Wait, I thought Obama was the out-of-touch elitist

Kroger-brand Dijon mustardYou may recall that a few years ago, some among the right-wing punditry took great offense at Obama’s attempt to order a burger with Dijon mustard, because it indicates what an out-of-touch, ivory tower elitist he is. Because if your palette appreciates anything fancier than a Big Mac, you just don’t understand Americans well enough to be their leader, or something.

But the ubiquitous right-wing assumption that working in academia makes you out of touch with ordinary Americans, while having assloads of money totally doesn’t, is difficult to maintain in the face of things like this:

A taskmaster, Mr. Ebeling pushed Mrs. Romney to excel in high-level amateur shows. He escorted her on horse-buying expeditions to Europe. She shares ownership of the Oldenburg mare he dreams of riding in the Olympic Games this summer. Mrs. Romney and her husband, Mitt, even floated a loan — $250,000 to $500,000, according to financial records — to Mr. Ebeling and his wife for the horse farm they run in California, where the Romneys use a Mediterranean-style guesthouse as a getaway.

Come on. I can go to Kroger and get a bottle of Dijon, but doing so would make me less of a Real Amurikan than a woman who can afford to go on “horse-buying expeditions to Europe?” How does that make any sense?

Personally, I think it’s a serviceable rule of thumb that anything that can be bought in Kroger’s store brand is by no means too fancy for ordinary folk.

A black preacher, a white preacher, and a rabbi walk into a gay bar

While many media sources (and no doubt bloggers, tweeters, and white folk) express shock and surprise that a majority of black people support gay marriage, I find myself nonplussed. But then, maybe that’s because the discussions about black people being more homophobic than white people that seem to pervade liberal circles have never sat quite right with me.

Perhaps it’s because whenever such a discussion comes up, people start bemoaning that black people, of all people, should understand better than anyone why gay civil rights are important. And these are liberals making this statement, which I guess makes it not racist in their minds? But it is. I never accepted that argument because it feels pretty racist to hold a black person more accountable for being a homophobe than a white person.

Bigotry is never a logical position. Telling black homophobes that they need to think their position through in a way that white homophobes get a pass on is just privilege. That’s the way I see it, anyway.

But, of course, there’s the numbers to consider. Support among black Americans for gay marriage has apparently jumped nearly twenty percent in the last year, according to polls taken recently after Obama’s announcement. Naturally, much of the media—even, if not especially, the center-left elements of the media (just look at the Village Voice post linked above)—takes this as an indication of Obama loyalty. They point out, yet again, that 95% of black voters voted for Obama in 2008, consistently ignoring the fact that 90% of black voters voted for Gore in 2000, which indicates far more strongly that most black people are Democrats rather than single-issue voters whose issue is skin color. And they have good reason for that. Would you really expect to see black Americans flocking to the polls to vote for Herman Cain if he somehow ended up on the ballot? I can’t picture it, personally. Maybe that extra 5% would, but that’s a pretty tiny minority.

It strikes me as more likely that 20% of black people felt no strong way about gay marriage, but have historically indicated they were opposed because they hadn’t put much thought into it. This is probably equally true of every race of Americans, but white people are demonstrably less likely to respond positively to Obama’s announcement. It’s easy enough to imagine a black person who feels no malice toward gays finding Obama’s argument persuasive, because he or she respects him, and if his race is a factor in that it’s certainly not the only factor (again, picture Herman Cain receiving the same respect just because he’s black—it wouldn’t happen). A truly dedicated, hateful black homophobe is almost certainly no more likely than a hateful white homophobe to reverse their position on the sole basis of Obama’s.

So again I feel uncomfortable with all the implications flying around that black people regard Obama as their Head Black Person and just follow his lead. In fact it’s pretty amazing to me how willing the media is to aggregate the behavior of black people and act like they’re all one homogeneous (heh) mass. They don’t appear so ready to do so when they’re talking about white people. But if we just consider individuals rather than groups here, then it’s like I said above: I see nothing particularly remarkable about a person who’s on the fence about gay marriage being persuaded by the opinion of a leader they respect. So cut it out with the “analyses” of how black people mindlessly follow Obama, media.

E-race-er

I think my favorite thing about this new faux-controversy over the 1991 press material that mistakenly identifies Obama as being “born in Kenya” is that it demonstrates the wingnut power to spin revisionist histories even about oneself. For those unaware, the right-wing blogosphere is utterly convinced that this constitutes irrefutable proof that Obama was deliberately portraying himself as African-born in order to collect all that sweet, sweet affirmative action, and bone all those African-born-law-student groupies, I guess.

But returning to my point about revisionist histories, some in the right-wing blogosphere appear to be taking the opportunity to prove that their reflexive disbelief in the American-ness of America’s thus far only black president is totes not racist:

“So it looks like the main source of the idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya was: Barack Obama?” asked Yes But However. “So the source of the confusion is Obama and his promoters themselves,” declared My Pet Jawa.

Look, no. You didn’t get the idea that Obama was born in Kenya from some 1991 press booklet that you weren’t aware of until five minutes ago. You got it from your own racist brain. But I’m sure in their own minds, those eldritch realms shaped by bitterness and cognitive dissonance, they truly believe that back in 2008 they heard about that time in 1991 when Obama was going around telling everybody he was Kenyan. (Not that, y’know, he was, but there are many layers of self-delusion at work in the average wingnut controversy.)

