Obama Wins Re-election

Nov. 7, 2012: President Obama waves to the crowd at his election night party in Chicago. (AP)

He's back. He's now Messianic. An orator that arises once in a generation, prodigal, speaking rhetoric that is liquid in sense and inspiration. Goosebumps. Leaders like him are of mettle mythical. Obama's acceptance speech was cyclical, for indeed it went back to the very grass roots of his campaign - hope. In revisiting his roots, he aimed to re-energize the base, asking the electorate to keep the fire of hope burning long after the casting of the ballot. In doing so one can pursue self-governance so that we may move forward and create the change we seek

These are all ideas which resonate to the core of what Obama's campaign stood for originally. The cyclical nature is delightful to notice, allowing us to re-see the older Obama we first well in love with, the one who left us enamored by his poetic speech and inspired by his visionary prowess.

Now, no more is there the need for pandering, nor the pressures of re-election. He is here for a term appointed and tis the time to forge on. There was no mention of health care reform in his speech. Why? Because that was in the first chapter of his legacy. A legacy now protected by his reappointment. We are blessed to have reached the middle of his working book, as he articulated so well, writing it means turning to new chapters on immigration reform, education, further recovery of the economy and more. Obama's speech was hopeful yet not, Utopian. It inspired us through a recognition and an affirmation of his comforting presence. The older Obama we thought we had lost has now once again risen like a Phoenix from the ashes of bipartisan politics, ready to blaze forward. The speech was well received. The rhetoric well appreciated. The message, heartfelt. May God's blessings for the next four years be upon you. I wish for it to be a golden period that births a legacy, one etched immortal in history and memory. Congratulations Mr. President. Adieu.

U.S. Election Edition: The Obama Romney Tiff

Featuring, the work of The Literartist's premiere guest writer: SS
   

What’s so bad about Mitt Romney anyway?

President Obama was cruising to re-election at the start of October. His (biggest) opponent had focused on making the election a referendum on his handling of the economy (which was recovering), had picked a running mate who was the poster child for scaring seniors (a core constituency of the republican party), and had recently managed to offend a significant portion of the electorate (47% to be precise) by effectively labelling them losers. Apart from this, Mitt Romney had provided sparse details about his own economic plan for America, and came across as a person who was unable to connect with the majority of the electorate.[1] One horrific debate performance later, where the president was unable to articulate the accomplishments of his administration and effectively counter Mitt Romney’s charges against his administration, and the structure of the race altered significantly. In a few short weeks, Mitt Romney was tied with, or leading, the president in national polls. He was also pulling ahead in key swing states such as Florida. All due to his success at being able to make American voters ask one simple question: What’s so bad about Mitt Romney anyway?

Let me let all of you non-voters in on a little secret (a secret I suspect the Romney/Ryan camp is aware of): very few voters base their decision on the details of a candidate’s plan for the country. How could they? Most voters (I include economists in this pool as well) do not understand how the economy works. How could they possibly make an informed choice between supply side and Keynesian economics without such knowledge? Even ardent supporters of the Affordable Care Act (unofficially known as ‘Obamacare’) are ignorant about most of its provisions. We simply don’t have the time to pour over all these details. As a consequence, when (independent) voters (who don’t follow the primary season with as much enthusiasm as I do) saw Mitt Romney make an eloquent case against the president and the president stumble in defence they asked themselves, ‘What’s so bad about Mitt Romney anyway? We gave the new kid a try, but jobs are hard to come by. Everybody is saying my health care premiums are going to go up. Gas prices are high. Why not go with this guy? He was a business man, maybe he can do better. I don’t really understand how he’s going to do everything he says he is, but 12 million jobs is a big number, and he wouldn’t just be making that up. I mean, I like Obama, but republicans hate him. They’ve blocked everything he’s tried to do for four years, and maybe it’s time to just give up and vote for Romney. He sounds reasonable on stage. He isn’t that crazy person the Obama people have tried to make him out to be. He’ll probably be a moderate social president like Bush was, but smarter on the economic side of things.

Ann Romney

It amazes me to say this, but Mitt Romney is a genius. Anyone who has followed him since 2007 cannot deny that he has taken positions firmly at odds with his positions in the past (whether they are years, months, weeks or even days in the past). His genius lies in the fact that he has made everybody believe that he is pandering to a different side. Conservatives think he is now pandering to moderates while moderates and liberals think he previously pandered to conservatives.

Since people have now proven themselves to be immune to blatantly dishonest politicians, most going so far as to rationalise their dishonesty, let me articulate exactly what is so bad about Mitt Romney. And since none of us really care about policy anyway, let me simply base my case on character.

