Pull! Push!
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
Amit is currently listening to...
'I Just Want To Celebrate' by Rare Earth.
This song was in the movie 'Three Kings' and it can also be heard playing during the 'Tropic Thunder' movie trailer.
'I Just Want To Celebrate' by Rare Earth.
This song was in the movie 'Three Kings' and it can also be heard playing during the 'Tropic Thunder' movie trailer.
Labels: life, music, Rare Earth
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
Monday, August 4, 2008
Four day weekend
In case you weren't aware, Friday (Emancipation Day) and today (Kadooment Day) were/are holidays in Barbados.
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
Competition in the distribution sector of Barbados: Good, bad or both?
DISCLAIMER: Insert usual IANA-type (I Am Not A...) disclaimers here as I'm in a rush (going to see Hancock tonight) and I want to post this before I forget.
By distribution sector of Barbados, I mean the companies that import the foodstuffs, groceries, etcetera, that we see on the shelves of our major supermarkets as well as the smaller shops.
In some(?) cases, these distribution companies also own and operate the supermarkets (an example of vertical integration at work here, folks).
After watching a bit of the budget this eve, it seems to me that The Government, as a result of the high cost of living, appears to be receptive and open to the idea of allowing foreign competitors to setup shop in Barbados. In addition, ownership of these outfits is to be kept independent from local entities in an attempt to, perhaps, avoid collusion/cartels(?). The aim here is that by allowing foreign entities into the market, competition will ensue and therefore drive down prices, thereby giving Barbadian consumers a 'break' or an 'ease.'
Now I'm a consumer, and I'm all for a 'break' and an 'ease.' No harm at all, none whatsoever. Or is there? This measure, I think, could very well be a double-edged sword, one that must be wielded carefully (or how about: there are two sides to every coin, or two sides to every issue, or the lesser of two evils? LOL).
Very quickly (as I'm running late for the show at the drive-in):
The Good:
Foodstuffs et al should be available (in theory), at competitive prices and in a wider variety, to the average Barbadian consumer. I for one am always happy to pay less. After all, I'm a Barbadian, we like that sort of stuff, but not at the expense of quality ofcourse. ;-)
The Bad:
Existing distribution & supermarket entities now faced with stiff competition from overseas competitors (who enjoy economies of scale), may be forced to compete on price in one way by reducing their costs.
Labour is a cost. Local companies may be forced to lay-off, or reduce staff levels (i.e., Barbadian employees) in order to reduce their costs, which in turn will (hopefully) allow them to offer competitive pricing in line with the overseas players. Alternatives to lay-offs may involve: reducing their profit margins or finding ways to increase the efficiency of their businesses so as to drive down costs.
Another negative aspect of foreign entrants is that if these foreign entities are a hit with the Barbadian public, and they start to make a profit for their overseas owners, where do you think these profits are going ? I'm no expert, but I guess that our Government will probably see a 'little something' in the form of taxes, duties, etcetera, but I think that the bulk of it will be heading overseas, to a parent company somewhere.
I'm sure that there are plenty of arguements and counter-arguements to what I've said, but this is simply a little food (pardon the pun) for thought. Remember, what do I know? IANA... ;-)
In conclusion, if I may offer one slight, insignificant, tiny, suggestion from little ol' me: If you're going to allow these foreign firms to setup shop in Bim, make sure that the majority of all staff hired (even the Management team), are Barbadians.
By distribution sector of Barbados, I mean the companies that import the foodstuffs, groceries, etcetera, that we see on the shelves of our major supermarkets as well as the smaller shops.
In some(?) cases, these distribution companies also own and operate the supermarkets (an example of vertical integration at work here, folks).
After watching a bit of the budget this eve, it seems to me that The Government, as a result of the high cost of living, appears to be receptive and open to the idea of allowing foreign competitors to setup shop in Barbados. In addition, ownership of these outfits is to be kept independent from local entities in an attempt to, perhaps, avoid collusion/cartels(?). The aim here is that by allowing foreign entities into the market, competition will ensue and therefore drive down prices, thereby giving Barbadian consumers a 'break' or an 'ease.'
Now I'm a consumer, and I'm all for a 'break' and an 'ease.' No harm at all, none whatsoever. Or is there? This measure, I think, could very well be a double-edged sword, one that must be wielded carefully (or how about: there are two sides to every coin, or two sides to every issue, or the lesser of two evils? LOL).
Very quickly (as I'm running late for the show at the drive-in):
The Good:
Foodstuffs et al should be available (in theory), at competitive prices and in a wider variety, to the average Barbadian consumer. I for one am always happy to pay less. After all, I'm a Barbadian, we like that sort of stuff, but not at the expense of quality ofcourse. ;-)
The Bad:
Existing distribution & supermarket entities now faced with stiff competition from overseas competitors (who enjoy economies of scale), may be forced to compete on price in one way by reducing their costs.
Labour is a cost. Local companies may be forced to lay-off, or reduce staff levels (i.e., Barbadian employees) in order to reduce their costs, which in turn will (hopefully) allow them to offer competitive pricing in line with the overseas players. Alternatives to lay-offs may involve: reducing their profit margins or finding ways to increase the efficiency of their businesses so as to drive down costs.
