Listed: AOC, The Met Gala, and That Dress
Screengrab of AOC’s arrival at the Met Gala from coverage by the Guardian.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has made a name for herself for staying on brand, being smart, getting our attention, and playing the media–social and mainstream–game in a way that sucks people right in.
So, let’s take a look at AOC’s controversial dress from her Met Gala appearance, but from a different view point.
- Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or as we commonly know her AOC is staying on brand in this dress. That is a point in her favor.
- The style suits her figure
- It is relatively modest compared to many others at the Gala.
- She is a pretty lady, and she is smarter than most of her detractors.
- She is energetic enough to have made it to Congress the old fashioned way, unseating an established incumbent by walking the district and knocking on doors — how many of her detractors would be willing to do that?
Now somethings we do and do not know:
- We know tickets to the Gala were $30,000 each!
- We don’t know if AOC actually paid to attend but chances are she was an invited guest to gain publicity and didn’t pay anything.
- UPDATE! We do know it was gratis.
The medium is the message. pic.twitter.com/b4Ssr6HkYR
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) September 14, 2021
- We know the dress was created by Brother Vellies
- We do not what the dress is worth–most gowns/dresses worn at these events are not typically owned by the wearer but loaned to them by the designer.
- We know that Brother Vellies creates $1,000 plus hand bags so most likely for her this is cheap advertising–hey, we are talking a lot about her work aren’t we?
Galas, award shows, etc, are really designed for a few things:
- Attention–and we give it to them.
- Self promotion–why do you think they wear such weird things? To drag the cameras away from others in attendance.
- Branding. That’s it.
We eat it up. We talk about it. We give them the attention they want. We are to blame for this, not them. Some like to attack AOC just to attack her and will use any reason to, but to me, Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stayed on brand, she stayed classy, and she got our attention. Bravo and kudos to her; she played us and we were sucked right in.
Remember me saying AOC is smart? There is all the proof you need.
The most important thing about the dress and it’s statement is something that a lot of people seem to be missing: the venue. The dress, or the same design on a tshirt, wouldn’t have meant ANYTHING if she’d have worn it go get her morning coffee. “Eh, yeah, makes sense.” is the most anyone would have said as they went about their day. Wear it to the Met Gala? You’re making the statement from amidst the target of the statement. Walk in to a crowded room of rich people and yell out “YOU’RE NOT PAYING YOUR FAIR SHARE” and you make a lot bigger statement. It was a bold and daring statement to make BECAUSE she made it where she did.Report
The most important thing about the dress and it’s statement is something that a lot of people seem to be missing: the venue.
Really, we’re not. It’s obvious that we’re supposed to think that, as you put it,
It was a bold and daring statement
But it wasn’t. There was absolutely no chance of her childish antics having any negative consequences for her. She was LARPing at being transgressive, and you’re eating it up.Report
The courage of preaching to the choir. No, less than that. The courage of giving a three-word sermon to the choir.Report
Yeah I agree with every point. I don’t strongly agree with AOC on policy very much but I can readily recognize she’s a talented politician. The party is fortunate to have wingers like her.Report
Remember the first episode of The Boondocks? The Garden Party?
People are talking about AOC as if she were doing something dangerous.
She was, instead, doing something fabulous.Report
Boondocks was hysterical- especially later in this very episode where Huey got up on stage, delivered that line and the assorted people, to his enormous annoyance, merely chuckled and applauded in approval .Report
Yes.
And now we are congratulating ourselves for applauding in approval while discussing the unsophisticated people that we assume are rioting after she told the truth to them.Report
Yep, Boondocks sort of saw that all coming.Report
If only there was a party saying that it wasn’t that the rich had too much, it was that they spent too little… and what we needed more than taxes to fund managerial class ‘boondogles’ disguised as ‘programs for the poor’ is instead that we increases the velocity of money by diverting much much more of that money much much more broadly at the point of creation.
Tax the Rich begs the question of who becomes the fund managers of the taxes.
Distribute the gains of successful capitalism more broadly is a better policy goal.Report
Trickle down economics rebranded as sped up economics?Report
Not trickle down at all… still taking money directly from the rich.Report
I guess I’m misreading you then. You’re suggesting something like a GBI or something else? I guess it’s the “diverting much more of that money more broadly at the point of creation” that I’m puzzled by.Report
If I recall things Marchmaine has said previously, it’s about setting up incentives (or regulations, perhaps) that encourage the wealthy to distribute the wealth themselves, not exactly as cash handouts, but as greater equity.Report
Ah I see, so not even trickle down but rather slightly incented noblesse oblige then?Report
Maybe? My way of interpreting it is treating workers as (at a minimum, although IMHO, they should be greater than…) equal to shareholders when it comes to what kinds of responsibilities corporations have to stake holders.Report
That’s gonna require either:
1) Strong unions
or
2) Democratic Socialism
or
3) a revised tax code that favors these sort of policies.
We have none of those, and our economy has been engineered to be such.Report
Obviously we don’t, which is why we need to argue for it. IMHO, I’d pick #3. #1 could work, but we’d have to change the incentives unions operate under.
#2 doesn’t actually get you there. It could, but like #1, it would depend on the policies and incentives in place.Report
Someday I’m going to have to write a formal post on March’s crazy distributist schemes.
It isn’t trickle-down, nor noblesse oblige… it’s better than Warren’s toothless 30% Labor Board Seats… and God save us from Taxes to set-up sinecures for the managerial class.
A non-wonky Dorm-room precis looks like this:
Think of it as a one time re-pricing event … we wave our magic wand of Democratic Will (and 2044 Executive Powers) and 30% of all corporate wealth is ‘re-priced’ to include labor (realistically we could go back 5-yrs and would likely phase in over, say, 5-yrs)… Repricing events happen all the time… we’re just going to deal Labor in at the Corporate Charter level.
That’s it.
No socialism, no unions (but sure, have them if you wish! And Elk’s Clubs and Curling societies have them all!), revise the tax code? Sure, we should simplify so congress doesn’t have incentives to sell incentives, but it doesn’t impact this.
Hence forth each minute, hour, day, year, decade you work you accrue some fractional portion of the real value created by capitalism.
Absolutely impossible to fathom 30- maybe even 20-years ago… but computers, electronic records, and fractional ownership via independent brokers are a thing now… new things are possible. New Deals may be struck.
…but there’s only so much I can fit on the back of my gown.Report
I’ll tip my hat, that’s new to me!
So the workers of the company would, if they weren’t unionized, have some sort of appointed architecture that’d administer their new value, throw their weight around at board meetings, send a third of corporate profits to the workers and vote no on all the executives bloated compensation packages? It’s a neat idea and not a little bit socialist. I’d subscribe to the newsletter.Report
Right… baseline principle is that nothing Capital can do with their shares is privileged over what Labor does with theirs… no Class A… no Voting Rights Only… no Preferred, etc.
Now, honestly, that 30% would be as organized as Cats in a meadow… but the goal isn’t control, it’s capturing some of the productivity gains even as your gains make you redundant (eventually).
Devils, Details, and Lawyers and all that… but that’s your Political Sell-To story… after that it’s all execution, accountants, and Bezos tears.Report
I think there are some issues of scale. I get how this works at Amazon or Wal-Mart. But what about the pub up the street, or the used car dealership, or the dog walking service? I don’t see how you can give equity to the waitresses or the front desk clerk at a little mechanic and that’s over 40% of workers. There’s still some socialism required.Report
Sure… and there are non-Profits and other entities which aren’t specifically designed to make money beyond operations.
