With this in mind, Katie Lewis from Los Angeles-based Rocket XL reached out with a solution for me when it comes to the scary time of day when I actually remove my makeup. When she offered to send me a complimentary pack of Pond’s Wet Cleansing Towelettes, I figured I’d give them a whirl but stick to my Vaseline makeup removal routine. I mean seriously, I learned that habit from my mom (not from crazypants Tyra), and it’s hard to break old habits.

But let me tell you this. Of this 30-pack of Original towelettes, there are maybe 4 left, and I’ve only had these for a few weeks. They are amazing. I had never considered a product like this, since I’m old and set in my ways, but the Pond’s Wet Cleansing Towelettes have basically changed my life when it comes to de-glamming at night. They remove makeup very easily, and my eyes and skin always feel refreshed and clean, never sticky, slimy, or dried out.  And apparently, Pond’s towelettes remove 40% more makeup than other similar products.  If you saw one of these things after it did it’s job on my face, you’d believe it.

I’m totally, absolutely, 100% converted. I’ll be buying another pack of Pond’s Towelettes this week, and retiring my Vaseline to a forgotten nook in the bathroom cabinet. For women (or Rock Gods) who wear makeup, I highly recommend giving these a try if you haven’t already.

Thanks again to Katie at Rocket XL for her spot-on outreach!

Is it worth it?  Should I get a box of my Amanda Bars?  The Taste Tester said they’d be mouthwatering…

Valentine’s Day

Chocolate experts Ferrero Rocher and Share Our Strength teamed up this month to help end child hunger.  By visiting this link, sending a message to your loved ones, Ferrero will make a donation to Share Our Strength on your behalf. I think that’s pretty sweet.

But wait! There’s more. I have two heart-shaped boxes of Ferrero Rocher chocolates to give away to you. And yes, I’ve tried them–yum.  If you’d like to receive a box, leave a comment about your love of chocolate, and I’ll send a box to the authors of my two favorite responses.

So get to it. Spread the love and win some noms.

Why not red or green or fuschia?  Leatrice Eiseman, executive director of the Pantone Color Institute, explains:

“The color yellow exemplifies the warmth and nurturing quality of the sun, properties we as humans are naturally drawn to for reassurance.  Mimosa also speaks to enlightenment, as it is a hue that sparks imagination and innovation.”

Hear that?  2009 is all about focusing on optimism, imagination and innovation.  Sounds about right to me.  Good choice, Pantone.
[via Luxaholics]

However, to celebrate this absurd seasonal fashion faux pas, OfficeMax brings us My Holiday Sweater, where you can create your very own googly-eyed, snowflaked, reindeer-embroidered sweater and send it to family and friends. What a thoughtful gift! Thankfully, it’s only digital. Go nuts, kids.

[via geeksugar.]

The Chrysler GEM Peapod might be the car of the future, or it could be just the grown-up version of the coolest toddler toy evah. They look like they’re about the same size, anyway…

You be the judge:

Chrysler

Little Tikes

Sabon is one of my favorite stores on the planet–if you haven’t been in person, get yourself there and indulge in one of their complimentary first-timer well water scrubs.  Now that I’m checking out Villainess (thanks @HollyGrande), I’m finding myself saying over and over “want” “want” “want.”

First on the list?  Killer Beez soap:

I don’t usually do this, but I call the shots around here, so I’m posting a few links.  Think of it as randomly finding really cool, honey-flavored pirate treasure on the Internet.

HP gets glitzy with the Vivienne Tam designed Digital Clutch: when your laptop becomes your hottest accessory

Thoughts on Airplane Mode and (Dis)Connectivity: when does a phone stop being a phone?

Send Your Respect in a Text!: when SMS becomes part of National Respect Day [Arrrrrrrrrrr (e, s, p, e, c, t?)]

1. Crocs: I don’t care how comfortable they are–they look like the dopiest shoes on earth. I know in the past few months the company launched some new lines of footwear that was supposed to be more fashionable than their signature look, but I would never buy Crocs of any kind even if they looked exactly like Louboutins. Never.

2. Kinoki Foot Pads: Seriously, what? How could you even sell something like this?

3. Go-GURT: Yoplait’s Go-GURT grosses me out. What a disgusting, squishy idea for a snack. That stuff must not stay cold for very long, and warm yogurt has to be one of the worst concepts ever.

