics, economy, life, oil, OPEC, thoughts, World
Monday, October 13, 2008
Caption this
(Photo from CNN.com)
Captioned:
"I'm gonna so get me one of those spa treatments like those AIG guys!"
Markets bounce on trillion-dollar bailout (CNN.com)
(Photo from CNN.com)
Captioned:
"I'm gonna so get me one of those spa treatments like those AIG guys!"
Markets bounce on trillion-dollar bailout (CNN.com)
Labels: AIG, caption, economy, finance, funny, humour, World
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Caption this
(Photo from CNN.com)
Captioned:
"Talk to the hand, Sarkozy, talk to the hand!"
Euro-zone leaders to meet over financial crisis (CNN.com)
(Photo from CNN.com)
Captioned:
"Talk to the hand, Sarkozy, talk to the hand!"
Euro-zone leaders to meet over financial crisis (CNN.com)
Labels: caption, EU, France, funny, Germany, life, politics, World
Friday, October 10, 2008
Caption this
(Photo from CNN.com front page)
Captioned:
"Oh crap. I forgot to unplug the iron!"
Dow bounces after plunging hundreds of points (CNN.com)
(Photo from CNN.com front page)
Captioned:
"Oh crap. I forgot to unplug the iron!"
Dow bounces after plunging hundreds of points (CNN.com)
Labels: caption, economy, finance, funny, humour, life, U.S, World
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Thoughts on Wal-mart, America and a poem
From 'China Inc' a book by Ted C. Fishman:
"Wal-Mart does not pay as well as many other retailers, but it is an embracing employer. Workers in the Pekin store range from the elderly to young people who have just entered the workforce. The company is famously forgiving of its workers' personal tastes outside work, and some of the younger clerks have rebel hairdos combed and pinned into a semblance of responsibility, their multiple piercings sparingly adorned. Some clerks are missing teeth, and some are unhealthily obese. The company is even known for taking on the mentally handicapped. In the aisles one meets workers who seen not to belong either because they are too bright or to slow, too antsy or too old, but Wal-Mart finds a fruitful place for them."
After reading that, I was reminded of a few important words that I had once read or had heard of elsewhere. A quick check via Google discovered what my mind was trying to connect Fishman's words with:
'The New Colossus' a poem by Emma Lazarus (Bartelby.com):
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
If one were to only read what Fishman and Lazarus said above, it almost sounds like Wal-Mart is America (in a very odd sort of way), doesn't it?
"Wal-Mart does not pay as well as many other retailers, but it is an embracing employer. Workers in the Pekin store range from the elderly to young people who have just entered the workforce. The company is famously forgiving of its workers' personal tastes outside work, and some of the younger clerks have rebel hairdos combed and pinned into a semblance of responsibility, their multiple piercings sparingly adorned. Some clerks are missing teeth, and some are unhealthily obese. The company is even known for taking on the mentally handicapped. In the aisles one meets workers who seen not to belong either because they are too bright or to slow, too antsy or too old, but Wal-Mart finds a fruitful place for them."
After reading that, I was reminded of a few important words that I had once read or had heard of elsewhere. A quick check via Google discovered what my mind was trying to connect Fishman's words with:
'The New Colossus' a poem by Emma Lazarus (Bartelby.com):
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
If one were to only read what Fishman and Lazarus said above, it almost sounds like Wal-Mart is America (in a very odd sort of way), doesn't it?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Thoughts on OPEC, Oil and Economics
DISCLAIMER: IANAE (I Am Not An Economist)
(Image from Mr. Downling's Arabian Oil Page)
"So since the price of oil has finally dipped below $100, the OPEC group has decided to slow production of oil again. Thereby driving up the demand and making themselves more filthier rich than they already are..."
A snippet of an e-mail sent by a friend. His comments were in response to news of OPEC cutting output by 520,000 bpd (Yahoo! News)
And my response (anyone with an opinion or an economics background is strongly encouraged to leave a comment):
*DISCLAIMER: This is a lengthy e-mail.*
According to various business articles/publications, the fall in in the price of oil was largely attributed to the slowdown in the global economy (which I believe is still happening for a variety of reasons, including the subprime fiasco which was a result of bad/risky lending practices by financial institutions).
The same slowdown may have caused some (many?) businesses to cut back, or shelve plans for expansion, or to do without additional staff and so on, and so forth. Part of this expansion may be partly responsible for driving the demand for oil and its by-products. Less expansion may result in less hiring, which may result in less spending and consumption (by businesses and the public alike). This may end up coming full circle to less expansion all over again as businesses suffer due to an economic slowdown.
I believe, in general, that oil may/cannot keep on climbing in terms of price. It will be expensive, yes, in relation to previous prices, but there's a limit to how high it can go. If it gets very expensive, then demand will fall (taking price with it) and substitutes and/or alternatives may become more attractive (i.e., solar, bio, electric, or by simply reducing demand by reducing consumption through driving less and car pooling more).
To summarize (and bastardize) the Law of Demand: all things being equal, the higher the price of a good or service, the lower the demand for it. Of course one also has to figure in PED (Price Elasticity of Demand) and maybe YED(?) (Income Elasticity of Demand).
If demand doesn't change much for a product when the price increases, then the product can be said to be price inelastic (this product may be an essential item, like bread, oil, or even the newspaper, so even if the prices go up, people still buy the product because they consider it to be essential, like oil). If price changes (increase/decrease) and demand changes as a result (increaes/decrease), then the demand of this product is said to be price elastic, e.g. consumers may find another product, or do without it (e.g., if butter prices go up then, all things being equal, people may switch to margarine, if I remember an example I read somewhere correctly).
Getting back to OPEC, I *personally* think that if they wanted to get more for a barrel of oil, they should've increased production. An increase in production may, I believe, temporarily result in a price drop (as a result of the increased supply of product in the market). A cheaper price may cause an increase demand, which drives up prices and removes the excess supply until an equilibrium price is reached. Put in more practical terms (I think), The World (businesses, industries, people) upon seeing that oil prices have fallen (from an increase in product on the market) *MAY* rush back to their old levels of consumption (having forgotten the lessons of high oil prices to begin with).
In doing so, the World may end up shooting themselves in the foot. Increased demand for a product, especially one as scarce as oil, may drive up its price. A related example (maybe not the best) is the stock market in the U.S. and those tech/dot-com stocks. High demand drove the stock prices up to insane/unheard of levels (then the bubble burst and prices dropped). Real-estate (in Barbados for example), may also be similar. Prices are high because the market supports high prices (and obviously because land is finite, scarce resource). Take away the demand or whatever is causing the demand (say for example the culture that Barbadians must own a piece of the rock for financial security, or to pass on to their kids) and prices may very well drop (but not by an amazing amount because remember, land is a finite resource).
But what do I know? Remember, IANAE.
:-)
(Image from Mr. Downling's Arabian Oil Page)
"So since the price of oil has finally dipped below $100, the OPEC group has decided to slow production of oil again. Thereby driving up the demand and making themselves more filthier rich than they already are..."
