Don Imus Advertisers Jumping Ship

Some adverstisers on Don Imus' radio show are pulling their ads.

Among them: Proctor & Gamble and Staples.

"Based on recent comments that were made on the show, it prompted us to kind of take a look at our decision to advertise and as a result we decided to stop advertising on that program," said Staples spokesman Paul Capelli said.

Cincinnati, Ohio-based P&G also withdrew its sponsorship. "Effective Friday, April 6, we pulled all P&G's brand advertising from the MSNBC daytime rotation," said P&G spokeswoman Jeannie Tharrington. P&G would not advertise again "until we can evaluate the Imus situation fully," she said.

On the fence: Bigelow Tea.

Update: The Washington Post reports Bigelow Tea will also pull its ads.

< The Politics of Blogger Prestige | How To Talk About Iraq >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    great news (none / 0) (#1)
    by orionATL on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 10:41:35 PM EST
    this is exactly where the rubber meets the road.

    money talks;

    no money walks.

    there is no point in railing about don anus the person, or about anus' specific comments - though i have.

    anus, and limbaugh, and o'reilly, and their lot will disappear when they are no longer worth the risk.

    that is, when they no longer earn their keep.

    i am delighted to see sponsors bailing out.


    let's move on to some of those other bastards.

    i hear o'reilly audience is mostly over 65. is that possible?

    what are other audience profiles?

    Please don't call him the "a" word here (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 10:47:40 PM EST
    Please try to keep the discussion civil.

    uh oh (none / 0) (#8)
    by orionATL on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:09:38 AM EST
    sorry, mom.

    orion atl (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 07:23:42 AM EST
    My question to you is simple.

    Assuming that you have confidence in the Left's position on the various issues, why do you want to shut anyone "down?"

    Are you afraid of the debate?

    That smacks of censorship, and I would think that as a member of a minority political group, you would not want to get something like that started.

    Note: That has nothing to do with Imus who, as a broadcaster using public airwaves, attacked/insulted other specific individuals for no "political" reason.


    What? (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 07:43:02 AM EST
    Not that I know what you are talking about here, but my guess it that your idea of
    the debate

    includes O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Imus. What other debators from wingnuttia are plugging for?

    That smacks of censorship, and I would think that as a member of a minority political group, you would not want to get something like that started.
    And what does being part of a minority group have to do with

    getting something like that started.   The thread is about advertisers jumping ship because Imus used hate speech on the air.

    Is that what minorities should be afraid of starting??

    Really not sure what you are saying here in the context of this thread.


    Squeaky (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:30:33 AM EST
    The minority group I refer to is the Left. (Yes you are, even though you currently may think otherwise.)

    Minorities should always be sensitive to the civil rights of everyone, because they have always been the first to lose when censorship becomes popular.
    They have also been the first to protest loss of rights.

    The Left is an exception to this historical fact. The Left will only defend the rights of those agreeing with them. That, in essence was my comment to orion. (Talk Left is an exception to this. And to my knowledge, the only exception.)

    I know that you have a self admitted problem of attacking before reading. And I understand what the thread is about. My comment was to orin about his comment.

    BTW - Are you able to connect your instant demand re thread content??? That displays your desire to shut down debate quite accurately.

    My idea of the debate includes everyone. Join me in this most Social Liberal position.

    BTW - Imus wasn't "debating." He was making a personal nasty attack on individuals. There was nothing "political" about it. It was pure commercial speech. Thus I had no problem in saying he should be shut down.


    Jim (none / 0) (#10)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:46:46 AM EST
    For the very most part I am in agreement with the way you are approaching this Imus situation.  And like you, I watched the UT Rutgers game, and I thought your description in another post of how Rutgers let the game play out without fouling hard, and how classy it was, was right on point.  That team represented the unlimited possibilities of women's hoops.

    I do want to quibble with a couple of things you just said, however.

    First, you write:

    Minorities should always be sensitive to the civil rights of everyone, because they have always been the first to lose when censorship becomes popular.

