Dona: A number of us were off last week and it appears a number of us are off this week. By that I mean, Ava and C.I. have written three features for this edition and, for a fourth, they wrote with Ann. There's no point in the rest of us adding input to those four features because they are complete and fully realized already. That took place as we worked on articles that never worked and that wouldn't work. We did do at least one short feature that will run and hopefully that's actually two. But if Ty and Jim were to each do their semi-regular features, this really would be Abby Road in that we're all working on our own thing apparently. And by no means is that an insult to Ava and C.I. or to Ava and C.I. and Ann. We're thrilled there's something useable. For this roundtable, anything to do with the Gulf Disaster is off-limits. That's because we're hoping to make that the editorial. Other than that, we're relying on your e-mails. Ty?
Ty: And congrats and thanks to everyone who worked on last week's edition and to Ava, C.I. and Jess who represented and steered while Dona, Jim and I took the weekend off. Last week, Ava moderated "Roundtable" and, I thought and so did all but one e-mail, did a wonderful job of it. The whiner who writes for US Socialist Worker -- and who did not respond to an e-mail from me asking whether or not he or she wanted to be quoted -- felt that Ava was the one being unhelpful and that US Socialist Worker's coverage was not the problem.
Ava: Here's my reply. Thanks for taking time out of your lazy day to write. I'm sure you had nothing better to do. You're not in Arizona, you're not Latino. All your screaming of "racism!" from the comforts of Chicago does is heat up the situation for Latinos in Arizona. I'm not in the mood for it. We are tired of all the Anglos using us as their social experiment. You need to learn to shut up and stop trying to lead us. Despite our percentage in the US already and the predictions for it in the near future, we aren't on staff at Socialist Worker, are we? Just a lot of Anglos and a few token African-Americans. So maybe you should look in the mirror the next time you want to scream racism? Repeating, Latinos in Arizona are the ones who will be hurt by all your theatrics. You make the environment unsettling and potentially dangerous -- when it won't be your ass on the line. My concern is for my Latino brothers and my Latina sisters. You are not my concern, you will never be my concern. I have faith and pride in my Arizona brothers and sisters and know that they will work this out, they will handle it. They do not need a bunch of uppity northern Anglos trying to do leadership by computer.
Jim: And I want to add something to this. We're being nice by not quoting directly. We have no policy that any letter to the editor -- which is what an e-mail to us is -- is private. We can name you if you want, we can quote you if we want. This time, we felt the writing was so obvious in terms of who it was and we decided to make an exception. We received no reply. I was of the belief that we should quote directly from the e-mail. I was outvoted on that but that is our policy.
Ty: Correct. Ginger e-mailed to say, "I feel like Iraq has just faded from everyone's attention. I'm glad you have a weekly feature but I wish you would do more. And it seems like it would be so easy since C.I. is helping out. She covers Iraq repeatedly each day. I hope you will consider upping your output on Iraq."
Jess: For Ginger, we'll do an Iraq feature this week and we really weren't going to. We had an idea and worked for about 90 minutes on it. It's one of the many pieces in the scrap heap now. A few of us were saying that we should just do a week without Iraq but Mike, Ava and C.I. groaned that they'd write the piece themselves if it came to it. But because of this e-mail, we'll all work on it. However, it needs to be noted that this idea that C.I. helping out here -- she's a part of Third Estate -- does not mean we could have more Iraq coverage. As Ginger pointed out, C.I.'s covering it repeatedly each day. That's 19 pieces a week at The Common Ills. The idea that she wants to come over here and find a way to write about it again? You're asking a whole lot with that.
Betty: And a whole lot more than people realize. She does cover Iraq repeatedly each day which requires a lot of work -- much more than any of us do at our sites -- and she's got her own life to live on top of that. I'm just going to throw this out. She is tired, she is to the limit and, for the second Sunday in a row, we've had to pause writing twice so she could go throw up.
C.I.: Thank you, Betty, for your support. And before anyone panics and rushes to e-mail, I'm just really tired from my offline life.
Ty: Well, if you don't mind, I'm going to an e-mail about the Thursday "Iraq snapshot" and C.I.'s comments re: fasts and eating disorders. Henry e-mailed to say he's suffered from bulimia and he appreciated C.I.'s "well reasoned argument about why she won't be able to support hunger fasts." That was one of 17 e-mails on the topic, all stating they were glad it was raised.
