Early this week Rolling Stone wrote an article discussing Starbucks' decision to cancel their initiative program, "Race Together."
Starbucks and USA Today began an initiative to start "push for a much-needed national discussion." It consisted having their baristas write "#RaceTogether" on the customer's cups in hopes to start a conversation about race.
Starbucks' customers and social media users shut that down pretty quickly, though. The scrawling was met with some pretty fierce backlash, which even led the company's VP of Communications Corey duBrowa to delete his Twitter account.
Users began to mock the hashtag... as social medias users do. The hashtag definitely worked in their favor, though. Also, what a boring and barely thought out "campaign name."
The company promises that the campaign was completely innocent and their "intentions are pure." Starbucks' seemed pretty confused and shocked about the negative response. They essentially apologized, but it seemed a little empty.
Personally, I think the campaign was pretty lame and useless, but I don't believe they meant any harm by it. It's a little condescending for the their tagline to be a "push for a much-needed national discussion." I'm pretty sure that for over a year there has been numerous conversations about the sever issue of race discrimination.
Does Starbucks not follow the news? Seriously, come on.
It's a little tacky that a beverage company tried to make profit off of such a serious issue and call it an "initiative." Lame.
Starbucks should really just stick to creating delicious, over-priced drinks.
Oh, and happy birthday to the oh-so-tasty Starbucks frappuccino!
Friday, March 27, 2015
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Women for president!
In Glamour's January issue, I found a hidden gem beneath an article about Eva Longoria's "mission" and sitting just above a blurb about "Guy of the Month," Orlando Bloom.
The headline immediately caught my eye: Is America Ready for a Female President? Answer? Hell yes. I already knew my answer, but of course I had to read on. The main graphic glaring back at me featured powerful women whom I've admired for years. Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Kristin Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren and my personal favorite, Condoleezza Rice.
I breathed in the faint smell of a Dior perfume ad placed in the front of the magazine as I read the words, "Millions of Americans simply cannot accept the idea of a woman president."
Side Note: I felt guilty taking a second to divert my attention from the article, to flip to the perfume ad and lift the scented tab to smell it. I felt like the sexist people who disagree with this article were watching me, shaking their heads. Is that messed up or what?
Political analyst Jeff Greenfield wrote that very statement in Glamour almost 40 years ago, and now as the 2016 election creeps up, he's ready to readdress it.
It's been nine years since Hillary ran for president. It's been nine years since she was described as a "probable" and "imminent"candidate. It's been said her loss might have a result of bad tactics or strategy. But it can't be ignored that the upset may have been due to the inevitable sexism women face on a daily basis. Despite losing, it was still a step in the right direction. Maybe the world just wasn't ready for a strong, confident, high-heeled woman to be standing in the Oval office.
But according to a Pew poll in May, a full 71 percent of voters said gender would make no difference, and 19 percent said they'd be more likely to vote for a woman. Times are a changin'!
A lot has happened in the nine years. There was a record number of women nominated at the Emmys for directing, Yahoo hired Katie Couric as a global anchor and GoDaddy refused to create sexist Superbowl ads. These feats may seem small to some, but to a women attempting to enter the workforce, they mean the world. Those were just a couple of examples of women breaking down the gender barriers, but it proves we have made progress.
Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go. Proof? Currently, women's earnings are 78.3 percent compared to man. If that's enough to make your blood boil, then I don't know what is. That statistic makes me laugh. I sit in classes and work with both men and women each day, and knowing my male friends will end up making more money than me ... it kills me.
But Greenfield does a beautiful job of showing how women have taken the world by storm –– specifically in the political stomping grounds. He explains how in 2015, for the first time ever, more than 100 women will serve in Congress. Over the past four decades, 22 states have elected female governors. He agrees with me about women being able to overcome inequality hurtles, but not yet crossing the finish line. He just whips out statistics and information that proves we're well on our way to making history.
With a deep, diverse pool of possible women candidates, we have a chance to take the presidency by storm. I believe we're ready. I'm excited that I've reached an age where I like talking politics. I actually enjoy reading about what's going on, who's running, who stands for what, who spoke about what issue and where. I'm thrilled to hopefully be able to say I voted for the first woman president (depending on which candidates run!). I'm confident that sometime, maybe not in 2016, we will be seeing a woman president.
#womanpower
The headline immediately caught my eye: Is America Ready for a Female President? Answer? Hell yes. I already knew my answer, but of course I had to read on. The main graphic glaring back at me featured powerful women whom I've admired for years. Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Kristin Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren and my personal favorite, Condoleezza Rice.
I breathed in the faint smell of a Dior perfume ad placed in the front of the magazine as I read the words, "Millions of Americans simply cannot accept the idea of a woman president."
Side Note: I felt guilty taking a second to divert my attention from the article, to flip to the perfume ad and lift the scented tab to smell it. I felt like the sexist people who disagree with this article were watching me, shaking their heads. Is that messed up or what?
Political analyst Jeff Greenfield wrote that very statement in Glamour almost 40 years ago, and now as the 2016 election creeps up, he's ready to readdress it.