Firstly, presidents do not possess legislative authority.[2] We don’t select presidents to lovingly craft the minute details of complex legislation. We elect presidents to fight for our best interests through the outlining a vision that Congress can craft into a solution or through use of a veto. I can be confident of the type of solution that president Obama will propose and the sort of thing that he would oppose through a veto. He has proved that he is willing to fight unpopular fights: see the Affordable Care Act, the repeal of ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ and the (failed) Dream Act. Based on the Mitt Romney I have followed in the campaign trail, I do not know what Mitt Romney would fight for. I do not know what side of a cost-benefit analysis my interests will land on in a bill that comes before Mitt Romney. To be confident that someone will fight for you, you must first be confident that he or she feels as strongly about your position as you do. I don’t know where Mitt Romney really stands on signing bills restricting access to abortion, raising taxes on the middle class or reforming Medicare in a way that burdens seniors (I doubt anyone but he does either). I can however, be confident that his flexibility on such issues reflects his apathy towards those issues. Surrounded by a Republican house majority, other Republican advisers and donors, I can be confident that he will not fight for moderate solutions. After all, would you fight for something you don’t really care about?

Michelle Obama

Secondly, the president of the United States of America has enormous control over matters of foreign policy and the military. There is a vocal portion of the Republican Party that believes that any sign of unrest occurring in the world is an opportunity for the US to show international leadership through flexing its military muscles. Mitt Romney, even though he now claims to love peace, almost certainly still holds this view.[3] Mitt Romney’s worldview would probably have America rushing into any sign of unrest in the Middle East.  President Obama’s decision to wait for international consensus, regional support and military support from allies, when situations of unrest arise, should be commended. There is a fundamental disagreement here about what ‘leadership’ is. President Obama favours an approach where he seeks international and regional support. This is not because the US needs the military support; it is because it gives US military missions the aura of legitimacy. Mitt Romney would sacrifice this legitimacy and a comprehensive mission plan in favour of quick action. While this approach has its merits, I suggest you consider how wise it is to send US military assets to attack another country (for whatever reason) without planning or support in every situation.     

Mitt Romney doesn’t have principles and values that he believes in deeply enough to fight for. In the absence of such beliefs he will most likely make decisions based on how politically popular something is and how easy it is to pass through congress. He will respond to crises based upon the vocal cries of action. Knowing the right answer to a question is a small part of the president’s job. He needs to convince congress to pass legislation; he needs to convince the country that his answer is right; he needs to lead! President Obama has fought many battles driven by the conviction that it was in the best interests of the country. Mitt Romney on the other hand, seems comfortable with doing anything, as long as it’s popular and has a majority of congress supporting it. What’s so bad about Mitt Romney? He is a bully who, like all other bullies, is a coward at heart.

written by,

Sam Sawyer

The views and opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and are independent of The Literartist.

---

[1] This assertion is made based on the number of awkward encounters Mitt Romney has had with voters. I refer you to, among others, him being unable to identify a doughnut, his helpful suggestion that everyone borrow money from their parents to start a business, him saying ‘who let the dogs out, who, who’ when posing with young African Americans, him building a car elevator and betting $10,000 at a republican debate.

[2] Apart from the issuance of Executive orders. 

[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoLsUUzydJI. Do take a moment to digest Mitt Romney’s disdain for the president’s belief that all nations have common interests, that the lines between good and evil are blurred and the fact that the president is nuanced. 

J.K Rowling's "The Casual Vacancy": A Review

I liked it more than I didn’t.

“Hem hem”. Before embarking on “The Casual Vacancy”, check-in those memory stuffed suitcases of “Harry Potter” at the cupboard under the stairs. There will be no need for wands, muggle! No need for robes, and certainly, no need for magic. Well? Tut tut—off you go!

Ah, but crisp foil condoms, slicing silver razors, and fags for habit, ah yes, a shabby pocket of those will do just fine for your claustrophobic stay in the little country town of Pagford, the central occupant of “Casual Vacancy”.  J.K. Rowling’s new novel for adults (now I know why), or as she calls it “for grownups”, is a different species of text altogether. Devoid of a central character/hero, “Casual Vacancy” begins with Death’s wet kiss on Barry Fairbrother, a well-known citizen of Pagword. From the moment you hear the thud of his heavy flaccid body hitting the ground in Chapter 1, the strands of Rowling’s narrative eject in every direction like the spinning of a clear neon spider web beginning to expand outward from the in.

As you may have gathered, I idolize Ms. Rowling. Yet, infatuation does not dent my capacity for objective literary criticism. That said, let’s move on yes?

