In a The Onion-style moment, Melania Trump boarded a plane to visit immigrant children apparently wearing a jacket that said, "I Really Don't Care. Do U?" according to The Daily Mail. The jacket she appeared to be wearing is $39 from Zara, as pointed out by the Mail, and the First Lady had seemingly removed it by the time she landed.
Melania wore the jacket as she boarded a plane en route to Texas, where she visited an immigrant children detention facility.
<snip>
According to ABC correspondent Meridith McGraw, the First Lady's spokesperson had this to say: "It's a jacket. There was no hidden message. After today's important visit to Texas, I hope this isn't what the media is going to choose to focus on."
Yeah, no one's saying there's a hidden message. It's the fact that the message isn't hidden that's drawing comment.
Of course there is no"hidden message" in Melania's coat. There is no message at all - and that's the problem. No-one - from Melania herself on - thought for a moment "How is this going to look?" No-one cared how it would look.
(In passing - why would ANYONE at ANY TIME wear a coat that say's "I really don't care"? It is such a nihilistic thing to wear - but if you're such a nihilist, you won't bother wearing it any way. For someone with access to so much money, Melania could do an awful lot better.)
Back in my distant schooldays "care" trended as a single-word expression of deep sarcasm.
There was a cartoon in my school mag at that time of a couple of archetypal men in black suits and dark glasses, one with a tiny lapel button reading "CARE".
I still like to think the kids-in-cages scandal might have unglued at least some evos from Trump though.
I did wonder if Melanie's loyalty under pressure had just cracked. 'I really don't care. Do you?' sounds pretty much like the kind of thing the Donald might have actually said in private to Melania. And outraged her to the extent that she decided to put those words out there.
I don't know that, of course. There is something weird about Melania wearing on a back something in direct contradiction to what she was actually doing.
I think it was a warning message to Trump from Mrs Trump.
I saw a little bit about this on TV news. I think it's great that she went, and that she spoke up.
I heard about the message on the jacket/shirt. (I've heard both.) In the clip I saw, M was wearing a light(?) green jacket, with no noticeable markings. I can think of possible reasons for wearing the messaged one: she was trying to prod other people into caring; or she was having a bad day, and that was her message to the world. She *didn't* wear it in Texas, per the Marie Claire article Croesos cited.
She spoke up about wanting to help reunite the kids. IIRC, she previously had her staff tweet about her concerns. And T said recently that M and Ivanka had both expressed their feelings to him about separating families, which seemed to help prod his policy reversal. (Though, as has been pointed out in news coverage, he said no more separation. Nothing about reuniting families and how to do that.)
I'm a little worried about M, actually. When she shook hands with a man on her visit, she seemed to stand as far from him as she possibly could, and still be able to shake his hand. She looked fragile. Then there was her recent hospital stay--officially for a kidney problem, but handled somewhat oddly.
I hope she's ok.
ETA: M's staff said this trip was planned *before* T's turnaround.
Of course there is no"hidden message" in Melania's coat. There is no message at all - and that's the problem. No-one - from Melania herself on - thought for a moment "How is this going to look?" No-one cared how it would look.
(In passing - why would ANYONE at ANY TIME wear a coat that say's "I really don't care"? It is such a nihilistic thing to wear - but if you're such a nihilist, you won't bother wearing it any way. For someone with access to so much money, Melania could do an awful lot better.)
Who was it who said we should never attribute evil motives to what may be explained by stupidity?
I hadn't thought that stupidity and evil might be so closely related. Until now. Lock her up!TM
I think she was prodding the Donald into caring. Not just about the chidren. But about just how much trouble she can cause him if she gets good and mad.
And I noticed she didn't wear the coat at the event. Which shows she knew it would be offensive. So I'm pretty sure it was a deliberate act directed at her husband. Hence his stupid tweet.
My understanding is that there was more backlash from the Republican side of the fence than usual. If correct, might that indicate that evangelical concern for the poor, which does manifest in church initiatives to alleviate suffering (again AIUI), has played a role in shaving this particular sharp edge off the Trump Immigration position.
