Ty: Illustration is by Betty's oldest son. BarneyXY2 e-mailed to share his belief that Randi did nothing wrong and that what Randi did is no different from what we've done here because "you call women whores all the time!" I replied to Barney and asked for examples. He wrote back "They are known. There are hundreds." My next e-mail informed him we'd be happy to address his topic but we'd like to his see his examples. While I was waiting for him to reply, Ava and C.I. said they are aware of it being used twice about women in commentaries they wrote. He caught those two and more. On more, Jim will address one. On the others Barney 'sees,' those aren't about women which was his point in all e-mails until he was asked to back up his claim. I assume Jim will tackle that. I'll toss to Ava.
Ava: "TV: Cullum's Big B.O." and we, C.I. and I do the set up to the use of that word for Lee Cullum throughout working up to the actual use:
There's a reason for that, and as you continue reading Scahill's page 227, you'll find the next section labeled "Whores of War." Cullum's name doesn't appear but should. Although limiting it to just "war" might be underselling her.
She certainly lives to sell everything, distortions of Hugo Chavez, distortions for Big Oil. Take the moment where she editorializes of more refineries in the United States that "there are some who say that's not a minute too soon" and goes on to credit Hurricane Katrina with 'demonstrating' the need for more refineries -- "it became quite apparent," Cullum informs.
Ava (Con't): Watch the show, it's online, you can find it. It's bad TV on any level -- including her editorial statements passing as both questions and dialogue -- and we stand by that usage of that word. We're very clear how, from the use of the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina to everything else, she distorts, lies and anything else to turn it into a cry of cheerleading Big Business and unregulated Big Business at that. The second time we use the term applied to a woman is in "Panhandle Media" applied to Laura Flanders. We say there's no other word for it and there isn't. When you're a lesbian, Flanders is, and you can't call out Obama's use of homophobia you're already on the track to that word. When you go on a radio program as an 'analyst' of the debate and you fail to tell listeners that you have publicly endorsed Barack Obama's campaign, and you use your time to misrepresent reality even further, that's what you are, that's all you are. In C.I. and my pieces here, the word does pop up at other times but we're speaking of a character on a show and we're not calling the character that, we're noting how that character is called that or considered that and we're rejecting the notion that she is. We, C.I. and I have, used it twice applied to a woman and we debated it at length during the writing of both pieces. In the one on Flanders, we actually said, repeatedly, "What else do you call that?" "Media Whore" was popularzied as a term by MWO which is no more. The word has been used here in pieces everyone has worked on to describe males and, in fact, C.I. and I applied to the word to Charlie Rose ("TV: Charlie Rose by any other name would still be as bad"). But in terms of being applied to a woman, because there are different standards online -- standards that allow a woman to be ripped apart and a male reporter or gas bag to not be, contrast the treatment of Elisabeth Bumiller with that of Adam Nagourney online for one exmpale, we don't apply it willy and nilly. We stand by our usage in the two cases noted. There's also a world of difference between our role and Randi Rhodes' role which Ruth can talk about. Furthermore, Randi Rhodes called Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro "f**king wh**res" and she tossed in the "b**ch" word as well. I'm going to toss to Ruth whose "Randi Rhodes and Air America Radio part ways" went up Thursday.
Ruth: The difference between what is up here, either written by just Ava and C.I. or everyone, is that we are not Democratic cheerleaders and we are not asking for money. Air America Radio existed from the start through today to be a Democratic Cheerleader. It was created in response to right-wing radio.