Another negative aspect of foreign entrants is that if these foreign entities are a hit with the Barbadian public, and they start to make a profit for their overseas owners, where do you think these profits are going ? I'm no expert, but I guess that our Government will probably see a 'little something' in the form of taxes, duties, etcetera, but I think that the bulk of it will be heading overseas, to a parent company somewhere.
I'm sure that there are plenty of arguements and counter-arguements to what I've said, but this is simply a little food (pardon the pun) for thought. Remember, what do I know? IANA... ;-)
In conclusion, if I may offer one slight, insignificant, tiny, suggestion from little ol' me: If you're going to allow these foreign firms to setup shop in Bim, make sure that the majority of all staff hired (even the Management team), are Barbadians.
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 30, 2008
Article: 'How tiny Jamaica develops so many champion sprinters'
A snippet from the article...
"By US standards, the training facilities are second class. Jamaica's top sprinters cram into UTECH's tiny gym to pump rusty weights, and they often practice on the school's basic grass track.
"We have to be creative, because we don't have the resources," says Davis, explaining that the lanes of the track are marked with diesel and burned because the school can't afford the machine that lays down chalk lines every week or so. "We had a choice: complain about the resources and do nothing or work with what we have.""
Source:
How tiny Jamaica develops so many champion sprinters (csmonitor.com)
"By US standards, the training facilities are second class. Jamaica's top sprinters cram into UTECH's tiny gym to pump rusty weights, and they often practice on the school's basic grass track.
"We have to be creative, because we don't have the resources," says Davis, explaining that the lanes of the track are marked with diesel and burned because the school can't afford the machine that lays down chalk lines every week or so. "We had a choice: complain about the resources and do nothing or work with what we have.""
Source:
How tiny Jamaica develops so many champion sprinters (csmonitor.com)
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)
Friday, May 30, 2008
Big weekend in Bim (Barbados)!
*** UPDATE (May 31, 2008): While stumbling around the RB2K8 'live' tracking website, I found out that a team from Oxford University (of all places!) was taking part. A quick search on Google and mouse click or two onto Cherwell (OU's student newspaper) confirmed this:
"Oxford University students who rebuild vintage rally cars will race an historic Riley 1.5 through the winding roads of Barbados next month as they compete in the Caribbean’s largest annual motorsport event, the Barbados Rally Carnival.
Members of the Oxford Universities Motorsport Foundation (OUMF) will travel over 4,000 miles to battle some of the world’s top rally car drivers, including 2006 British Rally Championship runner-up Ryan Champion."
Good luck and good racing to you, OUMF! ***
An exciting and entertaining weekend awaits most folks as both the SOL Barbados Rally and Mount Gay Regatta are set to take place!
Since I'm more interested in motorsports (though I rarely follow the events anymore), here are a few highlights from the freely available SOL Rally Barbados 2008 programme (click here for the full PDF):
* 89 crews (including seven from around the region and a further 23 from Europe)
* Entries by Sweden's Bjorn Waldegard, a 1979 World Rally Champion, as well as
* Kris Meeke, a 2004 to 2006 title contender in the JWRC.
Online info on the Mount Gay Regatta appears to be scarce, so your best bet is to check with Google.
Enjoy!
"Oxford University students who rebuild vintage rally cars will race an historic Riley 1.5 through the winding roads of Barbados next month as they compete in the Caribbean’s largest annual motorsport event, the Barbados Rally Carnival.
Members of the Oxford Universities Motorsport Foundation (OUMF) will travel over 4,000 miles to battle some of the world’s top rally car drivers, including 2006 British Rally Championship runner-up Ryan Champion."
Good luck and good racing to you, OUMF! ***
An exciting and entertaining weekend awaits most folks as both the SOL Barbados Rally and Mount Gay Regatta are set to take place!
Since I'm more interested in motorsports (though I rarely follow the events anymore), here are a few highlights from the freely available SOL Rally Barbados 2008 programme (click here for the full PDF):
* 89 crews (including seven from around the region and a further 23 from Europe)
* Entries by Sweden's Bjorn Waldegard, a 1979 World Rally Champion, as well as
* Kris Meeke, a 2004 to 2006 title contender in the JWRC.
Online info on the Mount Gay Regatta appears to be scarce, so your best bet is to check with Google.
Enjoy!
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
A dying breed: SPURMO (Straight Proud Unmarried Men Over-30)
How about this:
"It's the double standards where babies are concerned that I find objectionable. If a baby pukes, everyone rushes around like a Kennedy has been shot. But, if I should do likewise after three vodka tonics, a bottle of red and four sambucas, does anyone mop my fevered brow? No, they leave me to make my own way to KFC for a party bucket with mashed potatoes, gravy and onion rings. And when a baby kicks up a fuss, it is rewarded with boob. But if I start crying and demanding boob, I'm simply asked to leave the bus/cinema/restaurant/church."