I think the coat comment was about fashion. It’s a shapeless anorak type coat, and the words are daubed on in the style you might use to put a message on a fence with a brush and whitewash. ‘It’s an ugly coat, but I’m not making an effort, tough.’ Probably cost a small fortune, though.
Actually, the article mentioned that the jacket cost something like $39 or $79.
So she’s worn it deliberately.
Who knows what her reasons were? But the upshot is a failed publicity visit with the opposite effect. She’s shown extremely poor taste at the very least.
(In passing - why would ANYONE at ANY TIME wear a coat that say's "I really don't care"? It is such a nihilistic thing to wear - but if you're such a nihilist, you won't bother wearing it any way. For someone with access to so much money, Melania could do an awful lot better.)
Image, dear boy, image. It's "cool" in some quarters to be seen as nihilistic, therefore people spend considerable effort in trying to appear so.
It's like people who spend hours in the morning making their hair look like they only just got out of bed.
Poor little Melania. Is that the only coat she owns, a $39.00 coat that someone scribbled on? Or is her knowledge of English so bad that she didn't understand what it said? Or... is she just as heartless as her creepy husband? (Just realized this is Purgatory, not Hell, so I had to settle for "creepy" rather than something stronger.)
Who knows what her reasons were? But the upshot is a failed publicity visit with the opposite effect. She’s shown extremely poor taste at the very least.
Or it has done exactly what it was calculated to do: give the press a shiny new chew toy so that they obsess over clothing and forget about children in cages. After all, that is OLD news...we have a coat to talk about!
Over the last year and a half, Trump has managed to switch the press off of a number of touchy topics (including his Russian connections and other illegal activities) simply by doing something else morally objectionable. And, every single time, the press chase after the new toy and leave the old one under the couch collecting dust..
I wonder if anyone has done a comparative costing, between the value of a large tented "Gitmo" and applying the costs of such a Gitmo to improving the efficiency and decency of the current processes of immigration controls.
Far too rational I suppose. Particularly since the whole "tough approach" thing and Trump's associated rhetoric looks increasingly like a gamble for support in the midterms. (The polls seem to be pointing in different directions, depending on where you look,)
I wonder if anyone has done a comparative costing, between the value of a large tented "Gitmo" and applying the costs of such a Gitmo to improving the efficiency and decency of the current processes of immigration controls.
Well, I assume a lot of the folk on the right-flank of the Republican Party will just double down. Here for instance is a tweet from Governor - and ordained Baptist minister - Mike Huckabee:
Doubling down on a blatant lie or misrepresentation seems to be the order of the day. I have this unworthy notion of Huckabee in a different kind of Gitmo, subject to listen to a tape loop of Amos 5 for hours on end. Until he finally gets it.
This week's Economist makes the case that by getting his opponents to vent their fury on the child-separation measure (which he has now walked back), he has distracted them from tackling the parallel and more morally defensible issue of some form of (humane) border control, as well as given other Republicans useful space in which to distance themselves from him for the upcoming mid-terms.
I have to admit I'm wondering about renewing my subscription.
I read The Economist regularly, because it's about the only English-language publication available in my city that isn't full of puff pieces like Asia's Top Movers And Shakers Under 30(that being a typical Time Magazine cover in Asia).
I like The Economist, but yeah, reading it every week kind of makes you realize that the supposedly reasonable, moderate, MOTR socioeconomic viewpoint can get as cultish and constricted as anything in the Worker's Vanguard or the Daily Mail.
I read if for much the same reasons, plus the quality of the writing, but think it might be @chrisstiles that fatally compromised it for me by quoting someone saying it was written by 35-year-old Oxbridge graduates pretending to be 50-year-olds.
Meanwhile Sarah Huckabee Sanders gets refused service in a DC restaurant. Much as I can understand the sentiment I can't help thinking this might backfire.
