Cenk talks about the embarrassing football game he watched between Michigan and Rutgers. The conversation shifts to steaks and Ana shares the details about the delicious steak she at Christian’s birthday dinner. Cenk and Ana discuss Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments about Colin Kaepernick.
Comments
Totally agree with you on the politics and economics of the above, but I have to note that the party analogy seems imperfect. Firstly because 100 dollar steaks are not exactly in the same category of luxury as a larger quantity of beer. Secondly because it doesn’t sound very “conspicious” compared to Cenk and Ana putting such a story of luxury consumption on display in front of a membership which includes many struggling people.
I myself am not struggling, just doing okay, but I was reminded of the many comments on here in the past that have expressed how paying 10 dollars per month to TYT represented a financial sacrifice for them – one that they make for admirable reasons of conviction and ideology, but not easily.
Enjoy the better things in life once in a blue moon. (For me though, expensive restaurants feels like “snobbery” so I don’t like that atmosphere.) I think what you were feeling Anna was peace. When you can feel the happiness in the air, every single person around you is laughing/dancing, and everyone is having what will be great memories. Those are the best feelings in life and are priceless.
Listening to Ana reminds me why I don’t watch the second hour anymore.
Unlike many state universities, Rutgers understands its mission is higher education and not sports entertainment. It will be a sad day when Rutgers starts defeating the Michigans and Ohio States of the world. Rutgers should not be in the Big Ten and will never become a big time sports school. (I’m the 2nd of three generations of Rutgers Alumnui)
Since I am already posting too much, let me be even more brazen and say that I myself have stopped looking at Ana when she’s presenting. She is beautiful, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think I feel jealous about it, no. It is something in her face that is not right. I have thought about it and have reached the conclusion she shouldn’t have done the nose job on herself. Sometimes I put on some old TYT videos where I think she is with her “original” nose and find her far more enjoyable to look at. I had the same thought regarding John. I like him a lot but when I saw him for the first time, I wasn’t sure what I think about his appearance. Then I happened to stumble upon some old pics of him where his nose appears longer. He was smiling on that picture, and somehow the smile under that nose seemed so attractive, so nice looking. If John has had some nose job done on him it’s a shame, I think. Stop fooling around with your faces by having these ridiculous – I imagine expensive as well, surgical procedures. Guys and girls, you look far more attractive with your “original” faces, with their small imperfections. To try to look “perfect” is stupid, imperfect features make you far more interesting to look at, and when you top that off with the way you express your thoughts and personalities…why in the world would you go through a voluntary surgical intervention on your f a c e. It’s totally unnecessary.
Well, Ana works hard right, why not enjoy a nice restaurant on a special occasion.
I personally find the whole broohaha about the wedding ridiculous. Why plan over months and throw such unneeded stressful and expensive event right? To what end, for what purpose. It made it even more perplexing when Ana confessed she’s already married. I understand it’s a culture and tradition thing but aren’t the progressives those who change these unnecessary rituals and traditions in a culture?
I too objected to the $100 steak dinner conversation, but for a different reason than most. Ana’s comment about middle aged people aspiring to eating at some over-priced restaurant, drinking too much and looking ridiculous dancing to 80s music as a sign of success in life once again made me remember why I never listen to the second hour (or the first) when Ana is hosting – and I am fully aware I am in the minority about not watching Ana. I know Ana is young (relatively speaking to my age), but really? Good on you if that’s what you aspire to – but seriously, what a dumb comment. And, yeah, I get it, she’s not talking about ALL middle aged people, but again, so dumb.
I agree the comment about the middle aged people dancing in the steakhouse as the picture of a successful life is off. I imagine I’d have a totally different take on such a sight. I would see the dancing ones as loaded to take the steakhouse as a local pub , have tons of issues, one of them with drinking, and will probably feel guilty the next day when they sober up. But that’s probably reading too many books haha
I don’t understand how that was offensive? She was basically saying how at first she thought it was kind of dorky, and then she realized she was into it. I thought she was trying to say that her tastes are changing and she wants to enjoy her life too… people really get offended over everything these days.
