Toronto never fails to disappoint.
This bustling Canadian metropolis of over five million people (in the GTA, that is) is apparently home to more cultures than there are countries in the world. There's a vibrant Uruguayan and Ghanaian community here, and you don't even have to look that hard.
This weekend we were here for DECA, a business competition that I have only familiarized myself with very recently. Aside from our fashionably late punctuality, there were a few things that really stood out. For one, the entire conference was pretty much Brown or Asian. A white person is definitely an anomaly here.
In that sense, Toronto was an escape to a global microcosm, a journey that transcends national and cultural barriers, sifting through a demographic mosaic that works wonders if you only looked around.
The weekend was also a chance to go revisit the Korean barbecue restaurant that I visited less than a year ago. Carcinogens aside, it was one of the most fulfilling experiences one could ever desire. Remember to order kim-chi.
And of course, Kareoke. A place in Chinatown that in every way resembles the China that I left only a few months ago. We were in Suite 7. That's lucky only by Western Standards. I sang to such patriotic songs as 走进新时代 (Into a New Era) by Zhang Ye, songs that defined pop culture like 不得不爱 (Have to Love) by Wilber Pan, and classic western hits like "This Love" by Maroon 5. Quite a range.
On the way there I tried to read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, it was a slightly nauseating experience (even now when I think about it) reading on a bus.
DECA U was held at the Sheraton hotel downtown, where you can get lost in the mismatch of elevators for 20 minutes before you arrive at your destination. Our room had a prominent view of Toronto City Hall as well as the skating rink nearby. Steven says this is a prime location for partying on New Years for Torontonians. I am inclined to make a case for the Travelodge on Circle Drive in Saskatoon. But that is a whole other story.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Obamamania
Often I've tried to make sense out of Obamamania. I have to admit that I was very skeptical from the man from as early as 2007. Early on I predicted that it was impossible for Obama to defeat the campaign machine of Hillary Clinton. But then as the race went on, he became more intriguing. Then over the holiday break, I decided to read his The Audacity of Hope while lounging on the beaches of Barbados. And it was a great read.
When he got elected president in early November, I sat in my bedroom watching CNN.com LIVE on my laptop, and the speech he delivered was enough to send goosebumps crawling on my back. This guy seemed to have everything. The confidence he projected and the method of his delivery was, in the very least, inspirational. As I proceeded to Common Grounds here on campus to watch him deliver a historic inaugural address - the expectations were immense. By the time we got there the entire place was filled with students watching a huge TV screen - so many people were there that Yiran and I had to find a spot on the floor.
The speech itself was good. It tried to cater to almost every party, I felt, and therefore did not feel as forceful as some of his earlier renditions. Perhaps it was just the time of the day, the imagery he left (with this constant mention of words related to ice and winter), and the ongoing recession. I left Common Ground heading towards Goodes, not knowing whether to be disappointed or to get rid of my undying need to be skeptical.
Last night on the VGOC thread I got a link to a site that alledges Obama uses hypnotic techniques to win his voters. Being extremely interested in the power of our subconscious, I tried to skim the hundred-page document, picking up on things that caught my eye. In the document Obama's detractors allege that the way he delivers his speeches and his hand gestures are done in such a way to hypnotise the live audience and the crowd sitting in front of the TV watching him. It makes reference to his forefinger-thumb gesture and alleges that it is an allusion to picking up the pen on voting day. The evidence was shaky and was not entirely convincing (and even if it was, mind you, people are too crazy about Obama to care), but it was noteworthy. There are definitely some things about Obama that subconsciously sets him apart from all other presidents or politicians in living memory - things that we may not even realize. But is he intentionally deceiving voters? Not very likely. But the amount of positive press, the sheer degree of irrational fandom that this man has aroused is not something that runs parallel to his credentials, experience, or intended policies. It is, by and large, the result of his charisma, personality, and intelligent political differentiation.
Conservative editorials attempted, in vain, to criticize Obama's inaugural speech as lacking in content. Perhaps. They allege that he uses broad themes in his speeches so that the listener can gather whatever imagery they choose, which goes on to enhance their perception that Obama is heroic and correct. While there is partial truth to these criticisms, I think these things are fundamental to politics as a practice. Obama is just better at doing it than everyone else.
When he got elected president in early November, I sat in my bedroom watching CNN.com LIVE on my laptop, and the speech he delivered was enough to send goosebumps crawling on my back. This guy seemed to have everything. The confidence he projected and the method of his delivery was, in the very least, inspirational. As I proceeded to Common Grounds here on campus to watch him deliver a historic inaugural address - the expectations were immense. By the time we got there the entire place was filled with students watching a huge TV screen - so many people were there that Yiran and I had to find a spot on the floor.
The speech itself was good. It tried to cater to almost every party, I felt, and therefore did not feel as forceful as some of his earlier renditions. Perhaps it was just the time of the day, the imagery he left (with this constant mention of words related to ice and winter), and the ongoing recession. I left Common Ground heading towards Goodes, not knowing whether to be disappointed or to get rid of my undying need to be skeptical.
Last night on the VGOC thread I got a link to a site that alledges Obama uses hypnotic techniques to win his voters. Being extremely interested in the power of our subconscious, I tried to skim the hundred-page document, picking up on things that caught my eye. In the document Obama's detractors allege that the way he delivers his speeches and his hand gestures are done in such a way to hypnotise the live audience and the crowd sitting in front of the TV watching him. It makes reference to his forefinger-thumb gesture and alleges that it is an allusion to picking up the pen on voting day. The evidence was shaky and was not entirely convincing (and even if it was, mind you, people are too crazy about Obama to care), but it was noteworthy. There are definitely some things about Obama that subconsciously sets him apart from all other presidents or politicians in living memory - things that we may not even realize. But is he intentionally deceiving voters? Not very likely. But the amount of positive press, the sheer degree of irrational fandom that this man has aroused is not something that runs parallel to his credentials, experience, or intended policies. It is, by and large, the result of his charisma, personality, and intelligent political differentiation.
Conservative editorials attempted, in vain, to criticize Obama's inaugural speech as lacking in content. Perhaps. They allege that he uses broad themes in his speeches so that the listener can gather whatever imagery they choose, which goes on to enhance their perception that Obama is heroic and correct. While there is partial truth to these criticisms, I think these things are fundamental to politics as a practice. Obama is just better at doing it than everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)