C.I.: If I could jump in for a second. Air America Radio started a year after the Iraq War began. It did not exist to end the illegal war and the bulk of their hosts were not even calling for that. Rachel Maddow was arguing that the Iraq War had to go on as was Randi Rhodes. John V. Walsh wrote a piece that we're not linking to because we don't link to that site anymore but he noted the general tone at AAR, in real time, regarding the illegal war months after AAR started broadcasting. He didn't catch Rachel Maddow as War Hawk, which she was. She had a meltdown on air over our own Elaine and we can recount that story some other time but Maddow was very much for the illegal war. Walsh wrongly lumped Janeane Garofalo into the group and that may have been due to her co-host who can defend himself or not but that's not my dance. Garofalo was opposed to the illegal war and that was never in doubt to anyone who listened to The Majority Report and, most important, Garofalo was one of the voices before the Iraq War started publicly calling it out. With those two examples, Walsh was wrong but his overall thrust was correct. It resulted in an angry response from Laura Flanders but Walsh was writing about the weekday schedule, he wasn't talking about the weekend programs. For the record, Flanders was against the illegal war before it started and never pretended otherwise throughout her show up through 2008. I don't listen to her anymore so I can't speak for this year. But it was funny that Laura Flanders wasn't mentioned in that article and wanted to have a meltdown over it in public when she wasn't mentioned in The Nation's cover story on AAR and didn't make a peep publicly over that. Until Cindy Sheehan emerged with Camp Casey, Randi Rhodes argued repeatedly for the illegal war to continue. She would say she was against it, the same Maddow crap, but argue for it to continue. Maddow's 'logic' was Colin Powell's false Pottery Barn 'slogan' of "You break it, you buy it." That's not a Pottery Barn slogan and why alleged Big Brain Maddow would fall into that nonsense to being with -- equating an existing country with a store full of items for purchase -- to justify continuing an illegal war is something she has to justify. I cut off Ruth because this is all very clear to us but it may not be for others. AAR was created to address electing Democrats. Ending the Iraq War was never one of its concerns, electing Democrats was their sole concern. Ruth.
Ruth: Thank you. That is true and my granddaughter Tracey was a huge fan of some of the shows in the original version. We used to listen to The Majority Report together and Ms. Garofalo was opposed to the illegal war and calling for its end throughout her co-hosting of that program. Sam Seder showed his true colors most infamously when he 'interviewed' War Hawk Simon Rosenberg while Mr. Rosenberg was running for the office of DNC Chair and he refused to call out Rosenberg's pro-Iraq War stance or anything else. When callers to the show complained loudly on their message board and on their phones following the interview -- one Janeane Garofalo was not present for -- Mr. Seder's defense was something like, "I'm not going to ask tough questions. If you didn't like his answers than you know you don't support him."
Jess: A strategy he didn't use in his interview with Ed Koch. An early interview on the program.
C.I.: Again to jump in, that was actually the first interview Sam did. He and Janeane did that interview together and they did it prior to the show ever airing. In the early weeks of the show, due to concerns about both being new to radio, there were a number of pre-recorded pieces -- such as the infamous Peaches interview -- and that was the first interview they did together, and did before AAR went on the air with their first day of programming.
Jess: I didn't know that but my point is, with Ed Koch, he didn't pull punches. Right now, the Bloggy Boize are determined to rip apart Hillary. At the end of 2004 and the start of 2005, they were ripping apart Howard Dean and the reason was they wanted Simon Rosenberg in charge of the DNC. Rosenberg publicly calls for Hugo Chavez to be removed from office and was and is an Iraq War cheerleader. I'm bringing that up because there's a lot of confusion, such as Lambert at Corrente Wire, that the Bloggy Boize just went off the rails in this primary cycle. That's not true. They went off the rails with Rosenberg and we all need to remember that they did that because Rosenberg promised them inner access. It might be time to ask what Obama's promising them because it goes to pattern. Ruth.
Ruth: So the point of Air America Radio was always to elect Democrats. They were and remain a Democratic Cheerleader. Ms. Rhodes spent much of 2007 explaining why impeachment must be kept off the table. She made excuses for Democrats repeatedly. That is who she was on air. She cheered Bill and Hillary Clinton. Air America Radio has been in a non-stop financial crisis and has declared bankruptcy, has gone through multiple owners, and is still struggling. Ms. Rhodes left her role as Democratic Cheerleader in that Obama gathering that was co-sponsored by Air America Radio and, when she did, she not only violated the mission of Air America Radio, she shocked a huge number of people who had heard over the years because she was a big supporter of the Clintons. It not only threatened the network, it also threatened her own authenticity because it went against both.
