Food is as much about the process as it is about the end product, the visual of how it is made as much as the taste. When I was in Malaysia, one of the favorite things I liked to drink--and watched to be made--was teh tarik. The name literally translates to "pulled tea" and the drink is generally known as the unofficial beverage of the country. (As an example of the great diversity and cross cultural influence inside Malaysia, teh tarik is originally a Mamak--or southern, Muslim Indian--cuisine, though it is consumed by all races.)
The drink is essentially black tea and condensed milk. Simple enough, yeah? But the way it's made is quite unique and entertaining to watch The mixture is poured back and forth repeatedly between two vessels of some type, from some height. It looks like a rubber band being pulled as it is poured. This helps mix the tea with the milk, gives it a thick, frothy foam head, and cools the liquid. It's fun to watch and even better to sip.
Check out this video. Nevermind the music.
And this one guy is getting a bit artsy with his pouring. Twirl, man, twirl with your teh!
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Studying abroad is a necessity, not a luxury
I wanted to share this opinion piece by Rick Steves, the gone-everywhere-in-Europe man and of PBS fame. Take a look. The article essentially states that studying abroad should be a necessity--necessary, even, for graduation--for university students. All the usual arguments apply--better understanding of different cultures, appreciation for those differences, better ability to live and work in a globalized world. As cliche as they are, they still ring true.
Steves calls on Congress to pass an act that would allocate $80 million to incentivize students to study abroad. While $80 million may seem like a lot in these difficult economic times in the US, it is merely a speckle of a drop of water in a bucket that is the overall budget. And the long-term benefits in terms of personal and economic growth and potential (which then goes back into the economy) far outweighs any upfront costs.
Here is a quote from the article: "Americans who want our next generation to be hands-on with the world — grappling constructively with international partners against daunting challenges that ignore political borders, working competitively in a globalized economy, and having enthusiasm rather than anxiety about other cultures and approaches to persistent problems — can get on board with the movement to help our students get a globalized education."
Hear, hear, Rick Steves.
Steves calls on Congress to pass an act that would allocate $80 million to incentivize students to study abroad. While $80 million may seem like a lot in these difficult economic times in the US, it is merely a speckle of a drop of water in a bucket that is the overall budget. And the long-term benefits in terms of personal and economic growth and potential (which then goes back into the economy) far outweighs any upfront costs.
Here is a quote from the article: "Americans who want our next generation to be hands-on with the world — grappling constructively with international partners against daunting challenges that ignore political borders, working competitively in a globalized economy, and having enthusiasm rather than anxiety about other cultures and approaches to persistent problems — can get on board with the movement to help our students get a globalized education."
Hear, hear, Rick Steves.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Blàr Allt a' Bhonnaich: Redux
It seems like the Battle of Bannockburn is about to happen again in a couple of years. The Scottish Parliament (with the awesome name of Holyrood) backed the effort to call a referendum on Scottish independence from the UK. No specific timeline has been established but 2013 or 2014 has often been cited as potential opportunities to call for a vote.
Westminster has cited that the constitutional authority for devolution lies solely with them. They are OK with a referendum on the issue of independence, but want to do it "right" so it doesn't conflict with federal laws. This has put the two sides in conflict.
Putting aside the questions of whether Scottish independence is the right move and whether Scotland can sustain itself without funds from Westminster, what does it mean for the kingdom as a whole? What is there left of the kingdom, both physically and politically, when a large portion--half of the island--splits off?
If the Scottish independence referendum is successful and the country splits off, I truly think it spells the beginning of the end for the British monarchy. What is there to rule when parts of the kingdom starts peeling off? Will Wales want independence next? Will hardliners in Northern Ireland start attacks again, emboldened by their Scottish brethren?
The monarchy is an anachronism, albeit an entertaining one that brings in immeasurable amounts of funds to the state. I would like to see Scotland stay with the UK. What's the alternative--joining the EU? Sure, that worked out really well for Ireland.
Westminster has cited that the constitutional authority for devolution lies solely with them. They are OK with a referendum on the issue of independence, but want to do it "right" so it doesn't conflict with federal laws. This has put the two sides in conflict.
