U2 Still Surprising LA with Live Performances

Share

Almost thirty years ago, U2 took to a roof in LA, at Seventh and Main. Radio hosts pointed out it wasn’t in a great neighborhood, but people might want to drop by to listen, since the concerts were all sold out. Many people did, which lead to the LAPD shutting down the performance. That was in 1987, when MTV still played music videos, and the band was filming for that and the promotion of their new album, “Joshua Tree.”

That was five years before the LA Riots – the U2 rooftop performance didn’t result in any arrests (or at least there is no mention of them in any accounts of the day on the web now.)

Now, the band is on tour for the first time with just the “Joshua Tree” album on the playlist for their performances. Maybe they thought it would be a good idea to do a smaller scale reprise of the LA live performance that resulted in the music video for “Where the Streets Have No Name.” This time, they just took over Jimmy Kimmel’s stage:

While it might be interesting to see how they would do it, it’s doubtful that U2 is getting as much “help” as they did in that version of “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” on the road.

For those of you who want to do a direct comparison, here’s when the band walked the strip in Las Vegas to do the original music video:

Share


Source: Subculture

U2 Still Surprising LA with Live Performances

Marshall’s Haul

 I went to town in Marshall’s where I found amazing deals on these brands and more. I was able to purchase a new purse strap for my purse. I also paid $14.99 for Guess sunglasses. I found a hand lotion from The Body Shop for 3.99, and a O.P.I nail polish set for $4.99. I even found high end items for cheap. For instance, I found a full size Marc Jacobs eyeliner for $7.99, a Stila eye shadow for $4.99, and a full size lip gloss from Smashbox for $7.99. I mean come on the savings alone justify my spending. Even more I’m planning another shopping trip to Marshall’s before I leave for vacation. If I was to spend my money in department, I wouldn’t be leaving with all this stuff. Now no judgement, I work for it. I have a Michael Kors purse that I purchased with my tax refund. I spent $150 on it, I only spent $76 at Marshall’s, and I walked with more items. That is amazing, I mean seriously this was a great deal.


Source: The Sensitive Shopper

Marshall’s Haul

Katy Kat Matte and Pearl

Only having four things from this collection, I can definitely say there are hits and misses when trying something new. I don’t know why but there only one or two things I like from this. However I know there is a mascara in this line. I have a bad time with drugstore mascaras because I have sensitive eyes. So I won’t be trying any of the Katy Kat mascaras. I’m terribly sorry but I know I can’t wear Cover Girl mascaras.

The first thing I want to talk about the Katy Kat Matte lipstick. I have the shade Kitty Purry which is a pretty mauve plum color. The product goes on smooth and feels very comfortable. However it’s not transfer proof, has a semi matte finish, but is not long lasting. Touch ups are definitely recommended when you wear it. This is very opaque and doesn’t dry out your lips.

Katy Kat Pearl lipstick in the shade Purrty In Pink is not bad, but is not my cup of tea. This is suppose to be a pearly sheen, however it’s more of a creamy sheen. This product can be streaky and sticks to dry patches on the lips. Honestly I’m not the biggest fan of this lipstick.

 

This is a great eye shadow base. The shade is Tiger Rose, which is a lovely rose gold color. This is not heavy on the eyes. Also it doesn’t smear all over the eye. It’s perfect for building up shimmer shadows. I have not experience any irritation or my eyes watering. This a wonderful product, I recommend you giving it try.

Katy Kat Pearl eyeliner, I have the shade Kitty Whispurr. This is a pearly white eyeliner, there is no real pigmentation, no real color, and only a slight pearl sheen. Does not stay in the water liner or the lid. This not long lasting at all, there was no irritation, but it’s just not worth it. There is another however I’m not purchasing it.


Source: The Sensitive Shopper

Katy Kat Matte and Pearl

Beauty Youtubers I watch

I have a very limited list of Beauty Youtubers I watch on a weekly basis. The list consists of five channels, all ranging from different back grounds.

1.) Tati Westbrook or Glam Life Guru: I love her honest opinion and value commitment to providing check-ins  when testing new products. She tries products from the drugstore to luxury products. If you are looking for a well rounded product review. She is the one I watch to learn of new product launches.

2.) Kathleen Lights: Just like Tati, she  does product review. However she also has her own company. She owns KL nail polish, which is amazing, also that means she understands how the beauty industry works. Not from whole product press release, but from the start of how a product is made.

3.) Thataylaa: She reviews foundations for Fair Problematic skin. She tests each and every foundation to see if they cover acne prone skin. While she is doing that, there are swatches to compare under tones. I appreciate that she does that. Her reviews can be very helpful to anyone wanting to know how a foundation looks.