It’s not entirely true, though that small businesses don’t or couldn’t share equity; in fact, a lot of small businesses ‘work’ precisely because ownership is taking profits as distributed income… and that’s ok. Effectively we’d have to change the regulations such that ‘30% share of dividends’ would also go to waitresses. Might not be a lot, it’s not a get-rich-for-everyone plan.
My Family has operated a small business for 100yrs… on the one hand Capital in this case is really only making 1.5x-2x median worker (sometimes less) but we’ve experimented with dividends on profits and it works – in terms of productivity gains and incentives.
But true… there’s not likely to be a big liquidation event, but also not impossible that there wouldn’t be.
I’m not sure I’d say we need ‘socialism’ to fill the gaps since I like to use the terms correctly… but we’d surely continue to have civil society programs to fill in the gaps. Those programs might simply be better served by straight cash transfers rather than Managed Services.
Today’s news about Yellen suggesting we need a massive Govt run Child Healthcare? Take 75% of the money and give it directly to parents and take 25% and provide supplemental day-care… let the 75% flow where it needs to go.
As a ‘for example’Report
I get that small family businesses can operate this way where everyone has an interest beyond just a paycheck, but I think a lot of that comes from a sense of duty to their kin. I’m just wondering if there’s really enough actually in small, tight margin businesses to require it by law. Like, would the crab’n’beer shack that nets in the 5 or low 6 figures in actual profit annually still be able to exist? I have my doubts. Which isn’t to say you couldn’t exempt entities under a certain size and/or irregular seasonal workers and still significantly rebalance the scourges of capitalism. I’m just saying I refuse to endorse a world where there is no crab’n’beer shack.
I’m with you on the cash transfers>existing approach.Report
Thank you, I knew I wasn’t recalling it correctly.Report
Thanks for at least having a crack at it…Report
I’ll grant you its a noble concept – and we do have examples where companies that have restructured along these lines fair way better in terms of work retention (which lowers costs) and productivity (which raises revenues). Gravity Payments comes to mind.
Problem is you can’t just do the repricing. You do have to have strong unions (to wangle the 30% worker share into the bargaining powerhouse it needs to be); you do have to rewrite the tax code to change corporate incentives, or Capitol will simply find new and innovative ways around these restrictions (similar to how Capitol currently finds ways to not pay the $163 Billion the Treasury estimates are owed in taxes every year).
And frankly, your dismissal of government as a means to this misses that Government just rather successfully redistributed income to large numbers of unemployed and working but impoverished Americans. With statistically positive if somewhat startling results – like poverty dropping to an estimated 7.7%-8.5% which is roughly half of where it was in 2018. Child poverty looks to be cut more then in half, and poverty among black Americans is likewise reduced around 50%. All of which is to say that you can reach your goals a lot of ways – and government can do it quite well when it gets the chance.Report
Says the guy who is regularly complaining that government can’t get rental assistance out to people…Report
“Says the guy who is regularly complaining that government can’t get rental assistance out to people…”
That’s not me, but the problem with that is “doesn’t want to” and not “can’t”.
They have the money. They’re just…sitting on it. They can’t even spend it on anything else, and eventually it’ll revert to the Treasury as it’s unspent.
Which is again why block grants to the States is an iffy proposition in practice. Even if you forbid any diversion of funds, they can simply….do nothing with it.Report
I give props to the feds for getting unemployment cash out to people post haste. That was some seriously well done redistribution of wealth and gives me hope that a UBI is actually something we could manage administratively.
But I also get what March is selling, and I think it’s a workable idea. I think it’s also something Unions (as a concept) could do a lot of good with, but that Unions (as we currently have) would squander in an orgy of cash & power grabbing if they got any control over it.
I do agree that the regulatory framework for a repricing would have to be rock solid, because there is no way corporations are going to simply agree to that, too much inertia with not treating workers as equal partners / stakeholders. Need to spend a generation getting all the MBA programs to toss the Friedman idea out and undoing the whole Shareholder primacy attitudes.Report
“I give props to the feds for getting unemployment cash out to people post haste. That was some seriously well done redistribution of wealth and gives me hope that a UBI is actually something we could manage administratively.”
Also the most incredibly invisible.
In a few years, there’s going to be some real surprises as people whose ONLY interaction with the unemployment system was the pandemic.
I know a handful off the top of my head that don’t really grasp how significantly their unemployment was subsidized. Two of them normally wouldn’t have qualified, and the rest probably don’t grok that Texas’ benefits cap at 535 a week.
The only government act they really remember, or even recognize as government acts, are the stimulus checks themselves.Report
Granted, the initial rollout at the state level (states distribute UI, the feds just give states the extra money) did not go well pretty much anywhere, including Texas. Systems were outdated and staffing was at levels for usual levels of unemployment. I knew people who spent a couple months just trying to get benefits at all. That said, it was still pretty impressive.
Also, unfortunately, Texas is now pushing back on a lot of the people who got UI benefits who would not, in pre-pandamic world, have qualified (self-employed and contract workers, in particular), which means that if they don’t respond in time, and with the correct documentation (not always easy to obtain for either group), they could owe all of those benefits, including the extra federal ones, back to the state. It’s a mess, but not of the federal government’s making, yet again.Report
Quit trying to steal the stated goals of the Democratic Socialist movement.
That aside, capitalism as practiced in America has been set squarely against this approach for most of its existence.Report
I’m more radical… kill the intermediary. Ownership and Money directly in the hands of Labour to squander as they see fit.Report
The intermediaries are for constraining capitol, not necessarily helping the distribution – though they do a better then credited job of that. the history of capitol is that it will resist things like this absent a constraining force. Just look at the brutal violence visited on labor organizers last century.Report
The thing that I disliked most about the Met Gala was the whole “servants wear masks, celebrities don’t have to” thing going on.Report
The “servants” at this gala were probably paid better for that night of work than a decent amount of people on this sub might think. High end serving jobs like that pay well.
Also, masks were required inside the actual museum, not just outside, in a tent, where the photos were being taken.Report
The thing that I disliked most about the Met Gala was the whole “well-paid servants wear masks in the tent where photos are being taken, celebrities don’t have to” thing going on.Report
Not that it matters at all but there is video of her being unmasked indoors among well-paid servants who were masked:
Report
Gotta say, this convinces me.
The poor workers should be paid a higher minimum wage. And given health care and a pension. Maybe even form a union to demand better treatment.Report
You misunderstand, Chip.
This is a response to the argument that “Also, masks were required inside the actual museum, not just outside, in a tent, where the photos were being taken.”
Apparently, there is footage of the whole “servants wear masks, celebrities don’t have to” thing when the celebrities were inside and not outside, in a tent, where the photos were being taken.Report
I understood perfectly.
There is no argument being made. Its someone who dislikes AOC looking around the room for something, anything to throw, and landing on umm, “Bleargh mistreated workers gibber scree”.
If you would like to make an argument, consisting of a criticism which logically leads to alternative policy, hey, that would be great.Report
far be it for us commoners to criticize american elites. We’re just trash and we know that they are better than we are….that’s why they don’t have to wear masks when they don’t want to.
Just like gavin newson and obama. Proles? they have to be masked all the time.Report
It’s like the bit from this Remy video:
You don’t understand – we’re not like other creatures
The rules do not apply to us – we are the leaders
Voters can’t be trusted to be indoor-eaters
They are more contagious – after all, they’re mouth-breathersReport
*Emperor Palpatine voice*
Yessss…YESS, let your anger at elites flow through you, let it ignite a righteous fury at how the poor and powerless are mistreated.