Dona: I'm jumping in and this may end up being our main topic. But Randi Rhodes got in trouble before. For 'bits' and 'jokes' about George W. Bush's death and in those instances, she was forced to give an on air 'apology.' The 'apology' was basically, "I'm sorry but it was a goof. I didn't know they were using a gunshot as a sound effect!" But Rhodes has a history of crossing the line that AAR finds acceptable and when she does she has repeatedly had to give an apology. She crossed their line again, with remarks about Ferraro and Clinton, and she should have issued an apology. She refused to do so and she and AAR parted ways. This was not a 'free speech' issue. If it were, if her supporters want to claim that's the case, where were they when Randi was twice forced to apologize for her 'jokes' about Bush? They were no where then. But in this instance, they want to claim 'free speech'! Here's the reality of that March event, in March, Rhodes was still staying on air, on her show, that she wasn't for one candidate, she was saying Hillary and Barack were both worthy candidates. She was slanting her 'news' towards Barack, no question, but her stated comments, on air, were that both were qualified and both would be good candidates. She then goes to a small event in San Francisco and declares Hillary Clinton a "f**king wh**e" and you better believe it's outrageous. Somehow Panhandle Media thinks they can say one thing here and one thing there. That's not how it works. A lot of the outrage is not over word choice as much as it is, "Randi lied to us!" And she did. Her listeners tuned in and they got fed non-stop lies. Randi outed herself and she has no one to blame for that but her own big mouth and her long list of lies. This isn't about free speech, this is about (a) AAR's mission statement and (b) whether or not you can trust a word Randi Rhodes says on air because obviously, when she went to that event scheduled and stacked with various Barack supporting groups, she said something at odds with hours and hours of programming on her show. It goes to authenticity and hypocrisy.
Kat: People who get the audio version of Hilda's Mix heard some stuff last week that I'll try to bring up here. Ruth noted that she was fed up with Pacifica and the non-stop Hillary bashing, so she had decided to listen to AAR. She wrote a post about Randi's show. She was glad that both candidates could be noted to be qualified and that there was something she could listen to that did that. C.I. called her and said, basically, "Ruth's your site is your site, write whatever you want, continue praising Randi if you want, but she's got serious emotional problems and she's in the tank for Barack. At AAR right now, people are very concerned about whether she can remain stable on air." That was just to give Ruth a heads up. Ruth talked about, last week, how she was glad C.I. gave that. Because listening to the program -- and this was in March, the same month Randi spewed that hate at Hillary and Ferraro -- Ruth had no idea. She thought Randi truly was calling for people to be fair to both and saying they were both worthy candidates. Ruth thought that because that's what Randi was telling her audience. When she went to the Barack and AAR event, she told people something completely different. Dona's right, it goes to authenticiy.
Marcia: And Ruth shared that -- Let me back up. I want to be clear on this, C.I. did not say, "Ruth, don't write about her." Ruth went to huge lengths to explain that both because C.I. doesn't do that and because at one point or another we're all asked that about our own sites. This was a heads up to something that could prove potentially embarrassing and C.I. was just providing a warning that Ruth could evaluate. So, after the warning, Ruth listened the next day and did hear the slanting. A woman had called in to talk about the sexism issue and Randi started in on blah-blah-blah racism is so much worse. Blah-blah-blah. Actually, as an African-American lesbian, I've experienced more sexism than anything else -- that's more than racism, more than homophobia. Randi dismissed sexism on air, ridiculed it, made fun of it. It's not that prevalent. But then she goes on to use misogny to trash Hillary and Geraldine. As Dona said, it's about authenticity. Randi Rhodes is a fraud and, sorry White readers, it was obvious to my Black ass that she was when she kept trying to make herself an "honorary" Black and saying the Black Caucus made her one.
