The Gravesite will be a new American urinal.

An excellent article...thanks for being the bigger man and rising to the occasion.

Oscar Wilde: "I didn't come to pay tribute, I came to make sure."

Clarence Darrow: "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure."

Mark Twain: "I didn't attend his funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it."

He seemed to be a man who wanted to have enemies.

Nitko and Mr. Rick H come across as crass (one more educated than the other).
Mr. Friedman and his commenter Henri Y. do not need to delude themselves. They come across as completely hypocritical.
C. Sotomayor

I don't know where you come off, Carlos Sotomayor @5, in describing Brad Friedman's charitable in memoriam as "hypocritical" --- especially when it is compared to the remarks made by Breitbart in response to the death of Ted Kennedy.

Frankly, while it is a matter of tradition to evade unkind words about the recently departed, it stretched journalistic integrity when ABC News and Los Angeles Times repeated Breitbart's most despicable lie.

ABC claimed that Breitbart's "Big Government broke the ACORN child sex trafficking scandal." Los Angeles Times claimed that Breitbart's "big splash came in 2009, when he posted an undercover video in which a pair of conservative activists posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend asked employees of the community group ACORN for help with a brothel that would house underage Salvadorans."

Those lies served to destroy an innocent community organization and eliminate its ability to serve the underprivileged in our nation. They should not be extolled as Breitbart's greatest success.

"The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones" - Mark Antony, Julius Caesar, William Shakespear

interesting. So what happens now to Shirley Sherrod's lawsuit?

Thanks for your comments Brad.
I don't think Carlos understands the term "hypocrisy," nor is he an astute critic; however if he should pass this way again, may he rest in peace.

US policy maker and news shaper Andrew Breitbart was beloved the New York Times, the US Congress, and mainstream US media sources.

Often quoted by the New York Times, Andrew Breitbart's editing of the truth was favored and promoted by mainstream media outlets. He helped promote the obviously edited fake pimp hoax that led to the demise of ACORN on the basis of lies (oft debunked), and was ultimately signed by US president Barack Obama himself as policy.

Adam8 (slandered by RawStory staff and, due to expressing offense at the slander against him, unjustly banned from commenting by RawStory's dictator Roxanne Cooper)

Well said, Brad.
Breitbart was an angry, angry man, who took his hate out on innocent people. I hope he finds peace in the everlasting- he surely didn't know it in this lifetime.

Breitbart RE: Your comment 2 Ted Kennedy, a "duplicitous bastard", "a prick," and, "a special pile of human excrement." Back at ya'.

Breitbart was irresponsible, nasty, hyperbolic, and hurt a lot of people. He was of the Lee Atwater/Joe McCarthy school of slash and burn attacks, innuendo, and falsehoods. Ugh. Anyone who lies and misrepresents what is, in order to destroy people's lives and careers, deserves no eulogy. Anyone who pontificates about the attitude we should have about this now-dead scumbad should save their condolences for his victims who are still dealing with the blowback from Breitbart's perfidy. He will be blessedly gone from the public square.

"Natural causes"? That makes it sound like he died of old age...at 43. (And he looked at least 55.)

Considering that the cause of death is sourced from his own site, biggovernment.com, I have no reason to believe it; suspect it is on par with all their other lies. Especially when we recall his recent freak-a-zoid screaming (drunk?) at occupiers, "STOP RAPING PEOPLE!" in which he had to be physically restrained.

Glad I got a chance to confront him at him at OccupyLA before he kicked. Sadly, that was the best memory of the fellow I can muster.

...also - taking comfort today in all the cases I've read from those who've had near death experiences, where there is a "life review" in which all the joy - and pain - you've caused others in your lifetime comes back to you as hyper-drive first person empath.

Breitbart lacked humanity in life, hope (and pray) that he's found it in death.

Oh, and nice job Brad. Was wondering how you were gonna handle this strange nutter of a tide.

Appreciate your sensibilities, and your kindness.
High road, indeed.

No. No.

Enough with the "think of his family" crap.

Either Breitbart was a performer who behaved dishonestly and damaged the lives of others merely for personal gain..

or he did so because that was exactly the outcome he wanted, as well as the personal gain.

His family either benefited from it without complaint, or revelled in it while benefitting from it.

They don't need anyone piling on them, for sure - but it's ridiculous to suggest they deserve our compassion, anymore than andrew breitbart did.

@ Carlos: thanks for taking the time to comment. Your view is 100% valid. I don't believe you were being insulting...but if you sensed something deeper in our messages, well, speaking for myself, I'm never happy when someone dies, but in this case, I felt a huge relief on the part of humanity...one very nasty, deceitful entity (not the person himself as I didn't know him) has closed his doors for business permanently.

Best headline so far: "Death of a Douche" (Rolling Stone --- Matt Taibbi, who else?). And notwithstanding Brad's elegant tone.

@ Jennie - Yes, early report of "natural causes" was obviously suspect and perhaps you've all heard by now that he plotzed from a heart attack going for a walk in Brentwood where he lived.

Anyone else notice the change today on the ABC News article talking about Breitbart? They mentioned ACORN and said this:

"Big Government broke the ACORN child sex trafficking scandal"

Which was then changed to:

"Big Government broke an alleged ACORN scandal".

I mentioned this earlier today on the Breitbart Wikipedia article but my wording was a bit too extreme for the editors so they deleted what I posted from the history, which rarely happens. (Ok, I'll admit, I trolled it a bit, but you'll RARELY see an edit permanently deleted from the history. Look at how it's crossed out.) Anyway, sometime after the edit was when ABC News changed their wording. I'm guessing the ABC News correction happened sometime between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time.

They probably justify perma-deleting it because it mentions "child sex", but I was just quoting ABC News. You can see that I caused problems for them in a comment in the talk page which was reverted where I mentioned that I'm just the messenger and ABC News is the originator.

It's also important to note that, as I tried to mention to them, that at the tea party rallies there were ALWAYS people talking about Democrats from ACORN running child prostitution rings. You can even see them saying this on youtube. Just look up tea party rally's on there. People have gotten up on stage and argued righteously about how their not gonna take it anymore from these Democrat child sex traffickers.

Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe caused this to happen.

Anyway, I'd like to know:

1) if an editor on wikipedia can cause ABC News to change their articles.
2) if ABC News will admit somewhere in the article that they made a correction
3) if others noticed this extreme wording by ABC News and complained about it and if so, who they were and how many there were (well, I'm not really interested in their personal info, just that there are others out there noticing these things). I guess the ABC News editors would have to reveal that

I personally have no pity nor condolences, just read about it a few minutes ago and I could not be happier.
I am breaking open a nice bottle of wine to celebrate as we post.

The man was pure scum to the core and I am glad to to read his obituary.

1 down and about 50 Million to go unfortunately.

Yes, analoguni @18: The ABC article did not go unnoticed. See my comment @6.

I imagine the family isn't going to be destitute, so may they enjoy his money and best wishes to Mrs. to find someone more pleasant to spend it with.

May he reap in death all that he sowed in life.

Pretty good. Just bookmarked it on digg, wished to say thanks to you with regard to this fantastic post

Andrew Breitbart really pissed me off. I often found his behavior unconscionable and I think unconscious in that he seemed to have so little self-awareness of what was making him so crazy and unhappy.

Nevertheless, though I can understand it, I am uncomfortable with the occasional demonizing here of this strange and troubled man in death. To me that sort of vilification, making him into yet another "them", is all too similar to the kind of energy he manifested so often and that so many of us found so disturbing. To the extent we give in to and act out that kind of self-righteous, hate-filled energy we are not unlike Andrew Breitbart. In looking at and working to change that weird and ugly energy in ourselves maybe we can have gentler, more forgiving thoughts towards him.

Good job, Brad.

Some quotes by prominent Republicans that can help make them look bad in the future. It's possible that they'll regret saying these things about a man who has done as much bad as Breitbart has. This is from a CNN article:

Former Sen. Rick Santorum called him a "powerful force" who was "constantly out there driving and pushing." "What a huge loss, in my opinion, to our country and certainly to the conservative movement," Santorum said.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich tweeted: "Andrew Breitbart was the most innovative pioneer in conservative activist social media in America. He had great courage and creativity."

And former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney called Breitbart a "brilliant entrepreneur, fearless conservative, loving husband and father."

Breitbart was a driving force in the conservative tea party movement. In a posting on the Tea Party Nation website, blogger Judson Phillips wrote that Breitbart was an "amazing patriot" who "relished fighting those who would destroy this great country."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a former GOP presidential contender, said Breitbart "fought for what he believed in, exposing government corruption and media bias. His spirited voice will be missed, but not forgotten."

If one cannot sa anything good about someone, it is best to say nothing.

N O T H I N G .

My comment @24--

Please do not misunderstand me. I believe it is still vital to continue to correct the record(out loud) each and every single time the next lie/mischaracterization is expressed about Breitbart and his work. I just like seeing it done with style, grace, and a lack of vindictiveness. Brad sets a great example.

Poor Ted Kennedy. Aww. Awwww!!

I'm sure Mussolini's children mourned him. We must see him for the damage he's done, weighed against the good he's done. Then leave the judgment to karma.

Carlos @ 5 - I was saving those lines for Cheney but I got tired of waiting.

I have never celebrated anyone's death (including bin Laden; I was glad our troops took him out, but I did not celebrate his death). And so with Breitbart. But his death is most certainly not a loss for those who value true equality, freedom, the right to vote, and respect for all other human beings.

"Breitbart had a very different sense of morality than ours."

He definitely had a different sense of reality, but I'd be surprised to learn he had a sense of morality at all.

I think of Breitbart as a Lee Atwater, Jr. or an Atwater wanna-be. Interestingly, both political dirty tricksters-operatives died at a relatively early age by supposedly "natural" means. I have had my doubts that either of their deaths were perhaps as "natural" as they seemed, given the number of powerful political enemies they created. Apparently, though, Breitbart was reputed to be a heavy drinker.

LoveOfTruthGuy @7,

"interesting. So what happens now to Shirley Sherrod's lawsuit?"

It can proceed against his estate if they want to continue.

Laughingcat
I'm sure Mussolini's children mourned him. We must see him for the damage he's done, weighed against the good he's done. Then leave the judgment to karma.
Or not. Though I've read little, Stalin's one daughter seemed glad to be away from daddy. OTOH, Baby Doc is a chip off the old Papa Doc's block. And we're all watching Dear Dung Ill jr. Still let's hope that bitefart's spawn escape his curse.

I must be a failure as a human being because I think AB was a fuck and I am certainly glad he's dead. Sorry.
I appreciate the other high-minded, rise above it sentiments expressed by some who he attacked, as an average guy on the left, I felt he did incredible damage, was a liar and prevaricator of the first order, and generally symbolized much that is wrong with the right.
I've lost friends at 43. I've grieved heavily. I agree that AB's survivors deserve compassion. I don't think they'll be reading most of the negativity that spews forth online, negativity that AB engendered and that he deserves. Try as I might, I can only feel a sense of relief that he is gone. I'll feel the same way about Dick Cheney and a few others.

Maybe, like one of his HOAX videos, he's really not dead. (heh heh)

RE: Natural Causes??

No offense, but no one knows how he died at this point.

Whitney Houston was RUSH job at the LA coroners’ office and that took 6 days to get back with a Cause of Death. I don’t even think you can rush a toxicology screening through the coroners’ office in the time from his death until now.

Spoke too soon. Even the LA coroner says it is too soon to tell what is the cause of death.

I am curious now (wasn't before) to see the video scheduled for release yesterday) by Breitbart.com which is now embargoed for the next couple of weeks. Probably more crap but with the coincidence of his death, I must admit to a morbid curiosity.

Hard to believe is Brad had a video release planned on the same day as he died of natural cause that it would take 2-3 weeks for people left at BradBlog.com to publish ready-to-be-released the video.