TAX THE RICH…you know you want to.Report
LOL Anger? No. Given current tax laws, I don’t want to tax the rich, I might get there eventually 🙂
But I sure as hell detest hypocrisy.Report
No, not exactly.
Here, I’ll restate what I said in the first place:
I’ll ask you this question:
Are masks necessary?Report
I’ll answer my own question:
No, they aren’t. If they were, the important people at the Met would have been wearing them too.
And if things were *THAT* dangerous, then the Met wouldn’t have happened at all.
Therefore: Masks are not necessary.Report
OK, and so?
Allow me to slip on my Republican free market hat:
The workers were required as part of their service to wear a mask. They agreed to these terms in exchange for their pay.
What about this state of affairs do you dislike?Report
What about this state of affairs do you dislike?
It has to do with the semiotics of mask wearing and who is and who is not required to wear one as part of their showing up at the Met.
(Out of curiosity, what do you think when you temporarily put on your “I know all of the words to ‘The Internationale’ hat”?)Report
And what are those semiotics? Specifically.Report
That important people don’t have to wear masks (but unimportant people need to wear them).Report
A little local knowledge might be useful. I’ve eaten out several times lately here in NYC. I’ve had to show proof of vaccination to eat indoors, servers have been masked, and customers are encouraged to mask up when not at their tables, like when going to the restroom. I don’t know if the Big Bad Government is requiring masking of servers or whether the employers are requiring it, or what the vaccination status of servers is, but that’s been the practice here. Makes sense, too, since they’re circulating among numerous customers and serving them stuff they are going to put into their bodies.
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.Report
Yes, well, the thing that I disliked most about the Met Gala was the whole “servants wear masks, celebrities don’t have to” thing going on.Report
Which differs from ordinary dining out in NYC how?Report
Well, for one thing, you said “customers are encouraged to mask up when not at their tables”.
The celebrities were not at their tables.
That’s one thing that you specifically said was expected in NYC of customers. Does that count?Report
I’ve seen the footage. Looks like the practice at the last wedding reception I went to. Masked staffers, socially-distanced (from the staff) guests getting photographed, then leaving. How do they do it out your way?Report
You asked me “Which differs from ordinary dining out in NYC how?” after explaining to me that, in NYC, “customers are encouraged to mask up when not at their tables”.
Right?
Anyway, here’s how they do it out my way: I dunno. We don’t go out to eat because there’s, ostensibly, a pandemic. We order food and it comes to the house. Or we cook.
We have discussed going out to eat a couple of times but only to places that have a patio where we can eat a pleasantly socially distanced meal in the breeze… but it hasn’t happened yet. Maybe next month.
(I imagine that, if I were doing something like “going to the restroom”, I’d be encouraged to wear my mask, though.)Report
So we’re down to arguing over whether the cigar is a robusto or a churchill. Or whether a gala is more like a restaurant meal or a wedding reception. Hope you can get to one or the other sometime soon.Report
No, you told me how it’s done in NYC and asked “how is this different?”, then I copied and pasted what you said and connected the two things.
And now you’re saying that that doesn’t matter.
For what it’s worth, I’m beginning to suspect that it doesn’t.
I mean, if important people don’t have to wear masks… maybe unimportant people would be just as safe not wearing them?Report
Is this only about masks or is it wrong, generally, to demand that unimportant people do things that important people don’t have to do?Report
I have several questions you haven’t answered, Chip.
Here are the big ones:
Are masks necessary?
You said that, when you put on your Republican free market hat, you didn’t see a problem because the workers were under contract to wear masks.
What do you think when you temporarily put on your “I know all of the words to ‘The Internationale’ hat”?
I’ll answer your question after you answer those two.Report
Don’t bother.
This is a tiresome game where I ask a question then you ask me one and refuse to answer until I answer yours, as if we are not supposed to notice that you really really are trying not to answer the very first question.
Because the more you dodge and weave, it appears that my first hunch was right, that this is just trying to find something anything, to throw at AOC, which will be dropped the moment she is out of the picture.
There is no argument being made, it has nothing to do with semiotics no widely applicable principles about important vs unimportant people. Its just bleargh gibber scree.Report
Chip, I kinda *LIKE* AOC. (I think that she’s the Democrats’ Trump!)
Now, there is something that very much bugs me about the Met Gala. You know what it is? The whole “servants wear masks, celebrities don’t have to” thing going on.
There is no argument being made, it has nothing to do with semiotics no widely applicable principles about important vs unimportant people. Its just bleargh gibber scree.
My “argument” is that I don’t like the whole “servants wear masks, celebrities don’t have to” thing going on.
The optics of that are kinda bad.
Now, you may want to argue that it’s not as bad as it may appear because of such things as paychecks for the staff and because the pandemic isn’t so bad that you have to wear masks when at an outdoor (though tented) function despite what the CDC says (everybody knows they’re paid to be worrywarts anyway).
But arguing that the whole “servants wear masks, celebrities don’t have to” thing isn’t an argument is to deny a sentiment.
Now, if masks aren’t that big of a deal, well… I guess it doesn’t matter that AOC wasn’t wearing one.
But if they’re things that you and I have to wear but important people don’t? I think you’ll find that, yeah, there is something out there that can’t be dismissed with “well, you just dislike celebrities!”Report
“I don’t like it” is not an argument, its a feeling. I don’t like tight underwear, you don’t like anchovy pizza.
These are not arguments.
In order to make a coherent argument, you need to explain what it is you dislike and why, whether it applies only here, to these particular people in this particular circumstance, or as some broad principle that applies generally.
I mean, c’mon man.Report
Well, it’s an “I don’t like it” rooted in a handful of assumptions.
They involve stuff like pandemics, viruses, and CDC recommendations on masks.
And I dislike having the leaders argue that we ought to do things that they themselves don’t feel apply to them.
Why doesn’t it apply to them?
If it’s one of those things where it doesn’t apply to them because masks aren’t really that important, really, I’d like that information to be available to everybody.
If it’s one of those things where it’s okay to be unmasked if you’re one of a few people who aren’t wearing masks in a crowd of people wearing masks, this goes back to the question about how you see the Met Gala as someone who knows the words to The Internationale.Report
OK, so this is a general principle, that those in positions of power should model behavior that they ask of their subordinates.
But you can see where when you expand it into a broad principle, it becomes the underlying basis for much of liberalism.
You’re basically demanding equality among people, even when as free rational actors, they have made other choices.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that!Report
Which brings me back to my question:
When you see the Met Gala you are easily able to put on your Republican Boss hat.
What happens when you put on your “I know the words to the Internationale” hat?Report
Please understand.
I think everyone should be masked in every social setting.
I’m just noticing how the Internationale solidarity flickers off and on depending on which cadre needs to be punished.Report
Then you can understand how someone would look at the Met Gala and notice the celebrities not being masked while surrounded by the masked help.
There are people who reflexively show solidarity with the celebrities! Can you believe that!
Here’s a great scene from the movie Prince of Egypt (don’t worry, you just have to watch the first 30 seconds).
It’s easy to see both of their perspectives, isn’t it?
And, you’ve gotta admit, when you put on your “Big Picture” hat, Ramses has a point!Report
I notice that once again, there is a concerted effort to restrict solidarity to just the issue of masks, lending credence to my suspicion that the outrage is pretextual and merely a cover for cultural and tribal resentment.Report
I admit to not knowing what other issues of solidarity might be at play when it comes to the Met Gala.