Cedric: Let me jump in here and, this topic actually touches on many issues. First, Marcia's point about 'honorary' status. No White person is ever going to be an 'honorary' Black and shouldn't want to be. That's just silly. I wouldn't want to be an honorary White. I'm an African-American, it's who I am. In terms of people who work with all, people who don't just focus on their own subset, the Obama campaign has done tremendous destruction. As Ty's noted, there is real offense growing, in the African-American community, to the smearing of Bill and Hillary Clinton as racists. It's a false charge and that it's a lie is bad enough. But that one person's campaign can do so much destruction, that Obama's campaign can run off friends that the Black Community has traditionally had with false charges, and that's what Obama's doing, it's his message over and over, anyone who doesn't pledge faith to him must be a racist, this is very damaging. Let me toss to to Betty because I'm stumbling and I've got another point I can make better but Betty and I have discussed the point I'm fumbling around.
Betty: Speaking for myself, this Black woman doesn't need a savior. I don't need a Black savior or a White savior, or an Asian-American savior. Most of us, in the Black Community, are already trying to lift our own boats and those of others. To do that, we need coalitions, we need help from organizations and the government. Bill and Hillary Clinton have been there for the Black Community -- and for the LGBT community and many others. To throw them to the wolves and smear them with lies of racism is damaging to the Black Community and here's why. We're going to need help in Congress, we're going to need in the White House and when we've made it clear, via Hustle and Flow Michael Eric Dyson and all of his LIES, that we will falsely smear people who have stood with us before as racists, we make it that much harder to get the assistance we need later on. Michael Eric Dyson needs to apologize and there is very real anger within the Black Community at him. He has made electing Barack Obama the Black Cause. Barack Obama is not the Black Cause. He is one more candidate that's running for office. He's not even promising anything that helps the Black Community. Long after this election cycle is over, the Black Community will have to work within a broad coalition to accomplish improvements and, Cedric and I are pointing out, the damage being done to try to push Barack into the White House is damage to the Black Community. When Hillary and Bill can be falsely smeared as racists, a message is being sent to White politicians of, "Don't get too close to the Black Community because if it comes down to you and a Black person, they will toss you under the bus in a minute." Tavis Smiley may be the only high profile spokesperson the Black Community has who gets that. He may be the only one who's thinking about the long-range for the community as opposed to focusing on one candidate who, honestly, won't stand with us and isn't promising us a thing. There are a lot of divisions between the Black Community and the Jewish Community and those divisions did not always exist. The two were once easy allies, working hand in hand. The trash that Michael Eric Dyson is throwing out currently is exactly the sort that created the wall that exists today. Turning on your allies turns them off and damages alliances for the future. Barack Obama's desire to be president is not worth the Black Community shutting out all the supporters they will need in the future. But when you falsely smear supporters as racists, that's exactly what you're doing and it will be one of the big lessons of this campaign: "Don't do too much for the Blacks, those people turn on you in a second!" It will be that much harder to get needed programs and reforms through Congress because non-leaders like Michael Eric Dyson have gone around lying. He has done very real damage and he has LIED and LIED again. Most recently saying that anyone offended that Jeremiah Wright damned this country is the same as someone who killed MLK. The man is crazy, he is a crackpot. He doesn't need to be on MSM and he's doing real, lasting damage to the Black Community. He needs to sit down already.