    Now, practically speaking this makes sense.  But then, it wasn't until white people developed a willingness to fight for the Civil Rights movement that the gains in the 60s were possible.  What we need, and it seems like you know this but aren't emphasizing it, is to light fires under majorities.  That's how you protect minority rights.  Gay rights for example will never be totally secure until there is headway towards eradicating homophobia among heterosexuals.

    Second, you for some reason continue to insinuate that posters on this thread are calling for censorship when they are clearly not doing so.  Asking how to prod sponsors into pulling their support of other pundits is not the same as calling for censorship, not by a long sight, and hopefully you know that but are ignoring it in order to score some kind of a point.

    Third, and a corollary to the second, you write:

    The Left will only defend the rights of those agreeing with them.

    How easy sweeping generalizations are for you, all you need to do is use the catch-all word "Left" and then you can make any kind of crazy-arse claim you want.  If only I hadn't been guilty of the same thing time and time again with terms like the "Right" and even "Rethugs" then I'd be even more outraged by this.  :-)

    But seriously, try to remember you're talking about flesh and blood people.  And in real life, I'd bet anything at all that the flesh and blood people you're debating on this forum all stand in unwavering support of everyone's right to speak, including those with whom we stringly disagree.

    I'd like to see more of an effort on these boards and, really, everywhere, towards not using the amorphous terms "Left" and "Right" because they open the door to caricature.  I am trying to ween myself of it, and instead deal with each situation and each person's words on its own terms.  When we are tempted to categorize, we should at least be adult enough to admit that this is what we are doing that that we are undoubtedly throwing a lot of decent people under the bus for the sake of our pretty little metaphors.


    Glanton (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 11:17:44 AM EST
    Well, yes and no. From bottom to top.

    The terms "Left" and "Right" are generalizations, but when writing about generalities, I  don't have a better term. And, in general, I find that the "Left" has many, many people such as orion atl who would cheerfully shut down Limbaugh, et al without realizing that once you start that, the end game may not be what they imagined. I think squeaky, edger and sailor fall into that category. If I am wrong, I apologize in advance, and they can certainly correct me, as they have on other points.

    Solution? I really don't have one except perhaps saying.... "in general the Left..."

    You should also remember that I do not consider the "Left" to be the same as "Liberal."

    Asking how to prod sponsors into pulling their support of other pundits is not the same as calling for censorship,

    A rose by any other name smells the same. Calling for Imus to be shut down is not the same as calling for sponsors to pull ads from "other pundits" you disagree with. The latter is an attempt to censor. No ifs, no buts.

    BTW - I don't believe in "hate speech codes" in our schools and universities. If you are going to give tenure to Professors that allows them to teach/say what they want, then you must give the students the same right.

    And I realize that I am conflicted over tenure, but I think my position there is the same as my position on Imus. There is a point in which the individuals comments go pass the protection. I can't always define it, but I think Imus and Ward Churchill is an example. Both have a history of outrageous comments.

    I agree that majorities should be sensitive to minority rights, and that includes the right to not be attacked by such as Imus. As you know, I have also nailed people on this blog for making homophobic comments, as well as the Coulters of this world.

    On the other hand, if someone running for office wants to make racist remarks, then that is political speech and is protected. (It is also wrong, and in today's world would result in a resounding defeat.)


    The only qualifier (none / 0) (#17)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 11:44:51 AM EST
    Calling for Imus to be shut down is not the same as calling for sponsors to pull ads from "other pundits" you disagree with. The latter is an attempt to censor.

    This just doesn't hold water unless you're broadening to definition of censorship far outside the bounds of its typical connotation.  Which is forcing silence at the point of a gun, imprisonment, fines, or some other such government-sponsored punishment.

    Calling sponsors to the carpet for where their money goes, on the other hand, is an expression of what so many celebrate as "capitalism at its finest."  Whaveter one may think of that, it is undeniable that boycotting and otherwise pressuring sponsors is not the same as censorship.  