C.I.: Me? Okay, well, this was raised multiple times here. By both Ava and myself and usually in roundtables. I also believed Dona spoke about the issue in one roundtable. If it spoke to someone, that's wonderful and I'm glad Henry and others appreciated it but I just want to be clear that it was discussed here many times.
Ty: Henry and others wondered, based on your comments, if you suffered from an eating disorder or had?
C.I.: I really don't like to talk about this because it can quickly degenerate into war stories which glorify something. I also don't like to overplay reality. Elaine can talk about it if she wants from an outside viewpoint and objectively.
Elaine: Sure. C.I. is focused on many, many things at any given time and always has been. It's very easy for her not to eat. Did she have an eating disorder? I don't know. I doubt it from a clinical viewpoint but, just as she can go days without sleep -- and sometimes does -- she has also gone without food many times. And at one point she realized how dangerous that was and now makes a point not to let that happen anymore. She's very good with bulimic and anorexic teens and young adults, in terms of speaking and she'll go into detail with them about these and other issues. She's done that for me with groups I've had and she's done that for others.
C.I.: Okay and to get back to the issue specifically, I'm wary of speaking of it in an environment like this -- or any environment not focused on this issue -- because I'm worried about the takeaway in the same manner that I'm worried about the takeaway on a hunger fast for political reasons. Someone with a really screwed up body image -- which is a large number of Americans -- can read specifics on something like this that are meant to share the horror but instead think, "At last, a way for me to lose weight!" I'm really wary about speaking on this topic outside of an environment where people are actively attempting to be helped with it.
Ann: I've talked about being raped at my site and maybe here. And I hope it doesn't make anyone uncomfortable, but in addition to one on one therapy, I also did group therapy. And I was surprised that a number of women in my group, two, a small number, had developed eating disorders since their rapes. As sorted through in group, it was because rape was an awful crime that took away their feeling of self-determination and power and that, for those two women, the eating disorders were about, on some level, a sense of control. "I will control my body." I bring that up, and ramble, to get to my point which is, I remember Ava and C.I. talking about this issue before I started participating and I agreed then, just reading along. But I do think, I agree with Henry, something really stood out in the writing of Thursday's snapshot on this issue.
Marcia: Agreed. I loved that snapshot and I've talked to Ann about that. I loved that Don't Ask, Don't Tell was treated seriously, treated as the bulk of the e-mail, not as an aside, not as an additional issue, but as a major issue all by itself which is not how I see the issue treated anywhere outside of LGBT blogs. But that one just reached somehow in a way you can't figure out. I think, I know you were sick all last week, as you are today, and I think that exhaustion might have been part of it. But I was glad and I really think we should put that part, on the hunger strikes, up here as it's own little entry. Just that excerpt. I think it's needed.
Ty: I agree with you. And on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Eljean e-mails to ask why we don't do more on that issue?
Marcia: Do they mean here or do they mean community wide? If we can focus first on community wide, C.I. has dealt with this topic over and over. I write about it at my site, Ruth does at her site. Betty and Stan do. Mike does. I'm sure Elaine's done it before but I'm not remembering anything recent but Rebecca has. So that's everyone except Elaine, Trina and Isaiah that immediately come to mind and I know Elaine and Trina have covered it before but not recently. So my point is, community wide, it's covered. In terms of this site, it's hard for me. I'd have to see a list of articles in the last few months. And that's because we often work on this topic but it doesn't result in a publishable article.
Cedric: If it's okay, I'm jumping in for a second. First, we need to establish something in this roundtable, C.I. was explaining that she can't support the hunger strikes because there are too many Americans with poor body image and eating disorders and she can't in good faith encourage or applaud anyone starving to garner attention or to supposedly show strength. She has serious doubts about the messages being sent. And we all agree with that. Lt Dan Choi was on a six day hunger strike. We really didn't cover it community wide. We like Dan Choi, we don't support hunger strikes. Marcia noted that last week and C.I. commented when the hunger strike ended. But we all agree that we are not going to support hunger strikes. Many years ago, 2006, CODEPINK suddenly declared a hunger strike. You were supposed to fast to end the war. Due to the issue, we didn't call it out. Some participated. Most doing it grabbed one day a week and discussed that at their sites. As soon as the strike was over and distant enough not to seem like "immediate response," Ava and C.I. outlined in a roundtable why that was the one and only time this community would ever support a hunger strike. I think Mike wants to say something here.