4. CDs: I think it’s funny when people own actually CDs nowadays. When I was 13, I wanted a million CDs and thought the coolest place on the planet was Newbury Comics. Not so much anymore. I would probably sooner buy a cassette just to be funny than buy a CD for any reason.

5. Clairol hair color: In August 2007, I used a dark brown Clairol hair color on my brown hair. I just wanted to take the brown a couple shades darker. It dyed my hair Elvira black and then foamed gray-purple in the shower for the next 10 days. Over the next couple months, the dye faded out of my hair in horizontally banded strips so I looked sort of like a cross between a tiger and a clown. When I spoke with Clairol’s customer service, they were absolutely not apologetic or kind to me and offered me only a reimbursement for the $9 I spent on the hair color. Absolutely terrible.

Thoughts?

As it’s been discussed here, here, here and here, Louis Vuitton is suing 26 year-old Danish artist Nadia Plesner for using an image very similar to one of their monogram totes in an anti-genocide campaign to support Darfur. This is a tough one, buddies–there’s some cognitive dissonance going on here. I instinctively think first, “Eww, why is LV being so heartless and money-hungry about this? Darfur needs our help, and instead of freaking out, they could be finding a way to meaningfully contribute to the cause, even if they were dragged into it.” But at the same time, my instincts say, “I see where your head’s at, LV. Protect your brand–you go and take her down for clearly exploiting your image.” I admit, I love luxury handbags, but my gut ultimately goes with my first response.

The image on Nadia’s “Simple Living” t-shirt and poster (a jab at Paris Hilton’s reality show The Simple Life), pictured at the right, depicts a naked African child holding a Tinkerbell-like chihuahua and what is very obviously her take on a white/monogram multicolore Louis Vuitton handbag. Her description of the illustration reads (eloquently unedited):

My illustration Simple Living is an idea inspired by the medias constant cover of completely meaningless things. My thought was: Since doing nothing but wearing designerbags and small ugly dogs appearantly is enough to get you on a magasine cover, maybe it is worth a try for people who actually deserves and needs attention.

Without this glaringly negative comment, perhaps Louis Vuitton wouldn’t have gotten so bent out of shape over the image. But, I can see why they did. She’s essentially equating the LV brand (and chihuahuas?) with meaninglessness and media whoredom–not the prettiest epithets.

On Nadia’s site, there are plenty of supporters telling her to keep fighting the lawsuit and to continue standing up for herself because ultimately, her goal is a good one. And, it really is. One hundred percent of the money she makes from t-shirt sales goes to the Divest for Darfur fund.

So, does the end justify the means? Maybe.

I think Louis Vuitton, although perhaps within their rights, should have approached this differently. Yeah, at this point it looks like LV essentially got mugged and someone ran off with their handbag. However, with a different approach this could have been brand sharing instead of brand stealing. Like letting a friend borrow your bag because it went perfectly with her outfit. It’s still yours, but you’ll let her use it because in the end, everyone looks hot.

I wish Louis Vuitton had proactively done something to counter Nadia’s negative picture of the brand. Had they publicly shown where they’ve been a socially responsible company or, even better, struck a deal with her to donate a “meaningful” amount of money to her campaign, they may have avoided some of this media messiness. Given all the legal fees, taking that money and donating it to Darfur would probably have cost the company less and resulted in good press.

Louis Vuitton also could have created a place for people to talk about the situation to engage their various publics in a conversation about luxury brands, genocide, charity and anything in between. Just throwing out a lawsuit in this situation really wasn’t the sexiest choice. I think it’ll be hard for LV to rally support on this one. Either they’ll lose (which seems to be the more likely outcome) and be the brand that wanted to sue the girl trying to save Darfur, or they’ll win and be the brand that sued the girl trying to save Darfur. When the health and integrity of the brand is the important issue here, I think dropping the suit and redirecting their energy in a more helpful way would serve Louis Vuitton better in the long term.

I know this isn’t exactly breaking news, but what do you think? Is Louis Vuitton going overboard? Are they right on target? Should chihuahua breeders sue Nadia Plesner, too? If you have any takeaway thoughts, I’d love to see some reactions, ideas or new solutions in the comments section.

In other news, I got a new handbag today. And no, it’s not a Louis Vuitton. (It’s Burberry, *sigh, so pretty.*) Watch for a Today’s Honey post with a photo or two. You know you can’t wait. And don’t even think about mugging me. You think a lawsuit is bad? I’ll cut you.