    Put another way, one can and ought to say with a perfectly clean conscience, "If you're going to finance the hatefest that is Hannity's radio program, then you're going to have to do it without my nickel."  


    glanton (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 06:32:22 PM EST
    Okay fine. Then you would agree that the Right should shut down CNN or MSNBC??

    How does that go?

    Yet each man kills the thing he loves
    By each let this be heard,
    Some do it with a bitter look,
    Some with a flattering word,
    The coward does it with a kiss,
    The brave man with a sword!

    Ballad of Reading Goal - Wilde


    WTF (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 07:40:12 PM EST
    The poem was Wilde's last, written after a two year stint in prison where he saw a hanging. The poem was a meditation on on capitol punishment vs those rotting in a stinking prison cell, the pain of guilt and the possibility of some salvation.    

    Sorry I do not get the analogy with the right shutting down CNN or MSNBC.

    The man in red who reads the Law
    Gave him three weeks of life,
    Three little weeks in which to heal
    His soul of his soul's strife,
    And cleanse from every blot of blood
    The hand that held the knife.

    And with tears of blood he cleansed the hand,
    The hand that held the steel:
    For only blood can wipe out blood,
    And only tears can heal:
    And the crimson stain that was of Cain
    Became Christ's snow-white seal.


    Yes those that live on (all men) have pain to bear, and Wilde muses that a broken heart is the only path to healing and pardon. All men bear the mark of Cain in his analogy.

    Imus and the money machine of pop media have no true remorse or reflective abitity. Both are powered by greed alone. Yes, MSNBC dropped Imus,  for fear of their bottom line. Nothing moral, poetic or reflective, pure buisness.

    Your analogy is beyond me.


    somehow i knew you wouldn't understand (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 10:47:57 PM EST
    ry and read poetry for all the meanings that the poet brings to the table, not just the ones your teacher explained to you. Or did you specialize in the "Classic Comics?"

    And I don't mean that as an insult. Just a suggestion, if you like poetry.

    Yet each man kills the thing he loves
    By each let this be heard,
    Some do it with a bitter look,
    Some with a flattering word,
    The coward does it with a kiss,
    The brave man with a sword!

    Look how it speaks to the death of a friendship, or a love affair, or how some will trade their soul for approvals.

    Note how he condemns hypocrisy and praises honesty.


    Wow (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:10:53 AM EST
    Amazing that someone could turn this dark and complex OW poem into the equivalent of a trite hallmark card. But then out of context revisionist quotes are your speciality.

    Besides even in the most superficial reading of this poem one can not fail to notice the depth of reflection that the narrator (OW) engages in about death and the suffering of man in life.

    The only reflection here by Imus or MSNBC is about his popularity, money and stanching potential financial losses. A far cry from the content of poem.

    Your insults are typical, reflexive and silly and only reflect back on you. So what else is new.


    squeaky (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:56:43 AM EST
    Expressions of lost friendships,lost loves,trading souls for success?

    You consider that trite?

    Which of the above triggered his killing?


    No (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:05:07 PM EST
    Comparing Imus and MSNBC to OW is trite. Bringing up an OW poem about his last years of life when he was suffering from syphillis and estranged from society contemplating death and life in prison has no place in this discussion.

    That is unless you are trying to enoble MSNBC and Imus.  


    Second qualifier (none / 0) (#18)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 11:50:27 AM EST
    Also, please show me where squeaky, edger, sailor, or any of the other regular posters have called for censorship.  For "shutting down" Limbaugh.  You see, its not even the case that if Imus were fired, that this would be the same as censorship, as he has no intrinsic right to that airwave; neither does Rush Limbaugh have an intrinsic right to the airwaves he pollutes.  

    If any of these posters were saying, Rush's speech should be made illegal, you'd be onto something.  But you're not.  

    So, in the name of simple decency why can't you rise to the occasion this time and retract your very serious charge that these people are for censorship when they are clearly not?