The narrative is shiftingly omniscient, swirling and transforming like smoke through its breathing characters, possessing the text with different voices not by the succeeding chapters but by the succeeding paragraph. Each strand is a plot entwined with a close nucleus family of characters but also intertwined with their inescapable nosy neighbors. The shifting narrative voice allows glimpses into the characters’ mental clockworks, leaving us to judge their judgments in order to gain insight into their inky souls. The setting is local, but the theme socio-political, therefore, global. The end effect of the overarching theme, however, is yet to be determined. Has Rowling done enough in this dark comedy to make readers look beyond the microcosm of England’s Pagford, and extrapolate Rowling’s larger social views?

Stylistically, the novel proves satisfactory but admittedly, not a masterpiece. Rowling still retains her sniper-ish talent to laser in on the human condition, especially for young adults for she is still more than able to Krystalize the emotions of her characters. There are lines in this novel etched by Rowling’s inked spear that will make you sigh with satisfaction, metaphors and similes used so deftly, it were as if Rowling, wand in hand, were slicing out a David from marble at her leisure. And yet, the language was not enough to make it a page turner at the start. The pace turtles at the onset, battering the reader with a laundry list of character names and detailed exposition to get acquainted with the whose-who of over 25 characters. This delays the reader’s later investment in the lives of these characters which occurs mid-way through, taking off like a Comet 360.

And yet, people may not like this book. The fact that I’m left on the fence or only a bit tipped over in favor of it is telling enough. It is grim, gloomy, glum and depressing. It’s as if Rowling took her paintbrush and soaked the fibers in a palette full of English weather and started blotching mixed grey strokes on her writing canvas. Apart from my proclivity to always jab at England’s weather, the book becomes less appealing to the reader because it lacks the warmth of the Potter books, and this should be expected. There is serious social commentary in the story, very real insights into the world of class distinctions and biases, snide trials of latent racist thought, alongside the reality of abuse both sexual and physical. It is sardonic yet real; comic yet tragic; casual yet vacant.      

The problem is, how many people really want to read about that? The minutia of local town politics, is that enough to make us care? Evidently, it proves good for interesting gossip within the text. At every given moment we know who did what for the most of it, there is no mystery in that sense, the driving urge to keep reading is not knowing where are we being led to? Reviews have considered it “dull”. Is this because of Rowling’s craft or because of the subject matter at hand? Other reviews have been glowing appraisals of Rowling’s writing capacity. The verdict is not yet final, it is ambiguous for this very reason, it is what you make of it and how willing you are to be led into this world where happy endings exist only in pockets, if at all. Or is it that happy ending or not, something else allows a text to be more memorable and empathetic?

Personally though to me one of the turn offs was the use of contemporary references. Seeing Facebook mentioned, and Rihanna’s Umbrella being the key cyclical chorus of the novel is intriguing yet disturbing. Firstly, it is not only that I didn’t think, ever, that Rowling listen’s to Rihanna, but secondly, such real-life young references seem to jar the fictive world. I know this is not Harry Potter, and hearing Hermione say she got a wall post from Ron would be sacrilege, but still, I guess I found it a bit touchy seeing those workings in this world of Pagford. Yet its purpose is indispensable. In a magic-less world, our world, it draws attention to the ever evolving world of technology and also the capacity of power held by one generation over the other. We are the most powerful generation in human history because of that very power, that none can wield technology comparative to the likes of us.  

  

While the subject matter is indeed deeply dark, and the characters drawn out quite well, there wasn’t a character that really stood out as ah-mazing! That memorable character, the stuff made of legends like Heathcliff, Fagin, Darcy or Snape. I might have raised a few hundred eyebrows for stitching in Snape into that sentence but yes, I do think Snape is a terrific literary figure. That’s not to say that the cast of “Casual Vacancy” was not 3D, but that something didn’t click. I wish I could have cared more, because these characters did deserve it more than the Potter gang. Perhaps, I didn’t because Rowling’s draws them with heightened realism for they are sharply imperfect, flawed, and too real. They possessed complex mental processes and yet I wonder why I felt a thin barrier of disconnect, invisible to me but still perceivable like a sheet of glass film.

Apart from disconcerts, however, I thought Fats’s character was very intriguing. His philosophy of the authentic and the inauthentic was very promising indeed, and could have much to do with philosophic explorations. One of Rowling’s stylistic gems is her use of dialogue. “Casual Vacancy” is also blessed with that brilliant dialogue that is so real you can unthinkingly engage and believe in their voices as if you always knew that’s how they speak. I loved the dialogue used for Robbie, he’s a darling.