A snippet of an e-mail sent by a friend. His comments were in response to news of OPEC cutting output by 520,000 bpd (Yahoo! News)
And my response (anyone with an opinion or an economics background is strongly encouraged to leave a comment):
*DISCLAIMER: This is a lengthy e-mail.*
According to various business articles/publications, the fall in in the price of oil was largely attributed to the slowdown in the global economy (which I believe is still happening for a variety of reasons, including the subprime fiasco which was a result of bad/risky lending practices by financial institutions).
The same slowdown may have caused some (many?) businesses to cut back, or shelve plans for expansion, or to do without additional staff and so on, and so forth. Part of this expansion may be partly responsible for driving the demand for oil and its by-products. Less expansion may result in less hiring, which may result in less spending and consumption (by businesses and the public alike). This may end up coming full circle to less expansion all over again as businesses suffer due to an economic slowdown.
I believe, in general, that oil may/cannot keep on climbing in terms of price. It will be expensive, yes, in relation to previous prices, but there's a limit to how high it can go. If it gets very expensive, then demand will fall (taking price with it) and substitutes and/or alternatives may become more attractive (i.e., solar, bio, electric, or by simply reducing demand by reducing consumption through driving less and car pooling more).
To summarize (and bastardize) the Law of Demand: all things being equal, the higher the price of a good or service, the lower the demand for it. Of course one also has to figure in PED (Price Elasticity of Demand) and maybe YED(?) (Income Elasticity of Demand).
If demand doesn't change much for a product when the price increases, then the product can be said to be price inelastic (this product may be an essential item, like bread, oil, or even the newspaper, so even if the prices go up, people still buy the product because they consider it to be essential, like oil). If price changes (increase/decrease) and demand changes as a result (increaes/decrease), then the demand of this product is said to be price elastic, e.g. consumers may find another product, or do without it (e.g., if butter prices go up then, all things being equal, people may switch to margarine, if I remember an example I read somewhere correctly).
Getting back to OPEC, I *personally* think that if they wanted to get more for a barrel of oil, they should've increased production. An increase in production may, I believe, temporarily result in a price drop (as a result of the increased supply of product in the market). A cheaper price may cause an increase demand, which drives up prices and removes the excess supply until an equilibrium price is reached. Put in more practical terms (I think), The World (businesses, industries, people) upon seeing that oil prices have fallen (from an increase in product on the market) *MAY* rush back to their old levels of consumption (having forgotten the lessons of high oil prices to begin with).
In doing so, the World may end up shooting themselves in the foot. Increased demand for a product, especially one as scarce as oil, may drive up its price. A related example (maybe not the best) is the stock market in the U.S. and those tech/dot-com stocks. High demand drove the stock prices up to insane/unheard of levels (then the bubble burst and prices dropped). Real-estate (in Barbados for example), may also be similar. Prices are high because the market supports high prices (and obviously because land is finite, scarce resource). Take away the demand or whatever is causing the demand (say for example the culture that Barbadians must own a piece of the rock for financial security, or to pass on to their kids) and prices may very well drop (but not by an amazing amount because remember, land is a finite resource).
But what do I know? Remember, IANAE.
:-)
Labels: business, economics, life, oil, OPEC, politics, thoughts, work, World
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Gold again for Jamaica in womens 100 metre event
(Image from CNN)
Jamaicans all over the world must be going crazy this weekend and rightly so! After Usain Bolt confidently secured gold during the Men's 100 metre event, Jamaican Shelly-Ann Fraser of Jamaica today won gold. Her teammates, Kerron Stewart and Sherone Simpson, also shared the silver medal.
Shelly-Ann Fraser (Wikipedia)
Kerron Stewart (Wikipedia)
Sherone Simpson (Wikipedia)
************************
"BEIJING--Shelly-Ann Fraser led the other two Jamaicans to win all the women's 100 meters medals on Sunday evening at the Beijing Olympic Games.
Fraser clocked her personal best in 10.78 seconds before Sherone Simpson and Kerron Stewart finished, both in 10.98, and shared the silver.
Simpson said, "We made history. Just like yesterday Bolt set a new world record. We are all great athletes and I'm very excited about the tremendous achievement we've made for our country."" (China Daily)
************************
"Shelly-Ann Fraser took Olympic gold in the women's 100m, leading home an unprecedented clean sweep for Jamaica.
Fraser finished in a time of 10.78 seconds, with her compatriots Sherone Simpson and Kerron Stewart sharing the silver medal after a dead heat.
"I'm so excited. I never dreamed this could happen to me," Fraser said." (BBC NEWS)
************************
"Jamaicans proved they are the world's fastest humans on Sunday when Shelly-Ann Fraser won the women's 100 metre at the Olympics 24 hours after Usain Bolt's record-setting victory in the men's event." (CNN.com)
(Image from CNN)
Jamaicans all over the world must be going crazy this weekend and rightly so! After Usain Bolt confidently secured gold during the Men's 100 metre event, Jamaican Shelly-Ann Fraser of Jamaica today won gold. Her teammates, Kerron Stewart and Sherone Simpson, also shared the silver medal.
Shelly-Ann Fraser (Wikipedia)
Kerron Stewart (Wikipedia)
Sherone Simpson (Wikipedia)
************************
"BEIJING--Shelly-Ann Fraser led the other two Jamaicans to win all the women's 100 meters medals on Sunday evening at the Beijing Olympic Games.
Fraser clocked her personal best in 10.78 seconds before Sherone Simpson and Kerron Stewart finished, both in 10.98, and shared the silver.
Simpson said, "We made history. Just like yesterday Bolt set a new world record. We are all great athletes and I'm very excited about the tremendous achievement we've made for our country."" (China Daily)
************************
"Shelly-Ann Fraser took Olympic gold in the women's 100m, leading home an unprecedented clean sweep for Jamaica.
Fraser finished in a time of 10.78 seconds, with her compatriots Sherone Simpson and Kerron Stewart sharing the silver medal after a dead heat.
"I'm so excited. I never dreamed this could happen to me," Fraser said." (BBC NEWS)
************************
"Jamaicans proved they are the world's fastest humans on Sunday when Shelly-Ann Fraser won the women's 100 metre at the Olympics 24 hours after Usain Bolt's record-setting victory in the men's event." (CNN.com)
Labels: Caribbean, China, Jamaica, Kerron Stewart, news, Olympics, Shelly-Ann Fraser, Sherone Simpson, sports, World
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Big Caribbean win at Olympics 100m - Gold for Jamaican Bolt and Silver for T&T Thompson
Caribbean people have two big reasons to celebrate this weekend! Usain Bolt (Jamaica) and Richard Thompson (Trinidad and Tobago) won gold and silver medals respectively in the Men's 100 metre running event of the 2008 Olympics. Congrats to both atheletes as well as to the people of Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago!
(Images from L to R are from CNN and The Official Website of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games respectively)
Usain Bolt (Wikipedia)
Richard Thompson (Wikipedia)
************************
"“I’m not really worried about world records,” Bolt said in the aftermath of his world-record time of 9.69 seconds in the 100 on Saturday night at the Bird’s Nest. “My aim is to come here and win. That’s the aim. I have a lot more time to think about that.”" (Houston Chronicle)
************************
"(BEIJING, August 16) -- Usain Bolt has won the Men's 100m gold medal at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games in a world record time of 9.69 seconds.