    Glanton - Blow ups happen, eh?? (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 07:12:04 PM EST
    You have went from a calm conversation into a attack.

    Which I also find is something that the Left generally does.....

    And yes. Limbaugh, et al, all have a right to the airwaves. So does Imus. He lost that right when he did the personal attack.

    The ones you dislike, perhaps even hate, you dislike because of their political position.

    One  more  time.....

    If you shut someone up, it is censorship. Be it by getting them off the air by threatening their sponsors, or by kidnapping their family...

    The results are the same.

    Listen to what edger says.

    Anyone who wants me or others to be constrained from saying things that insult so that
    they will NOT feel constrained
    from doing things that kill, is trying to draw equivalence where there is none, and deserves absolutely no respect, civility, or any kind of tolerence whatever.

    Did you miss the one yesterday, which TL deleted, in which sailor said I shouldn't be allowed...?

    Or this?

    Re: Joseph and Valerie Wilson Sue Cheney, Libby an (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 07:15:00 PM EST

    Sailor - It was an enjoyable thread until you, at 04:13PM wwrote:

    "sluggo, if you can't provide links to facts then STFU."

    Will you argue that STFU doesn't mean shut up? And isn't that "censorship?"

    How about this one from Squeaky. He thought it cute. I found it revealing.

    Re: Gearing Up for War With Iran? (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 11:22:02 AM EST

    They are in the "kill all the Mooslims" category.
    Those guys at Powerline sure sound like creeps to me. Only bloodthirsty maniacs would want to kill all those skinny Hindu cows peacfully roaming the streets of India. Can't we get PETA or the ASPCA to shut them down?

    And then this???

    The She-Pundit Lawyers Up - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 03:36:43 PM EST ... I just wish she'd shut up, period. She has nothing of value to contribute to the country

    And then we have the ultimate censorship.

    How do we get rid of the rest of them? (1.00 / 2) (#7)
    by maheanuu on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:54:27 AM EST

    Perhaps Rat Poison might work, but then even a rat wouldn't be as bad as the repigs in office today.

    ppJ lies again (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 07:51:03 PM EST
    I have never called for censorship. People can say what they want and I can tell them to STFU, call them on their BS, rant, criticize, discuss or ignore. If I ran a radio station and Coulter had a show I would fire her, that is not censorship, but wisdom as opposed to greed. If I hear one of these creeps on the radio or tv I either walk or turn it off, that is not censorship but my choice. You can cream yourself over coulter for all I care, that is your choice, not that I could fathom why you would listen to her, but your choice. If you consider her part of some debate,  and want to quote her nonsense, I will call you on it,  that is not censorship.

    Why do you insist on making sh*t up.


    squeaky (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 10:49:14 PM EST
    If you tell someone to shut up, that is censoring them, or at least trying to censor them.

    Understand that and quit parsing.


    All right (none / 0) (#24)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 10:17:08 PM EST
    First of all, that was not an attack, but I totally understand how you thought it was.  I said "in the name of simple decency why can't you rise to the occasion this time."  Look, things have been pretty ugly between several of us posters for a while.  Surely you acknowledge that you've been a part of this.  I know I have, and I am making an effort lately to write to people the way I would speak to them if we were in the same room.  "This time" means, all past snarks and insults aside, get above it and recognize that the people you name have not called for censorship.  Well, that's the best I can do explaining it.

    Now, you've made it prety clear to me that the real rift here is that we just have differing definitions of censorship.  That I guess shouldn't surprise me.  We have different definitions of a lot of things, no?  National security, government accountability, etc.

    "Censorship" for me has always triggered the question of legality.  Someone telling you STFU, for example, is a loss of temper and a downgrade of class but it is not censoring them, because after all you can ignore them and keep talking.  

    It also seems like you see a network firing as a form of censorship.  As well as a boycott of corporate sponsirs on radio shows.  You ask, would I object to the Right seeking to shut down CNN?  Well, they have every right to send letters to all the sponsors swearing never to spend money on them.  I wouldn't exactly call that censorship either.

