By Lissette Calveiro
Absolut’s handcrafted luxury vodka, Elyx, and non-profit organization Water For People, are celebrating their five year partnership on the opening night of Art Basel at the exclusive art-deco Delano Hotel in South Beach (1685 Collins Avenue) on Thursday, December 3rd from 7 to 10 p.m.
The charity event is limited to VIPs, but we’ve scored a pair of tickets exclusive to Rise News readers. To enter, follow @RiseNewsNow on Twitter and Retweet our original Tweet and share our Art Basel First Timer’s Guide on your feed to enter.
— Rise News (@RiseNewsNow) December 2, 2015
We will notify one lucky winner on the evening of Wednesday, December 2nd.
Pioneering gallerist – Sean Kelly, world-renowned art curator – Jérôme Sans, Paddle8 cofounder and art-world disrupter – Alexander Gilkes, international marketer and Absolut Elyx CEO – Jonas Tåhlin and Water For People’s CEO – Eleanor Allen will co-host the outdoor gala, featuring a barbecue and bespoke cocktails.
During the event, guests will have the opportunity to view a sculpture created by artist Antony Gormley, which will be sold to raise funds for Water for People by online auction house Paddle8.
Widely acclaimed for his sculptures, installations and public artworks that investigate the relationship of the human body to space, Antony Gormley is a world-renowned artist.
The auction of Gormley’s sculpture will begin on Tuesday, November 24 and conclude on Wednesday, December 9. Two experiential lots – a private group tour of the Sean Kelly Gallery and a cocktail class at the new brand home, the Elyx House, in New York – will also be up for auction.
The celebration is part of a five-year partnership between Absolut Elyx and Water For People to provide safe water to more than 100,000 people worldwide. Proceeds from the auction could provide over 10,000 people with access to safe water for generations to come.
The event will also feature an exciting music line-up with a DJ set from Jasmine Solano and a live performance by Elliphant.
Jasmine Solano’s solid track record includes soundtracks for New York Fashion Week runway shows and the MTV World’s Scratch the Surface show that she produced and hosted. Swedish buzzworthy artist Elliphant has already amassed an impressive 40 million+ Spotify plays, 28 million+ video plays and an incredible 55k+ Shazam tags.
She has worked with Grammy Award nominees and winners Skrillex, Dr. Luke, Diplo, Major Lazer and Joel Little, the man responsible for producing Lorde’s critically acclaimed debut album.
“We are thrilled to partner with a host of luminaries for the benefit at Art Basel to raise awareness of the global water issue,” said Jonas Tåhlin, CEO of Absolut Elyx. “Through art, we hope to inspire others participate in this global dialogue in putting an end to water poverty within our lifetime. Our partnership with Water for People, Sean Kelly, Antony Gormley, and Jérôme Sans will shine a spotlight on the campaign while raising money to affect real change.”
The philanthropy partnership with Water For People launched in September. For every bottle of vodka sold, Elyx will provide access to one week of safe water (140 liters) to someone in need through Water For People’s work; for every copper pineapple drinking vessel sold, access to one month of water (560 liters) will be provided. Elyx’s new pop-up water truck and copper pineapple boutique will conclude its three city tour in Miami following stops in New York and Los Angeles during Art Basel.
Photo Credits: Submitted
What Do You Think?
About the AuthorLissette is a Miami native, working in the heart of Downtown as a publicist and freelance writer. She has also served as a bilingual spokesperson with more than a dozen national and regional press appearances to-date on stations including Telemundo, ABC and FOX. Lissette earned a B.A. in Public Relations and Leadership Studies from Florida State University.
You Might also like
For more than a year, my best friend Erin and I have been the two opposing factors in a long-standing argument: Which is more important to explore, the ocean or outer space?
She is a firm believer that escapism is a relevant issue that should be on the forefront of scientists’ agendas, considering our planet is treated like dirt—ha, dirt—and will eventually become unlivable, therefore we must be prepared to leave. I, on the other hand, have faith in our great Earth.
I believe that we can find answers to escapists’ queries right below our feet.
The ocean covers more than 70 percent of our planet, housing and supporting many of our living organisms and life forms over the entire planet.
The ocean affects weather patterns, provides entertainment and impacts human activity in so many ways.
It is the anchor of our very existence, yet we are killing it off each day.
Humans need to be held accountable for their role in global demolition in some way, and righting the wrongs we’ve done by our ocean is a much better option than running off to the stars to kill them too.
Our ocean is depressingly neglected.
Less than 5 percent of the ocean has been explored, leaving 65 percent of our Earth unknown.