Or this:
"Another friend, an attractive blonde 23-year-old law student, told me it doesn't matter if there aren't any single men my age to go out with. I can join her and her friends. Yes, sure, like the lonely Great Ape of Rwanda could hang out with the lemurs. He could, but he'd feel as conspicuous as I do in a group of 23-year-old law students. As nice as they are, I can't help but feel they're staring at me wondering, “who invited Old Man Time?” I don't have any trouble talking to 23-year-old girls. But I'd be wanting sex and they'd be wanting career advice."
Click here for the full article.
"It's the double standards where babies are concerned that I find objectionable. If a baby pukes, everyone rushes around like a Kennedy has been shot. But, if I should do likewise after three vodka tonics, a bottle of red and four sambucas, does anyone mop my fevered brow? No, they leave me to make my own way to KFC for a party bucket with mashed potatoes, gravy and onion rings. And when a baby kicks up a fuss, it is rewarded with boob. But if I start crying and demanding boob, I'm simply asked to leave the bus/cinema/restaurant/church."
Or this:
"Another friend, an attractive blonde 23-year-old law student, told me it doesn't matter if there aren't any single men my age to go out with. I can join her and her friends. Yes, sure, like the lonely Great Ape of Rwanda could hang out with the lemurs. He could, but he'd feel as conspicuous as I do in a group of 23-year-old law students. As nice as they are, I can't help but feel they're staring at me wondering, “who invited Old Man Time?” I don't have any trouble talking to 23-year-old girls. But I'd be wanting sex and they'd be wanting career advice."
Click here for the full article.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
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?
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
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Public Holiday in Barbados: National Heroes Day
Folks, today is National Heroes Day, a public holiday in Barbados.
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
Monday, April 14, 2008
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!). ;-)
(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
Friday, April 11, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Amit is listening to 'The Zombies'
'Time Of The Season.'
If you were really hip, you'd be listening to it as well. So don't be a square, click here.
If you were really hip, you'd be listening to it as well. So don't be a square, click here.
Labels: life, music, The Zombies
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Economist hits the nail right on the head!
This is exactly what I'm talking about:
"STUCK in a traffic jam on the road home after an Easter break, the motorist has time to ponder many things."
For me, it wasn't the Easter break, it was a typical day and I was either stuck in traffic, or going to and fro. The end result was this post:
"The similarities between economic systems, traffic lights, junctions and roundabouts."
"STUCK in a traffic jam on the road home after an Easter break, the motorist has time to ponder many things."
For me, it wasn't the Easter break, it was a typical day and I was either stuck in traffic, or going to and fro. The end result was this post:
"The similarities between economic systems, traffic lights, junctions and roundabouts."
Labels: Barbados, blogging, economics, funny, life, politics, The Economist
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Historical inaccuracies in movies
Yahoo recently assembled a list of historically inaccurate films. The lack of accuracy, especially in films where history plays a central part, is worrisome. Click here to read the article.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Listening and Reading...
Listening to Bran Van 3000, Drinking in L.A. Nice, simple song. Okay video. Relaxing to listen to it.
Reading the Telegraph's article on Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist. His articles are thought-provoking and easy to understand.
It's a four-day weekend. Enjoy it.
Reading the Telegraph's article on Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist. His articles are thought-provoking and easy to understand.
It's a four-day weekend. Enjoy it.
Labels: Bran Van 3000, life, Michio Kaku, music, physics, space
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
RIP: Arthur C. Clarke
Writer Arthur C. Clarke dies at 90. [via BBC NEWS]
Arthur C. Clarke [Wikipedia]
A friend of mine had this to say:
"Hope he says hi to HAL."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Arthur C. Clarke [Wikipedia]
A friend of mine had this to say:
"Hope he says hi to HAL."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Labels: Arthur C. Clarke, death, HAL, life
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
DUDE! Jamaica makes the news, considers legalizing Cannabis
So the buzz (get it? LOL!) around town has to do with the recent news of Jamaica considering the legalizing of Cannabis, a.k.a, marijuana, weed and ganja (ganja appears to be a word from the Hindi language, LOL!).
More specifically, a link to an article from the The West Australian has made its way to the front page of Digg this evening and some of the comments are quite hilarious.
For the benefit of everyone out there in Internet land, I took it upon myself to wade through and retrieve some of the more interesting (and funny) ones:
"its about time. legalizing it will do wonders for its tourism based economy. it makes financial sense." [NOTE: Here in Barbados, our economy is largely based on tourism, too... ;-)]
"man, it might as well be legal there it almost falls out of the sky."
"I know where I'm going for spring break!"
"Dreadlocks - check
Back catalogue of Bob Marley - check
Passport - check"
"hahahaha, I always thought is was legal there. I guess it was a good thing I did not get caught when I was there last."
"Whoa.... it's not yet legal?"
"I read this thinking they legalized cannibalism. Pot makes soooo much more sense."
"That rustling you hear is the sound of hundreds of thousands of people in the US packing their bags for the last time."
and finally, how about this beauty:
"If you can't get pot in Jamaica you're retarded. It's EVERYWHERE. From the baggage handler when I stepped off the plane to even the tennis pro at my hotel was offering me it - AND I WAS A TEENAGER. Alert to authorities - POT IS EVERYWHERE and the only people in jail must have been trying to sell it to a judge...IN THE COURTROOM ...DURING A TRIAL...WHILE UNDER OATH....WHILE SOME "MORAL" TV REPORTER WAS PRESENT."