Seriously. I would welcome your explanations for other solidarity issues at play there.Report
That’s my point, which I made in my very first post.
Elitism is only visible when it is a convenient object to throw at the outgroup.Report
Seriously. I would welcome your explanations for other solidarity issues at play there.Report
Good spot. Good frame. I don’t disagree at all.Report
Let me cosign the statement “AOC is smart”. Yep. Another example. She is also fearless. This combination will take her far.Report
I think she has high emotional intelligence, which makes her good at playing to the crowd. In terms of the kind of analytical skills needed to think intelligently about policy, there’s just nothing there. She’s good at Twitter zingers, but she’s obviously in way over her head when it comes to policy.
This makes her an effective politician, but one that’s very bad for the country. Come to think of it, she’s basically a lefty version of Trump.Report
Apparently, there is a stink being raised about how the tickets to the Met Gala qualify as “an inappropriate gift” according to Congressional Ethics.
I’d be interested in hearing arguments from both sides on this one.Report
its probably a fluff over nothing. Congress critters get invited – for free – to all sorts of those things. I suspect her predecessor and many other NYC politicians have and will continue to be.
Even if it violates some dollar level rule, she will likely get a pass since its widely attended (even if only the the rich). That’s the real threshold that would matter.Report
I have developed a greater and greater amount of respect for AOC as time wears on.
I hate that much of our politics is games and social media stuff, but as long as it is, I’m glad we have someone on our team who is adept at it. The right is constantly trying to bait her into being the shrill humorless scold, but she never takes the bait.Report
I think this one was more of an uneforced error than a clever political gambit and I generally like her. The Met Gala is an event for the very wealthy. I’m not sure that wearing a ballgown that states tax the rich at such an event is quite a brilliant move per se. If anything, it provides a kind of cover for the ultra-wealthy to state right on and then continue to fight real change.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/09/aoc-met-gala-dress-tax-the-rich-aurora-james.html
“If anything, Ocasio-Cortez’s dress featuring what has, at this point, become a “regurgitated Twitter talking point,” felt more naïve, or even passé, than iconoclastic. It’s one thing to demand higher taxes on the wealthy; it’s another to believe that moving among the upper class will convince them to welcome a substantive tax burden. It’s also woefully inconsistent with the world outside of the Met, the one that has given Ocasio-Cortez her power. Last night, Black protesters were arrested outside of the event, for instance, while demanding Mayor Bill de Blasio defund the NYPD.
But, alas, much of the political gestures that occur on a publicly, well-funded stage are empty. Like most other outfits with writing at the gala (yes, there were more), Ocasio-Cortez’s dress is a superficial demonstration meant to capture attention. In that way, it’s a win. But when it comes to manifesting tangible outcomes for constituents, I find it difficult to believe that a slew of wealthy celebs will do more than fawn over the congresswoman’s slogan-dress and, just by being near her, think that’s enough to signal that they are on board. Giving them that opportunity is nothing even remotely the same as actually doing something about income inequality, which is, after all, her job.”Report
She has a surprisingly long record of advocating for rectifying inequality, both in terms of her Committee work, and in terms of legislations she co-sponsors and authors given how short a time she’s been on the hill. If after that she wants to troll the rich at the Met Gala I’m in favor.Report
If after that she wants to troll the rich at the Met Gala I’m in favor.
She wasn’t trolling the rich.
The rich are the ones applauding.Report
“The Met Gala is an event for the very wealthy. I’m not sure that wearing a ballgown that states tax the rich at such an event is quite a brilliant move per s”
1. The gown wasn’t really meant for them, but for — well, this moment right here. People who weren’t there talking about it.
2. A surprising number of the rich, and I would suspect the Met Gala had a higher proportion than normal, are all for taxing themselves more.Report
As for the Met, wealth, and politics… Some years back the Met made a big deal about the opening of the David H. Koch Plaza, paid for by Mr. Koch, one of the Met’s trustees at the time. It was billed as one of the great new public spaces in NYC. I’m not sure, but think that the red carpet stuff for the Gala is all done at the Koch Plaza.Report
I mentioned in a previous comment about one of the Koch family’s large contributions to the arts in NYC. (David Koch lives in Manhattan and has sunk large amounts of money into both the Met and the Lincoln Center over the years.) I have an image in my head of him smiling, and saying, “How cute.” Then calling whoever the top person is these days, and telling them to remind Ms. Ocasio-Cortez that if she wishes to use the Met for political statements, the Met expects to see a nice piece of that infrastructure money.Report
I’m deeply skeptical that David Koch will have any opinion at all on this, much less one strong enough to get him to make a telephone call.Report
Then you haven’t been paying much attention to him or his family.Report
I guess you’ve just been paying more attention than I have. Say, what has David Koch been up to in the past couple of years, anyway?Report
The fact that you were being a Jaybird level bad troll is, frankly, unexpected. But nicely done I suppose. You get to score a cheap point while remaining blissfully satisfied that you owned a lib or two.Report
As a liberal myself, I’m not really interested in owning the libs. What you are is a leftist. The difference is night and day.
Anyway, while I’ve never made a secret of my appreciation for Jay’s trolling game, this is different. What he does is Socratic trolling. It’s done in service of a substantive point. This was just for fun. Honestly, I probably would have played it straight the second time if you hadn’t given me such a perfect setup.Report
Jaybird rarely has a point, just questions . . .Report
Is that not the socratic method?Report
No, because in the Socratic method the asker knows the answer, and is making the student work it out.
Furthermore, it’s a real failure when you keep changing the question as soon as the answerer starts to pin down exactly what you’re asking so they can actually answer.
The vile offspring of Devil’s Advocate, drunken Socrates, and trolling perhaps.
The Socratic method if it were a six year old trying to explain bitcoin.Report
The Socratic method is not a discussion of equals open to persuasion, but a master delivering ignorant students into enlightenment.
Combine that with a self-professed antipathy for Democrats as an identity and it seems like a poor vehicle for discussion.
There isn’t any logic or reason at play, no point of sequitur where the answers to the questions form a conclusion.
Because identity antipathy doesn’t allow for logic.Report
Eh, not quite. It’s more that I don’t recognize your self-evident Moral Authority.
It’s not that I’m waaaaay up there above you…
It’s that you’re down here.
With me.Report
But you can see how your disdain for Democrats as a group, as opposed to antipathy for policy, prevents fruitful discussion?Report
There is a *LOT* in here.
It’s not “Democrats as a group”.
Not that it matters, I’m sure, but I’ve been registered D since I turned 18 back a million years ago.
But that doesn’t matter. It’s a very particular sub-flavor of Democrats, I’ll grant (and, non-democrats who, if forced to not vote 3rd Party, would pick D every time without having to look at the R).
But the other thing hiding in the question is the mirror image of the question:
Do you feel that disdain for Republicans, as a group, prevents fruitful discussion on anybody’s part?
Or is it just self-evident that that is completely different and a false equivalence?Report
Chip, North, Me – we start with the policy that attends to the group, and go form there. You start with the group and dismiss the attendant policy. Those two things are not equivalent.
And as a very lefty person in a very red state let me make this clear – if Republicans actually enacted policy attendant to their stated beliefs there are things I’d take a serious look at, particularly on the fiscal side. But they don’t. And I so they don’t get my support. Tax policy is a prime example. Republicans keep cutting taxes CLAIMING it will boost the economy. We have 40 plus years of data showing no such outcome. They neither apologize for misleading us, or change their policy based on the data. So I can’t take tax policy proposals from Republicans seriously any more.
