1 ‘Time for Ukraine to divide’ (Paul Sheehan in
Sydney Morning Herald) The people have already spoken. The splintering of
Ukraine began to take a formal shape in the presidential election of 2010 when
Viktor Yanukovych, a Russian-speaking former governor of the Donetsk Oblast
province, defeated Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. She is a Ukraine
nationalist who became internationally famous for her distinctive golden braids
and for her advocacy of Ukraine joining the European Community and ending
Russia’s control over the country.
The 2010 vote divided almost perfectly along ethnic
lines. The greatest support for Yanukovych came from the regions in the east
with Russian-speaking majorities, and the greatest support for Tymoshenko came
from the Ukrainian-speaking west. Ukrainian politics became deeply polarisied
when Tymoshenko was imprisoned for corruption by the new pro-Russian
government, a move condemned by the European Community and supported by the
Kremlin.
The polarisation of public life, exacerbated by
government corruption and incompetence, became so intense it led to widespread
civil disorder, culminating in the overthrow of President Yanukovych in
February. A violent attempt to quell the unrest by the elite security police backfired
so badly the president fled to Crimea, then to Russia.
The deeper reality is that Ukraine is now two
nations in everything but law. It can be split via plebiscite. On the western
side is a de facto sovereign state, Ukraine, which is aligned with the European
Community and could quickly be invited to membership. On the eastern side is
the autonomous region of Donetsk, which could become sovereign or be absorbed
into Russia as an autonomous department. Ukraine’s river system even provides
natural borders.
As for the detail of where a new border between
Ukraine and Donetsk would run, that should be decided by the people, by
plebiscite. Better a formal division than more blood, blackmail and disaster.
2 Five reasons not to get an MBA (Belo Cipriani in
San Francisco Chronicle) While getting an MBA may appear like a good way to
boost your credentials, in the San Francisco Bay Area, it may not give you the
best return on your investment. Here are five reasons why you should not get an
MBA.
Experience carries more weight. Local hiring managers
and recruiters look at experience over education. They are more intrigued by
someone with the hands-on experience with a particular technology or type of
client than with a candidate with a graduate degree in business. When
considering less-seasoned applicants, employers prefer internships over an MBA.
Follow your passion. There are other graduate
programs that may be more aligned with your interests than an MBA. For
instance, if you enjoy managing engineering teams, a Masters in Engineering may
be a better fit. Too many MBAs. With the large number of weekend and online
graduate business programs, the Bay Area has experienced a jump in MBA
graduates. And with the MBA becoming more and more common, it has lost the
prestige it once had.
The new way to network. Once upon a time, people got
an MBA for the opportunity to build their network. Social media has changed
that. With LinkedIn, Twitter and Google Plus, people have access to decision
makers without having to set foot in the classroom.
Doesn’t guarantee an executive role. Again, when
considering a candidate for an executive position, hiring committees are
looking for business experience. For example, a startup would most likely hire
a CIO who has prior startup experience. In this case, an MBA would not help
close the deal.
Graduate degrees in Business Administration are
expensive. And in the Bay Area, they don’t provide much of a career boost.
Whether you want to be a manager at a startup or with a tech giant, decision
makers are looking for work experience and culture fits—not for an MBA.
3 Mulling an oil change in the kitchen (Straits
Times) As is their nature, sinful foods are the ones that are oh so delectable
but, alas, do no good when taken in excess. This is a key reason why champions
of healthy eating habits have their work cut out for them. No one knows this
better than Health Promotion Board (HPB) advocates who have been stoutly
offering pointers on how to "survive the hawker paradise".
Comfort food like chicken rice, nasi lemak and mee
soto are among the foods that rank high in cholesterol, salt and fat, including
that arch rogue, saturated fat. And if that wasn't bad enough, the palm oil
commonly used by hawkers, as it is the cheapest, has a high proportion of
saturated fat which raises the risk of heart disease, says HPB.
Boldly going where few health authorities have
ventured, it plans to spend millions of tax dollars a year to subsidise oil
merchants so the price of a canola-palm oil substitute matches that of palm
oil. The intent is to overcome any resistance from food sellers for whom cost
is paramount. While the vigour of the effort is to be hailed, the intended
outcomes call for closer scrutiny.
The oil substitute might be eschewed for perceived
taste reasons. Resources would be better spent in public education that
emphasises a holistic approach to health. Ingredients, salt and sugar use, and
preparation methods all contribute to a balanced diet. Physical activity,
weight management and lifestyle pursuits are also central to staying healthy.
Tuning up sedentary routines within homes can achieve more than an oil change
within woks.
No comments:
Post a Comment