Silver medalist Richard Thompson of Trinidad and Tobago ran a time of 9.89 seconds, leaving American Walter Dix to take the bronze in a time of 9.91 seconds.
The twenty-one-year-old broke his own world record of 9.72 seconds, which he set in June this year. The Olympic record stood at 9.84 seconds, set by Donovan Bailey at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games." (The Official Website of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games)
************************
"Usain Bolt glided to a new world record as he produced a stunning run in the Olympic 100m final.
Bolt was well clear at 60m and although he eased down and started to celebrate 15 metres from the line he still set a new mark of 9.69 seconds.
Richard Thompson finished second while American Walter Dix came third but they were yards behind the Jamaican.
"I wasn't worried about the world record. I didn't know it until I'd done my victory lap," Bolt told BBC Sport." (BBC NEWS)
************************
"Usain Bolt smashed his own world record in winning the Olympic 100 meters title in Beijing with one of the most remarkable performances in the history of track and field.
The 21-year-old Jamaican clocked 9.69 seconds to win from Trinidad and Tobago's Richard Thompson (9.89 seconds) and America's Walter Dix (9.91 seconds).
But it was the manner of his victory that was truly astonishing as he started his celebrations before crossing the line, showboating with his arms out wide before slapping his chest in triumph." (CNN.com)
************************
"It was calm, it was still and then suddenly there was lightning all around the Bird's Nest stadum last night, Usain Bolt lighting up the night sky with a world record 9.68 seconds in the Olympic 100 metres." (Stuff.co.nz)
************************
"BEIJING (Reuters) - Jamaica's Usain Bolt won 100 metres gold at the Beijing Olympics in a world record time on Saturday, running 9.69 seconds to claim victory in an exhilarating showdown with his compatriot Asafa Powell.
The 21-year-old won his country's first Olympic title in the blue riband event and capped an astonishing rise to the top of his sport. His former world record was 9.72 seconds.
Richard Thompson of Trinidad and Tobago won the silver and American Walter Dix the bronze." (Reuters)
************************
"JAMAICAN sprinter Usain Bolt won gold in the Olympic 100metre final with an incredible world-record breaking performance." (Manchester Evening News)
************************
"Beijing, China (Sports Network) - Jamaica's Usain Bolt won gold in the men's 100 meter finals Saturday at the Beijing Olympics, lowering his own world record to claim the title of World's Fastest Man.
Bolt ran the race in 9.69 seconds, taking .03 seconds off the record he set in New York City on June 1." (The Sports Network)
(Images from L to R are from CNN and The Official Website of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games respectively)
Usain Bolt (Wikipedia)
Richard Thompson (Wikipedia)
************************
"“I’m not really worried about world records,” Bolt said in the aftermath of his world-record time of 9.69 seconds in the 100 on Saturday night at the Bird’s Nest. “My aim is to come here and win. That’s the aim. I have a lot more time to think about that.”" (Houston Chronicle)
************************
"(BEIJING, August 16) -- Usain Bolt has won the Men's 100m gold medal at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games in a world record time of 9.69 seconds.
Silver medalist Richard Thompson of Trinidad and Tobago ran a time of 9.89 seconds, leaving American Walter Dix to take the bronze in a time of 9.91 seconds.
The twenty-one-year-old broke his own world record of 9.72 seconds, which he set in June this year. The Olympic record stood at 9.84 seconds, set by Donovan Bailey at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games." (The Official Website of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games)
************************
"Usain Bolt glided to a new world record as he produced a stunning run in the Olympic 100m final.
Bolt was well clear at 60m and although he eased down and started to celebrate 15 metres from the line he still set a new mark of 9.69 seconds.
Richard Thompson finished second while American Walter Dix came third but they were yards behind the Jamaican.
"I wasn't worried about the world record. I didn't know it until I'd done my victory lap," Bolt told BBC Sport." (BBC NEWS)
************************
"Usain Bolt smashed his own world record in winning the Olympic 100 meters title in Beijing with one of the most remarkable performances in the history of track and field.
The 21-year-old Jamaican clocked 9.69 seconds to win from Trinidad and Tobago's Richard Thompson (9.89 seconds) and America's Walter Dix (9.91 seconds).
But it was the manner of his victory that was truly astonishing as he started his celebrations before crossing the line, showboating with his arms out wide before slapping his chest in triumph." (CNN.com)
************************
"It was calm, it was still and then suddenly there was lightning all around the Bird's Nest stadum last night, Usain Bolt lighting up the night sky with a world record 9.68 seconds in the Olympic 100 metres." (Stuff.co.nz)
************************
"BEIJING (Reuters) - Jamaica's Usain Bolt won 100 metres gold at the Beijing Olympics in a world record time on Saturday, running 9.69 seconds to claim victory in an exhilarating showdown with his compatriot Asafa Powell.
The 21-year-old won his country's first Olympic title in the blue riband event and capped an astonishing rise to the top of his sport. His former world record was 9.72 seconds.
Richard Thompson of Trinidad and Tobago won the silver and American Walter Dix the bronze." (Reuters)
************************
"JAMAICAN sprinter Usain Bolt won gold in the Olympic 100metre final with an incredible world-record breaking performance." (Manchester Evening News)
************************
"Beijing, China (Sports Network) - Jamaica's Usain Bolt won gold in the men's 100 meter finals Saturday at the Beijing Olympics, lowering his own world record to claim the title of World's Fastest Man.
Bolt ran the race in 9.69 seconds, taking .03 seconds off the record he set in New York City on June 1." (The Sports Network)
Labels: Caribbean, China, Jamaica, life, Olympics, Richard Thompson, sports, Trinidad, Usain Bolt, World
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Who will win the 2008 Olympics?
"Even with the opening ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games more than a month away, it is possible to predict which countries will come home winners. Using an original model based on economics and a dash of statistics and with no knowledge of individual sports or athletes, it is possible to accurately forecast both the number of medals and the number of gold medals that the top countries will win.
Country > Predicted Total Medals in Beijing > Total Medals won in Athens
U.S. > 105 > 102
Russia > 92 > 92
China > 81 > 63
Germany > 51 > 49
Australia > 49 > 49"
Going for the Gold: Who Will Win the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing (Andrew B. Bernard, Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, July 2008)
Country > Predicted Total Medals in Beijing > Total Medals won in Athens
U.S. > 105 > 102
Russia > 92 > 92
China > 81 > 63
Germany > 51 > 49
Australia > 49 > 49"
Going for the Gold: Who Will Win the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing (Andrew B. Bernard, Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, July 2008)
Labels: China, economics, life, news, Olympics, sports, World
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
A very brief look at the other side of the coin: the American Petroleum Institute
Easy to read and follow, I picked up Linda McQuaig's 'It's the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet,' while vacationing in Canada last year.