More specifically, a link to an article from the The West Australian has made its way to the front page of Digg this evening and some of the comments are quite hilarious.
For the benefit of everyone out there in Internet land, I took it upon myself to wade through and retrieve some of the more interesting (and funny) ones:
"its about time. legalizing it will do wonders for its tourism based economy. it makes financial sense." [NOTE: Here in Barbados, our economy is largely based on tourism, too... ;-)]
"man, it might as well be legal there it almost falls out of the sky."
"I know where I'm going for spring break!"
"Dreadlocks - check
Back catalogue of Bob Marley - check
Passport - check"
"hahahaha, I always thought is was legal there. I guess it was a good thing I did not get caught when I was there last."
"Whoa.... it's not yet legal?"
"I read this thinking they legalized cannibalism. Pot makes soooo much more sense."
"That rustling you hear is the sound of hundreds of thousands of people in the US packing their bags for the last time."
and finally, how about this beauty:
"If you can't get pot in Jamaica you're retarded. It's EVERYWHERE. From the baggage handler when I stepped off the plane to even the tennis pro at my hotel was offering me it - AND I WAS A TEENAGER. Alert to authorities - POT IS EVERYWHERE and the only people in jail must have been trying to sell it to a judge...IN THE COURTROOM ...DURING A TRIAL...WHILE UNDER OATH....WHILE SOME "MORAL" TV REPORTER WAS PRESENT."
Sunday, March 2, 2008
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).
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).
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Lunar Eclipse!
Wow. I can see it.
It's not everyday you get a chance to see something like this. It gently nudges you to remind you that they are much bigger and more important things happening in the Universe.
These things have been happening since before Man was born and will continue to happen long after we've gone. No matter how much we try to control nature, our lives and even those of others, there are just some things that we have no control over.
Go outside and look.
It's not everyday you get a chance to see something like this. It gently nudges you to remind you that they are much bigger and more important things happening in the Universe.
These things have been happening since before Man was born and will continue to happen long after we've gone. No matter how much we try to control nature, our lives and even those of others, there are just some things that we have no control over.
Go outside and look.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Baby, It's Cold Outside!
DISCLAIMER: IANAM, I Am Not A Meteorologist (but I have been feeling really cold recently).
We island folk have been experiencing some irregular weather these last couple of weeks. The Nation newspaper wrote about it today, and has confirmed what most of us already knew, it has been unusually cold!
We're talking temperatures as low as 21.3 degrees Celsius. Now before you pooh-pooh and laugh off our concerns, remember that Barbados is in the Caribbean, i.e., in the tropics (a.k.a, the temperate zone?), i.e., in a tropical climate, where temperatures are usually between 28 and 33 degrees (at least, that's what my little in-car temperature gizmo reads whenever I push the button).
If you really want a laugh, then you should hear how some of us protest the half an hour or so commute to work, or the fifteen-minute wait while stuck in traffic, but that's island life, eh? I've been up North a few times, watched T.V and heard the horror stories from others and I've learned to appreciate that commute times and time spent waiting in traffic, are all relative and highly subjective.
But when the temperature drops to 21.3 in Barbados, it does cause quite a stir. As such, it was no suprise to find one or two funny comments on the weather in The Nation's article:
'Basically, I just go under the sheets but I don't mind it. In fact,
I like it because I get to sleep much better at nights since it isn't too hot," said Pastor Ricardo Payne of Elim Gospel Church, Workmans, St George. However, one of the members of his congregation added: "No, no! It's too cold at nights, man, I can't deal with it!"'
However, this comment takes the cake:
'Another elderly woman who lives in Bath, St John, said: "This cool air don't bother me. When I start to see snow is when I'll get worried."'
Ma'am, you're not the only one. If it were to start snowing in Bim, I'd get plenty worried too!
We island folk have been experiencing some irregular weather these last couple of weeks. The Nation newspaper wrote about it today, and has confirmed what most of us already knew, it has been unusually cold!
We're talking temperatures as low as 21.3 degrees Celsius. Now before you pooh-pooh and laugh off our concerns, remember that Barbados is in the Caribbean, i.e., in the tropics (a.k.a, the temperate zone?), i.e., in a tropical climate, where temperatures are usually between 28 and 33 degrees (at least, that's what my little in-car temperature gizmo reads whenever I push the button).
If you really want a laugh, then you should hear how some of us protest the half an hour or so commute to work, or the fifteen-minute wait while stuck in traffic, but that's island life, eh? I've been up North a few times, watched T.V and heard the horror stories from others and I've learned to appreciate that commute times and time spent waiting in traffic, are all relative and highly subjective.