Cedric: Well said. Now I'm dropping back to Rhodes. In her little bits on air that Kat was referring to, she started offering 'history.' Well history shows women have been -- and continue to be -- raped. That women have had little to no rights -- including the fact that rape in marriage wasn't even recognized as a crime until the late 70s in this country. Rhodes wanted to offer slavery. Betty and I are all for -- everyone participating is all for -- reperations. But the reality is that there are no slave owners alive today that I'm aware of. The government of the United States supported slavery so the government should make payment to those who can trace their roots in this country back to slavery. One thing the Barack campaign has provided is not a real discussion on race but a demonstration of how false charges can be used. Randi Rhodes offered the rate of incarceration for African-American males. That figure is alarming. But it's not just about racism. In fact, the poor have always been incarcerated at higher numbers due to the fact that (a) the wealthy have always walked in this country, (b) the wealthy can afford the best legal help and (c) the country was founded on the disenfranchisement of many. But you don't see a "(d)" in there, you don't see that this very real crisis is also because the incarcerated are innocent. I'm all for fair sentencing and I'm opposed to the prison-industrial-comples, but equating, as Randi Rhodes did, crimes against women due to their gender with criminals arrested and tried is not the same thing. I'm not sure how clear I am here but the sentencing needs to be fair. The sentencing needs to be reformed. We need to stop imprisioning on drug use. But we also need to stop acting like everyone in a prison is innocent. There is a difference. You break the law, you break the law. You're not a victim. You are not the same as a woman stoned to death. You are not the same as a woman raped. You broke the law. Some people are falsely convicted -- my own opinion is that the bulk of those are African-Americans because they are far less likely to be able to afford the legal help they need -- but that doesn't account for all the people -- of any race -- currently in prison. You rob, you go to prison. You kill someone, you go to prison. Let's stop acting like everyone in a prison is a poor innocent victim, which is what Randi Rhodes did on the day we're talking about. Now we can have a long talk about a system that offers little opportunities and I have no problem with that. But let's stop acting like people convicted of crimes are the same as a woman who is battered, a woman who is raped, a woman who is murdered. Let's all grow up a little and that's what Barack's campaign has provided. Not by choice, not by his words, but by all the lies that campaign is built upon. I don't care what race you are, if you robbed a house -- armed robbery or otherwise -- I don't want you living next to me. That's just a basic. You move into my apartment complex and I find out, first thing I'm doing is getting another deadbolt. That's not because you're a victim, it's because you're a convicted criminal and you've robbed at least once before and you may rob again. I don't want to be robbed. It's that basic and that has nothing to do with racism. It has to with robbery. So let's not confuse the two issues. I'm a big supporter of the work Angela Davis does and I agree without question that African-Americans are imprisoned at a higher rate. I'd argue many are falsely imprisoned but not all. We have laws for a reason. Sticking with robbery, we have that law because people don't want their things stolen. If you were convicted of armed robbery, you probably did armed robberty and our society can't just look the other way on that. Armed robbery, by it's very nature, doesn't just mean that someone's property was stolen, it also means that, due to carrying a fire arm during the crime, people could have been killed. Let's not confuse those convicted of armed robbery with victims. What they are is people who chose to break the law and victimize others.
Ty: If I can jump in there. I agree with the points Cedric is making. And I think we're seeing, in the White world, a romanticizing of Thug Life and an equation of it with authenticity and "that's what those people do." It's not what African-Americans do. Many of us will never be arrested for anything other than peaceful protest. Cedric's walking it up to the line and stopping. I know why but I won't. We were all, Cedric, Betty and myself, hard on Bill Cosby in real time when he was making comments. We still agree with that criticism of him. You shouldn't push off societal failures as "personal responsibility." But, in our rejection of that, we didn't allow that the Cos had a point. And he did have a point, and it was about responsibility. At some point, if you've broken the law, you've got to take responsibility for that.
Rebecca: I'm going to jump in because I know why Cedric keeps walking it back. Ava, C.I. and Betty have been pushing for a feature here about the toxic nature of Panhandle Media. They've been pushing it for some time. And I'm one of the ones saying, "We need to do it this week." I say that over and over. Hopefully, we'll write it at some point. But I am adamentally opposed to the death penalty. I do not believe in it in any instance. I do not believe in it period. I hope I'm clear on that. But what we saw when Tookie was murdered by the state --
C.I.: Stanley Tookie Williams.