The whole cattle/vegan aspect is an even trickier debate, which I won’t go into right now. And I certainly agree that there is nothing wrong with ecstasy. But ecstasy certainly doesn’t have to come from such rarified sources. This right here is ecstasy derived purely from a luxury consumption, if not to go further and say (with Dr. Thorstein Veblen) that it’s also ‘conspicuous consumption’ (because it sounds like that kind of restaurant).
I don’t feel comfortable with such a display in front of a membership that contains more than a few people who are struggling to make ends meet. That’s my opinion, anyone is free to disagree with it.
Scalia wasn’t a bad guy; he just had beliefs that he wanted to force upon everyone, and that’s a bad thing. he actually was a pretty funny guy, the only justice who appreciated and possessed a healthy sensayuma. i totally disagreed with everything he believed about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — he absolutely ignored the lovely, lovely Ninth … Amendment, my favorite among the ten (you know, the one propounding “unenumerable rights” that puts the Constitution in direct opposition to the so-called “Originalists”); i think he called it a stain or a blot upon the document — but i often found myself chuckling or outright laughing at something he said. he seemed like a pretty nice person who just happened to be, well, incorrect. and that is allowed, under the First Amendment.
Just because he is funny or has a sense of humour doesn’t mean he is a decent guy… in fact, our sense of humour was developed in order for humans to get along with one another from an evolutionary perspective. The only reliable way to figure out if someone is a decent person or not is to judge them by their actions, not their words or the evolutionary tricks nature has developed in order to get us to like one another. The reason we’ve developed these techniques is because it has benefited us to work together over the millions of years.
I find the idea a fascist bigot who merrily and willfully damaged thousands of lives not being a “bad guy” because he made a few inarticulate wisecracks quite astonishing.
Interesting conversation, Maxine. The idea is starting to solidify in my mind that a person’s belief and the issues that they fight for defines where they are in the spectrum of morality. This tells you who they really are as a person. I don’t follow or know Scalia. So if he’s imposing his incorrect will then what determines if he is bad is where his will falls. Does it fall more towards true morals, selfishness, or injustice? Or maybe he’s just incompetent, and incompetence doesn’t necessarily make a person bad.
I don’t make this comment gladly, and it makes me feel like I’m being excessively critical of Cenk and Ana because everyone deserves to treat themselves from time to time.
But I can’t help but wonder whether a Post Game about 100 dollar steaks is really the sort of extra content you guys want to give to the (fairly large) section of the Membership for whom paying 10 dollars a month to TYT is something of a budgetary sacrifice.
And yeah, you can certainly make the argument that the Post Games are about being candid and authentic about their own experiences, that they shouldn’t second-guess too much what they’re going to say here, and that they should err on the side of honesty. That’s a pretty good argument. But nevertheless, from a socio-economic perspective, I still think that some anecdotal life stories are just much more relatable than other types of anecdotal stories.
i disagree with you on this one. i happened to be looking away while Ana was talking about her ecstatic steak-eating experience, and i actually heard her draw a passionately sharp intake of breath. i could practically hear her heart beating pit-a-pat at just the memory of the evening: her eyes sparkled, her posture changed. it made me smile; i remembered my own Ruth’s Chris experience (nothing nearly as expensive as Ana’s, apparently) fondly. perhaps i am just fortunate to be able to enjoy an experience vicariously.
ahhh, we could never be vegans, we steak-lovers (sorry, cows). look, i am aware of the awful conditions of cattle — and pig, chicken, etc. — execution, but if everyone adopted Dr. Temple Grandin’s methods, the world would be a much better place, the animals would be calm to the very end, and our food would even taste better. this is, of course, all contingent upon the invention of cloned protein that is not only edible but delicious and varietal. please hurry it up, scientists!
The whole cattle/vegan aspect is an even trickier debate, which I won’t go into right now. And I certainly agree that there is nothing wrong with ecstasy. But ecstasy certainly doesn’t have to come from such rarified sources. This right here is ecstasy derived purely from a luxury consumption, if not to go further and say (with Dr. Thorstein Veblen) that it’s also ‘conspicuous consumption’ (because it sounds like that kind of restaurant).