But when the temperature drops to 21.3 in Barbados, it does cause quite a stir. As such, it was no suprise to find one or two funny comments on the weather in The Nation's article:
'Basically, I just go under the sheets but I don't mind it. In fact,
I like it because I get to sleep much better at nights since it isn't too hot," said Pastor Ricardo Payne of Elim Gospel Church, Workmans, St George. However, one of the members of his congregation added: "No, no! It's too cold at nights, man, I can't deal with it!"'
However, this comment takes the cake:
'Another elderly woman who lives in Bath, St John, said: "This cool air don't bother me. When I start to see snow is when I'll get worried."'
Ma'am, you're not the only one. If it were to start snowing in Bim, I'd get plenty worried too!
Monday, January 21, 2008
The Economist mentions elections in Barbados
The Economist, a publication (and website), that I try to read as often as possible, had the following to say with regards to the recently concluded elections in Barbados: (In bold are the bits that I found especially interesting, which as it turns out, made up the majority of their article)
"Barbados
Sweet success
Jan 17th 2008 | PORT OF SPAIN
From The Economist print edition
A change of power in one of the Caribbean's best-run and most stable democracies
IT WAS an all-night party in Barbados after the island's general election on January 15th. “Plenty change,” a Bridgetown bar-owner grinned, and he wasn't just referring to the mounds of cash he was counting. After 13 lonely years in opposition, three election defeats and a series of long-running party-leadership squabbles, David Thompson led his Democratic Labour Party (DLP) triumphantly back to power, with 20 of the 30 parliamentary seats. In the previous election, in 2003, it won just seven seats.
By American standards, the campaign was blissfully short. The election was called on December 20th, leaving just two lively weeks after the Christmas and new-year break to get the voters in. There is no great ideological gulf between Mr Thompson's party and the outgoing Barbados Labour Party (BLP). But from time to time Barbadians like to shake up the political scene. Although Owen Arthur, the BLP leader, was regarded as a good manager, people felt that he had become a little arrogant after his 13 years in power, and some of his party rather too comfortably settled.
Voters also fretted over rising food prices, cost overruns on a road project and property prices jacked up by villa-buying foreigners. Then there was a row over claims by the BLP that Taiwan had funded Mr Thompson's campaign in exchange for a promise of diplomatic recognition. This was hotly denied by the DLP, anxious to avoid a rift with China.
Barbados is one of the Caribbean's oldest and most stable democracies, consistently getting top-drawer rankings for its political and civil liberties. From 1639 an elected House of Assembly—not the British-appointed colonial governor—controlled the island's cash. The first mixed-race member, Samuel Jackman Prescod, won a seat in 1843. Universal suffrage eventually followed in 1951, and independence 15 years later. On a visit to the island in 1859 Anthony Trollope, a British novelist, found it irritatingly well run.
Barbados also tops all other Latin American and Caribbean countries in the UN Development Programme's human-development index. Transparency International, a corruption watchdog, ranks it second cleanest in the region, just behind Chile. In September unemployment hit an all-time low of 7%, down from a peak of 27% in 1993 when the DLP was last in power.
“Change” (of leadership) was the DLP's campaign watchword. The new government, which inherits an uncomfortably big public debt, equal to 88% of GDP, will have other changes to deal with, too. Important business decisions are increasingly likely to be taken in neighbouring Trinidad rather than Barbados. Many big local firms are already majority-owned by Trinidad shareholders. Now two Trinidad companies are fighting for control of Barbados Shipping & Trading, the island's biggest conglomerate.
Sugar, the economic mainstay until the 1960s, will lose its guaranteed European market by 2015, and is already suffering EU price cuts. Costs are among the world's highest, but cane keeps the landscape in good order. Shutting down sugar would dent the country's confidence, too. Mr Arthur had proposed a new $156m sugar factory, using cane for electricity and biofuel, and exporting pricey premium-brand Plantation Reserve sugar. The DLP called the plan a “mishmash”, but has yet to come up with a better one.
Meanwhile, the island's medium-sized independent hotels, the backbone of its tourist industry, are facing rising costs and increasing competition from cruise ships; some have closed. High oil prices will push up air fares this year. Further ahead, global (over)warming may cut the pulling power of Barbados's tropical beaches, now attracting over half a million tourists a year.
On the upside, there may be oil. In 2004 Barbados faced down Trinidad in a dispute over their maritime boundaries, and two years later won a big slice of seabed, which America's Geological Service believes may contain some generous deposits, though the waters are deep and the geology complex. A bid round for exploration rights, which has already sparked interest from several big oil companies, closes in April. Over to you, Mr Thompson."
"Barbados
Sweet success
Jan 17th 2008 | PORT OF SPAIN
From The Economist print edition
A change of power in one of the Caribbean's best-run and most stable democracies
IT WAS an all-night party in Barbados after the island's general election on January 15th. “Plenty change,” a Bridgetown bar-owner grinned, and he wasn't just referring to the mounds of cash he was counting. After 13 lonely years in opposition, three election defeats and a series of long-running party-leadership squabbles, David Thompson led his Democratic Labour Party (DLP) triumphantly back to power, with 20 of the 30 parliamentary seats. In the previous election, in 2003, it won just seven seats.