The title is what grabbed me, followed by the subject matter. The actual content has been nothing short of provocative, revealing and attention grabbing (especially the bit about Chavez 'saving' OPEC, and how Rockefeller and Standard Oil came about).
In one of her chapters, McQuaig mentions, in less-than-cozy terms, the American Petroleum Institute. The API, according to their website, is:
"...the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry. Our 400 corporate members, from the largest major oil company to the smallest of independents, come from all segments of the industry. They are producers, refiners, suppliers, pipeline operators and marine transporters, as well as service and supply companies that support all segments of the industry."
I'm mentioning them because some of their documents which, for whatever reasons or interests they are trying to serve, are interesting and worth reading, especially:
Understanding Today's Crude Oil and Product Markets (Oil Primer)
The Facts About Oil Industry Mergers, Market Power and Fuel Prices: An API Primer
The Truth About Oil and Gasoline: An API Primer
The title is what grabbed me, followed by the subject matter. The actual content has been nothing short of provocative, revealing and attention grabbing (especially the bit about Chavez 'saving' OPEC, and how Rockefeller and Standard Oil came about).
In one of her chapters, McQuaig mentions, in less-than-cozy terms, the American Petroleum Institute. The API, according to their website, is:
"...the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry. Our 400 corporate members, from the largest major oil company to the smallest of independents, come from all segments of the industry. They are producers, refiners, suppliers, pipeline operators and marine transporters, as well as service and supply companies that support all segments of the industry."
I'm mentioning them because some of their documents which, for whatever reasons or interests they are trying to serve, are interesting and worth reading, especially:
Understanding Today's Crude Oil and Product Markets (Oil Primer)
The Facts About Oil Industry Mergers, Market Power and Fuel Prices: An API Primer
The Truth About Oil and Gasoline: An API Primer
Labels: American Petroleum Institute, economics, news, oil, politics, U.S., World
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Relations between China and Africa
"FEARS of a "no fun Olympics" are growing as security restrictions increase and become more bizarre with less than 20 days to go until the opening ceremony.
Beijing police have been visiting bar owners in the popular Sanlitun area and asking them to sign pledges agreeing to not serve black people or Mongolians and ban activities including dancing."
Fears of a 'no-fun' Olympics in Beijing (theage.com.au)
"BEIJING — Chinese police officials have forced some Beijing bar owners to sign secret pledges promising to prohibit blacks from entering their bars during the Olympics next month, a Hong Kong newspaper says.
The police denied the report Friday, and most bars denied any knowledge of the pledges. But many African residents of Beijing say they are facing harassment from police and discrimination from bars as the Olympics approach."
Africans in Beijing harassed as Olympics approach (globeandmail.com)
"No one alive at the close of the 19th century could have missed the "scramble for Africa". A motley collection of robber barons, imperialist ideologues, explorers, rogues and adventurers - the likes of Cecil Rhodes and the appalling Leopold II, King of the Belgians - carved up the continent in the name of five European powers.
Today, few appear to have noticed that a second "scramble for Africa" is under way. This time, only one giant country is involved, but its ambitions are every bit as momentous as those of Rhodes and company. With every day that passes, China's economic tentacles extend deeper into Africa. While Europe sought direct political control, China is acquiring a vast and informal economic empire."
Why China is trying to colonise Africa (Telegraph)
(NOTE: Is it just me, or is there something fishy going on here? Are the Chinese trying to have their cake and eat it, too? Then again, what do I know? IANAE - I Am Not An Economist, IANAP - I Am Not A Politician, IANAOE - I Am Not An Oil Exec and so on and so forth...)
"The People's Republic of China and the Federal Republic of Nigeria established diplomatic relations on February 10, 1971. Bilateral relations have since enjoyed smooth and steady development."
China-Nigeria Relations (EMBASSY OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA)
"The traditional friendship and relations of good cooperation between China and African countries have stood the test of time and gone through the trial of international turbulent events. This relationship, being a good example to the developing countries, has been further consolidated and developed under the present new situation."
China-Africa Relations (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China)
"China has secured four oil drilling licences from Nigeria as President Hu Jintao continues his week-long tour of Africa, his second in three years. In exchange China will invest $4bn (£2.25bn) in oil and infrastructure projects in Nigeria."
China and Nigeria agree oil deal (BBC NEWS)
"According to China's Ministry of Commerce, China and Nigeria signed an 8.3 billion US dollar railway construction contract. China will build 1315 kilometers of railroad in the west African state; this is the biggest infrastucture project abroad for a Chinese company to date."
Nigeria and China railway deal: $8.3 billion (DANWEI)
Beijing police have been visiting bar owners in the popular Sanlitun area and asking them to sign pledges agreeing to not serve black people or Mongolians and ban activities including dancing."
Fears of a 'no-fun' Olympics in Beijing (theage.com.au)
"BEIJING — Chinese police officials have forced some Beijing bar owners to sign secret pledges promising to prohibit blacks from entering their bars during the Olympics next month, a Hong Kong newspaper says.
The police denied the report Friday, and most bars denied any knowledge of the pledges. But many African residents of Beijing say they are facing harassment from police and discrimination from bars as the Olympics approach."
Africans in Beijing harassed as Olympics approach (globeandmail.com)
"No one alive at the close of the 19th century could have missed the "scramble for Africa". A motley collection of robber barons, imperialist ideologues, explorers, rogues and adventurers - the likes of Cecil Rhodes and the appalling Leopold II, King of the Belgians - carved up the continent in the name of five European powers.
Today, few appear to have noticed that a second "scramble for Africa" is under way. This time, only one giant country is involved, but its ambitions are every bit as momentous as those of Rhodes and company. With every day that passes, China's economic tentacles extend deeper into Africa. While Europe sought direct political control, China is acquiring a vast and informal economic empire."
Why China is trying to colonise Africa (Telegraph)
(NOTE: Is it just me, or is there something fishy going on here? Are the Chinese trying to have their cake and eat it, too? Then again, what do I know? IANAE - I Am Not An Economist, IANAP - I Am Not A Politician, IANAOE - I Am Not An Oil Exec and so on and so forth...)
"The People's Republic of China and the Federal Republic of Nigeria established diplomatic relations on February 10, 1971. Bilateral relations have since enjoyed smooth and steady development."
China-Nigeria Relations (EMBASSY OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA)
"The traditional friendship and relations of good cooperation between China and African countries have stood the test of time and gone through the trial of international turbulent events. This relationship, being a good example to the developing countries, has been further consolidated and developed under the present new situation."
China-Africa Relations (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China)
"China has secured four oil drilling licences from Nigeria as President Hu Jintao continues his week-long tour of Africa, his second in three years. In exchange China will invest $4bn (£2.25bn) in oil and infrastructure projects in Nigeria."
China and Nigeria agree oil deal (BBC NEWS)
"According to China's Ministry of Commerce, China and Nigeria signed an 8.3 billion US dollar railway construction contract. China will build 1315 kilometers of railroad in the west African state; this is the biggest infrastucture project abroad for a Chinese company to date."