I don’t feel comfortable with such a display in front of a membership that contains more than a few people who are struggling to make ends meet. That’s my opinion, anyone is free to disagree with it.
Although it’s a rarity for them, esp Ana to go to a place like that, there are probably many amongst us who cannot even do that. It is a little on the borderline as you’ve indirectly suggested, but I still see your point.
Robertjordan18, I’m sorry to hear you’re struggling. I had a conversation with acquaintances that own a small business. They were saying that their employees, who were being paid $8/hr, were poor and didn’t have the abundance that we were enjoying at the party. Which was good of them to say. They ruined it by saying that their employees are struggling but they still buy that case of beer. Oh come on! They can’t enjoy much in life so let them at least enjoy some beer once in a while! So why can’t Cenk and Anna enjoy their expensive restaurant once in a rare blue moon. All the hard work they do for the country, they deserve much more than this. I really blame the hardships that you have gone through because of large corporations. Corporations have been buying up smaller companies ever since the 2008 recession. Once they buy these smaller companies they lay off a lot of the workers. The corporations repeat this process and hence there are less jobs. Since there are less companies out there to buy products from, the competition thins out. In turn, you pay higher prices for products and services.
Totally agree with you on the politics and economics of the above, but I have to note that the party analogy seems imperfect. Firstly because 100 dollar steaks are not exactly in the same category of luxury as a larger quantity of beer. Secondly because it doesn’t sound very “conspicious” compared to Cenk and Ana putting such a story of luxury consumption on display in front of a membership which includes many struggling people.
I myself am not struggling, just doing okay, but I was reminded of the many comments on here in the past that have expressed how paying 10 dollars per month to TYT represented a financial sacrifice for them – one that they make for admirable reasons of conviction and ideology, but not easily.
I’m against people enjoying what they did not earn. But I think where I differ from many people is that, I am not against people enjoying what they have earned through hard honest work. So if a corporate owner becomes rich through hard honest work and pays his taxes. I do not disk like that person at all. Cenk rarely enjoys this dinning, and when he does he orders only the low priced bisque. Anna didn’t want to go to that restaurant at all because it was really expensive. Cenk and Anna have said they often work 12 hours a day. They put this on display to show what kind of life a rich person may have so why would the corrupted wealthy people want to grab more than they already have? Which is way more than they can ever spend. (I think the answer to that is greed and more power over others). I’ve seen this sentiment often. Since this is a mindset that I don’t think I have, I really am curious to understand the other side. Honestly, what makes you guys feel this way about people who rarely enjoy luxuries that they have earned?
As far as “understanding” goes, I think I have made my case with rational arguments, which can be summed up as: all members are paying to watch this member content; for a portion of them (IMO a significant portion) this is a financial sacrifice; and therefore it seems perverse to give those members content that displays luxury consumption.
If what you’re saying is that either 1) “this is incorrect, no members look at it this way”, or 2) “they do, but you have to disregard this and not care about it”, then you’re going to have to build more of a case to support either of those two contentions.
> I am not against people enjoying what they have earned through hard honest work. So if a corporate owner becomes rich through hard honest work and pays his taxes. I do not disk like that person at all.
I would say that this description is not incorrect, but that it is incomplete and it represents only one part of the larger picture. The bigger picture is that no wealth is created in isolation, all wealth is created collectively. Meaning that it is not just the hard work of the owner but equally (and often moreso) the hard work of those who work for him, both of which have concurrently created the owner’s wealth. Secondly, the owner is highly dependent not just on that workforce being there and willing to provide their labor, but also on the larger infrastructure created for him by the state (and paid for by all taxpayers) that supplied the necessary conditions for the owner to do anything (infrastructure such as the education system, the healthcare system, the road system, the legal system, etc.) Too often, the accomplishments of individual entrepreneurs are framed and lauded in ways that completely disregard the context which allowed the entrepreneur to do anything, and which injustly downplay or ignore the hard work supplied by other, lower-ranked people.
That is my broader and philosophical view of your opinion there, but actually, this isn’t directly relevant to the main point of the discussion. Because I was not addressing the question of whether Cenk and Ana’s wealth/consumption is deserved or undeserved; I was only saying that, regardless of such considerations, there is a case for not displaying that wealth/consumption in front of the membership like that.
