Skip to main content

Roseanne Responds To the Banter, Hilarity Ensues (Updated)

A good rule of thumb: When someone calls you a crazy person who's prone to ranting online, the best way to prove he's wrong isn't by very quickly responding with an online rant.
Screen Shot 2013-11-21 at 10.42.31 AM

A couple of days ago I wrote a quick column here that detailed Roseanne Barr's -- how can I put this lightly? -- beaver-shit crazy rant at Congress which demanded that it immediately take up the issue of reining in Barack Obama. In order to do this, according to Roseanne, the men and women of the legislative body would first have to work up the courage to shake off the ongoing blackmail Obama has been using to keep them on a tight leash for the past several years. We're not talking figurative blackmail here -- she means it literally, as in the President of the United States is using the CIA and the NSA to blackmail Congress into doing his bidding. Because as you've no doubt noticed lately, Obama has complete control of Congress and it's been forced at all times to do anything and everything he demands of it.

Mary Beth Williams quickly followed up my piece over at Salon and was kind enough to mention me in what she wrote. When it wound up in Roseanne's Twitter feed, she responded by calling Mary Beth a "toad," which is endlessly amusing coming from Roseanne. But on the plus side I have no doubt the publicity drew plenty of new people to Roseanne's rant, which by the way included 41 pages of "footnotes" that she billed as cold, hard facts but were, of course, nothing more than the lunatic internet ramblings of Wayne Madsen -- a guy who, if you're unfamiliar with him, comes off like someone who regularly got his ass beat for lunch money by Alex Jones when the two were at Conspiracy Theory Junior High together.

Now our fearless leader here at Banter, Ben Cohen, has decided to step up and take a whack at the hornets' nest by publishing a piece this morning called "A 15 Step Guide To Becoming Roseanne Barr." Usually, I'd let the piece speak for itself and not bother promoting it with an addendum, but when a column immediately draws the attention of the person it's making fun of to the point where that person responds angrily by running down her résumé, A) it's worth putting on the front page in its own special space, and B) it kind of proves that the column hit a nerve. A good rule of thumb: When someone calls you a crazy person who's prone to ranting online, the best way to prove he's wrong isn't by very quickly responding with an online rant.

So here's Roseanne's comment:

this is roseanne barr-Don't leave out my part in the victory of legalizing pot happening all across the country, the fight to raise minimum wage, or the defeat of Monsanto in Hawaii last week, or the unionizing of fast food workers happening now, or the movement to single payer, or of confronting Netanyahu (which I suspect is your real reason for attacking me) on his immoral occupation of the west bank and treatment of citizens of Gaza. All of these things I have been involved in, are NOT because I once had a sitcom, but because I am a thinking citizen of the world. But, I do appreciate the hilarity of your emptiness, and degenerate capitalist mansplaining!

For the record, I admit to being a bit jealous of Ben, seeing as how I truly believed that I was this site's resident empty, degenerate, capitalist mansplainer, but alas, Ben now gets to put that title on his business card and I'm relegated merely to "Executive Hack."

By the way, one thing I try hard to avoid at all costs -- and I think I've been successful so far -- is trafficking in the ridiculous internet neologisms that plague our fucking discourse these days. You can't call someone out for being condescending by using an equally condescending and laughably childish word like "mansplaining." You throw that line out, I immediately take you a hell of a lot less seriously. (Not that someone who penned a letter to Congress claiming that Obama engineered the Boston Marathon bombing and the Mossad has gay pictures of Lindsey Graham would ever stand a chance of being taken seriously one way or the other.)

Anyway, this is just an advisory to stick around because who knows what will happen next. As a friend of mine who once worked very closely with Roseanne on her show told me just a little while ago: "Roseanne's always been crazy. Now she's BORED and crazy, and on the internet. Bad combination."

Pull up a chair and grab the popcorn.

UPDATE: Like I said. Here's a tweet directed at Bob and me from Wayne Madsen:

Screen Shot 2013-11-21 at 1.27.33 PM

You've got to hand it to him, he really knows how to hurt a guy. Digging up that kind of information on me certainly puts me in my place and proves his mettle as an investigator. I really thought that would stay hidden forever.


And it just keeps getting better. From Madsen's paywall protected blog -- I assume to keep the NSA out -- reposted at Roseanne's site, his comments about me:

Screen Shot 2013-11-21 at 1.46.31 PM

First of all, it was heroin, not crack -- get your facts straight -- and that was before 9/11, not after. Also, I wasn't lecturing you. I was mocking you. : )

There's lots of stuff about Bob too if you want to take a look for yourself. I'd suggest wearing one of those helmets you see on people with severe developmental problems.