Groupon's "Save the Money" Commercials

Once a year our family goes in for a night of being a "normal" American family and watches the superbowl together. None of us are into football at all, but we have fun cheering along with millions of those who are around the world, gnoshing on goodies and best of all, watching the commercials. I admit I don't have the toughest skin, and there were a few moments in multiple commercials that I found tasteless. But when Groupon's Tibet themed ad came on, I had a naive moment of thinking that the ICT had actually raised enough money to run a superbowl commercial, which quickly turned into having my jaw drop when it turned into a "ha ha" moment for Groupon. My husband and I were both shocked that a company would take something as serious as the atrocities of Tibet and try to make a joke out of it. We logged onto Facebook to see the potential fallout. While encouraged that there was some, we wished there was more. Plenty of people were posting to bash the "hippies" (there was much worse name calling going on) who were offended. I tried to take a moment to analyze my feelings about the commercial. After sleeping on it and watching it along with Groupon's other commercials, I've decided that my initial reaction was sound. Quite simply, using a situation where we have seen a generation of murder, rape, religious oppression, and exile to make a joke is tasteless in the extreme. I've seen bloggers this morning defending Groupon as having been making a joke about themselves--being self deprecating by admitting that it's about money and nothing more. I don't see how that excuses the situation. Once again, it seems that the only way to try to get people to understand why it is offensive is to beg the comparison of something that would be significant to them. Can you imagine a company trying to get away with making light of something that the majority of Americans hold sacred? Would Groupon have ever even considered starting a commercial with the tragedies of 9/11 and then turning it into a joke about getting cheap New York pizza? Absolutely not. Yet they exploited an equally tragic situation because it was removed enough from the American psyche for them to get away with it.

Perhaps the saddest part of all of this for me is the opportunity it has created for the division of our country to play itself out on yet another canvas. Go to Groupon's Facebook page or any of the blogs where people are commenting, and you'll see people ripping apart those condemning Groupon. Thankfully as of early this morning there wasn't too much acknowledgement of those barbs, but there was some mud slinging back and forth. There is a definite air from those not offended of "Why should I care?". Mostly it's all just name calling and cries of "It's just advertising!" Again, I would challenge those defenders of Groupon to imagine a similar commercial with something that is dear to their heart. How about a joke ad about Hurricane Katrina's devastation that turns into a funny bit about saving money at a hardware store? Or maybe poking fun at our men and women in uniform who are in the line of fire and then turning into a laugh about cheap airline tickets? The point is that with this method of advertising, Groupon is capitalizing on our propensity that already exists to turn a blind eye to issues that we can easily forget about. These are issues that are easy for Americans to forget about--to think it doesn't affect us because it's not our backyard. Groupon is giving a nudge and a wink to things that we should be ashamed to be brushing aside as "not my problem". It's truly shameful.

Groupon's only saving grace is their "Save the Money" site where the ads are posted along with buttons where people can donate to related charities for each of the issues that Groupon is mocking: currently commercial whaling, rainforest deforestation, and Tibet. (All very funny issues, right?) For the Greenpeace donation, Groupon will give you a $15 credit for a $15 donation. Groupon is also matching donations to the organization they chose: "The Tibet Fund", up to $100,000. That's nice, sure, but does it really make up for exploiting gross human rights violations for advertising? I find it almost equally offensive that they feel that throwing a "donate" button up under the commercial makes up for their tasteless ads. There is some information from The Tibet Fund on the option to purchase the $15 donation for them. At this point I think Groupon should at the very least make a bigger deal about encouraging people to learn about the issues in Tibet. At the time of this post 1,667 people have purchased the donation to Greenpeace (getting $15 back in Groupon credit). Only 47 have purchased the Tibet donation. I myself wouldn't purchase it because it feels like condoning the ad. Until Groupon ups the ante in repairing this colossal blunder I'll be canceling my Groupon account (which they've made very difficult to do) and continuing to ask people to pay attention to things like these ads that are encouraging us to forget about everyone else's problems in favor of lining our own nests. While I would love to see an apology from Groupon, I'm learning to tone down my naivete.