I think the coat comment was about fashion. It’s a shapeless anorak type coat, and the words are daubed on in the style you might use to put a message on a fence with a brush and whitewash. ‘It’s an ugly coat, but I’m not making an effort, tough.’ Probably cost a small fortune, though.
But Melania as a former model and current trophy wife is renowned for very much caring about what she wears and how she looks in public. So my reaction is that the coat tells her real opinion and negates her previous statements that she thinks separating children at the US border is inhumane.
In other words, "my husband, i.e. my main income source for my fashion spending, must have been right all along".
Meanwhile Sarah Huckabee Sanders gets refused service in a DC restaurant. Much as I can understand the sentiment I can't help thinking this might backfire.
Lexington, Virginia is about a three hour drive from Washington. As for it backfiring, it might, but one of the consequences of performative cruelty should be the scorn of non-sociopaths. One of the conceits of racists is that everyone secretly agrees with them but are too cowed by political correctness or whatever to be honest about it. Publicly shunning and shaming defenders of racist cruelty is one way to correct that perception.
But Melania as a former model and current trophy wife is renowned for very much caring about what she wears and how she looks in public. So my reaction is that the coat tells her real opinion and negates her previous statements that she thinks separating children at the US border is inhumane.
In other words, "my husband, i.e. my main income source for my fashion spending, must have been right all along".
Except it was a $39 jacket. Husband's income not needed.
I don't know why she wore it, though I mentioned a couple of possibilities. But she left the coat on the plane when she got to Texas, so it was never anywhere near the kids nor detention center.
Except it was a $39 jacket. Husband's income not needed.
I don't know why she wore it, though I mentioned a couple of possibilities. But she left the coat on the plane when she got to Texas, so it was never anywhere near the kids nor detention center.
I agree that her husband's income was not needed fort that jacket, but it would be for most of her other outfits.
But alternatively those above who say that she was just showing how much trouble she can cause the Pussygrabber if she wants to maybe right.
Meanwhile Sarah Huckabee Sanders gets refused service in a DC restaurant. Much as I can understand the sentiment I can't help thinking this might backfire.
Lexington, Virginia is about a three hour drive from Washington. As for it backfiring, it might, but one of the consequences of performative cruelty should be the scorn of non-sociopaths. One of the conceits of racists is that everyone secretly agrees with them but are too cowed by political correctness or whatever to be honest about it. Publicly shunning and shaming defenders of racist cruelty is one way to correct that perception.
I'm not sure of the legality in Virigina of discriminating against someone on the grounds of political views or affiliations. I believe in at least one Canadian province, politics is a protected ground, along with race, religion etc.
My concern would be that, if it's okay to tell SHS that she can't eat there because she works for Trump, there's no reason that couldn't be turned around against liberals or progressives.
If I live in a small town and work for a council member who wants to raise taxes on business, what's to stop all the businesses in town, including grocery stores and other neccessities, from refusing to serve me as a protest?
I think I prefer the idea of allowing her to stay and eat, but doing something to chastise her while she's there. Maybe make a big announcement while bringing her tray over: "We're being way nicer and accomadating to this miserable apologist for bigotry than her administration has ever been to the people it victimizes." And then put that on social media.
I'm not sure of the legality in Virigina of discriminating against someone on the grounds of political views or affiliations. I believe in at least one Canadian province, politics is a protected ground, along with race, religion etc.
Conduct that violates any Virginia or federal statute or regulation governing discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, or disability shall be an "unlawful discriminatory practice" for the purposes of this chapter.
The statute does not include political opinions or what your job is as unlawful grounds for discrimination. (Nor sexual orientation, for that matter.) So it is perfectly legal in Virginia to refuse service to someone because they're a noxious apologist for a vicious thug.
My concern would be that, if it's okay to tell SHS that she can't eat there because she works for Trump, there's no reason that couldn't be turned around against liberals or progressives.
As blogger Erik Loomis notes, Sarah Huck's employer already believes it's okay for businesses to discriminate against liberals, progressives, homosexuals, etc. The idea that this is going to give conservative businesses the idea that they can discriminate against people they don't like seems postmature.
