Time For SNL To Get More Diverse Musical Guests

The latest selection of musical guests for SNL can be seen as two ways: It's engaging with a group of musicians they feel is diverse and really gets acclimated with the times we live on. On the other hand, many feel that SNL has not gone far enough with its diverse selections. Now, it may be changing.

On the most recent episode of SNL, they announced that the musical guest for the March 28, 2020 will be Dua Lipa, a singer and songwriter from England and also one of the more popular up-and-coming singers we are seeing rise to the occasion, and that's good.

Why am I bringing this up, you may ask? For the last few weeks or so, a friend of mine and myself have been discussing why SNL has had a lack of girl pop in recent episodes. Think about it: We've had Luke Combs, David Byrne, and Justin Bieber all perform on SNL fairly recently. As you can tell, they are not female performers, and especially not under girl pop. My friend chalked this up to arrogance on the part of NBC, and especially since NBC has come under fire recently with its scandals involving Matt Lauer and Jeremy Roenick, respectively, although in different situations.

That brings me to another point: While NBC has tried hard to get a more diverse group of musical guests into their lineup, I feel that there is still work to be done. Yes, we've had Lizzo and Halsey recently as well, but there's certainly a bigger group of girl pop musicians that could really have their careers improved by being on SNL. Dua Lipa is going to have that opportunity on the 28th and I really hope she does well because I think people like her can really set the stage and allow more musicians to flourish and be successful.

When it comes to diversity, it means you should go all-out diverse. It means you need to approach people who are white, black, autistic, female, male, etc. You need to have a wide variety of musicians and selections to choose from, not just those in a little window. It looks like they're getting the message clearly with Dua Lipa coming aboard. The question now is: Will they be able to keep this going and allow more girl pop to be welcomed onto SNL? We'll see.

Trump Administration's New Rule Would Exclude LGBT Families

The Trump administration is finally going through on a rule that would affect the evangelical community greatly, a group that Trump has a very loyal support of.

His administration on Friday proposed a rule that would allow faith-based foster care and adoption agencies, mostly those who are Christian and Catholic, continue to get taxpayer funding even if they exclude LGBT families and others from their services based on religious beliefs.

The announcement comes with sharp backlash from both Democratic lawmakers and LGBTQ advocacy groups. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) said that the Trump administration is working to "implement cruel and discriminatory policies and wasting taxpayer dollars in its obsessive pursuit."

The concern of many evangelical voters has been that Democrats have unnecessarily imposed policies that were not faith-based and felt that it went against their core mission to include only those who are part of their faith. This was part of the religious freedom they were talking about.

This rule would redo an Obama-era rule that included sexual orientation as a protected trait under anti-discrimination protections. However, many knew that once Trump got into the Oval Office that this was going to be one of the rules that he would scale back on, because it was important to him to please religious voters and have them choose who they would support and not support.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said that the Obama-era rule had restricted the work of faith-based organizations, and that it was unfair and served no one.

The Family Research Council, which is a conservative advocacy group, said that charities will no longer have to choose between "abandoning their faith or abandoning homeless children."

Katie Hill's Resignation

Is Congress having a #MeToo problem or is it just a small scandal that enveloped a one-time Congresswomen?

The first female to resign in the #MeToo era belongs to one-term Congresswomen Katie Hill.

On Thursday, barely a week into her own publicized scandal, Hill announced that she plans to resign and will not run for reelection. Hill is now the 10th member of Congress to announce plans she will not run for re-election for her district.

Hill gave a fiery speech on the House floor, a speech that ends her as a rising star in politics and was only 10 months in after taking the oath and won a leadership post in a giant class of freshmen House Democrats.

Hill's resignation could give some retrospect among lawmakers about how cases unfold like this and the proper ways in which to handle these kind of cases going forward. However, it is highly unlikely that her speech could impact the House going forward, especially among Republicans, who will nonetheless take advantage of the absence to elect a Republican into her district.

