The Heart Of Andrew Breitbart

I write this at the risk of it reading like a culturally-christian 'love your enemies' type crocodile-crying session for an asshole. And let me stress that- Andrew Breitbart was an asshole. But there's a proper way to hate, and a proper way to dance on a grave, and in the wake of Breitbart's early death- everyone's doing it wrong.

Pictured Above: Long-Haired Hippie

I learned of Andrew Breitbart's death 2 days ago from National Public Radio(what he might call a 'liberal' source); they reported that he died at 43 of natural causes. Isn't that something? Well, it's actually piss-poor reporting, since 'natural causes' is only alleged by his coffee-boy Joel Pollack. The media should've identified that as speculation until the autopsy is performed, at which point we will be able to differentiate 'natural causes' such as a heart attack, from Cocaine and Pharmaceutical abuse(my personal guess.) Naturally those answers won't satisfy the worst scum of the earth: Conspiracy Theorists.

The half-baked conspiracy centers on the fact that Andrew Breitbart told a crowd a few weeks ago that he had 'video of Obama from his college years' that he was going to release 'this election season.' If you're a Breitbart fan, you're already prone to believing nonsense stories of collusion and secret government activity(which actually exists, but not as he describes it) and so it's CASE CLOSED. Barrack Hussein Obama bludgeoned Andrew Breitbart with a Candlestick in the Conservatory. Or whatever. I personally don't believe Obama is carrying out political assassinations(except Osama Bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and his underage son[hmm])- but it doesn't mean Andrew Breitbart didn't have something worth seeing that makes Obama look bad.

 I wouldn't have even known who Breitbart was if he didn't brag about how he was going to 'destroy' one of my favorite journalists, Mark Ames, and then had his coffee-boy write one poorly-conceived hit piece before backing off. Ames and Breitbart had many things in common(and I suspect more mutual respect than they may have admitted to) in that they loved making enemies; doing hit pieces and take downs. They both practice the only honest form of journalism- Biased journalism. They also both have some successful investigative journalism credentials. The only difference is that one self-describes as conservative and the other as 'left.'

 It's queer that Andrew Breitbart allegedly experienced an 'epiphany' that caused him to convert to conservatism. Whenever you're dealing with journalists, it's possible their picking their politics in bad faith- only to be the most entertaining, spectacular or successful. In Breitbart's case it's painfully clear to me that he was first and foremost an opportunist who could taste blood in the water- or as a conservative would say 'a pioneer.' The more skeptical among us are now guessing that he didn't believe much of what he peddled and are calling him 'a performance artist.' If one thinks what's good for business is all that counts, Breitbart was a brilliant businessman and entrepreneur. He saw a void and filled it. He built an empire. There were casualties. Ruined lives. This is The Heart of Whiteness and the American Dream.

Liberals, happy to see any right-wing talking head die, danced on his grave. I, unlike others, am not going to pretend to have a problem with that; Hate your enemy. Call him whatever profanities you want. Just don't lie. It's when people say "Andrew Breitbart is a liar!" that I have to take exception. "Liar" is a serious accusation. George W. Bush is a liar. Henry Kissinger is a liar.(both alive and in good health, I might add.) Andrew Breitbart didn't lie. He told the truth that he saw and wrote the truth as he wanted it to be. He took things out of context, he ignored his own sides folly, and he tried to undermine his enemy with words and actions. That's what a decent, entertaining journalist does. He picked out the Sacred Cows of the left(Occupy, 'liberal' media bias) and attacked them with any dirt he could sling and muck he could rake.

 In the free information age(while it's still allowed to exist) we all get to chose our own news sources, journalists, and ultimately, truth. Stephen Colbert was way ahead of the curve with his "Truthiness" coinage. There is no absolute 'truth' or 'common sense' or 'sanity' in politics that both Daily-Show-Democrats and 'Tellin-It-Like-It-Is' conservative AM Radio Hucksters allege. In an alternate universe... I chose to be(or was told I was) conservative and Brietbart is my martyr. Ultimately there's no Right or Left. There's only talking heads screaming at each other on a sinking ship. And Andrew Brietbart could scream.