Nigeria and China railway deal: $8.3 billion (DANWEI)
Labels: Africa, China, economics, life, news, oil, Olympics, politics, World
Monday, July 7, 2008
In other news...
"Mswati was crowned king a mere six days after his 18th birthday, and the country has been a train wreck ever since. An estimated 26 percent of Swazis between ages 15 and 49 are HIV positive, one of the highest rates in the world. Mswati’s brilliant solution: a sex ban. In 2001, he instated the uncwasho rite, which put a five-year ban on sex for females under 18. The move proved unpopular, especially after Mswati—who at last count had 13 wives and at least 23 children—married a 17-year-old. The ban was lifted a year early."
The World's 10 Youngest Leaders (Foreign Policy)
"You know I care deeply about the people of Zimbabwe," Bush said. "I'm extremely disappointed in the elections, which I labeled a sham election."
Bush focuses on Zimbabwe 'punishment' (CNN.com)
"Everything made in America — from goods to entire companies — is near dirt cheap to many foreigners. Meanwhile, American consumers, both those who travel and those who stay at home, are seeing big price increases in energy, food and imported goods. The dollar has lost roughly a quarter of its purchasing power against the currencies of major U.S. trading partners from its peak in 2002."
The buck doesn't stop here; it just keeps falling (Yahoo! News)
"Whether it is an unexpected food crisis or a devastating hurricane, the world’s weakest states are the most exposed when crisis strikes. In the fourth annual Failed States Index, FOREIGN POLICY and The Fund for Peace rank the countries where state collapse may be just one disaster away."
The Failed States Index 2008 (Foreign Policy)
The World's 10 Youngest Leaders (Foreign Policy)
"You know I care deeply about the people of Zimbabwe," Bush said. "I'm extremely disappointed in the elections, which I labeled a sham election."
Bush focuses on Zimbabwe 'punishment' (CNN.com)
"Everything made in America — from goods to entire companies — is near dirt cheap to many foreigners. Meanwhile, American consumers, both those who travel and those who stay at home, are seeing big price increases in energy, food and imported goods. The dollar has lost roughly a quarter of its purchasing power against the currencies of major U.S. trading partners from its peak in 2002."
The buck doesn't stop here; it just keeps falling (Yahoo! News)
"Whether it is an unexpected food crisis or a devastating hurricane, the world’s weakest states are the most exposed when crisis strikes. In the fourth annual Failed States Index, FOREIGN POLICY and The Fund for Peace rank the countries where state collapse may be just one disaster away."
The Failed States Index 2008 (Foreign Policy)
Labels: Bush, economy, life, politics, U.S., World, Zimbabwe
Monday, June 2, 2008
Article: 'Will Soaring Transport Costs Reverse Globalization?'
A snippet from the article...
"Globalization is reversible. Higher energy prices are impacting transport costs at an unprecedented rate. So much so, that the cost of moving goods, not the cost of tariffs, is the largest barrier to global trade today. In fact, in tariff-equivalent terms, the explosion in global transport costs has effectively offset all the trade liberalization efforts of the last three decades. Not only does this suggest a major slowdown in the growth of world trade, but also a fundamental realignment in trade patterns."
Sources:
Will Soaring Transport Costs Reverse Globalization? (CIBC World Markets)
"Globalization is reversible. Higher energy prices are impacting transport costs at an unprecedented rate. So much so, that the cost of moving goods, not the cost of tariffs, is the largest barrier to global trade today. In fact, in tariff-equivalent terms, the explosion in global transport costs has effectively offset all the trade liberalization efforts of the last three decades. Not only does this suggest a major slowdown in the growth of world trade, but also a fundamental realignment in trade patterns."
Sources:
Will Soaring Transport Costs Reverse Globalization? (CIBC World Markets)
Labels: business, China, economics, life, news, oil, U.S., World
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Article: 'The Coming Energy Wars'
Snippets from the article...
""Indeed, there's concern that as higher oil prices force many Asian economies to reduce or even cut their generous fuel subsidies, growth will slow sharply, and there could be social unrest as the world's poorest become more desperate. The political ramifications of this (which already include moves away from free trade), combined with the ever-rising costs of doing business as usual, could force a retrenchment from globalization. "It's a harbinger of the reversal of globalization," says Jeff Rubin, chief economist for CIBC World Markets. "At $200 a barrel, you'll see transport costs rise so much that they will effectively reverse the trade liberalization of the last 30 years." He predicts that world trade will realign itself regionally, so that while Japan may continue to ship in goods from China, the United States will increasingly import from Latin America. "If you look at the period from 1973 to 1979 [when oil spiked] you'll find the same thing happened," he notes. "The share of imports to the U.S. from Latin America and the Caribbean rose by 6 percentage points. That was all about freight costs.""
"This spring, America hit a historic point. With average gas prices per gallon edging toward $4, America's notoriously profligate ways started to change fast. Americans are driving less, using mass transit more, buying fewer gas guzzlers, indeed shopping less wantonly in general, and lowering their previously unshakable confidence as consumers. Suddenly, Americans are acting differently; if not exactly like Swedes, then not quite like themselves, either. It's a shift that could change the world.
And there are more changes to come. So far the price shock has triggered the most obvious consumer shifts in the United States. Europeans, already greener, are also are buffered by a stronger currency, and Asians are protected from the spiking price of oil by subsidies that control the impact on gas prices at the pump. But if oil prices continue to rise, and the subsidy dam breaks, as seems likely, the energy revolution now transforming America will spread. "We sailed through $80 a barrel," notes energy authority Daniel Yergin, author of "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power" and chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "But that doesn't mean we'll sail through $200 a barrel. That sort of price would have enormous global consequences.""
Sources:
The Coming Energy Wars (Newsweek.com)
""Indeed, there's concern that as higher oil prices force many Asian economies to reduce or even cut their generous fuel subsidies, growth will slow sharply, and there could be social unrest as the world's poorest become more desperate. The political ramifications of this (which already include moves away from free trade), combined with the ever-rising costs of doing business as usual, could force a retrenchment from globalization. "It's a harbinger of the reversal of globalization," says Jeff Rubin, chief economist for CIBC World Markets. "At $200 a barrel, you'll see transport costs rise so much that they will effectively reverse the trade liberalization of the last 30 years." He predicts that world trade will realign itself regionally, so that while Japan may continue to ship in goods from China, the United States will increasingly import from Latin America. "If you look at the period from 1973 to 1979 [when oil spiked] you'll find the same thing happened," he notes. "The share of imports to the U.S. from Latin America and the Caribbean rose by 6 percentage points. That was all about freight costs.""
"This spring, America hit a historic point. With average gas prices per gallon edging toward $4, America's notoriously profligate ways started to change fast. Americans are driving less, using mass transit more, buying fewer gas guzzlers, indeed shopping less wantonly in general, and lowering their previously unshakable confidence as consumers. Suddenly, Americans are acting differently; if not exactly like Swedes, then not quite like themselves, either. It's a shift that could change the world.