Hill said in her speech, "I am leaving because I no longer want to be used as a bargaining chip. I am leaving because I didn't want to be peddled by papers and blogs and websites, used by shameless operatives for the dirtiest gutter politics that I've ever seen and the right-wing media to drive clicks and expand her audience."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said about the moment that Hill is "very smart, strategic, patriotic" and said she has been victimized. However, the resignation is likely to change much or make any sort of impact going forward, at least for now.

Yes, Katie Hill has been victimized and she could've been used as a bargaining chip, in her words, to drive clicks, audiences, and even anger. So she got out before even more attention would've hurt her and her chances at getting re-elected.

Now that there's a House Ethics Committee investigation into her, we wait to see what the results will bring up. But it's clear it was a short rise and fall for a one-time Democratic star who had a chance to shape the future of the Democrat party.

Is Uber and Lyft Really Trustworthy?

Can we really trust Uber and Lyft to do the right thing when it comes to their history of bad drivers and making sure people felt safe?

That was what was going through my mind early this morning when I was taking my Mom to the airport for a 6 AM flight. In the past, she has usually taken Uber or Lyft to the airport and it's usually when I'm not around to give her a lift. Since then, however, times have changed as a single woman, she has felt that her safety has been jeopardized, no matter what Uber and Lyft put out there to say they value safety.

Despite that, I don't believe for one second that Uber and Lyft have their passengers at heart. I don't, and although I'm not involved or know much about what has changed since these two companies faced criticism for hiring drivers with sexual assault and harrassment, I do know that we're still a long way off from valuing safety. I was okay with taking my Mom to the airport not because I wanted to, but I felt that at those early hours of the morning, it was much safer for me to take her to the airport, rather than a stranger. There's always a bunch of creeps in the morning, no matter what.

So with that, it's a big reason why I have always shied away from telling people to take a car-share service to the airport, not because of the convenience, but also because where people like myself live, the cost of taking one of these ride-sharing services to the airport has gone up. For example, I once took a Lyft home from the San Jose airport to my Mom's place in San Carlos. The cost was around $30 and you may think that's not so bad. Well, a few years ago, when I did take a Lyft for the exact same location, it was around $20. Here's another example: I once took a Lyft from downtown Phoenix out to Glendale for a Cardinals game. Back then, it was about $10-15, which isn't bad. Now, it's between $20-$40, maybe even more when they are busy. Absurd, isn't it?

But that's beside the point, because I took those Lyfts when there was daylight out and it was reasonable. Now, in these days, it seems like sexual assault and sexual harassment is at the forefront of everything and we must indeed value our safety above all else. So while Uber and Lyft say they have tackled this issue to make their customers feel safer, I also feel that you can't really change human behavior, and it's sad, because I once trusted Lyft to get me to where I need to go at any hour. Now, during the nighttime hours, I'm very unsure and that's because giving lip service to an issue seems to be more important these days than actually doing this.

So is Lyft and Uber really trustworthy? I don't know. During the daytime, maybe a little more trust than at nighttime, but I think this says a thing or two about leadership, as well. You want good leaders who understand that they have to change their behavior to value safety. Uber did this when they forced out Travis Kalanick and Lyft may eventually force out Logan Green if their lower management also feels he hasn't tackled these issues enough. So, also, leadership is key.

Whether or not they change their behavior and their attitudes towards safety is up in the air. They have done a good job tackling these issues but they haven't gone far enough yet and that's a big hurdle they still have to overcome. We're going to find out sooner or later whether or not they have fully taken care of these issues and if not, then they are more likely than not to lose more trust and that will send a big message regarding the safety of its customers.

The First Chick-Fil-A In England To Close

A few days ago, Chick-Fil-A opened its first restaurant in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the opening was not without some bad news coming along with it. Many protests and activists in the country have been very vocal about the chain and particularly, its opposition to same-sex marriage. Now, it looks like their voices were heard.