Rebecca: Thank you. What we saw was he got a lot of attention and he should have because he shouldn't have been killed. But days later, you've got a White man who was obviously creepy and not a saint and Panhandle Media ignored that execution. That wasn't over racism, before anyone confuses the point I'm making. It was because he wasn't the 'test case,' he wasn't the best to make the argument with. Tookie's conviction was always questionable and he had certainly demonstrated, in prison, how much value he could bring to all of our lives. No question that he deserved attention. And more than he got. But I'm opposed to the death penalty period. So even when that man, that White man, that was a creep and disgusting and did vile things with no sign of redemption, was murdered by the state, I was opposed to it. I don't believe an advanced society murders their own citizens. Barring any reform on his part, he could have been imprisoned for life. And I think when, in the span of days, Panhandle Media covers one execution but ignores another, they send the message that the death penalty is okay. It is not okay. It's not okay, in my opinion, for them to kill anyone. I think Panhandle Media plays like it's a legal firm and cherry picks the best cases. I think that does real damage and I think when they refuse to call out the death penalty for everyone, they set the cause back, the cause of ending the death penalty. What they did with the Tookie coverage, after the state murdered him, was b.s. Intentionally or not, what their coverage implied was that some times the death penalty was okay. It is never okay. Tookie shouldn't have been murdered. I gave money to the cause, by the way, to disclose, but no one should be. And what the coverage did, for those who follow the issue, was to basically argue that some people should be executed. When you ignore an execution, while you're still covering Tookie's, you're saying -- intentionally or not -- that the death penalty should be allowed it just needs more 'justice' in how it's applied.
Marcia: I agree with Rebecca 100%. And when they cherry pick, sorry to raid the article that Ava, Betty and C.I. have been advocating for, they not only reinforce the system they also provide the right-wing with easy attacks.
Jim: Okay, back to the e-mail since no one's speaking. Amy Goodman's been called a "whore" twice here. In one instance, it's an editorial and the other is in Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Goodman and Rose 'honoring' bad TV past." The latter is news to Ava and C.I. and they will no doubt go back and pull it out because I'm the one who put it in there. On the editorial, we were arguing over the usage of "whore" for Amy Goodman and Ava and C.I. were opposed to it. They elected to leave the writing of that editorial. When they left, the understanding was that the term wouldn't be used. You've got others participating in the writing of it and our opinion, as a group, was that it should be used. It was. C.I. was doing corrections for Ty -- Ty usually does the bulk of typos, catches them, after we post our features. C.I. came across it and changed it. I changed it back and then went into their commentary on Goodman and Rose and replaced the terms they'd used for John Nichols and Amy Goodman. It was a little battle of wills. Now they can change back if they want, I doubt they will because they're both laughing right now. But when C.I. changed the editorial, I was pissed. The correct thing to do would have been for me to have noted in the note to the readers that Ava and C.I. had taken their names off the editorial. I didn't do that. If they, or anyone, objects to a group piece, that's the policy. But it was late and I didn't note that. I also didn't want to go through a two hour discussion on the use of the term which would have happened if they knew it was included. My intent had been, and I told this to everyone still working on the editorial and Mike wrote about it at his site, was to include that they pulled their names from the editorial. The note to the readers is the last thing written. I'm tired, we all are and I forgot. But it did cause a back and forth between the three of us -- Ava, C.I. and myself -- over that. And when C.I. saw it, I got a call from both of them objecting to the term being used and was informed that C.I. had changed it. I had my little moment of outrage and went and changed it back and then went and changed the words in their TV commentary. Does anyone want to comment on that, Ava or C.I.?
Ava: I'll grab it. I mean, we don't read over our TV commentaries and would prefer that they not be altered because we're the ones who will be held accountable. I'm assuming that's the only time something we've written has had a word replacement and in this instance, C.I. and I are laughing because, as Jim points out, there really was a HUGE back and forth between him and us over that editorial after we learned the term was used. In terms of going back to it, we don't read over them and we're trying to focus on what's going on now, so, if it's used for both John Nichols and Amy Goodman, we're not going to read over it to fix it. That's fair, if they're both called it. Our objection to Goodman being called it was, when we were participating, she was being singled out and that isn't fair and, if it's just a woman that's being called it, it does question the usage. But, C.I.'s nodding, we think it's hilarious that the back and forth between Jim and ourselves resulted in that.