I keep being told that will change as I get older, but my politics is even more left then it was 2 or three decades ago, so I am adjusting comfortably to being the outlier on the bell curve.Report
Philip, please understand: I am not a Republican.
I’m one of those crazy “third party” voters. I don’t vote for the Republicans because I do not agree with Republicans.
But that doesn’t matter either, does it?Report
You are a conservative libertarian. We know this. Sometimes it means you advocate for Republican policies because they align with your world view, sometimes not.
Even in this little sub thread however, we see a microcosm of whats not working – you asked “Do you feel that disdain for Republicans, as a group, prevents fruitful discussion on anybody’s part?” I answered (as did chip) with a focus on Democrats and Republicans because that’s how you framed the discussion – by asking about how we felt about Republicans and whether it impacted our ability to see the need for discussion.
And your response was to then deflect that YOU weren’t a Republican – which neither of were addressing.
That’s the goal post moving that we object to. That’s where you allegedly Socratic question writing style keeps tripping you up with us. Had you asked the question about conservatives or small “L” libertarians you might have gotten similar answers or you might not. We answered the question as asked but you wanted a different answer so you tried to reframe the question post-hoc.
And you can ABSOLUTELY do that. Just stop pretending that’s NOT what you are doing.Report
I admit: part of my problem is that I argue with multiple people and I can conflate different arguments against me and smoosh them together even though person X says one thing and person Y says another, it can feel like “you guys aren’t consistent!” when, no, person X is consistent and person Y is consistent it’s just that their arguments aren’t consistent with each other.
So let me try again:
“You start with the group and dismiss the attendant policy.”
For a lot of the attendant policies, we’re usually stuck in policy discussions and my go-to is some variant of “these people screwed up last time and the time before that… why do we want to trust them this time?”
And while that is “starting with the group and going from there”, I do think that past performance isn’t irrelevant. Certainly not after multiple failures.
As for the whole question of whether disdain for Republicans prevents fruitful discussion, let me just say that, from here, the answer is obvious that there are cases where “well, you’re a Republican!” is seen as sufficient grounds to dismiss an argument. Like, it’s something that I’ve seen myself.
So I kinda see it as something that is true that is being denied. You know?Report
No.
I have utter scorn for behavior, not identities.
More to the point, I oppose Republican policies and there does exist a point of compromise and agreement with Republicans on nearly any issue.
But you don’t appear to have any such point. There doesn’t exist any such policy that could get you to agree with Democrats.
When you spend all your time saying “please understand” or shifting to cryptic questions it becomes obvious that we aren’t arguing politics, not really. There isn’t some assertion of opinion or support of policy.
If you don’t like a certain class of Democrats, fine. But let’s not pretend that this can be changed by anything THEY do, because the antipathy is within you and only you can change that.Report
Huh. Wacky.
But you don’t appear to have any such point. There doesn’t exist any such policy that could get you to agree with Democrats.
There actually *IS*.
But it’s stuff like “ending the drug war”, “getting rid of QI for police”, “weakening police unions”, “changing the FDA given that it’s captured, corrupt, or inept”, and a handful of policies that address such things as immigration policy or health care policy.
You know, like we’ve done hundreds of times.
And you might be amazed to see who is arguing for policy and who is arguing that, no, we have to keep the status quo! (Also, we should be more like Europe.)Report
Right which means you’re defining your positions such that there can never be an alliance.
If Democrat X wants to end the drug war, their position on immigration means you oppose them.
If they want to reform the FDA then their support for police unions is a dealbreaker, and so on.
And even when they do the right thing like ending a pointless war, it is done the wrong way.
And your disagreements with Democrats seem much more urgent than say, your disagreements with Republicans.
Which is even more curious since on all your professed issues the Democrats are a closer fit.
It leads to the reasonable conclusion that the issues are merely proxy arguments for some deeper resentment.Report
If Democrat X wants to end the drug war, their position on immigration means you oppose them.
I haven’t seen Democrat X make a whole lotta movement when it comes to ending the drug war.
Heck, I even argue for little things like “rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III” and… well, would you rather talk about immigration?
My viewpoint is more or less the same today as it was here. I have a handful of opinions of assimilation, multiculturalism, and trust/collaboration, of course… but we’ve covered those.
If they want to reform the FDA then their support for police unions is a dealbreaker, and so on.
I haven’t seen a whole lotta “we gotta reform the FDA!” out there either. They’re with the “end the drug war!” folks, I guess.
As for the Police Unions, the defense is rarely “hey, Police Unions are powerful and you have to make trade-offs and the FDA thing is important” but usually something like “why are Police Unions bad?”
And even when they do the right thing like ending a pointless war, it is done the wrong way.
This again. My problem was not with Biden but with the military and intelligence community that had spent the last decade lying.
This isn’t a criticism of Biden.
And your disagreements with Democrats seem much more urgent than say, your disagreements with Republicans.
Nobody here is arguing that I should vote for Republicans. (Well, Koz did… back 9ish years ago… when he was on his “Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility” kick.)
As it is now, the argument is some variant of the moral superiority of Democrats. Which, really, strikes me as kinda absurd. I mean, I can get into a headspace where I can see the perspective, but there are so many things that I have to ignore to do it that it seems, well, self-evident that I oughtn’t.
It leads to the reasonable conclusion that the issues are merely proxy arguments for some deeper resentment.
When it comes to the policies, I’m pleased to say that I still hold most of the same ones I’ve written about over the years (and publicly retraced the ones I’ve abandoned).
The resentment comes from remembering the last few times I’ve argued with people who were flabbergasted that their self-evident moral superiority was not recognized.Report
The attitude of moral superiority of Democrats is, I think, the underlying source of your antipathy.
Which means that the resentment can never be healed or overcome no matter what their position is.
Because attitude is not a position and is not amenable to your resentment.
In this equation only you have agency.Report
I disagree, Chip.
It *CAN*. Indeed, it has!
It just requires the right framing.
This it where my agency becomes even more important.Report
Yeah, Jaybird and his Socratic style is aggravating, back when I was corresponding with him, which isn’t much recently.
But then again, he is capable of stating a direct argument in simple declarative sentences, in his own voice, and when he does libs bitch at him for that too, so you can’t sympathize all that much.Report
When Jay makes simple declarative points we go after the substance of what’s advocating for or against. Which is what political discourse is supposed to be about. I don’t recall him every getting dinged for being straightforward.Report
Actually reading and understanding Socratic dialogues spoils all the fun for self-described disciples.Report
The Koch Brothers basically destroyed NYC opera when the company performed an opera based on the Anna woman that married one of their friends. They pulled all the funding.Report
Just…trust me on this one. David Koch isn’t going to be making any more phone calls.Report
I have nothing personal against AOC. But I read the original Green New Deal when she was the big push behind it, and remarked “Written by someone from the Northeast, addressing Northeastern concerns, with not a thought about the West.” Also that whoever wrote it had obviously never talked to the people at the national labs who have been working this problem for decades.Report
A gentle reminder that the “Green New Deal” was not a legislative proposal – i.e. an appropriations or authorizations bill. It was and so far remains an aspirational Sense of the House Resolution. One doesn’t need to talk to Sandia to write that.Report
If you enjoyed AOC’s trolling of the rich and want to do what you can to put your finger in their eye as well, you should go to the Tax The Rich Collection at the Official AOC Shop.