My money is on a heart-attack...pure and simple. I don't care how hardened or crazy a guy might be, I'm going to believe that the stress got to him. He was a total megalomaniac, virtually unable to accept any opinions contrary to his (even getting verbally and physically violent when contradicted). The whole Shirley Sherrod lawsuit news, and his recent general craziness did him in.
I'm speculating of course, but that's where I'm putting my money.

John Washburn -

What are you referencing in regard to a "video scheduled for release yesterday"? I've heard the conspiracies in regard Obama college videos he had promised to release during the fall campaign. But I'm unaware of what video was supposed to have been released yesterday.

Got more info??

They also totally fell for those badly chopped-up videos, edited to give the illusion that a guy dressed in pimp attire walked into ACORN offices when he never wore pimp attire in those offices. How they fell for an obvious edit job exposes how useless and gullible the mainstream media has become. F*ck you Andrew Breitbart for causing the destruction of an important organization that empowered the poor or disadvantaged but thank you, Andrew Breitbart, for exposing so nakedly the true nature of the mainstream news media.

The New York Times, as is often the case, was on the forefront of gullibility, again showing itself to be the pompous village idiot of the world news media, under the leadership of then editor Clark Hoyt, enthusiastically promoting this bogus story, then reluctantly backtracking on it and giving half-assed retractions.

The news media then got fooled again with the deceptively edited Shirley Sherrod videos that led to her being fired from the department of agriculture.

It all really revealed how centralized news has become, sort of like fast food distribution points and food (or news) pre-made and ready to stick in the microwave oven. Just as fast food outlet don't examine or alter the ingredients, and serve to customer as is, news is disseminated as is without examination or fact-checking, maybe with a cursory rewrite the way internet marketers do with PLR articles. That would be why the mainstream media accepted and broadcast Andrew Breitbart's deceptively edited videos as is. Investigative journalism in the mainstream media is moribund, while the primarys sources of original investigative journalism are freelance journalists and bloggers.

Adam8 (slandered by RawStory staff and, due to expressing offense at the slander against me, unjustly banned from commenting by RawStory's snotty dictator Roxanne Cooper)

People like Breitbart, such as Limbaugh this week, have absolutely no excuse for their actions. They deliberately set out to hurt and destroy others, and make millions of dollars doing so.

Deliberately lying and twisting the facts is not an ideology, nor the person engaged in such behavior worthy of any praise. That so many of the Republican candidates are praising him speaks loudly of their only moral decadence.

My only empathy is towards the innocent children of this man. They had no choice, his wife did.

People who are actively engaged in deliberately harming others are not worthy of any respect, nor do I mourn their death. There are too many innocent people who have died and suffered because of the actions of people like Breitbart. Those are the ones worthy of our empathy.

The question that should be asked when someone dies; Is the world a better place because they lived?

With Breitbart it is a certainty that the world is a much better place because he is DEAD.
I only wish he made the world a much better place at least 5 years earlier.

Brad, this is what John is referencing:
http://bungalowbillscw.b...bama-videos-set-for.html

which is why there is a storm of conspiracy regarding his 'death by natural causes'

Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh has decided to take up any hate-speech void brought on by Andy's premature demise by calling a Georgetown law student a "slut," a "prostitute" and a "feminazi" because she dared to give congressional testimony on behalf of women who desire insurance coverage for contraceptives.

Henri Y @ 45:

Yup, that would seem to be it. As the link you gave had no links to the actual source material within it, I'd recommend this link instead which offers a bit more context.

That story explains how an alleged Breitbart comment about "Wait until they see what happens March 1st," was then conflated with Breitbart's claims at CPAC that he had college videos of Obama. So in that particular conspiracy world, it seems Breitbart was set to release a damning video (or videos) of Obama on March 1st, until, darn the luck, he dropped dead after Midnight on the very same day.

As far as I can tell, the source in the link above is the only source for the "March 1st" claim, and it doesn't refer to the Obama videos. That was a later addition. But the weakest part of it all is that the quote in question seems only to have been published after Breitbart's death.

(Therefore, since only that Rightwing news outlet Sinclair/LNSNews apparently knew about the day, they must done it! --- DRAMATIC STING MUSIC!)

Another problem, unless Breitbart was the one to have taken the actual alleged videos of Obama in college, and shared them with nobody else until now, killing Breitbart wouldn't do much to keep them from seeing the light of day, would it? That's underscored by the fact that earlier today I'd read that the Big sites plan on releasing them soon (as someone mentioned above).

If this is the best we've got for the "Breitbart was murdered!" theory, well, someone's gonna have to get to work and do a bit better on the evidence front. I'd give it another 24 hours or so, however, for enough additional "evidence" to emerge, before Dan Burton starts shooting watermelons in his backyard to test the theory.

Sigh...

Breitbart stated at the CPAC 2012 conference two weeks ago that he would be releasing some sort of college videos of Barrack Obama.

I heard on Feb 27 (Monday) that Sherriff Joe and Brietbart were scheduled to releasee stuff on the same day, March 1 and was joking which would get the biggest yawn.

Here is a link stating the video will be released in 2 weeks.

I do find it courious that a video ready to be release on March 1, 2012 won't be released until March 14, 2012. The simplest answer is it was not ready for March 1, 2012.

Like I said the coincidence leaves me morbid curious to understand what of the many speculations are true.

I had not heard the murdered angle. I was mostly commenting that there if I collapsed on the street tonight, there is no way to know how I died until there is an autopsy; 5-6 days at a minumum.

If I had to take the Intrade bet I though would buy the heart-attack-as-cause-of-death trade, but to say we know now the cause of death is/was simply without evidence, even if it is the family saying heart attack.

Now you have me checking to see if I can retrieve that IM chat from Monday.

Brad,
as always, your work is eloquent, honest, tactful, sensitive and just. Thank you for being the voice of reason and decency that you are.

For myself, I have nothing nice to say about Breitbart, so I will say nothing.

John Washburn,
I dont know what the hell is so titillating to you about this whole "He-died-on-march-1st-before-the-videos-came-out" bs,but please do snap out of it.

And do so for your own sake. You dont want the self-induced paranoia and lunacy which swallowed Andrew to swallow you. And that is exactly what your inviting.

If you cant believe the guy had a heart attack, then you have never seen him in action.

