Comes courtesy of the WashPost, for a media article about how the White House is making an effort to engage with the Hispanic press:
"Obama Plays Ethnic Card"
Why on earth would the Post opt to play off the incredibly loaded and incendiary phrase 'playing the race card' for a headline to a pedestrian article about how the White House is simply granting interviews to Telemundo and company? It's absurd and insulting, and the Post ought to at least change the headline online.
Slate's managing editor is angry. "Fuming," in her words. What has Jill Hunter Pellettieri so upset?
When she was a child, she used to enjoy staying in hotels, which she found "a world that suspended the realities of life at home."
But now hotels are harshing her buzz by letting her decide whether her bath towels need to be washed or can be re-used.
No, really: that is why she's "fuming." She explains:
[O]n entering a hotel room, I still immediately review the room-service menu, bask in the prospect of fresh, silky sheets, and inspect the bathroom to ensure I have fluffy, clean towels for every possible need. Then I spy one of those little placards, nestled among the tiny soaps or hanging from the towel rack, asking me to reuse my linens: "Save Our Planet ... Every day millions of gallons of water are used to wash towels that have only been used once ... Please decide for yourself." And, like that, my hotel buzz fizzles.
I'll admit that I sometimes choose not to participate in this program and request fresh towels and sheets every day. Before you write in scolding me for being a wasteful person, let me qualify that by saying it's not the program, in theory, I'm against. I'm all for saving the environment. But I don't want to be guilt-tripped into going green. It's the two-facedness of it that gets me-save our planet! Conserve our resources! It's up to you, hotel guest. Forsake that washcloth (or two!), or those crisp sheets that are your right when you pay for the room, and to what end-so the hotel can save money on laundry? How many natural resources are wasted printing all of these little signs? Here's an idea: Instead of printing out a placard for every room in the hotel, wash my towel.
Now, let's reiterate: the hotels in question aren't requiring Jill Hunter Pellettieri to re-use bath towels. They're offering her the option to do so. And she's upset because while exercising this option conserves water and energy, it also saves the hotel a few pennies. Pennies that, as far as she knows, keep the price of her hotel room lower than it might otherwise be.
I can't imagine that most Best Western guests are so delicate as to have their weekend stays ruined by a two-inch sign offering guests the option of reusing bath towels. And I can't imagine most readers of Slate's "Green Room" department share Pellettieri's annoyance at being offered the option to voluntarily and at no cost help reduce energy and water consumption.
UPDATE: * By "of the day," of course, I mean "of six days ago," when the Slate piece was posted. Gristmill's Kate Sheppard dealt with this nonsense on Friday:
Yet another climate finger goes to Slate and its managing editor, Jill Hunter Pellettieri, for publishing this asinine piece equating green efforts at hotels and other businesses with being "cheap." At first, we thought the article was a parody, lampooning Slate's love of vapid, self-important contrarianism. If only that were true. We're so sorry you feel like it's a tremendous act of "self-sacrifice" to sleep in the same sheets two nights in a row, Jill. We'll cry you a river while the ice caps melt.
Over the weekend, CNN's John King described the omnibus spending bill as "packed with thousands of earmarks" and "full of-maybe 8,000, 9,000 of these so-called earmarks." At The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby explains it just isn't so:
According to King, the "huge" spending bill was "packed with" earmarks. (Was "full" or earmarks.) Semantic question: Can a bill really be "packed with" X when X comprises less than 1.9 percent of the bill? CNN viewers didn't have to ask—they weren't given the overall numbers.
The daily has a big piece on CNBC today, looking at the criticism it's been under in recent days for its previous Wall Street cheerleading, and the way its anchors and pundits have morphed into political talking heads as they unload on the Obama administration.
The Times though, plays dumb in the article about CNBC loud mouth Jim Cramer. Here's how the Times describes his recent behavior:
In recent weeks some have perceived the network to be leading the campaign against President Obama's economic agenda. Mr. Cramer, who calls himself a lifelong Democrat, said last week that the administration's agenda was "destroying the life savings of millions of Americans."
Gee, that doesn't sound so bad, right? In fact, it hardly seems newsworthy. Of course, what the Times politely ignores (no need to embarrass Cramer, after all) is the fact that in recent weeks Cramer has become completely unhinged and has:
repeatedly characterized President Obama and congressional Democrats as Russian communists intent on "rampant wealth destruction," claiming Obama is "taking cues from Lenin" and using terms such as "Bolshevik," "Marx," "comrades," "Soviet," "Winter Palace," and "Politburo" in reference to Democrats.
The Times interviewed Cramer for the article but apparently didn't ask why he was calling the new president a communist. Isn't that pretty much the definition of playing dumb?
This is rich.
CNBC talkers have no problem blaming Obama for the Dow's recent decline, conveniently ignoring months worth of disastrous economic news, over which the new president has had no control. But defensive CNBC anchors and personalities think it's unfair to blame them.
From the NYT article today on CNBC, here's the relevant passage:
When the CNBC anchor Erin Burnett appeared on "Real Time With Bill Maher" on HBO on Friday, Mr. Maher raised a similar issue. "This is the channel that Wall Street watches all day," Mr. Maher said. "I think this is more than a channel; I think it affects what happens on Wall Street. Why didn't anybody there predict what was going to happen?"