It's been nine years since Hillary ran for president. It's been nine years since she was described as a "probable" and "imminent"candidate. It's been said her loss might have a result of bad tactics or strategy. But it can't be ignored that the upset may have been due to the inevitable sexism women face on a daily basis. Despite losing, it was still a step in the right direction. Maybe the world just wasn't ready for a strong, confident, high-heeled woman to be standing in the Oval office.
But according to a Pew poll in May, a full 71 percent of voters said gender would make no difference, and 19 percent said they'd be more likely to vote for a woman. Times are a changin'!
A lot has happened in the nine years. There was a record number of women nominated at the Emmys for directing, Yahoo hired Katie Couric as a global anchor and GoDaddy refused to create sexist Superbowl ads. These feats may seem small to some, but to a women attempting to enter the workforce, they mean the world. Those were just a couple of examples of women breaking down the gender barriers, but it proves we have made progress.
Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go. Proof? Currently, women's earnings are 78.3 percent compared to man. If that's enough to make your blood boil, then I don't know what is. That statistic makes me laugh. I sit in classes and work with both men and women each day, and knowing my male friends will end up making more money than me ... it kills me.
But Greenfield does a beautiful job of showing how women have taken the world by storm –– specifically in the political stomping grounds. He explains how in 2015, for the first time ever, more than 100 women will serve in Congress. Over the past four decades, 22 states have elected female governors. He agrees with me about women being able to overcome inequality hurtles, but not yet crossing the finish line. He just whips out statistics and information that proves we're well on our way to making history.
With a deep, diverse pool of possible women candidates, we have a chance to take the presidency by storm. I believe we're ready. I'm excited that I've reached an age where I like talking politics. I actually enjoy reading about what's going on, who's running, who stands for what, who spoke about what issue and where. I'm thrilled to hopefully be able to say I voted for the first woman president (depending on which candidates run!). I'm confident that sometime, maybe not in 2016, we will be seeing a woman president.
#womanpower
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Slender Man's Liaisons
In Rolling Stone's February issue, they rehashed the details and new findings of the chilling case of the Slender Man killers.
In May 2014, almost a year ago, two Wisconsin girls lured their friend into the woods where they brutally stabbed her 19 times with a kitchen knife. Their motive? Slenderman made them do it.
Who is Slender Man? He's a fictional character that someone created in 2009 for a Photoshop contest. It gained extreme popularity among the Internet, where users rallied together and created a creepy Slender Man phenomenon.
I've followed this case since it was plastered all over the news last year, but I hadn't realized it was still ongoing. Apparently, new images have come to light, which could likely affect the trial. Rolling Stone says that graphic images from the girl's notebooks feature an elaborate killing plan, including dolls with red, blood-like smudges and a list of the essentials (including "the will to live" ... how creepy is that).
So, what are these insane images mean for the two underage, Slender Man killers? They might be getting a lighter sentencing. Insane. Last year, a Wisconsin judge said the girls, Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weierm, were "mentally fit to stand trail." But now their attorneys are making a play for the trial to be moved to juvenile court. An obvious smart choice on their part.
Clearly these girls are a some type of unstable, but honestly, isn't everyone a little whacky?
There's a difference between having the capability to do something so incredibly heinous, like stabbing your friend 19 times, and actually stabbing your friend 19 times. Just because you're drawing disturbing images and planning what weapon to use on your friend doesn't mean you're mentally unfit –– it's called premeditated murder.
But hey, I'm no psychiatrist. I'm just a girl who watches a lot of Law and Order and Criminal Minds.
From the first time I read the details of the attempted murder, it sent chills down my spine. Now, reading the gruesome details about how they planned for pepper spray, a map of the woods and their weapon of choice, it's even more disturbing.
As of now, the girls will be charged as adults adults with first-degree intentional attempted homicide. Again, I'm no doctor, lawyer or anyone who would be substantial to the case –– but as someone who is qualified to sit a juror ... I would want to see them charged as the latter.
Who knows, maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe they really are a couple of loose screws rolling around on this Earth, and they belong in a mental facility instead of behind bars. I guess I would be happy as long as their unable to get together and plot crimes.
I just believe in the good ole saying, "Don't commit the crime, if you can't do the time."
In May 2014, almost a year ago, two Wisconsin girls lured their friend into the woods where they brutally stabbed her 19 times with a kitchen knife. Their motive? Slenderman made them do it.
Who is Slender Man? He's a fictional character that someone created in 2009 for a Photoshop contest. It gained extreme popularity among the Internet, where users rallied together and created a creepy Slender Man phenomenon.
I've followed this case since it was plastered all over the news last year, but I hadn't realized it was still ongoing. Apparently, new images have come to light, which could likely affect the trial. Rolling Stone says that graphic images from the girl's notebooks feature an elaborate killing plan, including dolls with red, blood-like smudges and a list of the essentials (including "the will to live" ... how creepy is that).
So, what are these insane images mean for the two underage, Slender Man killers? They might be getting a lighter sentencing. Insane. Last year, a Wisconsin judge said the girls, Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weierm, were "mentally fit to stand trail." But now their attorneys are making a play for the trial to be moved to juvenile court. An obvious smart choice on their part.