Lots of of beer and greasy food, coupled with sleepless nights and erratic mood swings are clear predictors for heart attacks. Ask anyone who has had one. Breitbart loved all those things.

Plus, Breitbart made a regular practice, even an exercise, out of getting angry at phantom images. He himself admitted how much he loved being mad, and in getting others angry as well.

Only certain kinds of people revel in anger and pain.

Being angry all the time, even for stupid politicla reasons, WILL induce a heart attack.

At the most, all this stupid conspiracy theory does is turn Andrews death into some morbidly bizarre promo for the videos.

It makes a joke out of any proclaimed sensitivity to his family and loved ones by reducing it to a lousy web campaign launch.

But, considering the Tea Parties complete lack of decorum, honesty or even respect, I wouldnt be surprised at all if that is the real motive for the stupid conspiracy theory about Breitbarts death.

(PS, Sherrif Joe is not a credible person... he's just a very popular But if hyou insist on playing make believe with crazy, go right ahead.

Just be aware then when you do, you are rehearsing your own dementia.

Sorry, I posted the last without completing my last phrase properly.

What I meant to say was--

But if you insist on playing make believe with crazy, go right ahead.

Just be aware then when you do, you are rehearsing your own dementia.

-tah

I did not say I don't blieve he likely died of a heart attack. I said it is is too early to report a cause of death; any cause of death. Heart attack, murder, stabbing, coke overdose, defective digitalis pills.

At this point and until there is an autopsy and tox screen; Natural causes and murder have the same evidentiary basis --> none.

Now if you want me to speculate on the probable cause of death, that is another matter and I think I was clear when I described the InTrade bet I would buy.

Come on don't you want to see college videos of President Obama, or transcripts of his grades from Columbia, or his grades at Harvard as the editor with the highest grade point of the Harvard Law Review editors?

BTW. My appologies, Brad.

An excellent, thoughtful, and respectful article regarding the death of Andrew Breitbart.

I really should have stated that earlier.

John Washburn,

No sir, absolutely not...

i DO NOT want to see anyones college videos. Not Obamas, not Romneys, not Bush's, not Breitbarts, not Okeefes, not anyones.

You see, sir, like most Americans, I DONT CARE!!!

I have bigger fish to fry, and if you were a working, voting, contributing adult, so would you.

I am sick and tired of this ugly, idiotic, pointless circus that your whole "college video" fetish embodies.

I am tired of the meatheads who mainline that kind of garbage dictating the narrative.

I am not into this stupid, web-voyuer, arm-chair, i-phone jury horseshit.

Its a woefully depressing reminder that some people are totally invested in distracting the country from solving its REAL problems. (One such person just passed on.)

I guess if the paper-thin stupidity of Jerry Springer and Jersey Shore are your bag of chips, then a pointless meditation on web based phantoms is just the thing to keep you from doing something real with your time.

Nevertheless, its nothing more than jerking off to online porn. Your'e better off feeding your hunger for scandals in the grocery store check-out line.

So you go have a ball waiting breathlessly for whatever online nonsense gives your life meaning... whether its irrelevant videos from 30 years ago, or feigned concern for the autopsy of a man you never knew.

For myself, I dont care about what Obama did in college, I am not the kind of lifeless weirdo who gets off on that sort of thing. Like most Americans, I am more concerned about today.

Get it?

Anyway, have fun viewing the world through web videos... but just so you know, the REAL universe is a much more interesting experience.

Anyone who wants to invade countries without congressional approval, kill american citizens, and loot the treasury (all in my name BTW), has no right to hide anything from me.

I still want to see the tax records of Bush the Elder, the medical records of Clinton, and the school records of Obama.

If you want your finger on the nuclear button and the power of the unitary executive crafted under the Bush-Obama regime by the likes of Yoo and Holder, then yes your life should be an open book to those from whom to have those powers via the consent of us; the governed.

BTW, I humbly submit that I have worked and am working on some real problems facing the country.

I object to the notion that any Emperor of the United States or any candidate for Emperor has any private sphere in his life. Strip the Emperor of the power of the Bush-Obama Unitary executive (e.g. wire tapping, kidnapping, NDAA, Gitmo, Selected enforcement of embezzlement and real estate fraud) and the candidate for President can have a personal facet to their life.

John Washburn @55,

Of all the comments here, yours @55 is the best.

Will Ms Sherrod drop her lawsuit? Remains to be seen. However, it's doubtful since she will be deposed to reveal that she treated young black children practically as slaves, demanding they work long hours on her farm and exposing them to dangerous herbicides. Talk about hurting and exploiting others for one's own gain. But, perhaps that fits within your morality.

John@55

Good grief!!!

Thats really going to a LOT of trouble to demonstrate that you most certainly are NOT concerned about the real problems facing the people of this country.

Its also going to a lot of trouble to pretend that your petty, juvenile hunger for cooked-up scandal is somehow "in the national interest. "

It is not, no matter how "humbly" you claim to submit this foolishness.

So, according to you, the whole integrity of the presidency lies in your selection of internet images and videos?

Or even in a selection of videos launched by the late Andrew Breitbart, a man most famous for dishonest hyperbole and trumped-up slander?

Are you kidding me?

So you want to make sure Breitbart is as much a liar in death as he was in life?

Classy champ, real classy.

Is this what the lazy technology of the New Millennium has reduced you to... a politically stifled couch potato hanging breathlessly "on the next upload"?

Do you honestly think youre doing the country a big fat favor by indulging your petty, horseshit addictions?

Seriously?

Listen John, I dont know if you are deliberately being disingenuous, or are actually as naive as your posts convey.

But nothing you have shared has any relevance to nuclear war, to the Patriot Act, to Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo, foreign policy, the economy, Health Care, the bailouts, or anything else.

And there is nothing about anyone's college videos that can have ANYTHING to do with transparency in government.

And you KNOW that.

You make it more than clear that you WANT to find something salacious in the videos.

Youre pining for it. YOur confused and thinly veiled ache is evident in every post you put up, no matter how affected the tone you take is. So drop the act.