And there are more changes to come. So far the price shock has triggered the most obvious consumer shifts in the United States. Europeans, already greener, are also are buffered by a stronger currency, and Asians are protected from the spiking price of oil by subsidies that control the impact on gas prices at the pump. But if oil prices continue to rise, and the subsidy dam breaks, as seems likely, the energy revolution now transforming America will spread. "We sailed through $80 a barrel," notes energy authority Daniel Yergin, author of "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power" and chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "But that doesn't mean we'll sail through $200 a barrel. That sort of price would have enormous global consequences.""
Sources:
The Coming Energy Wars (Newsweek.com)
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
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?
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
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
A few words on MNCs, China and India...
A few words on MNCs, China and India, can be found on the China India Blog.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Sean Paul music causes seizures for woman
This is an interesting and peculiar one. A lady who suffered from epilepsy and from a rare condition known as musicogenic epilepsy, has been operated on. She began to suspect Sean Paul's tunes while at a barbecue with his music playing, she collapsed. This was confirmed later on while visiting a doctor's office, she played Sean Paul's 'Temperature' on her iPod and soon after, suffered three seizures. Now that the surgery has been completed, there have been no reported seizures.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
I Am Not An Economist (IANAE)
(DISCLAIMER: IANAE, I Am Not An Economist).
A few readers of this blog may recall how I sometimes prefix posts based on a random thought (e.g., the similarities between traffic lights and the different types of economic systems), with the infamous letters: IANAE.
The fact that I am not an economist has never stopped me from trying to think like one, or from trying to think of things (like life), from an economic point of view: opportunity cost, incentives, motives, externality and so on and so forth.
There are others who do the same. A few of these folks are 'proper' economists that have expressed, in economic terms and concepts, things that we take for granted. Folks like Tim Harford, author of: The Undercover Economist. Harford also writes the 'Dear Economist', column for the Financial Times. The Dec 28 'DE' column had this to say in response to concerns about drunks on the road during the Christmas season:
"Dear Economist,
This Christmas and new year, I expect to encounter a lot of drunks on the road. In fact, I may well be one of them. Should I feel guilty? And should I be worried?
Mr F Jones, London
Dear Mr Jones,
It has always been difficult to test the effect of alcohol on drivers let loose on the roads. The difficulty is this: if half of all crashes involve drunks, that may be because drinking impairs your driving or it may be because there are a lot of drunks on the road – and we can only guess at how many drunk drivers there are.
But the economists Steven Levitt and Jack Porter realised that it was possible to say more, by looking at how often drunk drivers crashed into each other. If 10 per cent of drivers drink, and if drunk drivers are as safe as any other kind of driver and randomly mixed among the sober drivers, then only 1 per cent of two-vehicle crashes should involve two drunks.
Drunk-on-drunk crashes are much more common than one would expect, given the number of drunk-on-sober crashes, allowing Levitt and Porter to reach firm conclusions about the risks of drink driving.
They find a very large effect. Drivers who have been drinking are seven times more likely to cause a fatal crash; those who have drunk over the legal limit (in the US) are 13 times more likely to cause a fatal crash. You might also bear in mind another finding from the paper: “The great majority of alcohol-related driving fatalities occur to the drinking drivers themselves and their passengers.” That should be sobering.
economist@ft.com"
Source: FT.com / Weekend columnists / Tim Harford - Dear Economist...
Harford's writing also appears on Slate Magazine. A recent article asks (and answers) the question: Can economics make you a better person? So, if you've got some disposable income rolling around, I suggest you consider adding The Undercover Economist, as well as Freakonomics, to your bookshelf. Both books may end up revealing things about the World that you never considered and always took for granted.
A few readers of this blog may recall how I sometimes prefix posts based on a random thought (e.g., the similarities between traffic lights and the different types of economic systems), with the infamous letters: IANAE.
The fact that I am not an economist has never stopped me from trying to think like one, or from trying to think of things (like life), from an economic point of view: opportunity cost, incentives, motives, externality and so on and so forth.
There are others who do the same. A few of these folks are 'proper' economists that have expressed, in economic terms and concepts, things that we take for granted. Folks like Tim Harford, author of: The Undercover Economist. Harford also writes the 'Dear Economist', column for the Financial Times. The Dec 28 'DE' column had this to say in response to concerns about drunks on the road during the Christmas season:
"Dear Economist,
This Christmas and new year, I expect to encounter a lot of drunks on the road. In fact, I may well be one of them. Should I feel guilty? And should I be worried?
Mr F Jones, London
Dear Mr Jones,
It has always been difficult to test the effect of alcohol on drivers let loose on the roads. The difficulty is this: if half of all crashes involve drunks, that may be because drinking impairs your driving or it may be because there are a lot of drunks on the road – and we can only guess at how many drunk drivers there are.
But the economists Steven Levitt and Jack Porter realised that it was possible to say more, by looking at how often drunk drivers crashed into each other. If 10 per cent of drivers drink, and if drunk drivers are as safe as any other kind of driver and randomly mixed among the sober drivers, then only 1 per cent of two-vehicle crashes should involve two drunks.
Drunk-on-drunk crashes are much more common than one would expect, given the number of drunk-on-sober crashes, allowing Levitt and Porter to reach firm conclusions about the risks of drink driving.
They find a very large effect. Drivers who have been drinking are seven times more likely to cause a fatal crash; those who have drunk over the legal limit (in the US) are 13 times more likely to cause a fatal crash. You might also bear in mind another finding from the paper: “The great majority of alcohol-related driving fatalities occur to the drinking drivers themselves and their passengers.” That should be sobering.
economist@ft.com"
Source: FT.com / Weekend columnists / Tim Harford - Dear Economist...
Harford's writing also appears on Slate Magazine. A recent article asks (and answers) the question: Can economics make you a better person? So, if you've got some disposable income rolling around, I suggest you consider adding The Undercover Economist, as well as Freakonomics, to your bookshelf. Both books may end up revealing things about the World that you never considered and always took for granted.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
'Blogalization' and 100+ posts !
(DISCLAIMER: Extremely long post ahead, proceed with caution!)
This is my one hundred and fourth blog post. It was actually supposed to be my one hundredth post, but my 'Williams Air' article took that slot. This was somewhat unfortunate, but it couldn't be helped. I had to run with the idea for the article at the time, else, I would've forgotten all about it.
This is what my 100th post should've been about:
On November 14, I got an e-mail from Janine Mendes-Franco. She 'covers' the Caribbean blogging beat for Global Voices Online, a site that: "seeks to aggregate, curate, and amplify the global conversation online - shining light on places and people other media often ignore. We work to develop tools, institutions and relationships that will help all voices, everywhere, to be heard."
Janine had linked to one or two articles on my blog in the past. So when she contacted me, I had a vague idea of who she was. What I didn't expect was for her to ask for my input on the term 'Blogalization' (I still don't like that term) and its relevance to the Caribbean.
Now, what do I know about 'Blogalization' and its relevance to the Caribbean? Nothing. So I replied back, thanked her for the opportunity and mentioned to her that I wouldn't have anything worthwhile to contribute, but that I'd try anyway.