    Finally, above you wrote that Limbaugh et all have a right to the airwaves.  Now, while I can more or less agree to disagree on specifically defining censorhip, that argument there is just plain loony.  Limbaugh is on the air not because he has a right to it.  It's not like the right to vote or to privacy.  

    No.  It bothers me to admit it, but the truth is Limbaugh earned his audience, and he draws advertisers, and so he gets the privilege of being on the airwaves, the same privilege Imus had.  Limbaugh markets a service, people buy it.  And there is absolutely nothing wrong with refusing to buy it, or even boycotting the advertisers that finance it. Indeed, there needs to be more awareness on all of our parts what our money is actually doing.

    BTW: You once said you don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.  Check him out sometime.  You'll find that he pulls all kinds of nasty rhetorical stunts over the course of a week.  Smearing, denigrating, generalizing: the man is much more nasty than Don Imus, I can promise you.

    Finally, and fade to black: Aint nobody putting me on the air, nor do I see it as my right to be on there,  If I wanted it I'd have to go earn it.      


    glanton (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 11:15:11 PM EST
    Okay, I agree we have both passed some hard shots at each other, but I'm willing to try and get that behind us.

    And yes, I think we do have a different take on censorship. To me, political speech is protected by the constitution. But commercial speech is not. Imus' sin was that he personally attacked some people, and he is now censored. I see no more problem with that than if a Mcdonald's employee went on TV and said eat at Burger King. You take someone's money and you are no longer free.

    The shut up, STFU and even TL's right to delete comments to me is either an attempt to censor, as in the former, or actual in the latter. Note that I don't say that TL is doing anything wrong. It is her property and her right, just as MSNBC is within their right.

    The "shut up and STFU" is clearly an attempt to prevent someone from expressing an opinion... That is an attempt to censor. Is it juvenile? Yes. Is it effective on the Internet? Probably to the degree that some people need approval and group association. Others are not bothered.

    I suspect that both terms are used much more on the Internet than real life.

    As to trying to shut down/censor radio shows, etc that takes a different political position is bad for several reasons.

    First, is your arugments so weak that you must quiet the opposition?

    Secondly, once you start that, and I repeat myself, you have started a fight that you may loose.

    BTW - The above works for both sides.


    Jim (none / 0) (#12)
    by peacrevol on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 10:42:15 AM EST
    He is being shut down. In the right way. I think this is going to be one of the few cases in which the system works like it is supposed to. He says something retarded on the radio, the radio takes him off air for a while to evaluate his statements and basically to let everybody cool down for a while. Meanwhile, his ad money starts to disappear, and the station decides that they cant afford to put him on the radio any more.

    Either his listeners or the radio station should decide if he should continue to be one the air. Not the government or me or you or the basketball players he insulted.

    I personally dont think it's all that big of a deal b/c I feel that we as a society let words affect us too much. What happened to 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?' when somebody says something to show their ignorance, they're just letting everyone know how simple minded they are. There is no reason that the words of idiots should hurt people as much as it does (or as much as people pretend it does).


    peacrevoll (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 11:21:40 AM EST
    I would agree that the government should not be involved.

    But I think individuals have the right to condemn and call for his firing.

    I also agree about the "sticks and stones" point.


    nasty words about African-American Women (none / 0) (#3)
    by diogenes on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 10:58:56 PM EST
    You can hear abundant and much worse words about African-American women, with B words, "H" words, "N" words, talking about beating and killing women, on assorted rap records.  Anyone who tried to pull music by groups who sung this way off the radio or to boycott stations who played it/stores that sold it would be laughed off the planet.  
    It's only when a middle-aged white guy says such a thing that the Al Sharptons of the world seem to get upset.

