Shanesha Taylor was arrested on March 20th by the Scottsdale Police for leaving her children ages 2 and 6 months in her car while she interviewed for a job. Ms. Taylor was homeless and could not access any child care. Her desperation to provide for herself and her children and her lack of options led her to take drastic measures in search of employment. Ms. Taylor needs support & help rather than incarceration and a criminal record that will surely decrease her chances to provide for her children in the future. We ask that Maricopa County use common-sense and provide support for Ms. Taylor and her children rather than punishment.
Shanesha Taylor is still in jail pending a $9,000 bond.
Help drop the child abuse charges against Shanesha Taylor by signing this petition at change.org. Here’s the link: http://www.change.org/petitions/bill-montgomery-drop-the-child-abuse-charges-against-shanesha-taylor?recruiter=13739587&utm_campaign=twitter_link_action_box&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition
Sign the petition.
sometimes i like to say rap lyrics in a proper, conversational tone like “fuck with me, you’re quite aware that i can eventually acquire it” and then i chuckle to myself this is why i’m single.
Not only TOMS, but also Starbucks and even Lockheed Martin and Wal-Mart have learned that linking their products to charitable causes makes for good business. We no longer buy only what we need, or even what broadcasts our identity. We buy what makes us feel like good people, and what makes us feel like members of a good, global community. The easy way to look at TOMS is to praise their charitable work. The harder, more troubling way to look at TOMS is to acknowledge it as an example of how corporations have assumed work most often associated with self-identified religious organizations: building community, engaging in charity, and cultivating morals.
TOMS is not alone in its willingness to link progressive social action with consumer spending. In fact, it exemplifies a broader corporate embrace of “conscious capitalism.” Coined by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, this business model assumes that “the best way to maximize profits over the long-term” is to orient business toward a “higher purpose.” So Starbucks sells coffee to “Put America Back to Work,” the (RED) campaign raises money to fight AIDS, and—in the best example yet—Sir Richard’s Condom Company sends a condom to Haiti for each one it sells (“doing good never felt better”). Meanwhile, Bank of America logos decorate PRIDE banners and Lockheed Martin brags that it is a “champion of diversity.”
The globalization of neoliberal capitalism, and particularly the popularity of “conscious capitalism” as a practice and a discourse, signals a change in the landscape of U.S. religion and politics. “Neoliberalism” most often refers to a loosely cohering set of economic, social, and political policies that (1) seek to secure human flourishing through the imposition of free markets and (2) locate “freedom” in individual autonomy, expressed through consumer choice. But it is also a mode of belonging, where ritual acts of consumption initiate individuals into a global community of consumer agents. Within neoliberal logics of religious and political action, consumer transactions and corporate expansion are recast as forms of spiritual purification and missionary practice. And within conscious capitalism, the “higher purpose” is a world in which all people have a chance (or obligation) to participate in free markets—understood as a multicultural community of consumers.
For Mycoskie—whose title is “Chief Shoe Giver”—building this multicultural community is a theological mandate. He frames his Christian faith as a component of his personal relationship to the company. At the evangelical Global Leadership Conference, keynote speaker Mycoskie answered a question about whether TOMS represents any “biblical principles”: “TOMS represents a lot of different biblical principles. But the one I go back to again and again is the one in Proverbs. Give your first fruits and your vats will be full. … Because we did that and stayed true to our one-to-one model [even amidst financial strain], we’ve been incredibly blessed. We really did give our first fruits.”
In non-confessional settings, TOMS proffers a humanistic version of this prosperity gospel, recast for a neoliberal age. Losing the Bible quotes, the company emphasizes that the “fruits of faith”—in this case, economic success—abound for those who embody the ideals of authenticity, good intentions, and service. Or, “higher purpose” is profitable. TOMS is successful because it creates opportunities for people to live into their own “purpose” through a simple transaction: buying a pair of shoes.❞
TOMS Shoes and the Spiritual Politics of Neoliberalism (via lunagemme)
Recently I was in the shopping mall and I happened to hear a conversation between some people discussing their dislike for this black girl’s hairstyle who had just previously walked by. One of them called the girl’s hairstyle “ghetto”, then followed up by saying “I hate when black girls put all them colors in their hair”. It led me to ask this question, what is ghetto really? Because I have seen similar hairstyles with Caucasian women never labeled as ghetto. The word “ghetto” has a negative stigma attached to it and it seems like ghetto has become synonymous for “Black People”.
What determines whether something is Ghetto or not? Why do some people consider one ghetto and not the other? Is being crafty with the supplies available to me ghetto? Is being creative while black unacceptable? Does the price of something determine whether you should consider it ghetto or not? Or maybe I’m wrong…. Please do share your thoughts….
You’re exactly right. Just like when Black people improvise, it’s ghetto, but let a middle-to-upper class white person do it, it’s a lifehack, or being thrifty, or economical, or thinking out of the box, or brilliant, or whatever.
THIS FOR ALL OF ETERNITY
Because every night I tell her about you. ❞
Shahrazad al-Khalij (via expiry)