What you refuse to admit is that your big, hard, wet "college video" fetish has everything to do with a dishonest political program, funded by very dishonest, greedy people, marshalled by high-class bigots, and dressed up to feign an unconvincing appearance of "journalism."

It has NOTHING to do with transparency, just neurotic voyeurism.

But videos from Obamas college days just arent relevant..., and I am sick of this "look at my (highly edited, completely bs) video" world, and all the stupid bells and whistles surrounding it, that is Breitbarts legacy.

I mean, I am not stopping you from wasting your time and energy on that crap... go dive head first into it. Swim in it and live in it forever. Wallow as deep as you can in that santorum soaked mess, and let it saturate every fiber of your being. .

But while you might want to live in a world where public policy is enforced via cut-up youtube uploads from shady political operatives (you must be a HUGE Goebbels fan, eh?), the rest of the country does not.

So do understand what you are inviting by lowing your intellectual bar to that base of a level, but dont expect anyone else but the Tea Baggers to join you on the political crack pipe.

Like anything else that came from Andrew Breitbart, your big video launch has everything to do with making a pointless, dishonest, hysterical circus out of the national dialogue, just to win the GOP some hit points.

Now quit playing stupid and stop rehearsing your own dementia... the more you keep up that nonsense, the less you will be able to turn it off.

You might soon find yourself flubberring like Rick Perry, going nuts like Glenn Beck, or having a coronary like the late Andrew Breitbart.

(Also, quit pretending that you had "never heard the murder angle" on Breitbars death. You wouldnt have such a rock-hard rager over the autopsy if you didnt. You are making it clear just how much you undervalue honesty by that crap.)

-ta

If it matters I also want to know the author of the Ron Paul Letters, the voting address of Mitt Romney, and to read the emails of Rick Perry especially those during the time Governor Perry was protecting the pedophile ring running the Texas Youth Commission.

If a person whats to be the Dear Leader of the United States government with all of the power of inherent in the Fuhrerprinzip built up by the Bush-Obama regime over the last 11 years, then that person has forfieted the right to a private life; past or present.

They have renounced that privacy with their quest or accomplishment to wield the one ring of Sauron.

I repeat, Good grief...

Well, John, you must be an absolute blast at parties.

I'll email you when i start to care, 'k?

Dear Sreebee and John Washburn,

I don't know what's going on with you two, whether there's some history between you to which I'm not privy or what, but for what it's worth, from just reading what's here in these comments, to me it's sreebee with the huge inappropriate hard on(or vagina in, as the case may be) flying off chart into the realms of fantasy and projection concerning John Washburn's motives and life direction.

@David lasagna, #61,

Well goodie for you.

But honestly David, seeing that you stand out as one of the most dishonest, contradictory, inconsistent, hypocritical and evasive commenters that has ever posted on this blog (right next to defendant Larry Connor), your endorsement is hardly one for which i would give a rats ass.

So thank you very much.

Now you and John have fun playing Thunderdome while the real world happens all around you.

David lasagna@#61,

I owe you an apology.

When I called you "dishonest, contradictory, etc...", I had you confused with another David who used to post on this blog in tandem with Larry Conner.

This was someone who took to regularly up-ing the smear against Shirley Sherrod. (I beleive the guy was another David, but i dont remember and dont want to search it out.)

I thought you were him, but you are not. Assuming you were him, i leveled a number of insults (which would be fitting if you WERE him.)

Anyhow, my sincerest apologies. I stand corrected.

I dont know if you remember, but you and I have chatted on here before, a year or so ago. We often agreed, and I honestly dont think we come from terribly different perspectives.

However, as far as what you think of the exchange between myself and John Washburn, I could still give a rats ass.

But honestly, as far as that does go, I really think you might be confused in turn.

For my part, I am dismissing the relevance of Breitbarts posthumous video release (the one purportedly from Obama's college days.)

John has a fascination with these videos, and expects me to share it. He frames this excitement about the videos with banter about what Breitbarts autopsy is supposed to reveal.

Throughout this, he claims he has no idea that a conspiracy theory is on the ground in the Tea Party (ie, one which claims the POTUS had Breitbart murdered.).

And I am certain he is lying that he didnt know about that conspiracy theory, since he does everything he can to suggest it in his preceding posts.

In fact, if you read all of his posts here, it really looks like he is just trying to prime everyone for that bs.

And i am SICK TO DEATH of that nonsense.

I dont care about those videos, and i think its just stupid to make them such a hot topic of conversation.

It speaks to how idiotic the language of political discourse has become, and Washburn champions that stupidity with gusto (have you seen his website?)

John is asking me to judge politicians on the basis of his unfounded hyperbole, and on what is known and obvious. Thats not how i work.

For example, I dont care about what he calls "The Ron Paul Letters" (as if these were some kind of apostolic document.) Ron Pauls lunacy is clear to me, even if i might agree with him about being against the war.

I dont need a fabricated narrative to tell me why Ron Paul is unfit to serve, I can see it from his own behavior, his actions, his fan base and his words.

The same holds for Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and yes, even Obama.

If one wishes to critique them, then do so on the basis of of what one KNOWS about them, not on the basis of hallucination built collaboratively on the web.

We have already seen the damage Breitbart did by manufacturing web hallucinations, and that kind of garbage does NOT need to be catered anymore.

I voted for Obama, but abhor the re-invasion of Afghanistan, the continuation of Gitmo seclusion, the treatment of Bradley Manning etc...

THOSE are what are relevant in critiquing a politician. Not some dumb videos of his heyday in college.

Its like those people who assume that the CIA is hiding UFOs, as if that unprovable fantasy holds so much more damning evidence than the VERIFIABLY murderous and covert operations in Central America, South East Asia or the Middle East.

Thats all i am saying.

Correction above,

i wrote,

John is asking me to judge politicians on the basis of his unfounded hyperbole, and on what is known and obvious. Thats not how i work

.

That should read,

John is asking me to judge politicians on the basis of his unfounded hyperbole, and NOT on what is known and obvious. Thats not how i work.

sorry to be so lengthy, but I just want to be clear.