We prioritize mapping out completely uninhabitable celestial bodies like Venus and Mercury, but continue to keep our ocean as an afterthought.
According to Larry Mayer, director of the Center for Marine Science and Coastal Engineering at the University of New Hampshire, it is a commitment issue.
“We could map the entire deep ocean for $3 billion—no more than a single Mars mission,” Mayer said in an interview with BBC.
The sea floor has technically been mapped out, but at a quarter of the resolution of other astronomical objects like Mars.
This information is hardly useful because it is neither detailed nor does it contain any information on the life that inhabits the deep sea.
Amitai Etzioni, a sociologist and director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University, coined the ocean as the “Fruitful Frontier” in a contributing article for Issues in Science and Technology.
With this phrase, Etzioni makes a great point.
The ocean is home to organisms that will help increase medicinary advancements; it is a sink for carbon dioxide, which can be a viable solution to climate change; it is a viable catalyst for developing safer, cleaner energy.
These are only a few items that demonstrate what our ocean has to offer.
The ocean is brimming with potential, yet we refuse to acknowledge its power.
Space is a place for dreamers; the doers look toward the seas.
From Etzioni’s article:
“The ocean has absorbed almost one-third of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emitted since the advent of the industrial revolution and have the potential to continue absorbing a large share of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Researchers are exploring a variety of chemical, biological and physical geoengineering projects to increase the ocean’s capacity to absorb carbon.”
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) made a statement on their website that they are working to increase oceanic research.
However, as actions continue to speak louder than words, space still takes priority.
Whether it be because it seems more mystifying than the seas or because it is a way out of a dying planet, oceanic ignorance will ultimately be the downfall of humanity before anything else.
So, say this ignorance lasts forever and we eventually obtain the knowledge and technology to venture off to Mars.
Say we find a way to colonize the red planet and live full, healthy lives with little complication.
There is no doubt that we will eventually kill Mars just like we let Earth down.
We will take our vices and keep polluting planets until spaceships are our only options left, and have you seen “WALL-E”?
It does not work.
In no way should we just halt space exploration altogether; that would be ridiculous.
It is just so obvious that the government’s money should be allocated to more necessary and relevant projects.
Even if funding was cut from space exploration, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) would not go out of business; corners would just have to be cut.
This means humans would most likely be cut from the big picture, for the moment.
But never fear, for we have robots!
Robots do not require the same accommodations like humans do: Food, radiation shields, armor against prolonged weightlessness and airlessness and—most importantly—a return ticket.
On the economic side of things as well, it costs much less money to send a robot into space than it costs to send a human.
Not to mention, it is much safer than throwing a human out into such uncharted territory; we can’t stand to have failed attempts when human lives are taken out of the picture.
Theoretical physicist and Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, in an interview for CNN, said manned missions are “an incredible waste of money.”
Weinberg continued, “[F]or the cost of putting a few people on a very limited set of locations on Mars we could have dozens of unmanned, robotic missions roving all over Mars.”
All in all, robots are disposable machines (sorry, “WALL-E”) that we can (and do) use as guinea pigs to do the dirty work humans cannot yet do in space.
So it would not even be a big surprise or change; NASA will not lose much.
While NASA will not lose much as far as human exploration, they are losing federal funding that, while it may seem small, will cause a great deal of suffering, especially in the current political climate.
President Donald Trump’s proposed 2018 budget amendment, “America First: a Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again,” takes significant stabs at NASA’s agenda that is ultimately detrimental to the Earth.
Trump wants to allocate $19 billion to NASA, which is a 0.8 percent decrease from former president Barack Obama’s 2016 budget.
Trump wants to prioritize commercial flights and partnerships between private and public corporations to make this happen.
That sounds great and all, but the seemingly harmless decrease is where the problem lies.
The budget states, “The Budget terminates four Earth science missions (PACE, OCO-3, DSCOVR 241-916, Earth-viewing instruments, and CLARREO Pathfinder) and reduces funding for Earth science research grants.”
The budget will also completely defund the Office of Education, a program created by NASA to guide youth to STEM careers and make NASA a more prominent role in science and math education.
If the Office of Education cut is not bad enough, consider the Earth science missions that would die too.
DSCOVR 241-916 would work with the upkeep of solar wind monitoring capabilities, which is critical in detecting space weather alerts and creating forecasts.
According to NOAA, “[w]ithout timely and accurate warnings, space weather events like the geomagnetic storms caused by changes in solar wind have the potential to disrupt nearly every major public infrastructure system, including power grids, telecommunications, aviation and GPS.”