Putting aside the questions of whether Scottish independence is the right move and whether Scotland can sustain itself without funds from Westminster, what does it mean for the kingdom as a whole? What is there left of the kingdom, both physically and politically, when a large portion--half of the island--splits off?
If the Scottish independence referendum is successful and the country splits off, I truly think it spells the beginning of the end for the British monarchy. What is there to rule when parts of the kingdom starts peeling off? Will Wales want independence next? Will hardliners in Northern Ireland start attacks again, emboldened by their Scottish brethren?
The monarchy is an anachronism, albeit an entertaining one that brings in immeasurable amounts of funds to the state. I would like to see Scotland stay with the UK. What's the alternative--joining the EU? Sure, that worked out really well for Ireland.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Vote-mongering politicians
The lower house of the French parliament recently passed a piece of legislation that would make it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide happened. (On the flip side, it is a crime in Turkey to say that the genocide happened.) On its face, this is entirely absurd, especially for a country that essentially debated the concepts of modern democracy that the US government was built on. The government is essentially banning the ability to debate the topic and curbing the right to free expression on the topic of the Armenian genocide. And how is this any different from the oppression of free speech in Turkey?
The situation then begs the question of: Why? Why this bill again (it was introduced previously in 2006--at that time, a newspaper owner in Turkey--Hrant Dink--stated that he would be willing to go to jail in France for denying the genocide, just as he would be wiling to go to jail in Turkey for stating the events did happen)? Why at this time?
Practically, the bill serves no purpose other than to piss off Turkey. It further deteriorates relations between the two countries and threatens trade. France is Turkey's fifth largest trading partner and two-way trade is worth some $14 billion a year. Add the fact that France has been vehemently opposed to Turkish membership in the European Union (why in the world would they want to join now, anyway?), and this current row certainly doesn't help.
So what then is the reason behind this bill?
As a government relations professional (otherwise known as a corrupt lobbyist), I can step back from a debate and view things from a non-partisan perspective, understanding a situation from a purely political or policy perspective without the overbearing influence of following the party line. That said, here's my opinion of the bill.
The legislation is authored by French member of parliament Valerie Boyer. She is of the same party as President Nicholas Sarkozy, the UMP. Sarkozy is facing a tough reelection battle in 2012 and he's down in the polls. The cynical lobbyist side of me thinks that he's looking to exploit the genocide as a way to curry the Armenian vote in France. (There are somewhere between 300,000 to 400,000 Armenians in France.)
I guess politicians all over the world are the same. As Dink stated when the 2006 bill was being debated, healing the wounds of history should be left to Turks and Armenians, not vote-mongering politicians.
As a side note, the upper house of parliament is set to vote on the bill in late January.
The situation then begs the question of: Why? Why this bill again (it was introduced previously in 2006--at that time, a newspaper owner in Turkey--Hrant Dink--stated that he would be willing to go to jail in France for denying the genocide, just as he would be wiling to go to jail in Turkey for stating the events did happen)? Why at this time?
Practically, the bill serves no purpose other than to piss off Turkey. It further deteriorates relations between the two countries and threatens trade. France is Turkey's fifth largest trading partner and two-way trade is worth some $14 billion a year. Add the fact that France has been vehemently opposed to Turkish membership in the European Union (why in the world would they want to join now, anyway?), and this current row certainly doesn't help.
So what then is the reason behind this bill?
As a government relations professional (otherwise known as a corrupt lobbyist), I can step back from a debate and view things from a non-partisan perspective, understanding a situation from a purely political or policy perspective without the overbearing influence of following the party line. That said, here's my opinion of the bill.
The legislation is authored by French member of parliament Valerie Boyer. She is of the same party as President Nicholas Sarkozy, the UMP. Sarkozy is facing a tough reelection battle in 2012 and he's down in the polls. The cynical lobbyist side of me thinks that he's looking to exploit the genocide as a way to curry the Armenian vote in France. (There are somewhere between 300,000 to 400,000 Armenians in France.)
I guess politicians all over the world are the same. As Dink stated when the 2006 bill was being debated, healing the wounds of history should be left to Turks and Armenians, not vote-mongering politicians.
As a side note, the upper house of parliament is set to vote on the bill in late January.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)