Get her message on a sweatshirt for $58! A coffee mug for $27! Get three stickers for $10!
Let the rich know exactly how you feel!
Made in the USA! Union printed!Report
You make that sound like a bad thing.Report
Au contraire! I am in awe.Report
Depends, how much of that $58 is going to the hands that sewed the sweatshirt versus the AOC campaign?Report
There are at least 5 news stories of significant import occurring within the past two days.
This is not one of them — which I say, not to knock the new author, but to knock the lot o’ ya.Report
My email is askjaybird-at-gmail.
Please write me with the post you wish someone would have written, I’ll copy edit it, and see if I can’t get it scheduled.
Or, heck, give me the five stories that you think we should have on the sidebar and I’ll put… oh… two of them up.Report
I’m going to bookmark this for the next time major media members share takes about what the media is or is not covering.Report
There are only four significant stories;
His balls, as it turns out, were not in fact swollen.
The President will address a shaken nation in a message of healing and unity.Report
You may notice that we dabble in current news, big picture policy making and all sorts of sausage grinding. Should you care to consult Ten Second News or State of the Discussion (under Commentary) you may be delighted to find we do, in fact, multitask around here.Report
Remember when lefty populists like Robert Reich railed against the “fortunate fifth?” They sure are a lot more focused these days.Report
Since we’re talking about going out to eat in NYC anyway, I am not sure it ought to be the job of the Hostess to ask for proof of vaccination.
Report
The cooks and dishwashers are in the back doing other things. Who else is supposed to ask? Unless you think either: (a) nobody or (b) a cop or public health official assigned to the task.Report
“Who else is supposed to ask?”
I dunno. Maybe someone who makes more than somewhere around the bare minimum? Maybe they could make it so that the owners have to deny service to people?
(“Oh, I’m sure that the hostess makes at least $18/hour!” strikes me as being a counter-argument that doesn’t really address the point.)Report
“I dunno” was honest and sufficient.Report
I do think that the question “Who should enforce this law?” is a very interesting one.
If the answer “Law Enforcement” is not seen as a serious answer to the question, we’re in a weird place.
Maybe the law is absurd if we know that, whatever the answer is, “law enforcement” isn’t the answer.Report
I’ve eaten at both Carmine’s locations, as well as their BBQ restaurant and two Chinese noodle shops. All of which I can heartily recommend. Who is “the owner”? It’s a corporate group. Some flesh-and-blood human has to be the person to tell the patrons to show proof of vaccination at each location.
If I decided to take my clothes off at one of the group’s restaurants and dine nude, in violation of various public health and public decency laws, some restaurant employee would have to tell me to get dressed or get out. Maybe a bouncer would throw me out. The cops wouldn’t get involved unless things went seriously south. Are the laws against my dining nude in a restaurant “absurd” because of this completely ordinary, normal, and not very interesting enforcement mechanism?Report
They could call the cops and the cops would walk in and remove the nude person and I’m pretty sure that everybody would agree that this is appropriate.
Would it have been appropriate for this hostess to call the cops?
I admit, I am assuming that your answer is “that’s absurd, of course she shouldn’t call the cops” (with caveats over whether or not a brawl breaks out).Report
Well, you know what happens when you assume. When the question is whether to let someone in in the first place, the cops are a legitimate option if the person denied entrance raises a ruckus. Normally, however, some restaurant employee is the first resort, not the cops. Every day, thousands of property owners have their employees take care of excluding people not allowed in, either because the law says they’re not allowed in or the owner doesn’t want them in. Most of the time, this works. Posting cops at each restaurant to check vaccination status or wait around for naked diners to remove would be absurd.Report
Oh! There was this whole thing last year where calling the cops on Black people who weren’t committing a crime was the equivalent of attempted homicide.
Has that passed?Report
You’ll have to ask the Karens of the world. It’s mainly up to them.Report
You mean like the Hostess?Report
You know something about the Hostess that hasn’t been reported? Whether you know anything or, more likely, don’t, go ahead and ask her. We’ll await your report on her response.Report
I was merely calling the hostess a “Karen”.Report
So you were “merely calling” her a Karen. We get that. Do you actually know anything that would justify it, or were you merely doing you?Report
Reportedly:
Report
Well, at least that’s something, though I’ve never known you to be so trusting of someone’s lawyer. Even though your original source said the women attacked the hostess, not vice-versa.Report
That *IS* from my original source.
Karening has a lot of unintended consequences.
I’m not sure that I’m a fan of laws forcing Hostesses to be even more Karenish.Report
*Unmasked liberal has employees wear masks*
“We are suddenly and wildly outraged by elitism!!”
*Liberal gets in a scuffle with black people*
“We are suddenly and wildly outraged by racism!”
Like seriously, do you guys think that no one is noticing this?Report
Like seriously, do you guys think that no one is noticing this?
Lotta things to notice, out there.
In any case, my issue isn’t the one of “racism” but the one of “I am not sure it ought to be the job of the Hostess to ask for proof of vaccination.”
It’s the whole issue of “Well, who else should be asking for Vaccine ID cards?” where we wander into weird questions of law enforcement.Report
So who else should ask for ID? Wait a minute. You already answered this. “I dunno.”Report
But I also know that if asking the police to engage in law enforcement is not the right answer, then we are in an absurd place.
Like, maybe the question isn’t a good one in the first place.Report
Now you’re just repeating yourself, so I’ll just refer whoever — if anyone — might be interested back up-thread.Report
Right.
You raise the issue of elitism, but nah, you really just don’t like that AOCs employees had to wear masks.
You raise the issue of who should should enforce mask mandates because you don’t like mask mandates.
Why the silly pretense of pretending there is some big principle involved?
You don’t like mask mandates, got it.
It has nothing to do with elitism or enforcement or anything else.Report
Chip, I want to know what the *THEORY* is behind the mask mandate.
It doesn’t have to do with AOC (though she was one of the elite that the mandate obviously doesn’t apply to).
Down at the bottom of the page, you’ll see the Mayor of San Francisco (who passed a mask mandate) dancing maskless in a club in San Francisco.
You’ll see an article about the celebrities at the Emmys not wearing masks while surrounded by the masked help.
What’s the point of the mask mandate?
What is required to get an *EXCEPTION* to the mask mandate?
Because if all that is required to get an exception is to have proof of vaccination, hurrah! I have that!
But apparently… that’s not what is required.
So what’s required?
Who gets the exception?Report
Rich people.
Politicians.
Celebrities.
Not you, or me. That’s how the system works for mask and a whole host of other things. Like Taxation.Report
Learning that the designer of the Tax The Rich dress had unpaid tax issues (as well as issues with failing to pay worker benefits) had me saying “of course she freaking did”.Report
“So what’s required? Who gets the exception?”
I get the idea that this is one of those things where if you have to ask the price then you can’t afford it. Because if you were the sort of person who got an exception, then you’d already know that you had an exception. And if you aren’t the sort of person who gets an exception then there’s not a way for that to happen; there’s no rule you can follow, no test you can take, no fee you can pay, you just don’t get to do that. As with all forms of privilege, either you have it or you don’t.Report
Chip, old sport, if you want to argue that a white woman calling the cops on an outspoken black woman isn’t an example of racism, then you go right ahead.Report
Hold onto your butts because this will blow your mind…
Some black folks are assholes.
Mind.