The Future of Hope

Last night, when we heard Robert Siegel of NPR say it for the first time, we hung this second banner next to our Hope banner that's been up for a while now. We hung the banner as we cried tears of joy, as we laughed with disbelief, as we made a champagne toast to the future, as we hung blue crepe paper throughout the kitchen and the deck. We woke up Sprout and Bird, and carried our sleepy eyed children down as we turned on the TV and watched President Elect Barack Obama take the stage in Grant Park, and tell us that our hope has NOT been in vain. We watched over and over again this video, and sang along, and laughed and cried some more. Thank you voters. Thank you America, for standing up to make your voice heard. Thank you for believing, for hoping, for dreaming, and making a better tomorrow, a reality. I am so hopeful, so proud, and I stand with you today and share the dreams for the future, that now seem brighter than ever! YES WE CAN!!!

Things We Don't See on The News

Spread the word...

The Apron Strings

The introduction of Sarah Palin into the current political mess has sparked a flood of talk about feminism in America. Frankly, I haven't heard a single political comment about Palin and feminism that I agree with. I heard an article on NPR about Palin a few months ago, and she struck me as a strong, powerful woman. Still, I was shocked at McCain's choice of a running mate with so little experience. I cringed at what seemed obvious: He was gunning for Clinton supporters. There have been so many cringe-worthy moments since that initial announcement.
One thing that's driving me crazy is the people saying that they are going to vote for Palin because the "talking heads" are saying she shouldn't run for Vice President because she's a mom. Moms are great, they say. Moms can do anything. Well trust me, I know that most Moms are superheroes. Even Palin has donned this pitbull-with-lipstick-hockey-mom image with pride. But frankly, I have a real problem with the "I'm a mom just like you." line of thought. I want an individual who isn't all that much like me, frankly. I have some major ideas about government, but do I think I'm qualified to run the country? Heck no. And frankly I cringe at the fact that these self professed "feminists" say they are voting for Palin because the powers-that-be say she can't do it, or because Palin is a Mom. Shouldn't we empowered women be intelligent enough to realize when someone is chosen based on their gender? Palin may be a strong woman, but the idea that she is qualified for VP is outrageous. Shouldn't we expect more from our politicians than this?

Amidst all of the gender talk, I keep hearing the term "Apron Strings". They say Palin is tying on the apron strings with pride. (Some say this against Palin, some for Palin.) They play clips of conservative analysts accusing Hillary of "hiding behind the apron strings". Outside of politics, people accuse people who stay close to their mother's as "holding on to" the apron strings. I recently became the proud owner of an apron, so maybe that's what made these comments stick out to me. What does that mean, apron strings? In context, people seem to think it represents feminine, stay-at-home, dinner-on-the-table womanhood. Are strong women "hiding" their strength behind femininty? If so, apron strings are the wrong way to go about portraying this. As I was tying on my apron the other day, I realized something. Apron strings are designed to cross in back, and tie in front. Why? Because while we women are going about our business, there is no one standing around waiting to help us out. There is no one there to tie the strings of our aprons so we can keep our dresses clean. No, we tie our apron strings ourselves, and get down to the business of doing all of the hard work that--while behind the scenes--is so crucial to keeping everything running as it should.

My youngest started school last week. I have been a proud stay-at-home-mom (SAHM) for nearly seven years now, so this was a huge change. People kept telling me I would have "so much time" now, but I couldn't believe it. Indeed, I seem just as busy now as I was before. I still have two non-profits to Direct, a gardening business to co-operate, a house to keep, 3 dogs to care for, and 2 kids that now not only need much more of my attention when they are here, but need to be shuttled back and forth to school and have all sorts of new needs because of school. People used to tell me I was a superwoman, and I shook my head. But now I look back and wonder how I managed it all. I don't often pat my own back, but I'm doing it now in hopes that some of my readers will acknowledge their own superhero status as well, and wear their self-tied aprons with pride.

Sweet retro apron by Pretty Industries--ampirlot on Etsy.com.