The insights in this book for the astute reader are many. Particularly Rowling’s elucidation on what constitutes love:

She had never felt the slightest physical attraction towards him. What was love, after all? thought Parminder, as a gentle breeze ruffled…was it love when somebody filled a space in your life that yawned inside you, once they had gone?

In the case of Parminder, she was in love with Barry; but that true love was a matter of perspective, enlightening us that love expands regardless of the physical, the sexual and the legitimate. But the book isn’t about sex either, although it constitutes quite a portion of it. In a particularly delicious jab at “Fifty Shades of Grey” Rowling mentioned in New York last Sunday that: "the difference is that people have sex in my book, but no one enjoys it."

The New York Times’ book review is scathingly harsh, yet its mistake, its bias, is evident from its very title. Magic-less is not an excuse for being critical about this book unnecessarily. Cut away the “Harry Potter” before cutting away casually.

“I would have nothing to say to the person who didn’t cry at the end of this book. Nothing:”  J.K Rowling.

Thankfully now I know I can speak to her in the future. The Guardian describes it more fairly as “intelligent, workmanlike, and often funny” while the Wall Street Journal is bounteous in its praise, identifying it as “like the fast-moving river that winds through Pagford is an extended authorial plea to notice and respect that other people are real—as real as we ourselves—however unimportant or peripheral they may seem. In the words of Colin's wife, Tessa, we ought ‘to appreciate that behind every nondescript face [lies] a wild and unique hinterland’ like our own”. Indeed.

Regardless, “The Casual Vacancy” is a must read for your own judgment. I liked it more than I didn’t. It is Rowling after all and much more brilliance can be expected from her in the future. The final review then? 6.7 / 10. Adieu.

Timely Deadlines

The brown leather plush seats feel sumptuously cozy, and yet the champagne glow emitting from the two mini-sized crystal chandeliers within the car give it all yet another splendor. On either side of the car polished wooden panes frame large rectangle windows, spotlessly showing the whizzing landscapes. Lazily wafting through the sliding doors now is the smell of flavoured roast grilled Cornish hens about to be served with warm oven baked baguettes of bread that are being prepared in the next carriage for supper. The table's cut glassware and silver continue rattling as each spin of the wheel down under grates the track, forcing metal to grind against metal. And then, you realize it. 

Time has this horrid habit of quickening when you dread something that's coming. It is but an unstoppable, incrementing force, forging through regardless of who it might affect. It reminds one of a runaway train headed on a one way track to a cemented endwall, mechanically deaf to its screaming passengers. That is what a deadline feels like; because at the end of the line the entity will be dead. Trivial paper writing comes to a halt when it smashes into a deadline as do the precious life seconds of a cancer patient or the summer holiday of a college student.

This is why Time is a two faced git. Time can be your best friend but also one of your worst enemies all perhaps within the same day. Ruthlessly systematic, it is fairly just, showing favoritism to no-one but enforcing itself upon every-one. Ever heard of that phrase “all good things come to an end?” The bastard responsible for that is Time. But that same bastard was also your one close ally who helped you get over the loss of a loved one and that earth shattering break-up of what you thought was true love. So, then, what do we make of this two faced beast?

In a way though, we created Time didn't we? Well, at least the accounting of it. As Heidegger puts it: “we are time.” That lovely public encyclopedia puts it best when it writes: “we simultaneously grasp the past in memory, the present by attention, and the future by expectation.” Can we think of a world without time? What would that mean, necessitate, or result in? The thought of it is jarring because Time is considered as a given natural.

Even more contesting are the different explanations put forward to explain the functions of Time. Newtonian Time describes it as a sequential film reel with snap shots which can be looked at. Others such as Kant differ, telling us that Time is known only as an object of representation, a mental concept that allows us to compare, contrast, and organize ourselves; basically, that it is not real, instead we make it real for our own purposes of accountancy. This view comes into light better with my next problematic sentence (because it shows how human time really is). God is outside of time.

I write with a tinge of annoyance against Time. I love Time for what it has done for me and helped me get through, but it truly is a love-hate relationship. There is an impending deadline and that is my cause to be caustic. I dread it. All I can do is keep thinking of it and the time I have left within its shrinking bandwidth. When Time has allowed the imposition of a deadline one becomes the passenger inside its runaway car. It is tending towards a destination and one can do nothing to stop it. I see it as a dead end, followed soon after by more beads of deadlines and ends and I am left strangled within the confines of glass, wood and steel.