The Oracle, which is a shopping mall based in Reading, England, where Chick-Fil-A's UK restaurant is, told the BBC that it will not allow Chick-Fil-A to stay beyond the initial six-month period that it was given. The spokesperson for the mall believes that this is "the right thing to do" after the call to boycott the chain. Looks like voices do speak truth to power.

Reading Pride is a local lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender advocacy group and they were responsible for these protests and speaking out about Chick-Fil-A's opposition to same-sex marriage. It wasn't like Chick-Fil-A was planning to stay, anyway. They had said earlier they had only planned to stay for a limited time.

Chick-Fil-A said in a news release, "We have been very pleased with the lines since opening Oct. 10 and are grateful for customer response to our food and our approach to customer service...We mutually agreed to a six-month lease with the Oracle Mall in Reading as part of a longer term strategy for us as we look to expand our international presence."

While the news release is nice and says all the right things, it may take a while before we see any international presence coming out of Chick-Fil-A. Now, having said that, a few months ago, I wrote to USA Today about Chick-Fil-A being pulled out of San Antonio and Buffalo for its views on same-sex marriage and I continue to stand by what I said then, which was I will still continue going to Chick-Fil-A, despite its views on same-sex marriage. I know it's there, I get it, but I don't see it at first glance, and not everybody in Chick-Fil-A shares the same views as its CEO.

Now, let me tell you the Reading Group's response to Chick-Fil-A and here it is: "We are staunchly opposed to Chick-Fil-A setting up shop in the UK and certainly in Reading...The chain's ethos and moral stance goes completely against our values, and that of the UK as we are a progressive country," meaning they legalized same-sex marriage and try to strive for equality.

Ok. Acceptable. I understand that. I applaud the Reading Group for having their voices heard. I mean, these groups do believe in something powerful and I do understand why The Oracle would want to make sure all their customers are happy and equal and care for each other. However, I do wish that Chick-Fil-A would not have succumbed to this pressure as quick. It's the same thing I said about Buffalo and San Antonio as well. One person's views, in this case the CEO, do not represent the views of the employees and the customers that dine there. It's all of different backgrounds and different views and I'm sure they bring this up constantly. So I'm hoping this closing is not a consequences of the protests, but of a trial run for what Chick-Fil-A could be if it expand, food wise anyway.

I will still continue going to Chick-Fil-A. I think it's a terrific venue with a lot of nice people and who have tremendous quality in their chicken. So, I was hoping Chick-Fil-A would've considered differently, but maybe there's something else in store for the future overseas. We'll see what happens going forward with the chain.

For more information and for my reference on this, click here for the Yahoo News article.

Social Media: Good or Bad?

It has always been said that there are good and bad sides to social media. Social media is both a powerful platform for people looking to advertise or to market brands or services. It’s also a way to keep up with the daily news of what’s going on around the world or in the United States.

Then there’s the bad side of social media and that includes the effects of it that are having big impacts on the world stage. You have President Donald Trump going after people on social media, attacking them either personally or professionally, although most of the times it’s personally. You have guys like Antonio Brown, who was just released by the Oakland Raiders, after a frustrating August where he was mad about the helmet issue and then was fed up with being fined time after time by the Raiders. Those fines resulted in him losing his guaranteed money, which he was definitely not pleased with. He went on social media to vent his anger and eventually found his way out, thanks in part to social media, where he asked the Raiders for his release so he can start over. He used the advantage of social media as a powerful way to get out of an unhappy situation. (Let’s face it: people are mostly unhappy when they go to the Raiders)

So what does this mean about social media? Is it good? Is it bad? Can it be both? And would we feel better and would things change if we went without it?

Despite the truth that social media can be considered a form of online bullying, as we have seen lately from some world leaders and trolls, social media is very powerful in creating change. It has allowed many people to reach out to those who want to reconnect, for those who work in the marketing world (like I do), and it’s used for those who just want the daily scores from any sports league. There’s tons of options that social media can be good for.