John Washburn and David Lasagna,

ESPECIALLY John

I really owe both of you and the readers of this forum a very sincere apology.

And again, I owe that apology most especially to John Washburn.

As you can see from above, I can rattle on and on for hours, so I will try to keep this as succinct as i can.

John, after my addimitedly (and shamefully) small-minded outburst at Dave, I thought i should re-read our conversation, just in case i was (heaven forbid) misreading something.

And i was misreading A LOT!

In fact, I was TOTALLY misreading you completely.

After looking at my account above, and looking at your actual posts, i see that i was not reading your words carefully at all, and jumping to conclusions WAAAAY too quickly.

I stand corrected, and guilty of the abhorrent dickishness which i accused you of.

Please do accept my most heartfelt apologies.

I'll take this as a teachable moment to remember not to jump the gun.

And Brad, I am really sorry for spamming this article with so much unecessary invective... (perhaps i am channeling the spirit of the subject.... yuck!)

So John, you dont have to answer or anything, but i hope you can accept my apology... I was TOTALLY in the wrong here, and i am very sorry for being so venomous to you.

(Still, i dont want to see ANYTHING more from BigGovernment.com... that something that will never change.)

sree bee it does seem like you kind of overreacted. Not that you care or anything. Maybe just a bad day?

Oh yeah, R.I.P. you poor bugger, Breitbart.

Whoops, missed that sreebee... wouldn't have posted anything had I seen it.

Appology accepted. Think nothing of it. It is the hurley burley in the arena of ideas that sharpens us all.

Dear Sreebee,

Thanks for the clarification. A little acknowledgment goes a long way. As far as I can tell we're all assholes some of the time. I ain't expectin' perfection. Always just looking for something to work with, which you provided in spades. That was beautiful.

We should use this comment thread as an instructional video or make a vaccine outta it or something. Maybe it could have some beneficial or curative effect for those stuck in political argument. What you did seems so rare. To stop and really look again, and be open to another interpretation. Really cool.

John Washburn asked @ 51:

Come on don't you want to see college videos of President Obama, or transcripts of his grades from Columbia, or his grades at Harvard as the editor with the highest grade point of the Harvard Law Review editors?

While I'd be moderately curious to see videos of Obama in college, just because I think it'd be very cool to see him in college, I don't see what either that, nor his transcripts or grades has anything to do with his job as President at this point, or whether or not he should be re-elected.

John Washburn said @ 55:

I still want to see the tax records of Bush the Elder, the medical records of Clinton, and the school records of Obama.

Well, that's nice. But where Bush tax records (before he became President) are certainly the business of the American people and the medical records of Clinton, if there had been a concern about his fitness for office, might be our business before or during his Presidency, I don't know why Obama's school records are our concern. What does that have to do with his fitness to serve and/or how is that in the public's interest?

If you want your finger on the nuclear button and the power of the unitary executive crafted under the Bush-Obama regime by the likes of Yoo and Holder, then yes your life should be an open book to those from whom to have those powers via the consent of us; the governed.

That's silly. If it has nothing to do with their job as an elected official, what business is it of ours?

I object to the notion that any Emperor of the United States or any candidate for Emperor has any private sphere in his life.

That's even sillier. And without basis.

John Washburn said @ 59:

I also want to know the author of the Ron Paul Letters, the voting address of Mitt Romney, and to read the emails of Rick Perry especially those during the time Governor Perry was protecting the pedophile ring running the Texas Youth Commission.

Author of Paul's letters is appropriate, since he seems to not be telling the truth about them. Voting address of Romney is appropriate, since he appears to have committed voter fraud. Not familiar with the Perry email issues, but if you believe his emails, on government time, may have evidence of crime, obviously, that's perfectly appropriate.

If a person whats to be the Dear Leader of the United States government...then that person has forfieted the right to a private life; past or present.

That, however, is absolutely ridiculous, as I noted above --- unless it has something to do with his fitness to serve in some fashion.

Jam and Bread @ 57 slurred:

Will Ms Sherrod drop her lawsuit? ... doubtful since she will be deposed to reveal that she treated young black children practically as slaves...Talk about hurting and exploiting others for one's own gain. But, perhaps that fits within your morality.

Wow. Do you even have any morality? Where is your evidence for that extraordinary (and, I'm guessing, horsehsit) claim?

Breitbart & O'Keefe are famous for making edited hoax videos. There's a rumor Breitbart is going to release Obama videos. HELLO!!! What if they're edited? Like his other hoax videos? The boy who cried wolf: even if they WERE real, who would believe it? He screwed himself by making so many fake videos and pushing fake videos.

SreeBee @ 65:

And Brad, I am really sorry for spamming this article with so much unecessary invective...

I'd expect no less on any Breitbart-related thread. Just not from you!

Virtual drinks are on me tonight. We'll be waiting here with smiles for you tomorrow!

Can we have a Bradblog meeting somewhere centrally located and all have real drinks together?

David Lasagna @ 75 asked:

Can we have a Bradblog meeting somewhere centrally located and all have real drinks together?

I don't drink. Plus, my security detail won't allow it.

I know!!!! A BRADBLOG CRUISE SHIP!!!!!!!!!Jeannie Dean as social director. Brad will have nightly radio shows with guest panelists made up of commenters through the ages taking a nostalgic look at our most famous arguments. For a nightcap we'll play on Diebold voting machines reconfigured as slots that allow you to win as much as you'd like.

@Brad Friedman

Wow, comparing morality?

El Malcriado (Voice of the Farm Worker) September 28, 1974. Page 2, lower left "Children Farm Workers Strike Black Co Op". Dare I suggest you Google it?

A couple of excerpts:

Albany, Georgia - The black
eagle flag first flew over the
fields of Georgia on August 19th,
when 50 Black farm workers,
most of them under 16 years
of ~age, walked out on strike at
New Communities, Inc., a farming
cooperative near here.
As the strike enters its fourth
week, only management and eight
workers are gathering the harvest
at this 6,000 acre farm.,
The strikers walked out for a
living wage and humane working
conditions.
Not only must they work behind
machines spraying lethal
pesticides, but there is no definite
pay scale.