Mike: Yeah, I do. Thursday, C.I. referenced that CODEPINK action and noted she wasn't talking about Diane Wilson or Cindy Sheehan. I'm not either, but I'd point out that a lot of others who really didn't fast, who cheated it, a lot of them said they were fasting until the end of the Iraq War. Uh, what happened there? Cause if they kept their word, the world wouldn't have Medea Benjamin, among others, today. They didn't keep their word. And that needs to be stressed. They said this fast would go on until the war ended. They promised. Then they got a meeting with some Iraqi exiles in Jordan and called off the strike. Pretended like it was a victory. I bring that up because I now hate CODESTINK and I think they're frauds and that was the first proof of that.
Wally: I loathe them as well and I'm looking at their homepage with Kat right now and we're trying not to laugh too loud. They're the most pathetic organization in the world and really seem to exist only to pimp I-Need-Attention Benjamin as an 'activist.'
Kat: They've got a War Criminals List and they're so damn pathetic. Except for Henry Kissinger, from Tricky Dick's administration, they're all from Bully Boy Bush's. They've got no one from Obama's. Certainly not Crazy Ass Samantha Power who's always screaming for war -- and screamed for the Iraq War though she pretends otherwise today. They don't even have Obama. How many people have to die in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, how many people have to die in Pakistan from his drone attacks, before CODESTINK finds the courage to call him a War Criminal?
Stan: And that's what has destroyed them and other groups. I mean, take me. I'm a Democrat. I loathed George W. Bush. I called him out. But I did that because of what he was doing. I wasn't faking my criticism because I was a Democrat. I sincerely objected to what he did. Barack's continued all of that. How can I not continue to object? And how can I respect any of these people and groups who told me the Iraq War needed to end NOW, not tomorrow, but NOW, who have decided that Barack in the White House means it's all okay? I have no respect for CODESTINK at all.
Mike: Danny Schechter's closed shop for now, so let's talk about him. I'll try to stay high road. But come on, I'm tired of it. He's a journalist. He's been around the block 100 times. There was no excuse for his silence on the sexism in the Democratic Party's primary and his trying to blame his silence off on Hillary Clinton? No. He's the self-named "News Dissector."
Marcia: And [comment stricken per C.I. who states no rumors are going to be allowed in this discussions].
Mike: Right. So he blew it in 2008 and we're watching that unfold in the early months and wondering, "What the heck?" And then it's nothing but PRObama nonstop. He can't call him out, he can savage Republicans every day, he can insult them, he can trash them and he can write really bad screeds.
C.I.: Marcia, no offense, but I don't want that in the roundtable. In terms of his writing, it should be noted that during that period his helper comes along and we end up with some of the most confusing writing in the world since Danny's not a woman. I'm really uncomfortable with this discussion period but if it's going to continue, express your opinions, but stick to the work or I walk out on this roundtable which probably means Ava does as well and someone else will have to take over taking notes.
Jim: Instantly everyone screams "No No! Don't go." Okay, this isn't rumor. We get tons of e-mails complaining about him. I wrote him an e-mail a couple of months back explaining the complaints we get and asking what the heck was going on? Now he can -- and did -- complain that Ava and C.I. rightly noted that Tina Turner doesn't 'have to' forgive Ike Turner for terrorizing her and they rightly noted that he minimized what Ike did to Tina. When it's time for that, he can e-mail back and forth and over and over with one complaint after another. But he wouldn't reply to my e-mail. Then he wants to write, in his last column, that "There were the inevitable cynics who sniped at us from their angry caves of self-righteous anonymity." What a whiny little bitch.
Dona: I'm with Jim. I read those e-mails from him and there was another topic he was on fire about and whining. And I'm reminded of Mike's attitude re: Dave Zirin. Mike -- and Wally -- praised Dave, praised his book. Mike offers one criticism of him -- a valid one because he was pimping Barack on Democracy Now! -- and all the sudden the little bitch starts writing Mike threatening e-mails. It's like grow the hell up already. Nobody did more at any site to get the word out on Dave Zirin than Mike. Mike repeatedly and regularly noted him and the first contact from Dave ever is for Dave to throw a hissy fit. I mean, come on. And here's another thing on Danny, his trashy 'helper' who wrote the nasty e-mail to Ruth? Danny's got a picture of her and here's my advice to her: Don't dress like a whore. Seriously, that's your professional picture? A sweater with holes every few inches showing off your blue bra? That's professional? No, it's whorish. You set all women back when that's what you choose to highlight. It's such a cheese cake photo, I felt like vomiting as soon as I saw it. A number of us had to work really hard to be taken seriously. We don't need a big-butted fat ass woman desperate to be seen as sexy taking away from our own efforts.