Jess: I have to jump in or I will hear about from both of my parents. Rebecca's point, like Marcia I agree with her 100%, Rebecca's point that Panhandle Media's cherry picking who to highlight and who not to does no good. It does not end the death penalty. All that it really accomplishes is presenting a case for a new 'final' verdict where you take everyone sentenced to the death penalty and determine who the 'good' ones are -- who you stay the execution of -- and who the 'bad' ones are -- and their executions proceed. The argument Panhandle Media makes, by cherry picking, is that the death penalty isn't the problem, the problem is some innocents may be executed. If you're opposed to the death penalty -- and my parents raised me to be -- you should be offended by what Amy Goodman offered. It sent the message that Tookie's execution was wrong because Tookie was a good guy. Her silence on the execution that followed sent the message that some people can be executed and there's no reason to mount a defense. I believe Amy Goodman is opposed to the death penalty itself but, in terms of how she covers the issue, she is making the argument for the creation of a new board of 'final say' that would allow the death penalty to continue.
Jim: No apology needed to jump in on that. Okay, first off, C.I. has not spoken. That's because Ty has about four questions that really require C.I. For any regular readers, they will now be nodding and saying, "Okay." For drive-bys, they'll say, "What do you mean? I see C.I.'s parts." Those are clarifications, read over them, C.I. is offering facts to back up others. There are four questions, which we may not get to, that really only C.I. can respond to and C.I. elected to sit it out unless or until those were answered. We worked that out ahead of time. We also had Ty give us the topics of the e-mails. Ava agreed to grab things early on. I say all that to note that Mike, Wally and Elaine haven't spoken. Dona just passed me a note on that because we'll probably be winding down quickly. So Ty, keep that in mind with whatever e-mail you go to next.
Ty: Let me toss out one that Wally can grab. He or Cedric could grab it but since Wally hasn't spoken. Community member Kyle wonders about the joint-posts Cedric and Wally do in terms of the timing. He notes they used to post in the late afternoon or first thing in the evening during the week but now they're often late at night and sometimes as late as midnight.
Cedric: That's Wally's fault! I'm joking. But Wally will explain why and we're all proud of Wally.
Wally: Cedric and I went to Texas to campaign for Hillary in the lead up to the Texas primary. It was a lot of fun and work we're both proud of. I have the most flexible schedule of anyone participating. That would be Rebecca were it not for the fact that she's the mother of a newborn. But what I've done is go to my professors and tell them this election matters a great deal to me and figure out when I had to be in class and when I didn't. Most were just glad to see some passion and gave me papers to write. Everyone was willing to work with me. I quit my job and I'm in Pennsylvania. Thank you to C.I. who took care of the travel costs and the lodging costs. But Cedric and my joint-posts are delayed because I've got bits of time. We're still talking mid-day at the same time and narrowing down what we're going to write about. But where we would normally then just start writing it, for me, my time's up and I need to get back to work. Thank you to Cedric who puts up with it because that does mean I'm calling later and later and that probably throws his schedule off.
Cedric: No. No apology or thanks needed. Wally's been in Pennsylvania since a week after he and I left Texas. I wish I could get time off from work to do the same. But Wally's all over Pennsylvania and we're all proud of him.
Jim: Yeah, we are. Good for you, Wally. Okay, Ty, next one?
Ty: That leaves Mike and Elaine. Oh, okay. They can grab this one. There's an e-mail from Xylofone who feels that "other sites" and he lists so let's just say every community site but The Common Ills -- he doesn't include Third but he could -- is so focused on Hillary's campaign that he feels other news is being missed. Mike and Elaine?