Here’s the advice, though: Don’t overuse it. Don’t be on there too much. We have already seen many heads and employees at these social media companies give a stern warning to the effects of social media. It can consume your life, it can turn negative if you’re on it too much, and it definitely can affect your relationships with even your close friends and relatives. 

I have experienced this firsthand when I was in the later years of high school and the early years of college, where I spent a lot of time on social media. I have spent countless hours on it at times, scrolling through times and interacting with the world. Eventually, overtime, I have discovered it has negatively affected the way I worked, the way I did schoolwork, and the way I looked at other people. I realized this well into my sophomore year of college, and I wanted to do something about it. So I decided to stop using it for many months. I eventually became calmer, much more positive, and opened myself up to more friendships and listening to other peoples’ point-of-view much more often than before. I think I changed my college life around pretty well, and I graduated in five years with a degree in English.

I feel like I need to do more to help kids and young adults understand what the effects are for social media. You should not use it that often, unless of course, it’s part of your job, such as my marketing internships. Even then, though, there are times you do want to go on it, to see what other people. That’s fine, but don’t overuse it. I learned that lesson and I want kids to know out there that social media will not solve all the problems you’re hoping to fix it. That’s where community and group thinking come in.

Social media is a tool for good and a tool for evil. Use it wisely and as I said many times before, don’t overuse it. The minute you overuse social media, you quickly start to change your personality, and probably not in a good way. I managed to get out of it very quickly in the middle of college. Last thing I would want for people is for social media to consume them because there are more important things in the world we could be doing, like schoolwork or jobs or helping your neighbors and friends. To me, that’s the most important thing that really changed my life. I hope it changes yours too!

An Exodus Out of New York City

Is New York City losing its status as a city that everyone wants to go to, live in, and work in? Well, based on the most recent reports, it looks like it may be going in a different direction.

According to a recent article in Bloomberg, more and more people are leaving the Big Apple every day, and they currently lead all U.S. metro cities as the largest losers with 277 people moving every day. Every. Single. Day. That's more than double the 132 people just a year ago. Los Angeles and Chicago currently trail with daily losses of 201 and 161 residents, respectively.

Where are many of these people going? Well, according to a recent Bloomberg census data map, many are flocking to cities in the southern United States. Seven cities had an average of 100 new arrivals or more every day. Those include cities like Dallas, Phoenix, Tampa, Orlando, Las Vegas, and Austin. These account for a majority of the domestic and international migration. Cities like Houston and Miami also claimed some of those cities. Other than those cities, the major cold cities that was within the Top 10 of migrations was Seattle.

What's causing this mass exodus from big cities in the North and southwest to cities in the southern part of the US? Some of the cities that are losing residents are affected by high home prices and high taxes, which push residents out and deter potential movers. Last year alone, New York City had a decline of 200,000 people. Los Angeles had a loss of 120,000 and Chicago had 84,000 people leave its cities for the South. San Francisco and Washington, D.C. also experienced similar trends.

Other major factors in these migrations include localized growth such as employment, real estate trends, and development of retail opportunities. Government infrastructure and environmental conditions also play a part.

It's an amazing trend, but not a surprising one. Having lived in the Bay Area all my life and seeing the upsides and downsides of living in such a market like this, I can understand why many people would choose to move out of the Bay Areas towards destinations, particularly in the South. Although I am not at that point yet where I would choose to move out, I know that eventually I may be facing the same thing that many people have already chosen to do.

It's understandable that many of the cities that people are going to may not have the same type of job opportunities as those in the cities where residents are leaving, but people want to go somewhere where taxes and home prices will not impact them as much as they would in those bigger cities. They understand that and they'll take the risk, no matter what. They can't live in a place where taxes and home prices are going to affect substantially the way they live their lives and where they spend their money.

The number of people that are constantly leaving these cities every day is astounding and those numbers could increase, depending on where things go regarding the categories that I've already discussed. However, it's for a new opportunity and for one that's more cost-friendly to them. My advice for these cities that people are flocking in are to get ready. You've got some new friends in town and they're looking to cash in on what you can give them.