4.) Heyitsfeii: She reviews k-beauty products and acne care products. I love how she testes skin care for acne prone and sensitive skin. She also tries out trends from Korea and Instagram to see if they work. All of her reviews are honest and also informative. However if you don’t like people acting silly while doing something in the video then she might not be for you. Though I enjoy her videos and find them very nice.

5.) Dramatic Mac: She is a Youtuber from Ireland, which of the products she finds is hard to get. However for all of her international fans. She tries to find websites the ship world wide. I like her videos and find her very enjoyable. She even does one brand reviews, where she testes products in the brand of her choosing.

I hope you all find this useful, I find their input can help when I’m testing a product. If something didn’t work for them but works me. I keep in mind what to look for when I’m trying products.


Source: The Sensitive Shopper

Beauty Youtubers I watch

I Might Not Wear Foundation

I have reached a point where I can’t find a good foundation. Recently, my skin has been acting up. Some days it’s very oily or I have dry patches on my face. Anytime I wear foundation it’s very dry looking or it breaks down from my oils. However my concealers are not acting the same way. In fact, they are the only thing that stay on my face. I have been wearing just concealer on my face for the time being. I have noticed my makeup lasting longer. Until I figure out what is going on, this might be my only solution.


Source: The Sensitive Shopper

I Might Not Wear Foundation

It’s a Soap Ad – Not the End of the World!

Share

In case you weren’t aware of it, many women are very particular about the products that they use to take care of their own skin (and the skin of their babies.) The makers of Dove products have made a cozy home for themselves on the market for women with sensitive skin. In case you’re wondering what that means, when you go into a store with entire aisles of soaps and shampoos, the people with sensitive skin can buy maybe a handful of products on the shelves without fear of adverse reactions.

That means burning, stinging, rashes, break outs, and all manner of other nasty things.

There’s another little problem for many women when it comes to products they like. Manufacturers have a horrible habit of taking some off the market entirely, without bothering to even attempt to replace them.

(My aunt used to say, “Never say you love something, because someone in the factory will hear you, and they won’t make it anymore!”)

Dove is guilty of removing some products, but they’re really good about coming up with a “new and improved” option that often really is at least as good as what it’s replacing. Sometimes, it really is much better.

That said, when I came across people talking about boycotting Dove, I rolled my eyes.

Nope. Not happening in my household.

When I heard why, it was all I could do to keep from spewing coffee everywhere.

Seriously? People are upset about an advertisement about mothers that happens to include a transsexual?

I believe the argument was that Dove was somehow endorsing LGBT lifestyles by just having “those people” in the commercial.

Well, not exactly.

If you watched it, great. If not, just take my word for it on this one.

No, they were not “endorsing” anyone in their commercial.

Yes, they were saying that every mother is entitled to being able to make her own decisions about how she raises her own children. (It’s safe to assume that they aren’t suggesting that can include mistreating or abusing any precious children.)

If you really want to push it to the political end, this commercial was promoting the individual liberty of mothers everywhere, period, full stop.

Dove wasn’t telling anyone how to be a parent.

Dove wasn’t saying any parent is better than another.

Dove was saying all parents (especially mothers) are created equal, and are endowed with the right to raise their children how they see fit.

Oh no!

That’s terrible!

Let’s boycott them right now, for making the radical suggestion that everyone (from government down to in-laws) should stay out of the business of mothers!

Needless to say, this is just another case of people looking for a reason to be outraged.

Share


Source: Subculture

It’s a Soap Ad – Not the End of the World!

Ann Coulter, UC Berkeley, and Attention Whoredom

I made the observation on Twitter that there really was no way that Ann Coulter was ever going to speak on the UC Berkeley campus.

Full stop.

That shouldn’t need to be repeated, and if anyone can come up with a remotely-close-to-legitimate argument to the contrary, I may have to publicly humiliate myself for their benefit.

Since I’m not into humiliation, on with the explanation why Coulter just wasn’t going to do that appearance.

There is a single piece of information that is needed to explain this—Milo Yiannopoulos was pushed off that campus, violently so.

On the scale of “objectionable persons” in the sheltered world known as the UC system in general, the flamboyant gay guy who likes to call the president “daddy” is actually less detestable than Ann Coulter. At least he’s gay, right?

Coulter has built a reputation for being crass, ignorant, hateful, bigoted… I could go on, but I’m not in the mood to show the extent of my vocabulary right now. Bluntly, she stands for all the things that Berkeley students cower in safe spaces to shield themselves from every day.