Ruth: Dona, thank you so much for saying that. I so wanted to but I thought, considering that e-mail from the little girl, that if I commented it would be seen as merely sour grapes.
Dona: No problem, Ruth. Getting back to what Mike was touching on, Danny became a mouth piece for the Democratic Party. Especially for the White House. We don't applaud echo chambers. In his fare-the-well, he's claiming he's his worst critic. No, he's not. He repeatedly excused himself from criticism. He refused to meet his readers complaints and attacked them in e-mails -- which were forwarded to this site -- and then wanted to whine that MediaChannel was going under. Here's the tough criticism he avoided: His efforts killed MediaChannel. It damaged the left as well, but in terms of his own survival, they killed MediaChannel. No one needed that crap. He became such a Kool Aid Drinker that he was unable to think anymore.
Wally: Well maybe he did or maybe he just pretended. I mean, look at David Swanson. He posts a piece saying Barack's not ending the Iraq War at The Daily Toilet Scrubber and then gets called out so he posts an apology stating that he used an attention getting headline but he's a Barack supporter and blah, blah, blah. Then he's e-mailing C.I., hours after that apology went online, insisting that Barack should be in prison.
Kat: I want to talk about that too. And first, David's e-mail was published by C.I. Long before David wrote that e-mail, he had passed along Rebecca's e-mails. He'd written her about how he loved her site and how he was a big fan and he had a few questions and blah blah. Rebecca replies and he's sending her replies all over the place. Now Rebecca confronted him and he knows how badly he hurt her. C.I.'s never shied from bringing that up at The Common Ills. So David Swanson was an idiot for thinking his e-mails were 'protected.' Not after what he did to Rebecca and his refusal to apologize for it. There are many other people who've written the public account at The Common Ills and they're not being outed here or at that site. But David was an exception because of how he tried to ridicule Rebecca by pretending to be her friend and then passing around her e-mails. So with that explanation, that was really revealing and I'm so glad we're talking about this.
Jim: I wanted to do it in real time.
Kat: As did I. From time to time we get an angry e-mail about how we hate Communists or we hate this or we hate that. People don't know what they're talking about when they write those e-mails. We have no problem with Communists. We have no problem with Socialists. We have a problem with tricksters and liars and it's not our fault that in the American political system, a large number of those are closet Communists and closet Socialists. They want to trick people and lie to people instead of being honest. David Swanson got exposed as a trickster. He was over at Daily Kos and other sites claiming to be a Barack supporter and then he's e-mailing C.I. that Barack's a criminal who belongs in prison? That's what we hate. That's what we call out. This attempt to deceive.
Betty: Exactly. He wants to pose like he's Barack's best friend with Barack supporters and then with others he'll say Barack belongs in prison. You know what, you two-faced bastard, why don't you speak what you believe and quit lying all the damn time. Clearly, you couldn't believe what you posted and what you e-mailed because they are in direct contrast and conflict with one another. I'm so sick of these liars. We say what we mean, unlike, yes, unlike Danny Schechter. And Jim was making a point earlier that I want to get back to, we all like Schechter's work and praised it. We covered his movies and his books and his columns. But those weren't partisan pieces. What happened? Barack gets in the White House and suddenly Danny's feeling free to be who he really is? Was everything just a pose? I have no idea but I have no interest in seeing Plunder. And the only reason that got reviewed here was because Ava and C.I. did the review. Everyone else was of the opinion: Life is too short.
Ruth: Mr. Schechter repeatedly wrote that he was non-partisan. He repeatedly stressed problems resulted from Democratic and Republican administrations. Then he became a Barack groupie. It was not only embarrassing, it was disgusting and a rejection of his previously outstanding work. My greatest regret is that he signed off before he confronted what he had become. If he had confronted it, there might have been some closure and a sense of self-knowledge. But that is why people left, the site became no different than a hundred echo chambers online. It was not worth reading. His helper was forever inserting insults and jibes at people. Why? Often solely because they were Republican. It became a bitchy and snide blog.
Dona: Ruth, I-I'm not sure how to put this. So I'm going to speak it and if it needs to be stricken, it can be. But you and Danny Schechter exchanged e-mails, is that not correct?
Ruth: Absolutely. He wrote me. And I replied. But then, as the exchange continued, I felt like I was being written to to shut up my criticism of his sexism. At which point, I stopped the exchange. If he wants to publish my e-mails to him and his to me, he's free to do so. And that might be productive. But I was not going to continue a private conversation that was taking away from a topic I was writing on at my site.