Before I sent my previous replies. I removed sentences that may provoke angry from you to avoid an argument. What I wanted was a discussion so that I can understand your logic, which I currently see as illogical. I guess that didn’t work. I already had an idea what the answer really is, but I wanted to hear your side. The real answer is “Envy”.
I totally agree with you that wealth is created collectively. I’ve been posting on TYT videos for at least a year now… the fact that “It’s the productivity of all employees not just the productivity of the corporate owner that builds the company”. So I’m still not sure why you’re against a corporate owner that becomes rich through hard honest work, and pays his taxes. That just sounds like hating the rich because they are rich. That sounds like envy. I dislike them only if they make their money dishonestly. Yes, it’s wrong to disregard the lower ranked person’s labor, and it’s also wrong to disregard the corporate owner’s hard labor. It’s wrong to disregard anyone’s labor.
My point is Cenk and Anna earn money through hard and honest work. They work 10-12 hour days. They push for causes that are just and moral. They culturally shift the minds of more than 3 million people towards the right direction. They are the honest voice where there are no others in the sea of corruption. $10 a month doesn’t give the right to judge/control that person on what they do with the fruits of their hard honest extremely productive labor. Their productive labor should afford them more than what they have, but it doesn’t.
You said you don’t contest what they deserve. So what you’re saying is that Cenk and Anna shouldn’t have discussed this, because it may provoke “envy”? And we should not discuss things just because people may have illogically thoughts of envy. I agree with you when you said that you feel like you’re being excessively critical.
This time you have given the game away, because there is certainly enough here for me to read the truth between the lines: you’re actually extremely offended that I ever dared to make this case at all. That certainly doesn’t bother me. It is safe to say that so many of us do not look at capitalism with the rose-colored glasses that you are wearing.
I can infer from the above that your answer to the question is: “If financially struggling members don’t enjoy hearing about 100 dollar steaks, then they’re just being envious.” That is probably the oldest answer in history to the earliest complaints ever raised from the lower classes: “if the poor don’t like the wealth we display before them, then they’re just being envious of the rich.” A lazy reproach and explanation, to say the least, and one not actually backed up with evidence of anyone’s psychological state, or indeed with any evidence at all.
Just to be clear: I certainly like what Cenk and the rest of TYT are doing, for similar reasons as you, but none of this obliges me to share your opinion on the economic side of it, or the socio-economic side of it all. It’s one thing to be glad that TYT has been able to operate and survive within the confines of a ruthless economic system with so many negative and unjust aspects, but none of this obliges anyone to embrace or applaud that system. TYT is just inside that system and they have to work with it in order to survive, but nobody has to “like” this economic state of affairs, or how the economic benefits of it are distributed. Not me, not any other member.
> $10 a month doesn’t give the right to judge/control that person on what they do with the fruits of their hard honest extremely productive labor.
I never said that it did. From the beginning, my argument has clearly been not an order but a suggestion; and not a suggestion about how and where they should spend their money (in fact, let them do as they please) but only about how they can themselves choose to relate to the audience in terms of which stories they tell, or how much of a story they tell. It is a choice on their part whether or not they display their own luxury consumption before an audience that is partially struggling. Mine is a moral appeal to their better natures to choose to be cognisant of the basic reality and context – which I have by now repeated many times – that it’s not advisable, not in good taste, arguably even decadent, not to restrain displays of luxury consumption before the eyes of a paying audience under those conditions. They are free to disregard this appeal, I am free to make it.
Haha, I do not look at capitalism with rose colored glasses. It has many faults! The source of the conflict is envy. When reading your last long message I see that you and I kind of have the same perspective. The only difference is that envy isn’t a strong trait that I have. I don’t have any more time that I can spend going back and forth on this topic. Let’s just say this is a grey area, and our perspectives is somewhere close to the correct point.
I realize that my last comment was worded too strongly. Sorry, but I think that reducing it all to the primitive emotion of “Envy” is taking the discussion back to almost medieval modes of thinking, which provoked that tone from me.