If anyone wants to attempt to start the argument of free speech, and diversity of views on campus, see the previous list of negative adjectives. “If” Coulter was remotely close to serious, and could manage to string two sentences together without insulting huge swathes of the US population, then we could get into that discussion.

That isn’t the case.

Coulter is a shock jock, in the hateful toad sense, as opposed to the stripper-loving Howard Stern sense. While the latter might wander into the realm of misogyny, at least it’s with the consent of the participants (and all in naughty fun.)

When dealing with someone who cannot manage to offer constructive ideas without peppering them heavily with hate, there is no reason to suggest that there would be educational value for students. Well, maybe she might be a good case study for psychology students, but it’s doubtful that Coulter would appreciate being told by her audience that they think she’s a sociopath, a malignant narcissist, or both.

This entire exercise had nothing to do with freedom of speech on campus. Hate speech, while still protected speech for the moment, does not have educational value outside of pointing at it as an example of what not to do. It’s already been established that Coulter doesn’t take kindly to being challenged on her twisted world view, so there wouldn’t be an opportunity for an enlightened debate on anything. So, what was this really about?

Coulter is an attention whore.

She’s worried about remaining relevant, so she’s creating dramas to keep herself in the spotlight. What’s better than to have the she-devil claim to be the victim of the special snowflakes that can’t handle hearing her vitriol?

Newsflash—the snowflakes aren’t the only ones who don’t want to listen to her. There are plenty of people who at least slightly agree with Coulter who don’t want to hear her either. Back to the previous statement about her fear of losing relevancy.

So, before anyone gets sucked into the “Coulter as victim” nonsense, think about it. The only thing Coulter is a victim of at this point is fewer dollars in her pocketbook because fewer people want to hear her these days. Now that she’s taken to trying to force herself in front of groups she knows very well have zero interest in hearing her, everyone should be smelling the desperation.


Source: Liz Harrison

Ann Coulter, UC Berkeley, and Attention Whoredom

Content Filters as Censorship

As long as there is content on the web, there will be arguments about what is “offensive.” Sure, we might want to think that some information or media would not be objectionable to anyone, but the climate of outrage has reached such a fevered pitch, this is unrealistic to assume.

When it comes to content that is even remotely sexual, there are constantly arguments about what is acceptable, objectionable, pornographic, etc. Parents fight with content platforms about age gates – something to make people feel good, but don’t really stop much. Then there are the piles of filters out there, offered with free-standing software, by ISP’s, and now by individual platforms like flickr, Facebook, and now Twitter.

The problem inherent in all of this is that as a general rule, the programmers and developers who are tasked with creating these filters don’t tend to consult the creators of the content they want to allow users to block. Many people who provide sexual content that people might find objectionable honestly don’t want to force their “stuff” on the world. That means they would probably help those developers create filters, assuming that the goal was to leave the decision of blocking to the end user. We get annoyed when the filters are platform-wide, and no one can choose to opt-out of them.

So, what needs to happen to “fix” this issue?

A good start would be for companies to stop acting solely on what they find in their complaint boxes. The people who are offended might have an honest issue that needs to be addressed, but lately, it could just as easily be the current faux-outrage fueling the complaints. You can’t please all of the people all of the time, and if your business plan includes catering to people who actively look for reasons to be offended, you will drive your employees insane trying to keep up.

Next, at least when it comes to the murky area of sexual content (from educational content on sex like here, to pornography, and everything in between), start talking to the content creators. Reach out to organizations that represent them, or are active politically for sexual freedom, like NCSF. Instead of randomly choosing keywords, ask us what is most likely to work for your users who want to keep their kids away from as much purely adult content as possible.

Finally, be highly suspicious of people who are demanding content blocking because it “triggers” them. Yes, it is possible you might end up ignoring someone with legitimate problems, but the fact is that no one gets over being “triggered” by anything without facing it, period. When it comes to overcoming past sexual trauma, “safe spaces” were originally meant to describe environments with mental health professionals. People would then be exposed to known “triggers,” and be able to deal with them with the help of those professionals. No one knows all of their “triggers,” so it is impossible to help anyone avoid all of them. Bluntly, this isn’t in the job description of content providers or social media platform developers, no matter how much anyone screams otherwise. It is ok for tech professionals to tell these people that they need mental help, not more content filters.

Bottom line here is that tech companies providing social media platforms for the masses need to stop worrying so much about catering to the whims of people who leap from one outrage to the next on a nearly daily basis. Don’t be afraid to reach out to the providers of the content people honestly want to filter for real reasons, outside of the outrage circus. We don’t bite – well, not unless you want us to!

Share

Source: Kinksanity

Content Filters as Censorship