Its engines are not mine to stop. Its brakes are not mine to pull. A stationary passenger, I travel towards its impending finality. I look out through the window and the world is zooming pass me not caring if I'm with it or not. And so, I realize. All I have left to do is to make most of the journey within the train-car itself. If time is ticking and dissipating with each tick, then the only choice one has left to make in retaliation is to make the most of the given before the pendulum’s last swing. So bring in that Cornish hen and that buttered french bread. Imminent fate looks better with a fuller stomach. Adieu.

Wide Awake by Katy Perry: Review

At first glimpse Perry’s latest video seems like a random collage of fantastical nonsense doesn’t it? Well, if that were truly the case I wouldn’t be writing now would I. This review is yet another one of my rescue articles (the premiere one being for Beyonce’s confusing the ‘Best Thing I Never Had’). It simply tells you the answer to that horrid brain itching question: “what does this even mean?” Don’t you just wish that all of life’s answers were this easy to find sometimes. Ah…so let’s start.


In actuality the video of “Wide Awake” is an intricately spun web of creativity which posits a complexly woven net of symbolic meaning. Wait what!? I mean...the song is doing a lot of interesting things all at once.

Katy Perry has experienced phenomenal successes with her two-year long “Teenage Dream” which even went on to have a re-release in early 2012 with three new hit singles. The first female artist to have 5 consecutive Billboard number 1’s from a single album and the second artist ever, behind Michael’s “Bad”, to achieve such a feat. In “Wide Awake” comes a certain closure for her album, her successes, and this erratic period of her life. Unlike some of her previous hits, or any common song on radio which generally has less than three objectives, “Wide Awake” is a dense concoction that wishes to accomplish:

• Paying homage to her past successes within "Teenage Dream”
• Creating successful autobiographical allusions to her own, very public, life experiences within the two-year time frame
• Teaching a lesson or conveying a valuable human experience to her fans and listeners
• Drawing itself up as the finale of a long saga
• The promotion her new upcoming movie: ‘Katy Perry: Part of Me’
• And staying true to a good pop song with easy simple lyrics and an infectious chorus

Unlike most music videos this one isn’t easy to get. It is a text that demands interpretation, and the reader needs to be equipped with a strong contextual knowledge to appreciate and understand its nuances. Otherwise, the end result will be simply goggling at the video with your mouth open like an O. It is when music videos like this come around that people like us get excited. The true meaning is dodgy and it needs to be pulled out by an interpretive set of pliers.

The video takes the fairy tale idyllic and drenches it in kind of sardonic realism that gives the whole piece a perceivable depth. It is this feature that sets it apart from that opening lollipop of a song—“California Gurls.” Though “Wide Awake” has color, it is constantly blotched with a darker palette that complements its dim overtones. At times the song sounds like a mix of her previous works, but one that is still doing something different. It is inspirational, like “Firework”, yet it is also longing like “E.T”. Described as the labyrinth of her life, the video reminds you of Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, and even Greek mythology. Though Perry lacks killer vocals, one of Perry’s biggest talents lies in injecting real emotion into her singing. This song is no exception.

Lyrics alone, the song has a plain meaning. The protagonist was on a high, Cloud 9 if you will, and this song talks about the crash. Wide awake from the crash the singer is reflective of the lessons learnt and to be learnt from the experience. If you want to read it autobiographically, Perry’s “Teenage Dream” success was her high, but with that famed success came many lows including her very public divorce to Russell Brand.

The video on the other hand does much more. I don’t remember the last time I saw a song that started with another song and ended with yet another song whilst sandwiching the actual song in the middle. “Wide Awake” pays tribute to 7 previous chapters of the album: “California Gurl", "Teenage Dream", "Firework", "E.T", "TGIF", "The One That Got Away" and "Part of Me". Something I’ve always admired about Perry’s work as an artist is her range and depth of performativity. She can be the peppermint dolly in California whilst still being able to pull off the jarhead badass fighting wars in Iraq (“Part of Me”). Each of her songs allow the listener to savor them when in different moods, whether it be when one feels like aspiring for a true utopian teenage love or one of those crazy, out of this world Friday nights that happen only once or twice in a lifetime.

“Wide Awake” opens with the filming of the ending scene of “California Gurls” which is symbolic of the beginning of “Teenage Dream” (since it was the first single). Perry then goes to her dressing room and removes her wig and this becomes her awakening. We shift into a labyrinth and Perry starts to lead us through. If you notice, you’ll see a caterpillar and a dried up wreath in the shape of a heart on the top of the stone wall. Very minute details but remember that every detail exists for a reason. The caterpillar is a motif for the ugly beginning because the rest of the video is all about transformed butterflies, while the dried up heart wreath is a symbol for unnourished love. Why the hell a labyrinth you may ask? Well, Perry wants this song to be complex and not much is more complex than getting yourself out of a labyrinth, right? Don’t believe me, go ask Theseus of Athens. Specifically, the use of the labyrinth is a device to visually depict the complexities and challenges Perry has had to undergo in her life, and each stage of the labyrinth showcases a different experience.