By American standards, the campaign was blissfully short. The election was called on December 20th, leaving just two lively weeks after the Christmas and new-year break to get the voters in. There is no great ideological gulf between Mr Thompson's party and the outgoing Barbados Labour Party (BLP). But from time to time Barbadians like to shake up the political scene. Although Owen Arthur, the BLP leader, was regarded as a good manager, people felt that he had become a little arrogant after his 13 years in power, and some of his party rather too comfortably settled.
Voters also fretted over rising food prices, cost overruns on a road project and property prices jacked up by villa-buying foreigners. Then there was a row over claims by the BLP that Taiwan had funded Mr Thompson's campaign in exchange for a promise of diplomatic recognition. This was hotly denied by the DLP, anxious to avoid a rift with China.
Barbados is one of the Caribbean's oldest and most stable democracies, consistently getting top-drawer rankings for its political and civil liberties. From 1639 an elected House of Assembly—not the British-appointed colonial governor—controlled the island's cash. The first mixed-race member, Samuel Jackman Prescod, won a seat in 1843. Universal suffrage eventually followed in 1951, and independence 15 years later. On a visit to the island in 1859 Anthony Trollope, a British novelist, found it irritatingly well run.
Barbados also tops all other Latin American and Caribbean countries in the UN Development Programme's human-development index. Transparency International, a corruption watchdog, ranks it second cleanest in the region, just behind Chile. In September unemployment hit an all-time low of 7%, down from a peak of 27% in 1993 when the DLP was last in power.
“Change” (of leadership) was the DLP's campaign watchword. The new government, which inherits an uncomfortably big public debt, equal to 88% of GDP, will have other changes to deal with, too. Important business decisions are increasingly likely to be taken in neighbouring Trinidad rather than Barbados. Many big local firms are already majority-owned by Trinidad shareholders. Now two Trinidad companies are fighting for control of Barbados Shipping & Trading, the island's biggest conglomerate.
Sugar, the economic mainstay until the 1960s, will lose its guaranteed European market by 2015, and is already suffering EU price cuts. Costs are among the world's highest, but cane keeps the landscape in good order. Shutting down sugar would dent the country's confidence, too. Mr Arthur had proposed a new $156m sugar factory, using cane for electricity and biofuel, and exporting pricey premium-brand Plantation Reserve sugar. The DLP called the plan a “mishmash”, but has yet to come up with a better one.
Meanwhile, the island's medium-sized independent hotels, the backbone of its tourist industry, are facing rising costs and increasing competition from cruise ships; some have closed. High oil prices will push up air fares this year. Further ahead, global (over)warming may cut the pulling power of Barbados's tropical beaches, now attracting over half a million tourists a year.
On the upside, there may be oil. In 2004 Barbados faced down Trinidad in a dispute over their maritime boundaries, and two years later won a big slice of seabed, which America's Geological Service believes may contain some generous deposits, though the waters are deep and the geology complex. A bid round for exploration rights, which has already sparked interest from several big oil companies, closes in April. Over to you, Mr Thompson."
Friday, January 18, 2008
Four-day weekend!
Folks, in celebration of the appointment of David Thompson as our new Prime Minister, today is a public holiday in Barbados. Also, Monday is a public holiday in celebration of Errol Barrow Day.
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 16, 2008
BARBADOS chooses the DLP after three consecutive terms of BLP leadership
WOW.
DISCLAIMER: IANAPP, I Am Not A Political Pundit
IANAPP (I Am Not A Political Pundit), and I rarely follow politics. Remember this as I am writing this post just as a casual observer, analyzing and drawing conclusions based on what l know from reading, seeing and listening to what's been going on...
I think that the D's have a difficult road ahead of them. In particular, the fact that the D's haven't won a general election in 15 years and their representation in the House has been that of a very small minority.
The tables have now turned (and my goodness, how they've turned!). The DLP now rules the House after being in the extreme minority for 15 consecutive years and having not won an election during that same time period. The DLP has delivered a K.O. to the BLP by winnning the election and by now enjoying a similar level of House representation to what the BLP has had over the years.
David Thompson should be called the 'comeback kid', or something like that, for what he and the DLP party has pulled off. As I said, I do not follow politics, but DT and the DLP must've had one helluva fight. The DLP is back after years of low representation in the House, not winning an election (while people only remembering the bad times when the D's were in power) and one of the biggest blows, CM leaving the D's to go over to the B's.
I personally thought that it was going to be a very close election (I'm not disclosing who I voted for, or even if I voted), with the BLP still winning. But lo and behold! The people have spoken. Barbadians (the majority of them), have listened to the DLP and have given them the opportunity to deliver on their promises. Amazing. Whoever said that Barbadians don't rock the boat and are risk-adverse were dead wrong.
However, if DT and the D's thought that they had a long fight to the top, they need to think again (which I'm sure they realize). Now is when the battle really starts. The fight for the social and economic future of this country is on. This will be the most trying four years that the D's have ever seen.
In particular, the costs (and paying back), of the major projects the island has recently undertaken i.e., highways and the prison, cost of living, the national debt, the fact that there will be tough economic times ahead as a result of (but not limited) high oil prices, the subprime mortgage fiasco in the US and the normal day-to-day geo-political conflicts in places like Iran and elsewhere on the African continent.