And, true to form, the current occupant of the White House trashes the restaurant rather than admit he's to blame for the situation in the first place.
Conveniently overlooking the fact that his own restaurants have been repeatedly cited for major health violations (links in the above linked article).
I'm not sure of the legality in Virigina of discriminating against someone on the grounds of political views or affiliations. I believe in at least one Canadian province, politics is a protected ground, along with race, religion etc.
Human Rights Statutes Do Not Include Political Opinion or Belief as a Prohibited Ground of discrimination:
Federal (Canada), Ontario, Nunavet, Alberta, Saskatchewan
Human Rights Statutes Do Prohibit Discrimination on the Basis of Political Opinion or Belief:
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, Newfoundland & Labrador, NWT, Yukon, B.C., Manitoba
Though I wonder both about protecting and not protecting. What if KKK, Nazis or even Hell's Angels show up and claim the protection? what defines politics, what defines a rowdy group, unacceptable risks etc.
Comments
Yeah, well, that was before the game. Not a good omen for Trump's wall!
Yeah, no one's saying there's a hidden message. It's the fact that the message isn't hidden that's drawing comment.
Is it, more accurately, a symptom of the social progressive mindset?
(In passing - why would ANYONE at ANY TIME wear a coat that say's "I really don't care"? It is such a nihilistic thing to wear - but if you're such a nihilist, you won't bother wearing it any way. For someone with access to so much money, Melania could do an awful lot better.)
There was a cartoon in my school mag at that time of a couple of archetypal men in black suits and dark glasses, one with a tiny lapel button reading "CARE".
I still like to think the kids-in-cages scandal might have unglued at least some evos from Trump though.
I don't know that, of course. There is something weird about Melania wearing on a back something in direct contradiction to what she was actually doing.
I think it was a warning message to Trump from Mrs Trump.
I heard about the message on the jacket/shirt. (I've heard both.) In the clip I saw, M was wearing a light(?) green jacket, with no noticeable markings. I can think of possible reasons for wearing the messaged one: she was trying to prod other people into caring; or she was having a bad day, and that was her message to the world. She *didn't* wear it in Texas, per the Marie Claire article Croesos cited.
She spoke up about wanting to help reunite the kids. IIRC, she previously had her staff tweet about her concerns. And T said recently that M and Ivanka had both expressed their feelings to him about separating families, which seemed to help prod his policy reversal. (Though, as has been pointed out in news coverage, he said no more separation. Nothing about reuniting families and how to do that.)
I'm a little worried about M, actually. When she shook hands with a man on her visit, she seemed to stand as far from him as she possibly could, and still be able to shake his hand. She looked fragile. Then there was her recent hospital stay--officially for a kidney problem, but handled somewhat oddly.
I hope she's ok.
ETA: M's staff said this trip was planned *before* T's turnaround.
Who was it who said we should never attribute evil motives to what may be explained by stupidity?
I hadn't thought that stupidity and evil might be so closely related. Until now. Lock her up!TM
I think she was prodding the Donald into caring. Not just about the chidren. But about just how much trouble she can cause him if she gets good and mad.
And I noticed she didn't wear the coat at the event. Which shows she knew it would be offensive. So I'm pretty sure it was a deliberate act directed at her husband. Hence his stupid tweet.
So she’s worn it deliberately.
Who knows what her reasons were? But the upshot is a failed publicity visit with the opposite effect. She’s shown extremely poor taste at the very least.
Let’s hope it loses them more votes.
Image, dear boy, image. It's "cool" in some quarters to be seen as nihilistic, therefore people spend considerable effort in trying to appear so.
It's like people who spend hours in the morning making their hair look like they only just got out of bed.
The trumps seem to live by the saying ‘no publicity is bad publicity.’
I fervently hope they are wrong in that.
Over the last year and a half, Trump has managed to switch the press off of a number of touchy topics (including his Russian connections and other illegal activities) simply by doing something else morally objectionable. And, every single time, the press chase after the new toy and leave the old one under the couch collecting dust..