Elaine: Mike's motioning for me to go first. I don't believe Hillary is the only topic I write about. Do I focus on her campaign? Yes. And I'm speaking just for me so anyone else can disagree if they need to. That site, Like Maria Said Paz, is my site. I don't mean that in, "I'll write whatever I want, forget you." I mean, I can't control what MSNBC or anyone else does. I can control my site. Hillary's been slandered and smeared. It's toxic hatred. I have no problem highlighting the Hillary campaign at my site. During a roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin, this issue came up. Like most community members, I read the round-robin. I have group on Thursday night so I don't get to participate in those roundtables unless they take place on another night. But I read the round-table and Jim was tossing out different things and so was C.I. And one of the things those participating agreed on was to post the HUBdate from Hillary's campaign when they posted. I didn't participate in that roundtable but I agreed with the points raised. Let me toss to Mike because I want to come back to this point and I have a feeling if I steamroll to it it will come off like a wrap up and close the discussion.
Mike: Okay. Well, that's what we agreed on. We agreed on the HUBdate because it has links in it. The HUBdate provides you with a link to all of what Hillary's talking about that day -- and I know now what Elaine's going to talk about. I just got that. I won't grab your point. But we were all talking and Jim had brought up the fact that The New York Times was just ga-ga over the how many links Bambi gets online. So we were saying, "Okay, we can do our part to get Hillary links." And we were talking about different things we could link to at her site when C.I. pointed out that the HUBdate has links. Meaning if we posted the HUBdate in full, we had one link right there for the HUBdate and, because we posted it in full, we had other links in our posts as well. So the HUBdate was the best way to go. Equally true is that this is a historic run and, whatever happens, it's doubtful the campaign site will still be around after the election. So this is a way to document the campaign. We're not planning on deleting our sites. So, as long as they are up, people can go to them after the elections and find out what Hillary was talking about and things like that. But Elaine's point about controlling our own space is an important one. And that really goes to the whole thing we've all picked up from C.I. which is that it's not enough to criticize what's wrong. If that's all your site does, you're only doing half of what you should be. If C.I. just finger pointed and said, "Panhandle Media isn't covering war resisters!" -- it would be true and we could all nod our heads but then what? Instead, in the "Iraq snapshot," C.I. covers them Monday through Friday, demonstrating that not only are they not being covered by Panhandle Media but that they could be covered -- if Panhandle Media gave a damn. Elaine?
Elaine: Breast cancer is a very serious disease, one that is chronically underfunded. It's an issue, as Ruth has noted, that we weren't supposed to talk about in our recent history. If a woman got breast cancer, she was expected to hide it. I can't think of another disease that this applies to with one exception, testicular cancer. But the taboo on breast cancer was allegedly broken. Read C.I.'s "Other Items (and the press demonstrates how little breast cancer matters to them)" from last week and notice how many ignored Hillary's groundbreaking proposal on breast cancer. That was disgusting and appalling. A candidate for president is making statements about a disease that effects so many -- and, yes, men can develop breast cancer as well -- and the working press ignored it, Ms. magazine's Feminist Wire Daily ignored it, Panhandle Media ignored it, and that's disgusting. At my site, I can be a tonic to the toxic and that's a role I take seriously. But that's an example of how if someone assumes the focus is just on Hillary, that's not true. It may be true of Bambi sites because his campaign is about his personality. But Hillary's running on issues. Let me repeat, the silence was disgusting.
Jim: C.I. and Dona are nodding over something Dona just wrote and slid to me which is Elaine's comments are the ending point. I agree, she summed it up very well. So we'll conclude the roundtable. This is a rush transcript. There will be typos. They won't be corrected. Last week's roundtable was a lengthy one and Ava and C.I. didn't want to type it. We were all counting on them to type it and they balked because (a) they were tired and (b) already had been assigned to type up other things. Ruth wrote about them not wanting to type it and I did in my note last Sunday but when Ruth wrote about it there were questions about why someone else didn't type. The typists are limited to Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava, C.I., Kat and myself because we're all together. We could scan the notes -- which Ava and C.I. take -- and e-mail them to others to get them to type up but everyone else -- and this includes Kat as well -- is just assisting and we don't want to push the burden off on them. Ava and C.I. type very quickly, they are the fastest of any us and we do tend to push the typing burden off on them. They balked -- rightly -- last week and we just used an audio segment, which we donated to Hilda's Mix -- last week. Hope that clears up the question seven people e-mailed on.