Next she walks through claustrophobic corridors in the form of tall stone walls that threaten to close in on her and sees a strawberry. WTF? Wait, I’m getting there. The strawberry is sweetened fame. When she eats it she is empowered. I see it as a falling like Eve eating the apple from the Garden of Eden. This does draw on that because the fame she imbibes is bitter sweet. The moment she bites it she is given supernatural powers, hence her ability to use cosmic energy to blast apart the closing in walls. Fame and success liberate her material hardships but soon, as we will see, fame comes with its own woes.

Soon after we see another one of those boob fireworks a reference to…yes you guessed it, the song “Firework.” The scene also oddly reminds me of a scene in the movie Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Anyway, then we get the little girl. I don’t know how they did it but damn did they find the ideal little girl! Look at those eyes! Mini clone I tell you. The little girl represents Katy’s innocence and purity of love for music. Katy has repeatedly mentioned that in her darkest moments what helps her get through is a trip to one’s roots, her 9-year old innocent taintless desire for success before experiencing it. The girl is the personification of this empowering initial innocence. The two touch hands, another reference to a previous Chapter “The One That Got Away” since that song also deals with two Katies from different times.

 Next the camera pans into a hall of mirrors and the pair walk hand in hand. The paparazzi effect is jabbed at here. Interestingly, the little girl is not reflected in the mirrors but only the adult Katy. The media spotlight refuses to reflect innocence because that just isn’t interesting. You know, one of the photographers has an uncanny resemblance to Freddy Krueger—just saying!

Fame and media harassment has its consequences. The floor holding the pair collapses and as a result we are pushed into a psychiatric ward-like corridor. Perry is twitching, very eerily I might add, the deathly sweet strawberry is in her hands and the little Katy is pushing her forward. This act resembles what I mentioned before, that Perry’s childhood innocence and her memory of it allows her to get through her struggles. Then we get those weirdly stupid looking minotaurs. I know I know, really! Yes, really. The use of the minotaur heads is referencing Greek mythology; I mean this is the labyrinth after all. But the clinical ward-like costumes they are wearing allows them to transcend into our world, meaning that even in our world we will run into various obstacles in unimaginable shapes. The young Perry demolishes them, liberating the older Perry, but the older Perry runs and grabs the younger Perry, taking her forward. They have a mutually definitive relationship.

Then comes the best part. The teenage dream. We see a Prince Charming waiting for her, all is blossoming around her and everything looks perfectly summer bright. Yet, the song is about “I’m not blind anymore…” and Perry shows us this by sucker punching the air out of that good-looking, probably Abercrombie, model. What is sad is that this is reality. No longer does Perry urge her fans to gawk helplessly at the teenage dream. Here she is being realistic and critical of the possibility and plausibility of ideal love. The scene brings into mind “Part of Me” where she goes all military badass after being cheated on. Autobiographically, yes, it alludes to Russell Brand. That man looks nothing like a prince but to Perry he was her prince at one moment. While some critics wished that the prince in the video should have looked more like Brand, I beg to differ. Having such an obvious jab would have been very crass. This is class. Here, we all know she means Brand, and also it’s ironic because this man is an actual prince look-alike unlike Brand.

Upon conquering  the untrustworthy lover Perry finds the opening exit. The last scene reminds us of the “TGIF” neighborhood, and the explicit use of Katherine in the license plate reminds us of Kathy Beth Terry, that nerdy alter ego of Katy Perry. The song ends with the opening lines of “Teenage Dream” which is fitting since it is the end of the album “Teenage Dream”. But, you might ask, there was no reference to “E.T” so you’re wrong! Actually, there is a very subtle reference to “E.T” which I think is brilliant. You see it at 1:20. Katy’s eyes become luminous slits like the alien she was in “E.T”, very creepy yet still even more brilliant. Such detail in this video you’d be amazed at the things you can find. No I’m not jobless, I just pay attention.

The song closes with Katy’s return to the stage, also a promotional move for her upcoming movie. Why does it end with her return to the stage? I think it involves the desire of that childhood innocence. Right now, love didn’t prove to be what she thought it was but her abilities as an artist and her love for music seems to be a given constant to her. This is where she feels she needs to be, and I believe that is why she ends the song with her performing on stage. A place where she knows she is truly wide awake. Adieu.