Blown.Report
Who enforces the drinking age?Report
“In any case, my issue isn’t the one of “racism” but the one of “I am not sure it ought to be the job of the Hostess to ask for proof of vaccination.””
Remember we had an exchange about whether or not your opinions are “interesting”? Or whatever?
This is one of those times where you act like you don’t have an opinion or you aren’t stating an opinion or you are just asking questions or whatever when anyone with half a brain can see just the opposite.
At which point, it doesn’t actually matter what your opinion is (Hey! We agree!) because you’re just being an asshole.
I’ll tell you what I’m working with the teenager on: Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Give it a whirl.Report
Kazzy, I do not think that it is necessarily “racist” to ask for proof of vaccination.
But you know how my opinions aren’t that interesting? Well, I understand that my saying “I don’t think that that’s racist” is one of those opinions that really doesn’t matter anywhere near as much as the opinions of BIPOC people.
Lemme know if you disagree on that one.
The vaccination mandate for indoor dining is a policy that I understand what it’s going for… but I also suspect that we don’t have enough mutual trust as a society to enforce it.
Compare to the drinking age, I guess. (We have a bar down in Old Colorado City that has a “Fake ID” wall. It has dozens and dozens of IDs that have either “FAKE” written on them in Sharpie or “NOT HIM” or “NOT HER”. I gather that they’re IDs that have been confiscated by the bouncer at the front door. This is, I guess, within the jurisdiction of the bouncer to do. In any case, they have that right up front.)
Now, when it comes to enforcing a vaccination mandate, it strikes me that that is a *LOT* more controversial than the drinking age.
And we have here a situation where a handful of diners were denied entry and their argument is that they were being racially profiled and denied entry due to racism rather than the vaccination mandate.
A brawl ensued. The hostess went to the hospital.
There was a BLM rally in front of the restaurant yesterday.
As for the policy, which we can debate if you want, I don’t know if it’s necessarily the best policy available. I mean, I understand what it’s going for, and I guess I appreciate the sentiment.
But if we had a 19 year old trying to buy booze, do you think that it would be appropriate to call the cops?
I think it might be appropriate to call the cops. (If only the threat to get the kid to run off with his fake ID intact.)
If you are denying service to a handful of Texans, would it be appropriate to call the cops?
I can think of a handful of reasons that it would *NOT* be appropriate to call the cops. We had a lot of debate about it last year.
Anyway, there was a brawl.
If we’re going to institute a controversial new policy, dumping the responsibility on the minimum wage adjacent person at the front door seems unfair.
Especially if we’re not in a place where calling the cops would be an appropriate response to dealing with customers who don’t appreciate the policy.
Like I have said before: If we’ve got a new law but if asking the police to engage in law enforcement is not the right response to deal with people who are not following the new law, then we are in an absurd place.
Look at the protest taking place in front of the Italian restaurant. (There is more footage available out there.)
My opinion: We are in an absurd place.Report
“If we’ve got a new law but if asking the police to engage in law enforcement is not the right response to deal with people who are not following the new law, then we are in an absurd place.”
This? This I agree with. This I’ve said MYSELF… for many months (probably going on over a year now).
But why did you not just lead with that? Why did you lead with: “In any case, my issue isn’t the one of “racism” but the one of “I am not sure it ought to be the job of the Hostess to ask for proof of vaccination.”
Were you not sure? Or did you feel for a long time that it ought not be the job of the hostess to ask for proof of vaccination?Report
But why did you not just lead with that? Why did you lead with: “In any case, my issue isn’t the one of “racism” but the one of “I am not sure it ought to be the job of the Hostess to ask for proof of vaccination.”
I said it here in my third comment in the thread.
The comment that you’re quoting was written an hour and a half after that one.
I didn’t *LEAD* with it but my comments hadn’t coalesced much beyond “I am not sure it ought to be the job of the Hostess to ask for proof of vaccination” at the time that I posted the link about the alleged brawl at the restaurant.Report
Oooh, here’s an interesting solution:
Don’t read Polymath’s commentary, it’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is the ferry people’s take on mask compliance:
Report
My apologies. I hadn’t read every comment in the thread. Even there, your framing is, “I’m not sure…”
So… what is your actual opinion? Do you have one?Report
That we’re in a place where there’s a law but we don’t want the police to enforce it.
Which is absurd.
So whatever I say the hostess should do because of this law will be absurd.
Make the situation not absurd and then I’ll be able to say “the hostess should do something not absurd” and point to one or two of a couple of things.
But given our starting points, I can’t say that.Report
The opinion is “Must…find…way to attack mask mandates.”
Really, that’s all that’s going on.
Here it’s elitism, there maybe it’s racism, or maybe it’s the deep chin stroking confusion over enforcement, whatever it doesn’t matter, just find something and throw it at the wall and see what sticks.Report
Chip, I’m not attacking mask mandates.
I’m saying that they are evidently theater.
From your response, though, I’m guessing that you think that undercutting the importance of mask mandates is a bad thing.
Is that a good guess on my part?Report
Elitism then racism then enforcement now theater.
What makes masks theatrical in a way that is different from say, handwasing or hairnet mandates?Report
Well, the fact that politicians make a big deal about how other people should wear them but then go on to not wear them.
If they thought that masks did something, I imagine that they’d wear them.
As such, making a big show of their importance but not using them is what makes it theater.
From your response, though, I’m guessing that you think that undercutting the importance of mask mandates is a bad thing.
Is that a good guess on my part?Report
Since the vaccine became freely available they’ve become theatrics where they’re most worn and most helpful where there most resisted.
I mean, if the news is to be believed I live in a county with over 90% of eligible adults are vaccinated as are a pretty high percentage of 12-17 year olds. There’s no longer a rational reason for masks. But the county has mandated them anyway for reasons. Then meanwhile in Missouri…Report
Yeah… masks probably do reduce spread, but not how we’re using them now. We were in your fine state over the weekend and everyone was very good at wearing their masks to their tables and to go potty… but for the other 2-3 hours we were dining? No masks for anyone — well, except the staff — but, you know.
This isn’t pandemic protocol, this is pure theater.
The vaccines work… get vaccinated.Report
Oh it’s ridiculous. I was at a bar the other weekend watching the Georgia-Clemson game and it was absurd watching people walk in with masks to then sit down, take it off, and spend 3 hours eating and drinking in an enclosed space. I stayed away from the gym for 16 months and only went back after I was vaxxed the the mask mandate was lifted. Then 6 weeks later the masks were required again. Why??Report
They. Are. Not. Or at least not in the sense you’re implying.
We have a new virus, still not well understood, that has killed over a half-million Americans so far. There are parts of the country where it’s still killing at a high rate. Masks are at worst an inconvenience, at best a reasonable defense particularly against infected people spreading to the uninfected. Particularly in areas where population density is reasonably high.
The only theater here is on the part of the people demanding (a) the privilege to infect others around them and (b) access to out-of-area health care resources because things are overwhelmed by (a).
If you have examples of low-density areas, with hospitals ill-equipped to deal with intensive care, begging for urban/surban areas to send the cases from their overloaded hospitals, SHOW THEM.Report
The only examples I have are politicians from areas marked “Red” on the CDC map prominently not wearing masks and, when this is asked about, it’s pointed out that these politicians were vaccinated and they were in a tent that was effectively outdoors rather than, like, inside. (Except, of course, for the cases where they were actually inside.)Report
“I’ll tell you what I’m working with the teenager on: Say what you mean and mean what you say.”
It’s interesting how you assume that Jaybird didn’t do this.