Mind you, on November 16, I found out from the local MBA programme office that the assignment that I didn't submit (I was sick, missed the exam and the assignment, which is worth 50% of my final module mark for the Managing in the Competitve Environment module), was now due on November 26. The exam, which I also missed, is worth the other 50% and will be held sometime in October, 2008.
At this stage, I should note that writing, for me, is a somewhat painful, extended and drawn out process. If I'm lucky, an original idea (or two), for an article will float around my mind, not quite revealing itself, but not quite hiding in the infinite darkness either. I have to start typing, even if its nonesense (like this particular post) and along the way, things may start to take shape, or least, appear to make sense (to me anyway).
If I was a proper writer, I'd churn out cheesy, sex and romance novels by the dozen (always a market for those), sell a few to some Hollywood-type movie producers, make millions (or close to millions) and retire.
But I'm straying. So, here I am committing to writing a few words on 'Blogalization', etcetera, and at the same time, I have a 2,500 word assignment to hand in by November 26 (but I've given myself to November 23 to finish it, come hell or highwater, sense or nonesense). This deadline is important because I also need time to write my assignment (another 2,500 words) for the recently concluded Managing People module, as well as prepare for the exam on December 1. Janine's deadline was 'early next week' (i.e., this week). I ended up submittng my thoughts on November 20, which was cutting it pretty close as the final article went up today.
So without further delay, I present to you my original submission (the one I sent was edited, which she did warn me about). My thoughts on 'Blogalization' and its relevance to the Caribbean:
"The meaning of Blogalization and its relevance to the Caribbean.
Blogalization is a big, clumsy, mouthful of a word. I've been asked to write a few words on the meaning of it, and its relevance to the Caribbean. A few people have likened this word to Globalization. Globalization has different meanings for different people, so I do not like to compare it to Blogalization, although there may be one or two similarities.
I think that Blogalization is something completely different, but what it is exaclty, I don't know. All I can say is that by me writing this and you (hopefully) reading it on a blog somewhere and leaving a comment, or not leaving a comment, we're both taking part in Blogalization. Maybe it's as simple as that? The Internet, and the Web in particular, have allowed us all, or the vast majority of us, to communicate freely, anytime and anywhere.
Each of us can have our own digital soapbox on which we can stand and tell our stories. Some of us tell better stories than others, some of us have no stories to tell, or do not feel comfortable telling stories, yet we are drawn in and read/listen to what the World has to say. I think that Blogalization is just about story telling and making connections. In this day and age, it's easier to do so because of technology. Tomorrow, Blogalization will be replaced by another buzzword, but the principles will remain the same, story telling, communication and interactivity.
As for the Caribbean, we, as a unique and different set of people, have our own stories to tell. Good and bad. But why bother? What makes us think that the World is interested in what the Caribbean has to say? I do not know, but I'd like to think that they are interested and are listening. I'm not an expert on sociology, but I believe humans are social animals, and are curious as well. We feel a need to communicate and to share our experiences with others. We also want to learn about and from others.
But why is this relevant to the Caribbean? Because we have voices and we are active participants in the global economy and suffer and/or benefit from things like Globalization, as well as other forces. There is also the knowledge the rest of the World gains from reading Caribbean blogs/sites. It lets them know that we are here, so tread lightly because what you 'big boys' say and do, has a way of affecting us sooner or later. We are not a lesser-people, we have rights, feelings, thoughts and most importantly, we have our own voice!
But 'Blogalization?' I think it's just a new word. It's a word for something that people have been doing since time immemorial, and that is: People telling stories, people listening and people conversing. The Internet and the Web have just made these things available to everyone and anyone, no matter where you are.
That's my take on it."
This entire post (including this last bit) is 1,080+ words, and took me almost two hours to write (including the time I spent on my 'Blogalization' article). Despite that, I still can't find 2,500 decent words for my MICE assignment. :-(
This is my one hundred and fourth blog post. It was actually supposed to be my one hundredth post, but my 'Williams Air' article took that slot. This was somewhat unfortunate, but it couldn't be helped. I had to run with the idea for the article at the time, else, I would've forgotten all about it.
This is what my 100th post should've been about:
On November 14, I got an e-mail from Janine Mendes-Franco. She 'covers' the Caribbean blogging beat for Global Voices Online, a site that: "seeks to aggregate, curate, and amplify the global conversation online - shining light on places and people other media often ignore. We work to develop tools, institutions and relationships that will help all voices, everywhere, to be heard."
Janine had linked to one or two articles on my blog in the past. So when she contacted me, I had a vague idea of who she was. What I didn't expect was for her to ask for my input on the term 'Blogalization' (I still don't like that term) and its relevance to the Caribbean.
Now, what do I know about 'Blogalization' and its relevance to the Caribbean? Nothing. So I replied back, thanked her for the opportunity and mentioned to her that I wouldn't have anything worthwhile to contribute, but that I'd try anyway.
Mind you, on November 16, I found out from the local MBA programme office that the assignment that I didn't submit (I was sick, missed the exam and the assignment, which is worth 50% of my final module mark for the Managing in the Competitve Environment module), was now due on November 26. The exam, which I also missed, is worth the other 50% and will be held sometime in October, 2008.
At this stage, I should note that writing, for me, is a somewhat painful, extended and drawn out process. If I'm lucky, an original idea (or two), for an article will float around my mind, not quite revealing itself, but not quite hiding in the infinite darkness either. I have to start typing, even if its nonesense (like this particular post) and along the way, things may start to take shape, or least, appear to make sense (to me anyway).
If I was a proper writer, I'd churn out cheesy, sex and romance novels by the dozen (always a market for those), sell a few to some Hollywood-type movie producers, make millions (or close to millions) and retire.
But I'm straying. So, here I am committing to writing a few words on 'Blogalization', etcetera, and at the same time, I have a 2,500 word assignment to hand in by November 26 (but I've given myself to November 23 to finish it, come hell or highwater, sense or nonesense). This deadline is important because I also need time to write my assignment (another 2,500 words) for the recently concluded Managing People module, as well as prepare for the exam on December 1. Janine's deadline was 'early next week' (i.e., this week). I ended up submittng my thoughts on November 20, which was cutting it pretty close as the final article went up today.
So without further delay, I present to you my original submission (the one I sent was edited, which she did warn me about). My thoughts on 'Blogalization' and its relevance to the Caribbean:
"The meaning of Blogalization and its relevance to the Caribbean.
Blogalization is a big, clumsy, mouthful of a word. I've been asked to write a few words on the meaning of it, and its relevance to the Caribbean. A few people have likened this word to Globalization. Globalization has different meanings for different people, so I do not like to compare it to Blogalization, although there may be one or two similarities.
I think that Blogalization is something completely different, but what it is exaclty, I don't know. All I can say is that by me writing this and you (hopefully) reading it on a blog somewhere and leaving a comment, or not leaving a comment, we're both taking part in Blogalization. Maybe it's as simple as that? The Internet, and the Web in particular, have allowed us all, or the vast majority of us, to communicate freely, anytime and anywhere.