Dona: And this was before the helper wrote you.
Ruth: Long before.
Dona: I just wanted to get that on the record. Jim and I have wasted enormous time replying to people who pulled that little dance. My advice to any blogger reading us, don't waste your time on it. We learned it after it happened repeatedly. "Hey, love your site, but just one thing . . ." And it's not one thing. You thank them for the e-mail and refuse to grovel and beg for forgiveness, write something like, "We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue," and the next e-mail comes in screaming and hissing about how awful you are and la la la. It's just not worth it.
Marcia: I want to get back to what Jim was saying because the sentence Danny Boy wrote was, "There were the inevitable cynics who sniped at us from their angry caves of self-righteous anonymity." Caves of anonymity? Golly, Dans, you called me out at your site but refused to link to me, refused to name my site. I'm sick of that chicken s**t. I won't repeat the rumor -- and I know why that bothered C.I. and I respect that -- but I will also note that he's the biggest piece of s**t in the world. He was a self-righteous blowhard who repeatedly defended men who savaged women -- Ike Turner was only one example -- and he regularly ignored women. I have no fond memories of him, I have no respect for him. He was just another echo chamber. Why? Because, like David Swanson, he wanted access. He refused to tell the truth. He didn't sniff the Kool Aid and get drunk. He knew what was what and he thought he could ride the Bambi craze to greater riches. Instead it brought down MediaChannel. Good. With the exception of the piece Ava and C.I. wrote, there was never anything remotely pro-woman or written by strong women at that site in all of its years. That's really saying something when you think about how that website was around for over ten years.
Jess: To be clear, Ava and C.I.'s piece was written for and published at this site. They were not asked, we were not asked, if it could be reposted. When it was reposted, it led to a rumor that never goes away to this day that we received George Soros funds because Danny Schechter has taken Soros money. Ava and C.I. received no money, this site received no money, for that reposting. We were never asked, we were never even informed. We started getting e-mails about it after it went up there and, while asking where people were getting the idea that we were on the Soros payroll, e-mail replies would cite MediaCenter. We aren't on the Soros payroll, we have never been on that payroll. We receive no money for this site. Ava and C.I. are wealthy on their own and would have no reason to whore for Soros. This site has never praised George Soros, we have repeatedly called him out, C.I. has noted for years and years that Soros has "blood money."
Ann: And as someone was saying, I believe it was Betty or maybe it was Kat, we're not tricksters. We don't try to play you. We don't sit here and try to figure out the angle we're going to play and how we'll trick you today. We're not David Swanson. We believe Barack belongs in jail because he's a War Criminal. But, unlike David Swanson, we'll go on the record with that. Swanson, by contrast, will go over to Daily Kos and type up a lot of lies about how much he loves Barack and what a big fan he is.
Jim: Exactly. Dona's noted that we need to hear from Isaiah and Trina but before we go to them, I'm going to give C.I. a second to respond to the Danny Schechter discussion. If she wants to.
C.I.: Sure. Marcia's anger is valid. She has every right to be angry. Her words were distorted at Danny's site by Danny who provided no link to her and didn't even give out her site. There was no way anyone could search it and find out what she said or that he was wrong. He attempted to ridicule her publicly and he didn't play fair. There's no way to spin that into a 'good.' He did similar things with other women -- including a woman at WBAI whom he attacked for her alleged religion. That's a pattern. I'm not going to excuse it away. For a period of time, roughly 2003 through 2006, he managed to speak for and to a large number of people. That ended. And that raises the question when do you pack it in? A question I ask myself all the time. It's a credit to the strength of his talents and the strength of that period of work that so many point to that even now. Even in this discussion. I agree with Ruth's point that he should have had more self-examination and should have had some honesty about what he'd done. It would have made the ending more meaningful. In terms of what Jim and Dona are talking about, in terms of running readers off, I got e-mails all the time from readers he had run off. He lost some early on because there was no focus. With the Iraq War on his radar, he had a focus. Then that was lost and then it appeared any and every topic -- news and non-news -- was being covered. When that happened repeatedly with nothing on Iraq, he became seen as someone who made a movie to make money off the illegal war but had no interest in actually following the illegal war. That's a valid critique. Seems to me if the war outrages you, you don't suddenly drop it. His best writing was generally when he felt slammed, wronged or shut out. As he attempted to cozy up to the Cult of St. Barack, his writing became rigid and frozen and of little value. He was playing a part when he should have been being himself. He did a lot of good in his time online and he helped a lot of people see realities they wouldn't otherwise see. What was really great about his site at the best of times was that it was a place where everyone in the country could engage. He wasn't waving a flag for any political party. And the comments from readers -- either in comments or from e-mails he quoted -- were lively and testified to just how diverse his audience was. Tina Brown was talking about the American media not all that long ago on BBC's HARDTalk and she was, rightly, ripping them apart for their unquestioning coverage of Barack. The thing that makes me the saddest about Danny's departure is that lack of self-realization Ruth was talking about because Tina -- I know Tina, I like Tina -- is always a few feet ahead of the curve and if she's talking about it, that's likely going to be the next big discussion. So it would have been nice if he'd addressed these issues on his own. Instead, he's left them open and the result, if the conversation does take place, is that others will have to provide the answers he didn't. Why did he do what he did? I don't know. But 2008 began an embarrassing period that he never recovered from. That said, he was tired and noted that frequently. That's why he took on a helper to begin with. Best of luck to him and a sincere thank you from me for that Iraq coverage during a three year period. If he does another documentary before this site shuts down, Ava and I'll probably review it.