(The head of the US Fed also recently said that the 2008 outlook is worse than originally forecased/predicted Recall: When the US sneezes, the World catches a cold, or something like that.)
To make matters worse, I believe that the DLP will come under intense scrutiny (moreso than usual, I think), especially with regards to economical performance issues. The D's asked the people for a change and they have said 'yes' (and very loudly based on the voting results). Any failures to deliver will, I think, result in a 'I told you so', kind of display from the BLP, and might make some people second guess themselves about putting the DLP in power.
I myself am wondering...even if David Thompson & Co. have a tough time, maybe the Barbadian public will be a little forgving and cut them some slack. I mean, the B's have governed the island for 15 years and people know this. As such, they should also know the D's cannot swoop in overnight with sweeping reforms and changes and magically make all of the islands problems disappear.
Put another way, when a company has gone through tough times, or when the shareholders want a change, the shareholders bring in new management (happens all the time in places like the US, CEO's step down or are replaced). However, good things do not happen overnight. It takes a lot of hard work to turn around a company, and while the shareholders will be watching carefully, they also have to realize that the new management team needs time to get things organized and then, and only then, can the company move forward and make a difference (a positive one hopefully).
Despite all of the above, last night's results sent a strong message to the B's and to other political parties around the world: Change is constant. Barbadians may not be as complacent, nor as risk averse as some people would think. Obviously, Barbadians (or at least the majority of them), wanted a change. The B's had an unprecedented 3 terms (3x5, 15 yrs of Government) without any major changes in their own political party structure that I can recall (except for that big bombshell when CM split from the D's and joined the B's).
If I remember correctly, one of the CBC election panelists, the rep for the BLP had said that the loss may have been as a result of Barbadians fearing a fourth term with Arthur, or something like that. HH (Hartley Henry), replied by saying that it may not be the reason, instead, he believed citing T&T when Manning won another term, that it was because he (Manning) radically changed his Government, he saw that there was a need for new blood, and some house cleaning, and that's what he did. Hartley said that that was one of the major contributing factors of Manning's win (I can't quote HH word for word because I can't remember his exact words, only the gist of them).
I interpret this by thinking that maybe if Owen Arthur had done some radical house cleaning in his own party, maybe things would have been different. Maybe the B's might have won (by a small amount), or maybe the would have still lost, but not as badly as they have in this election. Maybe...
Howver, what's done is done and the vast majority of people have spoken, the D's have been granted their wish. The B's (I'm sure) did not see this coming, and will study the 2008 election from top to bottom like a school child studying for the 11-plus exams. The BLP will be watching every step of the DLP's movement and will no doubt be very vocal in the House, the media and in the their remaining constituents.
What still amazes (note that I did not say disappoints/excites, because I'm not getting into what political party I voted for, or did not vote for), me is the fact that the public have made such a swift and huge jump to the DLP ship. To say that it was a slaughter of the BLP may be harsh and unkind, but the B's definitely took a sound beating.
This election may even end up in some Caribbean political text books. Let future governments or current governments understand something clearly: never underestimate the power of the people, especially the majority of the people. Barbadians, under the leadership of the DLP, have some interesting and hoepfully, good times to look forward to.
Congrats should therefore go to the DLP and their supporters. It was an extremely hard fight but you proved the B's wrong, and you've won the hearts and minds of the people by winning after 15 years, and not only winning, but overcoming major questions concerning the strength of the party itself, the short time in which you had to prepare and finally, by winning the majority of the House. Be you a BLP, PEP, or PDC supporter, you've got to be fair and give Jack his jacket.
DISCLAIMER: IANAPP, I Am Not A Political Pundit
IANAPP (I Am Not A Political Pundit), and I rarely follow politics. Remember this as I am writing this post just as a casual observer, analyzing and drawing conclusions based on what l know from reading, seeing and listening to what's been going on...
I think that the D's have a difficult road ahead of them. In particular, the fact that the D's haven't won a general election in 15 years and their representation in the House has been that of a very small minority.
The tables have now turned (and my goodness, how they've turned!). The DLP now rules the House after being in the extreme minority for 15 consecutive years and having not won an election during that same time period. The DLP has delivered a K.O. to the BLP by winnning the election and by now enjoying a similar level of House representation to what the BLP has had over the years.
David Thompson should be called the 'comeback kid', or something like that, for what he and the DLP party has pulled off. As I said, I do not follow politics, but DT and the DLP must've had one helluva fight. The DLP is back after years of low representation in the House, not winning an election (while people only remembering the bad times when the D's were in power) and one of the biggest blows, CM leaving the D's to go over to the B's.
I personally thought that it was going to be a very close election (I'm not disclosing who I voted for, or even if I voted), with the BLP still winning. But lo and behold! The people have spoken. Barbadians (the majority of them), have listened to the DLP and have given them the opportunity to deliver on their promises. Amazing. Whoever said that Barbadians don't rock the boat and are risk-adverse were dead wrong.