Clearly these girls are a some type of unstable, but honestly, isn't everyone a little whacky?
There's a difference between having the capability to do something so incredibly heinous, like stabbing your friend 19 times, and actually stabbing your friend 19 times. Just because you're drawing disturbing images and planning what weapon to use on your friend doesn't mean you're mentally unfit –– it's called premeditated murder.
But hey, I'm no psychiatrist. I'm just a girl who watches a lot of Law and Order and Criminal Minds.
From the first time I read the details of the attempted murder, it sent chills down my spine. Now, reading the gruesome details about how they planned for pepper spray, a map of the woods and their weapon of choice, it's even more disturbing.
As of now, the girls will be charged as adults adults with first-degree intentional attempted homicide. Again, I'm no doctor, lawyer or anyone who would be substantial to the case –– but as someone who is qualified to sit a juror ... I would want to see them charged as the latter.
Who knows, maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe they really are a couple of loose screws rolling around on this Earth, and they belong in a mental facility instead of behind bars. I guess I would be happy as long as their unable to get together and plot crimes.
I just believe in the good ole saying, "Don't commit the crime, if you can't do the time."
Sunday, March 1, 2015
SNL takes on ISIS
So, Saturday Night Live is back at it. They recently celebrated their 40th Anniversary, and I couldn't be happier with the extra long special episode they put it out. Congratualtions SNL!
They're also back at it with their occasional distasteful humor. This past Saturday night they had 50 Shades of Grey star Dakota Johnson on as a special guest. She starred in a video where she's saying goodbye to her dad (Taran Killam). You assume by the camo backpack and her tearful goodbye to her dad that she's joining the military — until she's says "Dad, it's just ISIS," and winks at him.
You could hear the audience laughing in the background, but I was more confused than anything. A jeep with men dressed as ISIS members roll up to pick Johnson up, and they shoot into the air as they drive away.
Honestly, I'm pretty tolerable about SNL and their skits. I don't take anything too personally or question their motives often, but this one had my eyebrow raised.
I know that they're goal is to take things that are taken seriously and warp them into a comedy skit. They don't make light of sitatutions to be hurtful, but I thought this one went a little too far. Men have been brutally beheaded by this group, and it doesn't seem to be ending soon. We haven't met a common ground with them, so the brutality isn't coming to an end.
When I saw the skit, I wondered if any of the ISIS victim's parents were at home watching this episode. It was a chilling feeling. I wonder what American journalist Steven Sotloff's family would think if they saw the skit making light of the terrorist group. The terrorist group that beheaded their loved one.
I'm curious to know what the thought process of this skit was. Who came up with it? It must have gone through a number of people in the progression, but no one thought it was inappropriate? I wonder what the conversation was around this production, the costume choices, the script, the choice of actors ... it's just very bizzare to me that this was something they chose to highlight.
There are so many other things out there to pick on. What about this stupid black/blue, gold/white dress debate? I'm sure there are some celebrities who have said something stupid to the media or a cat who did something on the Internet.
I love SNL. I've always said my dream job would be to work in some capacity with the cast and writers, but this just wasn't a skit I could laugh at.
Check out the spoof below.
They're also back at it with their occasional distasteful humor. This past Saturday night they had 50 Shades of Grey star Dakota Johnson on as a special guest. She starred in a video where she's saying goodbye to her dad (Taran Killam). You assume by the camo backpack and her tearful goodbye to her dad that she's joining the military — until she's says "Dad, it's just ISIS," and winks at him.
You could hear the audience laughing in the background, but I was more confused than anything. A jeep with men dressed as ISIS members roll up to pick Johnson up, and they shoot into the air as they drive away.
Honestly, I'm pretty tolerable about SNL and their skits. I don't take anything too personally or question their motives often, but this one had my eyebrow raised.
I know that they're goal is to take things that are taken seriously and warp them into a comedy skit. They don't make light of sitatutions to be hurtful, but I thought this one went a little too far. Men have been brutally beheaded by this group, and it doesn't seem to be ending soon. We haven't met a common ground with them, so the brutality isn't coming to an end.
When I saw the skit, I wondered if any of the ISIS victim's parents were at home watching this episode. It was a chilling feeling. I wonder what American journalist Steven Sotloff's family would think if they saw the skit making light of the terrorist group. The terrorist group that beheaded their loved one.
I'm curious to know what the thought process of this skit was. Who came up with it? It must have gone through a number of people in the progression, but no one thought it was inappropriate? I wonder what the conversation was around this production, the costume choices, the script, the choice of actors ... it's just very bizzare to me that this was something they chose to highlight.
There are so many other things out there to pick on. What about this stupid black/blue, gold/white dress debate? I'm sure there are some celebrities who have said something stupid to the media or a cat who did something on the Internet.
I love SNL. I've always said my dream job would be to work in some capacity with the cast and writers, but this just wasn't a skit I could laugh at.
Check out the spoof below.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)