>>more within the article
>>second to last paragraph:

Through several of this Black
cooperative's funding organizations
are pressuring Charles
Sherrod, the farm's manager, to
reach a settlement with the strikers,
he remains unwi1l1ng to
negotiate..

Jam and Bread @ 78 whiffed with:

Dare I suggest you Google it?

I'm sure you'll pardon me if I don't chase down/Google every cryptic, vaguely racist reference offered with neither cite nor URL from every pseudonymous commenter who drops by with a political ax to grind and an off-topic turd to drop in the punchbowl. Or maybe you won't.

In any case, it's just darling that you and, apparently, the right blogosphere have decided to put all of your eggs into the basket of a 40-year old union farm worker newspaper to try and add still more defamation to Sherrod, rather than simply apologize for tarring her as a racist. I'm glad you're all suddenly concerned about the conditions of the working poor (from 40 years ago), and are otherwise happy to take the union paper's word for what was actually going on at the time. But perhaps I missed the loaded reference to "slave" in the source you finally cite? I didn't see that there. Did I miss it?

Beyond all of that, however, what does any of it --- even if it has any merit at all (don't know whether it does or not, don't really care) --- have anything at all to do with the defamation suit that Shirley Sherrod has brought against Andrew Breitbart, Larry O'Connor and another unnamed defendant for their apparent attempt to libel and smear her and her reputation at the cost of her job with a federal agency?

Did you forget to tie two and two together in your courageous fight to correct allegedly "slave" working conditions on some Georgia farm forty years ago, according to a single union source? It seems that you did. But, otherwise, good luck in your fight to improve the conditions of the working poor! It's much appreciated!

To John Washburn,

Thank you for being so big about this. I came at you in a totally unfair and obnoxious way, and it wasnt your fault at all.

It really is mighty kind of you to look passed it... so thanks. And again, i really am sorry for that.

To David Lasagna,

Thank you for being big about my (admittedly hasty and unfair) outburst as well.

I owe you for prompting me to review the comment exchange. As ashamed as I am for that behavior, I would rather stand corrected than continue acting like a meat-headed jerk. So thanks. And again, my sincerest apologies.

Too Chris Hooten,

Actually, you are spot on correct. i had a bad morning and a really wacky day. Still, that was no excuse for me to rail against an innocent person for something he never did.

But as much as i would like to blame the day for my crabbiness, it was actually my own negligence..., I didnt read Johns posts carefully or accurately, and assumed all the wrong things about his perspective.

Not fair at all on my part. I am ashamed for that, but I also will use it as a teachable moment to remind myself that I shouldnt be too quick to judge, or get all snarky.

And Brad, thank you as well.

Like I said, I dont want to be a negative influence in any forum, but especially yours... which is a blog I respect and value.

Anyhow, i hope this isnt too shmaltzy to say all this... and i dont want to waste anymore time/space detailing my own hang-ups.

But i just wanted to thank you all for your patience and understanding, and to convey my deepest regrets for being such a douche.

I'll leave it there.

Have a great rest of the weekend everyone!!!

I think David raised an interesting point about the "Other" in politics and society. However, I don't think the term lacks usefulness when applied correctly. The key is to understand the role psychopaths play (and have played throughout history) in warping the term to protect themselves.

First of all, psychopaths are, in a nutshell, intraspecies predators, much like some birds will kill and eat other birds. Psychopaths only survive in our society by remaining hidden. They are, essentially, the true "Other" that threaten the rest of us non-psychopaths. It would appear, then, that psychopaths themselves benefit the most from our current misplaced and misinformed use of the term "other" to demonize groups as a means to distract and deflect attention from themselves, since psychopaths are the true other.

I urge everyone not already aware to research psychopaths or, "snakes in suits" as successful psychopaths have been called. Recent studies show that psychopaths gravitate to positions of power in business and politics, where the percentage hovers around 10%, rather than the societal average of 2-5%.

With regard to Breitbart himself, he certainly displayed the markers of being a psychopath, though perhaps he was just a malignant narcissist, a type that gravitates towards, and is easily influenced by, psychopaths. In particular, a lack of empathy and conscience are strong makers for psychopathy. For this reason I am quite comfortable with labeling Breitbart as "Other" in the traditional sense of identifying one whose mentality and goals present a clear intra-species threat to the rest of us non-psychopaths. YMMV.

To Jam and bread @ 78,

Thats really an awful and untrue thing to say.

In the words of (my hero) Maude Findley, "god'll get you for that."

Look, J&B, I dont know why its important for you to continue targeting Ms Sherrod so viciously, but its still pretty gross.

As someone who just pulled a Breitbart on John Washburn (by unfairly targeting him and falsely accusing him), I think its important to reconcile with someone who you've hurt or wronged.

With all due respect to the departed, Andrew had quite a long time to apologize to Shirley, and reconcile with her.

He unfairly caused her so much pain, got her fired, toasted her reputation, and made a joke out of the real good she has done in this world.

He had at least a year to make things right, and he refused that allowance.

Some would say that, by insisting on keeping Andrews attack on Sherrod up and running, you are keeping his spirit from resolving the tangled web in which the living man was ensnared.

Do be mindful of that.

None of us know when our allotted time is up. And thats why its so very important that, while alive, we acknowledge and make right the harm we have done to each other.

Considering how many conservatives tout the "WWJD" line, isnt admitting when you are wrong, and reconciling with your victim, the very least Besus would do?

Whoops!

I meant "...the very least Jesus would do"... not "Besus"...(although I've always been a HUGE Beverly Cleary fan!)

Come to think of it, I am sure Beezus would agree as well.

Besus is good. Short for BeJesus.

Jam & Bread @78,

BTW, I checked out the pdf of the article.

How ironic that, even as Breitbart was guilty of not providing the entire context of Sherrods address to the NAACP, you made the EXACT same mistake with your selection from the pdf in question.

In keeping with countless conservative websites, you zeroed in on what you thought was the worst, and left everything else out.

But a little housekeeping first. "Malcriado" does not mean 'Voice of the Farmer." It means "ruffian."