OCO-3 is an asset to the International Space Station that would detect levels of carbon dioxide with the sharpest precision NASA has crafted thus far, and it has been a great opportunity for partnership between NASA and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency.
The Earth-viewing instruments would give us more developed imaging of the Earth from space.
In addition to these, PACE “will provide unprecedented insight into Earth’s ocean and atmosphere, which impact our everyday lives by regulating climate and making our planet habitable.”
And finally CLARREO Pathfinder “will monitor the pulse of the Earth to better understand climate change.”
Trump wants to cut the few things that NASA has planned to monitor Earth and detect patterns, which means we will miss out on possible significant understandings of climate change and what affects it.
Not to mention, the one mission that solely has to do with oceanic exploration will be cut as well, making Americans (and ultimately all humans) more ignorant to climate change and what it will take to restore the damage done to our planet.
It’s kind of a big deal.
And on top of all that, the Environmental Protection Agency would get a 31 percent decrease if Trump’s budget ever gets enacted.
Aside from economics, pro-space explorers argue that colonizing other planets, and at the very least, gaining traction with getting more humans into space, will bring countries together to work for a common good.
This cannot be more wrong.
Since the 1960s, getting people to the Moon became a manhood competition between the United States and Russia.
The Space Race tore countries’s relationships down more than they were built up.
Nowadays the United States has worked with Japan on efforts to improve the International Space Station, and in the movie The Martian, U.S. astrophysicists called on China to help bring Matt Damon home from Mars.
But we cannot rely on Hollywood and singular events to fuel hope for global harmony.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, lord of the cosmos, believes that astronauts are inspirations to children.
Many do agree with Tyson: There is at least one moment in every young child’s life that they wish to become an astronaut.
This is not a bad thing by any means; inspiring children to go into science and math fields provides a sense of hope for future generations.
However, the same thing can be done, and can be done more effectively, with ocean exploration.
With the little that we know about the ocean, it means we have so much to discover.
Children should be inspired by what is right here on Earth, rather than something they likely will never reach.
If that sounds insensitive, consider the required qualifications for astronauts, besides a relevant degree:
“[The] ability to pass a NASA space physical, which is similar to a military or civilian flight physical; … 20/20 or better uncorrected [vision], correctable to 20/20 [in] each eye; blood pressure [of] 140/90 measured in a sitting position; height between 58.5 and 76 inches.”
This is all on top of obtaining an impressive enough STEM degree and at least three years of continuing studies or professional experience.
Yet none of this matters at all if there is no money or technology to safely put a human in space.
Aeronautics may sound really cool, but it is not a field for which all our children should strive.
Quite literally, we should really stop teaching kids to shoot for the stars, because getting there can be nearly impossible.
Instead, direct them to the nearest beach and let them imagine all of those possibilities!
We need oceanographers more than ever, so the next generations of scientists should align their priorities properly as soon as they are in grade school.
Space enthusiasts and ocean lovers can agree: There is work to be done in all aspects of science, and it is up to future generations to answer all our questions.
They just need to see where the priorities lie.
Don’t get me wrong, NASA is an amazing program that has done so much for humanity and the advancement of technology.
NASA works as a two-way technology transfer; much of the discoveries NASA makes can be used in other scientific fields.
NASA helped give us personal computers and solar-powered refrigeration.
They even helped show us the beauty of Tang.
However, space should not be our first priority when it comes to scientific research.
There are so many answers in the ocean that are waiting to be found.
There is so much life to discover, so many materials to utilize.
We can make great progress for our entire planet if we just looked down instead of up.
Space may be the Final Frontier, but we should pay attention to the keyword “final.”
We cannot and should not give up on our ocean just because of heavenly possibilities.
We need to preserve and restore what we have and do our planet a service that is long overdue.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: popofatticus/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 792
What Do You Think?
Originally published on Everyday Feminism.
This election was triggering for a lot of abuse survivors. Calls to RAINN’s sexual assault hotlinesurged after Trump’s Access Hollywood tape leaked, and many have pointed out that he used verbally abusive tactics in the debates.
As a survivor of emotional abuse, one tactic of Trump’s in particular reminded me of my manipulative ex partner: gaslighting. This is when someone tells you that your thoughts aren’t based in reality, to the point that you start to distrust your perceptions.
In my case, when I tried to discuss my partner’s habit of borrowing money from me and not giving it back, he’d tell me I was being too negative. When I got upset with him, he told me that life was too short to get angry. If I felt hurt by a word he used, he’d say that nobody can “make” you feel anything without your consent, so it was my problem.