And so it’s actually Obama’s fault that they’re racist! How convenient.

Those damn kids with their… iPods, and their… socialism… *grumble grumble*

The more I re-read this article, the readier I am to dismiss it as just another entry in the “those damn kids” genre of editorial. (It also mentions the TV show Girls at the beginning, evidently striving to also reach out to fans of the “this recent bit of pop culture demonstrates why our society is falling apart” genre. The main thing Girls demonstrates in reality is that Hollywood still hasn’t gotten the hang of this whole “non-white people exist” thing.) I mean, they make a show of trying to be even-handed, tossing in some backhanded compliments about the Millennial generation like “they think following the model of that wave of dot-com entrepreneurship in the 90s that caused a recession is somehow a good idea” (not an exact quote), although these get a tad incoherent when put together:

3. They’re natural entrepreneurs
Call it “Generation Sell” — Millennials are less inclined to join a commune or a movement, and would rather start a small business, says William Deresiewicz at The New York Times. Brought up in the “heroic age of dot-com entrepreneurship” that defined the 1990s, and distrustful of “large organizations, including government,” the Millennial views small business as “the idealized social form of our time.”

4. They’re socialists
Looks like the “right-wing cries of ‘socialist takeover!’ may be based in more than paranoia,” says Nona Willis Aronowitz at Good. Polls show that 49 percent of Millennials “view socialism in a favorable light,” compared with 43 percent who view it unfavorably. Millennials are also the generation of Occupy Wall Street, the anti-corporate movement, and “it’s not hard to figure out why our generation isn’t so gung-ho about capitalism — it has disappointed and, in some cases, straight-up failed us.”

They’re natural entrepreneurs… and they’re socialists. You understand why these two things are incompatible, right? More to the point, the notion that socialism is catching on in any real sense is laughable. So no, the right-wing cries of “socialist takeover!” are not based on more than paranoia.

The media likes to point out this trend, amidst the Great Recession, of increasingly favorable views of socialism. Such views are understandable, given that the failure of capitalism is growing more evident every day. But while many young Americans might say to a pollster that they think the idea of socialism sounds pretty cool, most of them don’t actually know jack shit about socialism or have any genuine desire to see it implemented. For them it’s akin to thinking, “It’d be pretty cool if I had a lightsaber.” Sure, the idea can be conceived in some abstract sense, but most Americans ultimately don’t know how to separate capitalism from their fundamental assumptions about reality. It’s not something that comes easily to me, either. We’ve been trained from birth to view capitalism as the natural state of affairs, and the only rational way to organize human relations. At the end of the day, this favorable view of socialism that’s on the rise lately isn’t some genuine social or intellectual movement, so much as just a bunch of young people shrugging and saying this thing they’ve vaguely heard of sounds kind of interesting. More’s the pity.

Of course, we’re also talking about an article that can’t maintain a logical connection within a single bullet point, much less between two of them:

5. They’re narcissistic
Millennials “may not be the caring, socially conscious environmentalists some have portrayed them to be,” says Joanna Chau at The Chronicle of Higher Education. One study says that Millennials are more narcissistic than their elders, and increasingly value “money, image, and fame more than inherent principles like self-acceptance, affiliation, and community.” While college students in 1971 ranked “being very well off financially” as their number-eight concern, for Millennials it’s consistently at “the top of the list.”

I don’t get it. Millennials are narcissistic because… they want money? Sure, one is bad and the other is (arguably) bad, but that doesn’t mean they’re related. They might as well have said, “Millennials are more sociopathic than their elders, because they don’t clean the shower as often as they should.”

But let’s address the actual point here, which is that their desire to be financially well off is evidence of a character failing on their part. Now, you know me. I hate capitalism. So yeah, I think the pursuit of money as an end in itself is bad. But the reality here on the ground is that pursuit of money is not, for the vast majority of us, an end in itself. Pursuing money is a means to other ends, such as, y’know, eating.

The difference between 1971 and 2012 isn’t that everyone suddenly turned into big ol’ assholes. The difference is that fewer and fewer people are able to take for granted that they’ll be able to afford food, rent, healthcare, etc. It’s easy to rank acquisition of money as a low priority when you’re pretty sure your college degree will translate into a living wage. That’s no longer something we can assume.

So you can grumble about “kids these days” if you want. I just think it’s more accurate to grumble about “the economy these days.”

I’m beginning to suspect that Baron Munchausen wasn’t being entirely upfront

Roy Edroso covers the latest wingnut-manufactured faux-scandal about Obama, in this case that his memoir Dreams From My Father contains characters that are composites of several people Obama knew. Despite the fact that this information only “leaked” because Obama stated it in the introduction of the book, this apparently qualifies as yet another in a long line of lies and betrayals from our freedom-hating Jihadist-in-Chief.

But the “argument” that most stood out to me (if only because most of the wingnuts are just repeating the same old boring stories about how Bill Ayers totally wrote Obama’s books) is this one, from Wall Street Journal Columnist James Taranto:

For that matter, if disclosing the use of a fictional narrative device is sufficient to meet the standards of nonfiction, isn’t every fiction book a nonfiction one, so long as it has FICTION stamped on the cover?

Whoa, wait, you mean nonfiction books might contain some altered details here and there?! If this is news to Taranto, let me suggest his next big scoop: Often, when Hollywood uses the phrase “based on a true story,” they aren’t being entirely honest.

The Amityville Horror

What?! But it seemed so plausible!