Edwards Out

It's just been announced that John Edwards is going to be dropping his presidential bid today. I knew it was coming, but it still hurts. I feel like the Democratic party allowed itself to be blinded by the novel possibility of an African American man or a woman in the white house, and forgot about the importance of policy and vision. I know that's not PC of me to say, but I feel as strongly about it today as I have since before the Iowa caucus. So now what? I have to say I'm really undecided. To be perfectly honest, I'm not a Hillary lover. I campaigned in my youth for Mr. Clinton, and was thrilled with his presidency and felt betrayed by later scandal. Hillary has seemed over confident and even flippant to me in the past. On the issues, she seems to have relatively solid plans. I admit that I softened to her when she did her playful You Tube videos, and again when she had her "teary" moment. I was livid that the press jumped all over her for the incident, though I knew immediately that it would be a big issue. Later, when I saw footage of the "incident" I realized it wasn't that big a deal, and seeing her interviewed about it, I was very impressed with the way she described what happened, both brushing it off and acknowledging the emotions, embracing the importance of being human while making it clear that it didn't affect her ability to lead. That said, I still have my reservations about bringing Old Washington back to the White House. I'm not totally sold.

Now Barack Obama had me at "hello" when he spoke at the Democratic Covention a few years back. I became a big fan even though at that time I was not familiar with his politics. He was inspirational and charasmatic, and I believed in his vision. Now, nearly four years later, what his "Audacity of Hope" done? I find it interesting that the American Rhetoric site was the first to come up when I googled for that speech. Of course "rhetoric" is the proper term for the speech, but it also has connotations which I now associate with Obama. To keep with my movie terms, show me the money, Obama. I have a hard time looking at his voting record and seeing "NV" for no vote so many times. Obama is 4th on the list of senators who has missed the most votes. It should be noted that #1 is dear Senator Tim Johnson, who was absent most of his term due to a stroke, #2 is candidate John McCain, and #3 is Joe Biden. Hillary isn't that far behind at #7. I realize that these people are missing a lot of votes because they're campaigning, but c'mon, you have a job to do! Obama missed 178 votes, over 37% of the votes he had a chance on. (Clinton missed 105 for 23%.) So what is he doing there? I hear his incredibly eloquent words, and I want to believe, but where is the action? I like his ideals, I like his diverse background, but it just doesn't feel right.

I've been dissappointed to hear the intense and immature bickering that's gone back and forth between Clinton and Obama, dissapointed in the real estate scandal and WalMart ties that have come forth, and I'm left completely undecided. So why only a picture of Hillary today? Well, I tried to download a picture of Obama, but every time I did, his site locked up my computer. Maybe it's a sign. We'll miss you, John. Keep fighting the good fight.

John Who?

Who is this handsome guy with the winning smile? That's right, dear readers, it's my favorite presidential candidate, John Edwards. Don't tell anyone, but he won second place in the Iowa caucuses last night. Shhh, don't tell, it's a secret! Clearly it is--look at these lead paragraphs from the media:

Chicago Tribune - Young voters and independents flooded gyms and church basements in record numbers Thursday night, delivering a historic and decisive victory in the Iowa caucuses to Sen. Barack Obama, as he vanquished Sen. Hillary Clinton and certified his standing as her principal challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Salon-There are many rivers to cross before Obama is greeted with "Hail to the Chief." But this is the moment to marvel at what the first-term Illinois senator -- virtually unknown in the nation before his epic speech to the 2004 Democratic Convention -- has already achieved. A semireluctant candidate just a year ago, Obama defeated Hillary Clinton and the politics of inevitability in a state that destroyed anti-establishment candidates like Howard Dean and Bill Bradley.

I could go on, I saw plenty this morning. Do they get around to mentioning the candidate that beat Hillary anywhere? Well yes, later in the articles they go on to mention our dear silver medalist, but quickly sweep him into the corner because he has only spent a measly 3 million dollars on campaign ads, whereas Barack and Hillary have spent 7 and 10 million. Let's not forget that he's not exciting on TV either, just a white guy with strong experience, good plans, and one of the most solid characters I've ever ecountered. So does it matter that he got the second highest number of votes? No, good readers, no! Let's remember what our country is about: money and television. I encourage you all to count the number of ads for each candidate and research how much money they've poured into their campaign in our country where people are starving and going without basic medical care. That's what it's about: money and televsion, money and televsion. ([/sarcasm]) Don't get me wrong, if Barack gets the nomination, I'll be behind him. But let's not discount the individual who I think has the best chance of truly changing our country. Time is short my friends.



P.S.--Happy New Year, all! The standard, inspirational new beginning post will be forthcoming. Bright Blessings--M