This led me to feel that I was too unreasonable to trust my feelings. I internalized his arguments and believed that if I was unhappy about anything he’d done, I just needed to put it out of my mind because life was too short, nobody can make you feel anything, and it was all my fault anyway.
Since I’ve learned about gaslighting, I’ve understood that all the things my partner blamed on me weren’t actually my fault. Looking at Trump’s words can also help us understand our own relationships, as well as the ways gaslighting can shape our political climate.
While people in relationships may gaslight to discredit and manipulate their partners, Trump does it to discredit his critics and manipulate public opinion.
Here are some phrases he’s used that either were used by my abusive partner or remind me of him – because they’re clear examples of gaslighting.
1. ‘I Never Said I’m a Perfect Person’
After Trump was caught on tape saying that if you’re famous, you can just do whatever you want with women, including “grabbing them” by their genitals as your heart desires, he released a video attempting to mitigate the seriousness of his comments.
“I’ve never said I’m a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not,” he said.
My ex has told me something similar: “Nobody’s perfect. What do you expect?”
If anybody ever responds to your concerns about them by saying that they never claimed to be perfect or that nobody’s perfect, be very, very skeptical.
If “I’m not perfect” were a real defense against criticism, nobody would ever be justified in criticizing anyone’s behavior. But obviously, things don’t work that way. If they did, people could just avert jail time by pleading imperfection.
The “nobody’s perfect” defense isn’t just irrational, though; it’s also malicious. Its goal is to imply that by criticizing someone, you’re being so demanding and unreasonable that you expect perfection, and that if you truly understood that humans are flawed, you would’ve kept your mouth shut.
Of course, people’s issue with Trump isn’t that he’s imperfect; it’s that he’s promoted misogyny, racism, ableism, and a whole lot of other negativity and oppression.
By reducing all these nuanced problems to mere imperfection, he’s distracting people from the real issues and painting people as overly critical if they want to talk about them.
Similarly, if your partner is toxic or abusive, you deserve to be treated better – and that’s not an unreasonable request at all. Asking for better isn’t asking for perfection.
2. ‘This Is Nothing More Than a Distraction From the Important Issues We’re Facing Today’
Trump also said this in the “apology” video regarding his Access Hollywood tape.
Similarly, he said in the second presidential debate that we need to forget about the tape so that “we can get onto much more important things and much bigger things,” like defeating ISIS.
He also tweeted, “I’m not proud of my locker room talk. But this world has serious problems.”
As if sexual assault weren’t serious or important.
These comments aim to convey to Trump’s critics that they’re blowing something out of proportion.
This type of gaslighting comes up a lot in conversations about social justice: “How could you talk about eating disorders when some people can’t even afford food?” “Who cares if queer people can get married when in some places, they’re killed?”
It also came up in my own relationship.
If I was angry with my significant other, he implied I was being myopic for focusing on supposedly small issues. He invoked lofty notions of love and forgiveness for the same reason Trump invoked ISIS: to illustrate the necessity of looking past the problem for a worthier cause.
Beware people who tell you your problems are small. They don’t get to singlehandedly decide what’s important. And if they claim to be the authorities on the topic, it’s often to serve themselves.
More often than not, the “small” problems are the ones they’ve contributed to – and the “small” problems can add up to something much bigger.
This type of gaslighting functions to dismiss people’s very real problems on the grounds that they’re not serious enough. And when it’s used as self-defense, it has another insidious effect: It makes the person who brings up the issue look petty.
When Trump said we need to focus on more important things, he was trying to dismiss people concerned about sexual harassment and assault – many of them survivors themselves – as uncaring, self-centered people who just can’t see the big picture.
That not only detracts from the real problem, but also penalizes people for speaking out about injustice.
3. ‘This Was Locker Room Banter’
Dismissing something that hurt another person as a joke or otherwise not serious is textbook gaslighting.
This defense only worked because “locker room talk” serves a very specific function in our society. Without the connotation of “not serious” or “not a problem,” it wouldn’t even be a defense. It would just mean something unacceptable that’s said in a locker room.
But in our culture, we have phrases designated for the purpose of gaslighting – specifically for men to gaslight women. “Locker room talk” is one. “Boys will be boys” is another.
Both imply that certain misogynistic behaviors are forgivable and even inevitable, so if we take issue with them, we’re just being too demanding.
We’re essentially being told that we’re asking for too much when we say that sexual assault and entitlement should not be acceptable casual conversation.
My ex-partner didn’t use these phrases, but he did, for example, defend using the word “silly” to describe an observation of mine, arguing that “silly” isn’t a serious or hurtful word.
This language serves the same purpose: invalidation and belittling, by claiming someone else’s concerns aren’t serious – which is a huge component of gaslighting.