Each of us can have our own digital soapbox on which we can stand and tell our stories. Some of us tell better stories than others, some of us have no stories to tell, or do not feel comfortable telling stories, yet we are drawn in and read/listen to what the World has to say. I think that Blogalization is just about story telling and making connections. In this day and age, it's easier to do so because of technology. Tomorrow, Blogalization will be replaced by another buzzword, but the principles will remain the same, story telling, communication and interactivity.
As for the Caribbean, we, as a unique and different set of people, have our own stories to tell. Good and bad. But why bother? What makes us think that the World is interested in what the Caribbean has to say? I do not know, but I'd like to think that they are interested and are listening. I'm not an expert on sociology, but I believe humans are social animals, and are curious as well. We feel a need to communicate and to share our experiences with others. We also want to learn about and from others.
But why is this relevant to the Caribbean? Because we have voices and we are active participants in the global economy and suffer and/or benefit from things like Globalization, as well as other forces. There is also the knowledge the rest of the World gains from reading Caribbean blogs/sites. It lets them know that we are here, so tread lightly because what you 'big boys' say and do, has a way of affecting us sooner or later. We are not a lesser-people, we have rights, feelings, thoughts and most importantly, we have our own voice!
But 'Blogalization?' I think it's just a new word. It's a word for something that people have been doing since time immemorial, and that is: People telling stories, people listening and people conversing. The Internet and the Web have just made these things available to everyone and anyone, no matter where you are.
That's my take on it."
This entire post (including this last bit) is 1,080+ words, and took me almost two hours to write (including the time I spent on my 'Blogalization' article). Despite that, I still can't find 2,500 decent words for my MICE assignment. :-(
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
And In Other News...
Here it is: the future of the world, in 23 pages
"It is about the size and weight of a theatre programme and when it was published in Valencia, Spain, at the weekend, the first eagerly grabbed copies were held together by a hastily punched staple. Yet these 23 pages are crucial for the future of the world.
This is the key document on climate change, and from now on you can forget any others you may have read or seen or heard about. This is the one that matters. It is the tightly distilled, peer-reviewed research of several thousand scientists, fully endorsed, without qualification, by all the world's major governments. Its official name is a mouthful: the Policymakers' Summary of the Synthesis Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment. So let's just call it The Synthesis.
It is so important because it provides one concise, easily-readable but comprehensive text of facts, figures and diagrams – in short all the information you need to understand and act on the threat of global warming, be you a politician, a businessman, an activist or a citizen (or for that matter, a doubter)." [via Independent Online Edition]
"It is about the size and weight of a theatre programme and when it was published in Valencia, Spain, at the weekend, the first eagerly grabbed copies were held together by a hastily punched staple. Yet these 23 pages are crucial for the future of the world.
This is the key document on climate change, and from now on you can forget any others you may have read or seen or heard about. This is the one that matters. It is the tightly distilled, peer-reviewed research of several thousand scientists, fully endorsed, without qualification, by all the world's major governments. Its official name is a mouthful: the Policymakers' Summary of the Synthesis Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment. So let's just call it The Synthesis.
It is so important because it provides one concise, easily-readable but comprehensive text of facts, figures and diagrams – in short all the information you need to understand and act on the threat of global warming, be you a politician, a businessman, an activist or a citizen (or for that matter, a doubter)." [via Independent Online Edition]
Labels: environment, life, World
Saturday, November 3, 2007
And In Other News...
Alarm is growing about rising food prices
"“THE world’s most vulnerable who spend 60% of their income on food have been priced out of the food market,” is the alarming warning from Josette Sheeran, head of the United Nations’ World Food Programme (WFP). As the price of wheat, maize, corn and other commodities that make up the world’s basic foodstuffs is soaring the poorest people in the poorest countries are the hardest hit." [via Economist.com]
Super-spiked. The oil price should fall-eventually
"BACK in 2005, in an apparent flight of fancy, analysts at Goldman Sachs predicted a “super-spike” in the oil price to $105 a barrel. On Wednesday October 31st, the prediction came as close as it ever has to fulfilment, when the price of West Texas Intermediate reached $94.74 during the New York day and breached $96 after hours." [via Economist.com]
"“THE world’s most vulnerable who spend 60% of their income on food have been priced out of the food market,” is the alarming warning from Josette Sheeran, head of the United Nations’ World Food Programme (WFP). As the price of wheat, maize, corn and other commodities that make up the world’s basic foodstuffs is soaring the poorest people in the poorest countries are the hardest hit." [via Economist.com]
Super-spiked. The oil price should fall-eventually
"BACK in 2005, in an apparent flight of fancy, analysts at Goldman Sachs predicted a “super-spike” in the oil price to $105 a barrel. On Wednesday October 31st, the prediction came as close as it ever has to fulfilment, when the price of West Texas Intermediate reached $94.74 during the New York day and breached $96 after hours." [via Economist.com]
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Mexico Expert(?)
I saw this intereview a few days on ago on CNN and I still can't stop thinking about it. Hurricane Dean was, at the time, either approaching or already interacting with Mexico and CNN was interviewing this guy, this "Mexico Expert." No disrespect to CNN, or to the guy in particular, but he (to me at least) didn't look like a Mexican. In fact, he looked and sounded very North American.
This made me wonder, what qualified him to bill himself as an expert on Mexico? Did he live in Mexico for a period of time, did he study there, does he have family or relatives from, or living there, does he vacation there frequently? Is he familiar with the plights of Mexicans? Has he slummed around in Mexico, that is, has he lived the good life and the bad life? Is he aware of Mexico's history, is he up-to-date on Mexican current events and so on and so forth.
In the interest of full disclosure, with the exception of border crossing, illegal immigrants, cheap mexican labour issues, sombrero's, middle america, tacos, enchiladas and something about the water not being safe to drink, I haven't a clue about Mexico. As such, you'll never find me proclaiming to be an expert on that country or any other country for that matter.
So that's what made me wonder...how does one go about claiming to be an expert on Mexico in particular and other countries in general. There's obviously a way, if not, then why would he be called a "Mexico Expert?"
This made me wonder, what qualified him to bill himself as an expert on Mexico? Did he live in Mexico for a period of time, did he study there, does he have family or relatives from, or living there, does he vacation there frequently? Is he familiar with the plights of Mexicans? Has he slummed around in Mexico, that is, has he lived the good life and the bad life? Is he aware of Mexico's history, is he up-to-date on Mexican current events and so on and so forth.
In the interest of full disclosure, with the exception of border crossing, illegal immigrants, cheap mexican labour issues, sombrero's, middle america, tacos, enchiladas and something about the water not being safe to drink, I haven't a clue about Mexico. As such, you'll never find me proclaiming to be an expert on that country or any other country for that matter.
So that's what made me wonder...how does one go about claiming to be an expert on Mexico in particular and other countries in general. There's obviously a way, if not, then why would he be called a "Mexico Expert?"
Sunday, August 12, 2007
World Drinking Map
Planning a trip with your chums? Wondering how old you have to be in order to purchase "spirits?" Have a look at the World Drinking Map before you head out the door and be sure to read the DISCLAIMER at the bottom of their page.
[via Digg]
[via Digg]