Dona: If I could, there's a lot of anger here. I know Jim's very angry. I think Marcia's angry --
Marcia: Beyond angry. I hate the man.
Dona: Okay, fair enough. And I'm just wondering if you have anything to say on that?
C.I.: Me. Okay. I thought I did. I said Marcia's feelings were valid. I would be angry if I were her. He held her up to public ridicule and misquoted her and provided no link to her so the curious could have at least read what she actually said. I have no idea why he did that and I called it out at The Common Ills. I don't know what you're wanting, Dona. There was no excuse for the defense of Ike Turner and Ava and I called it out. I have no apologies for that. I'd do it again.
If you're thinking inspiration's going to strike me, it's not. I'm thinking, "After throwing up three times in a row about an hour ago, I should have brushed my teeth longer." I'm thinking, "When is this going to end so I can go brush my teeth." I'm also feeling dehydrated and wanting to drink some water. So if you're thinking I'm going to be able to tie some pretty bow around this conversation, you're mistaken. I think Danny is someone who cares a great deal but I think he got lost and I regret that. It impacted his work and harmed his legacy.
Jim: Okay, Isaiah and Trina. Ty, you have any e-mails for them?
Ty: For Trina, I had several. I'll go with one. Bob e-mailed to say he feels like Trina's lost interest in cooking. Valid call?
Trina: No. But an understandable one. What's going on at my site? Like most community sites, I've got a ton of new readers. That's C.I.'s snapshot, by the way. We've all been getting the e-mails on that. So reposting the snapshot -- which Keesha argued we should do to keep Iraq alive as a topic -- actually benefits us by attracting readers to our sites. For me, at my site, what that means is I need to walk it back. I have a core group of readers who have been with me for a long period of time now. And I can offer some recipe -- and was -- that was complex because they've done all the others. But what's happening more recently is these new readers and they're new to the site and need recipes that are easier to break down for them. So it's like we were getting to a point and now all the sudden it's back to the first day of school and the lesson plan needs to change. If I could, on Danny Schechter, I do understand all the anger that was expressed. And my heart goes out to Marcia because I do know that was beyond rude. He intentionally attempted to ridicule her and refused to allow her any way to respond. With regards to what C.I. was saying, Danny was worth reading for a long time. Not everyone can say that. So I'll just focus on that period of time. And if he was stabbing at Marcia in that last comment, I'll also note that Marcia -- like Mike with Dave Zirin -- praised Danny many times though he never felt the need to draw attention to that.
Ty: Okay. Isaiah. Free style! I've got nothing, buddy.
Isaiah: Okay, well I've got something. Jon Stewart's back from his vacation. I didn't know he was on vacation until I found something online whining at him for calling out Barack's lousy response to the Gulf Disaster. This is how DimeWars chooses to respond: "We know you're funny, Mr. Jon Stewart, but leave President Obama alone." That's so embarrassing. That's so shameful. The President of the United States, regardless of whom he or she is, should always be the object of ridicule. It's one of the last things that reminds us we remotely have a democracy. I read crap like that and think, "Grow the hell up." Seriously, there are too many still too invested in Barry The Hype as opposed to the reality. These are the people like Aimee Allison who go out of their way to explain that Pakistani lives aren't very 'important' because supporting Barry is about the 'greater good.' I read something like that and I'm both disappointed in and disgusted by my fellow Americans.
Jim: Amen. And that's the roundtable. This is a rush transcript.