4. ‘She’s Playing That Woman’s Card’
Accusing someone of playing a card, like the “woman card” or the “race card,” is also an example of gaslighting because it implies that someone’s trying to find a problem because the problem they’re seeing isn’t real.
In Trump’s view, if Hillary Clinton tried to talk about gender, she was just doing it because she wanted to win the election – as if being a woman or speaking out about sexism gave you an advantage.
Similarly, I and many other feminists have been accused of discussing the struggles marginalized people face just so that people will feel bad for us and we’ll gain special treatment.
It wasn’t always in these words with my ex-partner, but I knew what he was getting at. Once, when I pointed out a nudity double standard in a movie, he said I may be interpreting it as sexist because I thought about sexism a lot.
Another partner told me to stop “playing the woman card” after I suggested a hiring decision at his friend’s company could’ve been influenced by sexism.
Both of these instances made me feel like I had to stay silent if I ever had an opinion related to gender again – even if it was my own lived experience.
Once again, this form of gaslighting is more than a defense. The person using it is also on the offense, attacking the other person for supposedly making up injustice for personal gain.
Whether it’s used in politics or in the context of a relationship, “woman card” accuses the other person of being not only wrong, but also dishonest and opportunistic.
5. ‘I Think It’s Pure Political Correctness’
One gaslighting technique used by many politicians and everyday people discussing politics is accusing people of trying to limit free speech through political correctness.
Trump called putting Harriet Tubman on the twenty-follar bill and moving Andrew Jackson to the back “pure political correctness.” His former campaign manager said it was “political correctness run amok” when people criticized an anti-Semitic tweet by Trump.
“We can’t afford to be politically correct anymore,” Trump said in a statement to defend his view of Muslims as terrorists.
When equality and justice become mere “political correctness” and political correctness is portrayed as a threat to free speech, every social movement becomes subject to attack.
And that’s what makes Trump so popular. His supporters have been dying for an outlet for their hateful opinions. They’re sick of being politically correct – so much so that he’s been elected into office.
By deeming efforts to not be oppressive mere “political correctness,” Trump gives people permission to let out all the thoughts they’ve felt pressured to suppress. He’s brought sexism, racism, and classism back in style.
In reality, “political correctness” is just being considerate. And telling people not to be hateful isn’t limiting their free speech. They can still legally say what they want.
Gaslighters like Trump are themselves trying to silence people by painting their standards as unreasonable and oppressive.
That’s the effect my ex had on me. He often accused me of trying to be the PC police if I pointed out a gender stereotype or racist joke he made. I started to feel ashamed and think that maybe I was just being a killjoy.
Trump wants people who care about social justice to feel like killjoys who are just out to rain on everyone’s parade – rather than people with legitimate concerns.
Gaslighting can happen on both macro and micro levels and takes many forms. But its message usually boils down to this: “If you have a problem with something I’ve done, the problem is actually with you.”
The same way this reasoning teaches people to suck it up when their partners hurt them, it teaches them to stay silent about injustice.
If they speak up, they fear they’ll be accused of expecting perfection, ignoring important issues, being unable to take a joke, playing a card, or limiting free speech.
It’s this kind of intimidation that actually does all these things. Trump criticizes people unfairly, discourages them from discussing issues that are in fact important, expresses extreme defensiveness, takes advantage of his privilege, and suppresses people’s opinions.
And no matter what he’d have us believe, we’re not irrational for observing this.
Trump has put gaslighting on a very public stage. Perhaps recognizing this abuse tactic in this context will help more people build the tools to recognize when it’s happening on a personal level, too.
Suzannah Weiss is a Contributing Writer for Everyday Feminism. She is a New York-based writer whose work has appeared in The Washington Post, Salon, Seventeen, Buzzfeed, The Huffington Post, Bustle, and more. She holds degrees in Gender and Sexuality Studies, Modern Culture and Media, and Cognitive Neuroscience from Brown University. You can follow her on Twitter @suzannahweiss.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Kanesue/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 895
What Do You Think?
By Staff Report
UPDATED: 10:45 AM EST
In a stunning video announcement Wesdnesday, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said that he would calling a special session of the state legislature for the purpose of bringing about a lottery in the Yellowhammer State.
In the five minute video announcement of the special session, Bentley referred to Alabama’s chronic budget shortfall as a “crisis” and called on the legislature to move to pass legislation that would allow for a statewide referendum.
Bentley said that the proposed lottery would generate $225 million annually for the state.
This is a breaking news story. Stay with RISE NEWS as we update.Post Views: 645
What Do You Think?