Why Generation Y

"Social media is my weapon. Knowledge is my conduit between ignorance and informed. I am, Generation Y not.”

Elana Darlene, Class of 2012

When my full-time lover of life, Elana Darlene, set off on her social media campaign titled “GenerationYisontheFLY,” I pounded my fist in the air. Yeah! Generation Y! That’s us right there! Woooooh! Slowly, our numbers continue to increase as Time twirls the axis of life. 70 million strong in the United States alone, graduation ceremonies around the globe serve as launch pads for these vibrant packs of fireworks. Locked in, potent, ready, and charged, when hats fall down waves of Generation Ys fire up. Spitting blinding sparks, crisscrossing along fuses, Generation Ys around the world are rocketing themselves into the real world like branching swarms of blinking fireflies.

But who is Generation Y?

Unyielding to dictionaries, Generation Y definitions have no consensus. Lacking exact birth dates, the group is also referred to as the Millennials. The broadest definition generally welcomes those born from 1977 to 2002. Generation X was born roughly from 1965 to 1976, and the Baby boomers even before that. Narrower definitions accounting for the view: as the rate of change in society accelerates, the time frame of a generation gets shorter, put Gen Y-ers at 16 to 27, born from 1978 to 1989.

Generation X Versus Generation Y

But are we really all that different? Described by expert Bruce Tulgan as “high-performance and high-maintenance,” Generation Y has been brought up in the most child centered generation ever.

"They walk in with high expectations for themselves, their employer, their boss. If you thought you saw a clash when Generation X came into the workplace, that was the fake punch. The haymaker is coming now…They are like Generation X on steroids" says Tulgan. Unlike the generations that have gone before them, Gen Y has been “pampered, nurtured and programmed with a slew of activities since they were toddlers”.

Broadly speaking, Generation Y is also symptomatic of the following:

• Feedback cravings: Generation Ys don’t just do the work and sit back. They want to know how well or badly they did it. Constant feedback on performance is crucial to the ears of Generation Ys.

• Technological sense: Generation Ys possess a sixth sense—technological literacy, which is only rivaled by those budding technocratic muli-taskers: the younger Generation Z.

• I’m worth it: Generation Ys also constantly exhibit a heightened sense of self worth.

• Desire immediate responsibility: They want to make an important impact on Day 1.

• Goooal!: They want small goals with tight deadlines so they can build up ownership of tasks.

• High expectations of the self: They aim to work faster and better than other workers.

 

• High expectations of employers: They want fair and direct managers who are highly engaged in their professional development.

• Ongoing learning: They seek out creative challenges and view colleagues as vast resources from whom to gain knowledge.

• Say what?: This is a generation that grew up questioning its parents, implying that they are less likely to respond to traditionally structured chain of commands that control at every level. This inevitably leads to a persistent questioning of authority.

So what does Elana Darlene aim for, with her new campaign “GenerationYisontheFLY”?

“Well, right now, short term/immediately: to foster greater support for campaign in numbers (i.e. from 75-500 people within 2 weeks) and to have greater twitter feeds (i.e. between 20-40 a day) from the hashtags: #GenerationYisontheFly, #operationgraduated and #GenerationYNot as well as: the dissemination of: individual videos, shared articles, blog posts and photos of people to help illustrate the movement.” When questioned about what Generation Y is capable of, her campaign says it all: WE.ARE.THE.FUTURE.

Regardless of economic circumstances, racial, religious and ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientations and political perspectives her campaign asks Generation Ys to take ownership of the unique essence inherent within this generation and use it to change the world in every little and big way possible. Presently trending topics in her campaign include: increasing social welfare, community service, breaking stereotypes, encouraging and facilitating Jewish and Muslim dialogue, encouraging educational programs and more… Blogs, personal stories, anecdotes, articles, service experiences and life experiences are just some of the ways the campaign encourages Generation Ys to vocalize and take charge of their unique positions in society.

Once all is said and done the bottom line is this: something is different about Generation Y. But the question is, how will you use that difference for the betterment of a flawed world? If we have a heightened sense of empathy, will we leave it untapped without action? A ballistic arsenal of intellectual prowess, will we hoard it all to ourselves without dissemination? A digital matrix of technological sovereignty, will we not share? A creative idea for change, will we not paint the landscapes of a new eco-dream? As Generation Y rises up to rule the world every little action we pour out of ourselves trickles down a long way into the larger stream of change. So Generation Y, it is time. Rise. Adieu.

