America and the World on Libya and the Middle East

I find the world's and the U.S.'s response to events in Libya quite disproportionate. I can't help but compare this to the unrest in Burma a few years ago. The U.S. President certainly did not make a speech as the incident took place nor was there coordinated effort to evacuate foreign nationals on a grand scale and I really believe that this is not due to the higher level government oppression or human right abuse in the Middle East in comparison to that in Burma. I do not doubt that the stakes are higher for the West in terms of their economic interests and hence the little sanctions that have been applied. But if they really have conviction about human rights issue, surely more could be done in relation to Burma.

We are all different

What is the best strategy in dealing with people's differences in a group and an organisation?

When we work alone, we have control in what we do and how we do it. But when we come across differences, most people's reaction is to make a judgement and compare others' actions to how they would act. It is probably the most instinctive reaction. It takes certain conditioning for some of us to learn to react in different ways, some of which are more productive ways.

We naturally trust our own judgement more than other people's. When things are done differently from how we do them, we automatically think that there is the right and wrong ways to do things and of course we think we are right.

But even when we are right, should we just let go of our doctrine and wait until we are proven right with time which is a less stressful option in the short-term? Or do we push for everyone to hold the same quality standard which might bear some fruit in the long-term?

How to assess a decent PhD

Would it be possible for a PhD to be assessed in a different manner in the near future? The ground for creation of new knowledge becomes open more and more to wider public as knowledge is more easily accessible, beyond the libraries of universities.

Traditionally submitted in written format, usually 50,000 to 80,000 words long. Could the format of PhD theses extend beyond the format of hard-bound door stoppers, music compositions, plays/performance to perhaps programming codes, a web site, a documentary. A start-up company, perhaps?

Jamie Oliver

Should we appreciate his recipes as they are even though they are completely a disrespectful version of the authentic cuisines which are true to their locale? He tries to cook "Indian", "Spanish", "Greek", "Thai" and yet his disrespect for the real flavours in those cuisines is apparent.

One could argue that people will consume what they like, and if it happens that they appreciate the taste of Jamie's cooking, then it does not matter that if they are true to the authentic recipes or not.

But then will you be arguing that Clueless is more popular than Emma and so it should be consumed as such?

The difference I guess is, while we, the general public might be none-the-wiser as to what is authentic in the culinary world. Jamie does it for a living and has the means to procure such knowledge. It is not very responsible of him to be ignorant to generations of these culinary refinement. Rick Stein does it all the time as did Keith Floyd. Their cooking shows respect for people's knowledge of food ingredients which has evolved over hundreds if not thousands of years.

We are served the cheap and superficial dishes by Jamie all the time. Do we not deserve better?

Footballer's price

A recent calculation by an academic at LSE for BBC 4 suggests that top Premier League football clubs just about break even or make a "small loss" and such is sustainable. Not being an economist nor having financial knowledge, I am not sure how making losses could be viewed as sustainable in the case that they make perennial "small losses".

Their main cost is the players' payroll which accounts for about 40% of all expenditure. Despite their global success, the pricey tickets, the TV rights, merchandise, and other hospitality income, it is a no brainer why they still make a loss considering that an average annual salary for a player is £700k in the Premier League. 30 players in their book and they have to make £50 only to break even. This of course excludes all the buying in of talents (or in some cases, marketing tool) from other clubs for many more millions.

American football leagues have a salary cap and evidence is there that teams still attract players. Is there really that much difference for football (soccer) to reject the same principle?

I cannot imagine myself running a business and making a loss year on year when it is already an established cash-cow business. Perhaps I am wrong.

And then an outcry about and criticism of university vice-chancellors taking £200k per annum pay? These people who are leaders shaping our higher education system. Would there be a need for a research on the impact, social or economic, they have on the society versus that of the footballers'?

Why not start with the University of Manchester's annual income of £787m compared with £300m of Manchester United FC?