    You are so far removed (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Electa on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 10:46:16 AM EST
    from reality on this issue.  Rap and Hip Hop artist speak in general about a small segment of women some black some whatever color.  The bad thing is that the trash is magnified because of it's media promotion, glorification and industry greed.  The globalization of Rap/Hip Hop and the defacing of African-Americans as a whole reaks with conspiracy in nature.  Anytime an industry allows young uneducated blacks to earn millions of $$$$ slinging trash doctrines across the public airways imo is a conspiracy.  Rap and crack cocaine ironically came on the scene simultaneously and evolved into an accepted culture which didn't become a problem until it crossed the borders into suburban White America.  So it's not just Black young women who are branded as HOs but your daughters as well.  Your daughters are now carrying the image...just take a look at last month's Spring break at the beaches.  

    Those who are in the know, knew full well that Imus' remarks were blatantly racist evenmoreso than sexist.  He specifically targeted the Black team members when he injected the adj. "Nappy-Headed" which separated Blacks from Whites although not one of these women deserved
    to be victimized by his nongermaine, hatefilled, and unethical remarks.  Imus won't survive this and yes we will continue to put pressure on his sponsors until he's permanently removed.  This isn't about Sharpton who is being a puppet for the media and opportunist in his own right.  I doubt if the parents will even meet with Sharpton.


    Gosh (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 04:56:55 AM EST
    Why would that be? Must be ine of those age old conspiracies against whites. Should'a never tried to do those africans a favor and bring 'em here, they have been nothing but trouble ever since, right Diogenes? Is that how your argument fleshes out?

    Do you actually think that there is a level playing field? Or that there should be one?  


    Squeak (none / 0) (#14)
    by peacrevol on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 10:57:54 AM EST
    It should be a level playing field, but we'll never have one. Meanwhile we have to stop letting offensive words affect us so much. We tend to let those sorts of things bother us to the extent of national news coverage and bringing tons of celebrities on tv to discuss how terrible of a comment it is. Hell if we just let the women's basketball team make a public comment to imus and just leave it at that, I think it would be more powerful and we'd see the real affects of his moronic words.

    But can anyone tell me, without using google, what the response of the Rutger's women's basketball team was? I'm doubting it. It's not publicised well. I had to use google and the best I could find was a response from their head coach. Here it is:

    Head coach C. Vivian Stringer said her players "are the best this nation has to offer, and we are so very fortunate to have them at Rutgers University. They are young ladies of class, distinction. They are articulate, they are gifted. They are God's representatives in every sense of the word."

    She said it's not about the players "as black or nappy-headed. It's about us as a people. When there is not equality for all, or when there has been denied equality for one, there has been denied equality for all."

    She further said: "While they worked hard in the classroom and accomplished so much and used their gifts and talents, you know, to bring the smiles and the pride within this state in so many people, we had to experience racist and sexist remarks that are deplorable, despicable, and abominable and unconscionable. It hurts me."

    But I want to hear from the members of the Rutgers women's basketball team b/c none of us should be more offended than they are.


    Advertising on Imus (none / 0) (#4)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 11:11:14 PM EST
    Why Do Top Media Figures Go On?

    Why do they go on? Well for one, it is a big audience -- you can sell books on the show and have a rambling, sometimes provocative discussion. But more importantly, apparently Imus can get you access to the white male macho audience he appeals to and with whom he has much influence. Office seekers and media types, and they are almost all white males, seem to want to bask in Imus's super masculine glow in the hope it rubs off on them, in case they have seemed to be inadequate to Imus's white male audience in some way.

    Hoping "Imus's super masculine glow" will rub off on them is obviously part of his attraction for his audience too. Instead of Proctor & Gamble and Staples, it sounds like he should have the kind of advertisers you usually find in your spam box.

    it's the tea (none / 0) (#11)
    by orionATL on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:51:56 AM EST
    it's the bigelow tea that floored me.

    bigelow tea?

    tea for he men?

    did arnold drink this stuff in one of his terminator movies?


    fwiw (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 02:16:07 PM EST
    NPR just announced that GM, Imus's biggest advertiser, is pulling their advertising from both the radio and TV shows...