 Follow GenerationYisontheFLY

"I'd die for you" - The “Bloody” Hypocrisy of True Love

“There’s not a thing I won’t do, I’d give my life up for you…” (Chris Brown and Justin Beiber, Next To You) – “I'd catch a grenade for ya / Throw my hand on a blade for ya / I'd jump in front of a train for ya / You know I'd do anything for ya…” (Bruno Mars, Grenade) – The air freezes, so, so coldly, your skin shudders in protest from being doused in ice, the pain sharper than knives. Warmth drains, leaving the heart to pump itself with iced blood. Shivering, your lungs emit shaky puffs of white mist, while your teeth chatter.

Rose: I love you Jack.

Jack: Don't you do that, don't say your good-byes.

Rose: I'm so cold.

Jack: Listen Rose. You're gonna get out of here, you're gonna go on and make lots of babies, you’re gonna watch them grow. You're gonna die an old... an old lady warm in her bed, but not here not this night. Not like this, do you understand me?

Rose: I can't feel my body.

Jack: Winning that ticket, Rose, was the best thing that ever happened to me...it brought me to you. And I'm thankful for that, Rose. I'm thankful. You must do me this honor, Rose. Promise me you'll survive. That you won't give up, no matter what happens, no matter how hopeless. Promise me now, Rose, and never let go of that promise.

Rose: I promise.

Jack: Never let go.

Rose: I'll never let go. I'll never let go, Jack…

Rose: Jack. Jack. Jack?

The confession of an immortal love, a love beyond this life, and one that is too great to be true has frequently been tied to the sacrifice of the one for the survival of the other, right? You've always heard that phrase “I would do anything for you, I’d die for you.” Heartthrob lovers, or wannabe heartthrob lovers, can never keep themselves from blurting out to their significant partners, who unknowingly and a dotingly suddenly react with the batting of eyelashes as if it were the greatest sentence uttered from the lips of mankind, that they would sacrifice themselves for the life of their loved one in a “heart beat”. That’s all well and good, and some call it the lovely I-would-do-anything-for-you mindset of true love. But really, it’s not.


And this is the hypocrisy of that sentiment. It is not the same as the I-would-do-anything-for-you. Here, lover, what is being considered is death, as if it were the best alternative in the world for the person you leave behind. If anything, it is absolutely the most selfish thing you could do! Misunderstand me not. I am not talking of death. I’m not talking of any other context (such as the blessings of saving a life, brave real-life sacrifices, or forsaking a family)but this superficial one: the automatic glorification of the romantic lover in a pair who would kill themselves for the survival of the other. What is so valiant and romantic about that? Once one lover dies for the other, the other has to suffer and bear with the loss of the dead one. Do we ever even think to consider that? The part after The End?

Really, is it the best thing ever to leave the love of your life to live alone, heartbroken, single, devastated, shocked, hysteric, traumatized, miserable, depressed and missing you for the rest of their healing life, which for some is forever (till death)? The one who catches the grenade and blows up into a pink mist, or the one who takes a bullet in the heart itself is all nicely dead and gone—instantly. It’s the people they leave behind who have to still live and suffer when the dust settles. Ironically, wouldn’t true love, then, imply taking on someone’s pain as opposed to creating more of it for them? But that would mean that the traditional lover would have to, strangely, end the other person’s pain (if you know what I mean) and take it on themselves. From this angle that would be the most unselfish and loving thing to do. Paradox much?

There are two sides to every love story and it should depend on what angle we want to think about, really. Is Jack really being the ideal romantic lover here now that you think of it? Look at the dialogue. Why is he forcing Rose to “promise” that she will survive this, go on with her life and live without him, become an old raisin and die alone in her bed without him, 60 years later, regardless of if she is warm, telling her, forcing her, to never let go? Why do we as audiences think this is the most romantic thing Jack could have done? Of course Jack is unbelievably brave and selfless. He's a man, he can’t let her die. But how selfless is he, really, that he forces Rose to stay alive and he ceases to breathe? Forces her to mourn his loss, to carry on this tragedy in the depths of her soul, and to have her heart go on with an unparalleled longing for him. You could say he wants her to move on and live life, but what about what Rose has to go through to even achieve this? What if this is "true love" and the person can never get over the loss of the other, then what? Suffer the rest of life until you yourself meet death? But think beyond the sinking Titanic. Of all the other epic proclamations of the “selfless” romantic. Really, how selfless is it for the one to go onto the next journey and to leave the other behind, watching? I’m not saying one type of choice is better than the other. Instead, I’m arguing for the consideration of that choice’s effect on not only that person's image but also on the people around them. The effect on every party needs to be considered before we blindly form instant opinions on anything. Adieu.

Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living, and, above all those who live without love.

Albus Dumbledore.