Why not answer his question?
If you’re worried that you can’t successfully argue that your answer is valid, well. That’s on you, playa.Report
Um… what question did he ask?
Rather: “I am not sure it ought to be the job of the Hostess to ask for proof of vaccination” very much implies an opinion while pretending not to actually be one. And a very valid and legitimate opinion to have. One I’d like to engage with.
But does Jaybird actually hold the implied opinion of, “Hostesses shouldn’t be enforcing the vaccinate?”
I’ll dig into that when he actually states something directly.Report
“But does Jaybird actually hold the implied opinion of, “Hostesses shouldn’t be enforcing the vaccinate?””
You seem pretty sure that he does, bro.Report
also, weren’t you never ever gonna talk to Jaybird again?Report
When I worked at the restaurant, a million years ago, we had a French family come in and they gave their kids wine.
Not, like, a *LOT*, but the older one got half a glass of wine and the rest of the glass was filled with water and the younger one got a third of a glass of wine and the rest of the glass was filled with water. (“Wait”, you may be thinking… “hasn’t Jaybird told this story before?” I have! I told it here.)
We did not call the cops on this family.
Should we have?
I don’t know that we ever had to deal with a situation where a 20 year old tried to buy a beer… but I don’t recall ever asking anyone for their ID.
It was a different time, I guess.Report
As someone who grew up in the beer business, I can tell you that it is mostly the sellers of booze. Sometimes the state liquor authority yanks your license if you don’t do the job. Generally, it is not the cops, unless your efforts to keep a minor from getting booze turn into a ruckus.Report
Well, the protest was not a bluff. It actually happened.
Report
More footage from the protest:
Report
Jaybird, what are you trying to say with this? Why won’t you just say what you mean? Just tell us what you’re trying to say here. Just say what you mean you’re saying that you’re saying! JUST TELL US! SAY! MEAN!Report
Those are excellent questions. Maybe he’ll answer them coming from you.Report
This is our society on intersectionality.Report
Related:
(Note: AOC was not there.)Report
At another event at which AOC was not present, Tony! Toni! Toné! was playing a small, intimate gig in San Francisco. The Mayor, who laid down an indoor masking mandate, was seen at the gig dancing maskless.
A handful of people asked “what the hell?” and she responded:
Report
Jesse Kelly had a good tweet, believe it or not.
He said, and I’m paraphrasing this, “If I told you to stay off my lawn because of the landmines and then, the next day, you saw me tap dancing on the lawn, then you shouldn’t accuse me of hypocrisy. You should assume that I was lying about the landmines.”Report
Thing is, I’m maybe less worried about whether he lied about landmines than I am about the people who, on his say-so, installed landmines for real…and told me that if I got blown up by one it was my own fault.Report
Where did this happen? D.C.? Washington State? What are the rules there? Since she is vaccinated, this would be entirely OK in NYC.Report
Are the rules based on what’s true about the virus or are the rules irrelevant to the virus and just, you know, rules based on whether you’re in DC or in NYC or whatever?
Because that’s information that might be useful for the rest of the country!
“If you’re in DC, you have to wear a mask or else you’re killing grandma! In NYC? She’ll be fine. NYC STRONG!”Report
I thought conservatives were all about local control . . .Report
I can’t tell if we’re talking about protecting ourselves and our loved ones from the virus or if we’re talking about obeying our superiors.
If it’s about obedience, I guess that no one did anything wrong and it’s kind of weird that people don’t understand that the topic is the rules and how people should follow directions and most things that aren’t forbidden are allowed where they are not mandatory.Report
If you’re interested in whether the rules in force in different locations are correct, ask someone who actually knows such things. I’ve never played a doctor, even on TV, and won’t here. Lots of folks here aren’t so inhibited and might weigh in.
But if you’re trying to own various libs for not following the rules, then what the rules are is the question. Which, as usual, you didn’t answer.Report
I don’t know who I would ask, if I wanted to know what the rules ought to be.
If I looked at our leaders for guidance (as opposed to listening to them), I’d guess that it doesn’t involve a whole lot of mask wearing.Report
So you don’t know what the rules ought to be, whom to ask, or whether what “our leaders” are doing is consistent with whatever the current rules may be, which you don’t know. Got it.Report
I assume from your comment a couple above that you don’t know what the rules ought to be either.
Which is weird, for a global pandemic.
You’d think that there’d be a list of rules that both of us would know about right off the top of our heads.Report
Why would anyone think that? Science is hard.Report
Why would anyone think that?
Because we had a year of handwashing guidance, mask guidance, vaccination guidance, and social distancing guidance.
It’s not *THAT* crazy to think that there’d be mask guidance in September 2021.Report
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html
(Updated 8/12/21)Report
I guess there are rules.
To reduce the risk of being infected with the Delta variant and possibly spreading it to others, wear a mask indoors in public if you are in an area of substantial or high transmission.
There’s a link for “substantial or high transmission”!
Let’s click on it.
Okay.
Looks like New York is red in its entirety.
As is DC.Report
This was SF and depending on exactly what transpired, she may have been in violation of the rules.
However, her response was really problematic. She derided the “fun police” “micromanaging” mask wearing. It really stunk of “Rules for thee but not for me.”
Her conduct was questionable; her response inexcusable.
ETA: I’m referring to the SF mayor case, not the other one.Report
JAYBIRD! DOWN HERE!!!
Your comments about the absurdity of laws that the police don’t enforce is an interesting one. If you really think about it, how many laws do the police ACTUALLY enforce?
Do they enforce anti-shoplifting laws? No.
Do they enforce anti-murder laws? Not really.
I mean, what percentage of laws or lawbreaking are actually monitored and actively enforced/thwarted by the police? Very little, it would seem.
So the issue isn’t really that we made a law that we don’t want the cops to enforce. Because, in most of these cases, it isn’t the would-be maskless or would-be unvaccinated patrons who are in violation of the law; it is the businesses. Businesses must make sure that the folks who are in their establishment are abiding by whatever the rule is and, if not, the businesses get fined. Or worse. So the businesses have to come up with some sort of way to make sure they are meeting the standard. Some have hired security. Some are looking the other way and will deal with whatever the consequences are. Some have tasked folks with enforcing it who aren’t really trained or equipped to do so.
So, if we want to talk about laws being enforced by non-police folks, well, that is really our norm. Which may be absurd. But it ain’t unique to Covid.
The issue, as far as I see it, is that some folks don’t want to follow the rules — whatever they may be. Some of these folks are out-of-towners who may not know the rules. And some of these folks are the very people who wrote the rules.
A society where folks think it is okay to flout the rules is an absurd one, but for a different reason than the one you posit.
And, FWIW, I think the government saying, “Enforce this rule that a lot of people don’t want to follow or you’ll be in trouble and we’ll offer you no help to do so,” is a really shitty thing to do. And I’ve been saying that since I saw customers giving grief to the shopping-cart-wranglers-turned-“security” at the grocery store last summer.Report
Oh, there are a bunch of laws that the cops don’t actually enforce.
Some because they don’t give a crap.
Some because they don’t have the manpower.
Some because they don’t know how.
I put this in a different category. This is a law that I’m pretty sure we’d agree would not have been appropriate to have the police called on the Texans.
Like, if we agree that the hostess should not have called the cops (and, indeed, that the cops should not have been called until the brawl started), then we have a law that we do not want the cops enforcing.
And that’s absurd in a way that a law that cops are too stupid to enforce is not.Report