That would be really delicious, provided it actually helped the immigrants.
Far too rational I suppose. Particularly since the whole "tough approach" thing and Trump's associated rhetoric looks increasingly like a gamble for support in the midterms. (The polls seem to be pointing in different directions, depending on where you look,)
To paraphrase Mark Twain: "There are lies, damn lies, and polls." (Eerily appropriate in this context.)
Well, I assume a lot of the folk on the right-flank of the Republican Party will just double down. Here for instance is a tweet from Governor - and ordained Baptist minister - Mike Huckabee:
https://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee/status/1010497564435730434
[Which as someone points out in the replies is a picture also used on Richard Spencer's website].
Though they also herald Mohammed bin Salman as a great reformer. Still, even a stopped clock can occasionally be right I suppose.
I read The Economist regularly, because it's about the only English-language publication available in my city that isn't full of puff pieces like Asia's Top Movers And Shakers Under 30(that being a typical Time Magazine cover in Asia).
I like The Economist, but yeah, reading it every week kind of makes you realize that the supposedly reasonable, moderate, MOTR socioeconomic viewpoint can get as cultish and constricted as anything in the Worker's Vanguard or the Daily Mail.
Meanwhile Sarah Huckabee Sanders gets refused service in a DC restaurant. Much as I can understand the sentiment I can't help thinking this might backfire.
But Melania as a former model and current trophy wife is renowned for very much caring about what she wears and how she looks in public. So my reaction is that the coat tells her real opinion and negates her previous statements that she thinks separating children at the US border is inhumane.
In other words, "my husband, i.e. my main income source for my fashion spending, must have been right all along".
Lexington, Virginia is about a three hour drive from Washington. As for it backfiring, it might, but one of the consequences of performative cruelty should be the scorn of non-sociopaths. One of the conceits of racists is that everyone secretly agrees with them but are too cowed by political correctness or whatever to be honest about it. Publicly shunning and shaming defenders of racist cruelty is one way to correct that perception.
Except it was a $39 jacket. Husband's income not needed.
I don't know why she wore it, though I mentioned a couple of possibilities. But she left the coat on the plane when she got to Texas, so it was never anywhere near the kids nor detention center.
I agree that her husband's income was not needed fort that jacket, but it would be for most of her other outfits.
But alternatively those above who say that she was just showing how much trouble she can cause the Pussygrabber if she wants to maybe right.
I'm not sure of the legality in Virigina of discriminating against someone on the grounds of political views or affiliations. I believe in at least one Canadian province, politics is a protected ground, along with race, religion etc.
My concern would be that, if it's okay to tell SHS that she can't eat there because she works for Trump, there's no reason that couldn't be turned around against liberals or progressives.
If I live in a small town and work for a council member who wants to raise taxes on business, what's to stop all the businesses in town, including grocery stores and other neccessities, from refusing to serve me as a protest?
I think I prefer the idea of allowing her to stay and eat, but doing something to chastise her while she's there. Maybe make a big announcement while bringing her tray over: "We're being way nicer and accomadating to this miserable apologist for bigotry than her administration has ever been to the people it victimizes." And then put that on social media.
The Virginia Human Rights Act defines unlawful discriminatory practice thusly:
The statute does not include political opinions or what your job is as unlawful grounds for discrimination. (Nor sexual orientation, for that matter.) So it is perfectly legal in Virginia to refuse service to someone because they're a noxious apologist for a vicious thug.
As blogger Erik Loomis notes, Sarah Huck's employer already believes it's okay for businesses to discriminate against liberals, progressives, homosexuals, etc. The idea that this is going to give conservative businesses the idea that they can discriminate against people they don't like seems postmature.
Conveniently overlooking the fact that his own restaurants have been repeatedly cited for major health violations (links in the above linked article).
Here it has :
Though I wonder both about protecting and not protecting. What if KKK, Nazis or even Hell's Angels show up and claim the protection? what defines politics, what defines a rowdy group, unacceptable risks etc.