Ms. Burnett said that the dot-com bubble was predicted, too. "It's easy to say 'a bubble.' You don't know when it's going to burst," she said, adding that the questions of timing and magnitude were missed by many financial experts. Separately, in a telephone interview Friday, the "Squawk Box" co-host Joe Kernen said of the market turmoil, "Ask yourself whether you really think it's CNBC that caused it, or was it the housing bubble that caused it? I think we know what caused it."
See, CNBC didn't cause the market turmoil, it's the fault of the housing bubble. Except, of course when it's not and CNBC's talkers blame Obama.
From Prelutsky's March 4 World Net Daily column:
Judging by the early days of his administration, I have had to re-evaluate him. He's even worse than I feared. It's been one disaster after another. His appointments have been a series of embarrassments. His hard sell of the Pelosi-Reid trillion dollar earmark makes him look like the worst sort of fear monger. And, considering the fact that he was sold to us as eloquent and a fellow who could think on his feet, his use of a teleprompter at his press conference reminded me of the Wizard of Oz, the con man behind the curtain. I guess you can take the man out of Chicago, but you can't take Chicago out of the man.
Frankly, I don't know why anybody continues to hold Obama in high esteem. Maybe it's like those women who marry charming fellows only to discover after the vows have been exchanged that he's an abuser. In spite of the black eyes and split lips, the ladies are just too embarrassed to call the cops and have their friends and relatives discover what a dunderhead they've been.
A tip from reader A.B. helped to contribute to this clip. Thanks and keep them coming.
As Media Matters recently noted, the idea that Obama's proposed stimulus package might be too small to effectively turn around the economy has been literally ignored by the network news shows over the last month. That, despite the fact lots of prominent economists have argued the government ought to be spending more money to jump-start the economy.
Instead, wed to GOP talking points which claim the stimulus package is too big and too costly, the press has paid very little no attention to the economists' argument.
Well, it turns out Americans also agree with the economists and think the federal government needs to spend more money.
From the recent Newsweek poll [emphasis added]:
Which ONE of the following three statements best describes your opinion of the 800 billion dollar stimulus package recently signed into law by the President...
15[%]: It's the right amount of government spending to help turn the economy around.
40[%]: It's a good start, but more spending will be needed for it to be effective.
37[%]: It won't work and government should NOT be spending money for economic.
Forty percent of Americans think the government needs to spend more stimulus money. But you wont' hear that discussed or covered by the media, which seem content to present just one side--the GOP side--of the stimulus 'debate.'
From the transcript of the Times White House reporters' March 6 interview with Obama:
Q. The first six weeks have given people a glimpse of your spending priorities. Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?
A. You know, let's take a look at the budget - the answer would be no.
Q. Is there anything wrong with saying yes?
A. Let's just take a look at what we've done. We've essentially said that, number one, we're going to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to the lowest levels in decades. So that part of the budget that doesn't include entitlements and doesn't include defense - that we have the most control over - we're actually setting on a downward trajectory in terms of percentage of G.D.P. So we're making more tough choices in terms of eliminating programs and cutting back on spending than any administration has done in a very long time. We're making some very tough choices.
What we have done is in a couple of critical areas that we have put off action for a very long time, decided that now is the time to ask. One is on health care. As you heard in the health care summit yesterday, there is uniform belief that the status quo is broken and if we don't do anything, we will be in a much worse place, both fiscally as well as in terms of what's happening to families and businesses than if we did something.
The second area is on energy, which we've been talking about for decades. Now, in each of those cases, what we've said is, on our watch, we're going to solve problems that have weakened this economy for a generation. And it's going to be hard and it's going to require some costs. But if you look on the revenue side what we're proposing, what we're looking at is essentially to go back to the tax rates that existed during the 1990s when, as I recall, rich people were doing very well. In fact everybody was doing very well. We have proposed a cap and trade system, which could create some additional costs, but the vast majority of that we want to give back in the form of tax breaks to the 95 percent of working families.
So if you look at our budget, what you have is a very disciplined, fiscally responsible budget, along with an effort to deal with some very serious problems that have been put off for a very long time. And that I think is exactly what I proposed during the campaign. We are following through on every commitment that we've made, and that's what I think is ultimately going to get our economy back on track.
Q. Is there one word name for your philosophy? If you're not a socialist, are you a liberal? Are you progressive? One word?
A. No, I'm not going to engage in that.
At 2:30 p.m., President Obama called The New York Times, saying he wanted to clarify a point from the interview. Here is a transcript of that brief call:
President Obama: Just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter. It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question. I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn't under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn't on my watch. And it wasn't on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement - the prescription drug plan without a source of funding. And so I think it's important just to note when you start hearing folks through these words around that we've actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word socialist around can't say the same.
Q. So who's watch are we talking about here?
A. Well, I just think it's clear by the time we got here, there already had been an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system. And the thing I constantly try to emphasize to people if that coming in, the market was doing fine, nobody would be happier than me to stay out of it. I have more than enough to do without having to worry the financial system. The fact that we've had to take these extraordinary measures and intervene is not an indication of my ideological preference, but an indication of the degree to which lax regulation and extravagant risk taking has precipitated a crisis.
I think that covers it.
From a particularly dreadful Saturday dispatch:
Every day, the economy is becoming more and more an Obama economy.
As we noted the other day, the latest NBC/WSJ poll found that a strong majority of Americans (66 percent) won't begin to assign to Obama responsibility for the performance of the economy until 2010, and 43 percent won't do so until 2011.
But news outlets like the AP don't care what Americans think. They're assigning Obama responsibility for the economy today because, c'mon, he's already been president for like 50 days, right?