However, if DT and the D's thought that they had a long fight to the top, they need to think again (which I'm sure they realize). Now is when the battle really starts. The fight for the social and economic future of this country is on. This will be the most trying four years that the D's have ever seen.
In particular, the costs (and paying back), of the major projects the island has recently undertaken i.e., highways and the prison, cost of living, the national debt, the fact that there will be tough economic times ahead as a result of (but not limited) high oil prices, the subprime mortgage fiasco in the US and the normal day-to-day geo-political conflicts in places like Iran and elsewhere on the African continent.
(The head of the US Fed also recently said that the 2008 outlook is worse than originally forecased/predicted Recall: When the US sneezes, the World catches a cold, or something like that.)
To make matters worse, I believe that the DLP will come under intense scrutiny (moreso than usual, I think), especially with regards to economical performance issues. The D's asked the people for a change and they have said 'yes' (and very loudly based on the voting results). Any failures to deliver will, I think, result in a 'I told you so', kind of display from the BLP, and might make some people second guess themselves about putting the DLP in power.
I myself am wondering...even if David Thompson & Co. have a tough time, maybe the Barbadian public will be a little forgving and cut them some slack. I mean, the B's have governed the island for 15 years and people know this. As such, they should also know the D's cannot swoop in overnight with sweeping reforms and changes and magically make all of the islands problems disappear.
Put another way, when a company has gone through tough times, or when the shareholders want a change, the shareholders bring in new management (happens all the time in places like the US, CEO's step down or are replaced). However, good things do not happen overnight. It takes a lot of hard work to turn around a company, and while the shareholders will be watching carefully, they also have to realize that the new management team needs time to get things organized and then, and only then, can the company move forward and make a difference (a positive one hopefully).
Despite all of the above, last night's results sent a strong message to the B's and to other political parties around the world: Change is constant. Barbadians may not be as complacent, nor as risk averse as some people would think. Obviously, Barbadians (or at least the majority of them), wanted a change. The B's had an unprecedented 3 terms (3x5, 15 yrs of Government) without any major changes in their own political party structure that I can recall (except for that big bombshell when CM split from the D's and joined the B's).
If I remember correctly, one of the CBC election panelists, the rep for the BLP had said that the loss may have been as a result of Barbadians fearing a fourth term with Arthur, or something like that. HH (Hartley Henry), replied by saying that it may not be the reason, instead, he believed citing T&T when Manning won another term, that it was because he (Manning) radically changed his Government, he saw that there was a need for new blood, and some house cleaning, and that's what he did. Hartley said that that was one of the major contributing factors of Manning's win (I can't quote HH word for word because I can't remember his exact words, only the gist of them).
I interpret this by thinking that maybe if Owen Arthur had done some radical house cleaning in his own party, maybe things would have been different. Maybe the B's might have won (by a small amount), or maybe the would have still lost, but not as badly as they have in this election. Maybe...
Howver, what's done is done and the vast majority of people have spoken, the D's have been granted their wish. The B's (I'm sure) did not see this coming, and will study the 2008 election from top to bottom like a school child studying for the 11-plus exams. The BLP will be watching every step of the DLP's movement and will no doubt be very vocal in the House, the media and in the their remaining constituents.
What still amazes (note that I did not say disappoints/excites, because I'm not getting into what political party I voted for, or did not vote for), me is the fact that the public have made such a swift and huge jump to the DLP ship. To say that it was a slaughter of the BLP may be harsh and unkind, but the B's definitely took a sound beating.
This election may even end up in some Caribbean political text books. Let future governments or current governments understand something clearly: never underestimate the power of the people, especially the majority of the people. Barbadians, under the leadership of the DLP, have some interesting and hoepfully, good times to look forward to.
Congrats should therefore go to the DLP and their supporters. It was an extremely hard fight but you proved the B's wrong, and you've won the hearts and minds of the people by winning after 15 years, and not only winning, but overcoming major questions concerning the strength of the party itself, the short time in which you had to prepare and finally, by winning the majority of the House. Be you a BLP, PEP, or PDC supporter, you've got to be fair and give Jack his jacket.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Election Results
Sorry, no real-time results here. I'm sitting in front of the TV watching everything. Head on over to BFP, and BU. They've got lots of info/comments online.
E-Day! E-Day! E-Day!
It matters not if you are a 'B', 'D', or a supporter of any other political party or indepedent candidate. What matters is that today is your day to make your voice heard, because today is election day in Barbados.
People from all walks of life; the rich, the poor, the in-between, the good, the bad and the ugly, everyone, with the exception of the undecided or unconcerned and etcetera, will cast their votes today and take part in the democratic process and elect new (or re-elect old), politicians.
It's your turn.
People from all walks of life; the rich, the poor, the in-between, the good, the bad and the ugly, everyone, with the exception of the undecided or unconcerned and etcetera, will cast their votes today and take part in the democratic process and elect new (or re-elect old), politicians.
It's your turn.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The clock is ticking...
Sorry, no new posts until Saturday (the day of the exam). Until it's over, I'm on 'lockdown'.
Friday, January 4, 2008
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 p
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 p