"Voice of the Farmer" is the subtext of the bulletin, (just like OKeefe's "Centurian" has the subtext "A Journal of Conservative Thought"), but thats not what it means.

It means "ruffian", "street punk"... "mal-criado"="trash talker."

And the reason why its called "The Ruffian" is because its identity is (quite deliberately) that of a far left, underground bulletin circulated among those who aggressively push for unionization through the UFW and the AFL-CIO.

Do you understand that you are quoting from an underground paper that the people at BigGov, Fox News, or Conservapedia would otherwise describe as "un-credible, militant, leftist garbage?"

(what did Glenn Beck say about Cesar Chavez? Who blew a fit over the naming of the USNS Cesar Chavez? It wasnt too long ago to forget.)

So tell me why conservatives suddenly find the UFW to be a credible source?

Is it Just because they think can vindicate their repeated failed assaults on Sherrod?

Brad already pointed out the irony of your "strange bedfellow" above.

But I dont know if you can really appreciate just how bad a reputation the source in question has among conservatives.

For example, this is how Conservapedia(in embodying the general rubric of the Right) actually describes the UFW in its Chavez entry--

The UFW was one of the least democratic unions in the country, with local officials appointed by the UFW executive board and under the direct control of Chavez. Most union staff served at his pleasure, and any local leaders who sought any real power independent of Chavez were fired by him.

Now, i'll ask you again, what did Glenn Beck say about UFW founder Chavez?

So just be aware that you are siding with a group which you would otherwise demonize as "militant" and "undemocratic." (for the record, i dont believe they are, its just the standard Conservative narrative, and has been for a LOOOONG time.)

And you are engaging that JUST to smear Sherrod.

Is this starting to sink in?

Furthermore, the real thrust of the article (in fact, of the whole magazine) is the rapid spread of Unionization among farm workers.

This is an aggressively, even polemical PRO-UNION bulletin you are quoting, but you happily left out all the rhetoric which praises in no uncertain terms the spread of unionization to the farm in question.

Now, that might not seem like such a big thing, except that your edits above carefully danced around this tidbit--

The workers signed UFW authorization cards (cards which name the UFW as the bargaining agent of their choice) and voted to demand a UFW contract with the protections of the union's Coca-Cola contract in Florida.

The union has already won back pay for workers Who were not earning the minimum wage, sometimes amounting to as much as $500..

That's a pretty big omission, pal ...

bet they didnt put THAT part up on Conservapedia.

Again, I suppose its fitting tribute to the honorable deceased that his mistakes be repeated ad nauseum. But this foolishness has to stop.

Also, Shirley Sherrod isnt mentioned in the article at all, even though her husband is mentioned only once.

Now, its obvious that you dont know how/if the situation in Georgia was ever resloved, and you dont care.

You just want to target Shirley Sherrod with whatever you can.

You are even willing to dig up a small article in a 40 year old polemical bulletin from an organization which your community describes as "militant", "dishonest" "terroristic" and "despotic."

Thats pretty warped.

PS, my friends in the UAW will be thrilled to know that the Right finally acknowledges the credibility of their Bulletins. Maybe we can get you a subscription to Fifth Estate Magazine as well.

PSS, sorry for the length... just wanted to be thorough.

SreeBee @82

It is awful, isn't it?

Perhaps Mr Ron Wilkins article is less "Ruffian". (Africana Studies professor at California State University, Dominguez Hills. He can be reached at: rwilkins@csudh.edu)

http://www.counterpunch....side-of-shirley-sherrod/

And there's more. But, it's not about the truth with you, is it?

Ms Shirley will likely pass on pursuing a lawsuit against Breibart's estate. Aside from Mr Wilkins, there're quite a few individuals and families in Ga., who have their own recollections of the Sherrods and NCI.

AB had no reason to apologize.
.

Jam and Bread @ 86:

AB had no reason to apologize.

Defamers and libel artists, like Breitbart, rarely do. His was mission accomplished.

So what exactly is the evidence for his repeatedly defamatory statements that she was a "racist" again? You have yet to offer that during the course if your own defamatory and desperate smears.

And do you need me to go fetch cites to all of those times that Breitbart exclaimed over the years that "calling someone racist was the worst thing you could do to a person"? (He was wrong, of course, but he said it over and over again...before calling Sherrod "racist" based on false evidence and then refusing to apologize for it once the extent of his failure and laziness became known. Of course, he knew he could count on stooges and apologists like you to make the disingenuous for him, no matter how hypocritical and contrary to his very own stated positions.)

Maybe I'm missing something here, and perhaps screebee can straighten me out on it as I have no intention of dredging up some obscure PDF from 1974, but I saw not one word in either Jam & Bread's comment #78, or elsewhere, to substantiate Jam & Bread's original incendiary claim @57 that Shirley Sherrod "treated young black children practically as slaves, demanding they work long hours on her farm and exposing them to dangerous herbicides."

The referenced article relates to a Charles Sherrod.

Second, it is obvious that Jam & Bread doesn't have a clue as to the legitimate scope of discovery in civil litigation.

Sherrod's lawsuit pertains to the fact that Breitbart defamed her by deceptively editing a video. That lawsuit survived Breitbart's motion to dismiss. The unsubstantiated Jam & Bread claim has absolutely nothing to do with the pending litigation.

Of course, it appears, Jam & Bread is proceeding by the hard-right playbook. If the first smear falls flat, come up with another.

Jam and bread@86,

Yes, even in his passing, Breitbart has every solid obligation to apologize to Ms. Sherrod.

He falsely accused her of incorporating racism in her work, smeared her with falsified evidence, and had her both slandered and fired.

Furthermore, You should be completely ashamed of your persistant and obstinate mendacity in this matter. (and even more ashamed to think you are so infallible when it comes to the topics you are googling.)

The fact is, you really dont know what you are talking about.

Come to terms with that fact however you can... do push-ups, have a good cry, whatever... but recognize that you dont know what you are talking about.

You are just thoughtlessly googling anything that you think gives you a shoulder to stand on, and thoughtlessly repeating whatever the right-wing echo chamber sells you...

...even if it comes from sources which both you and they would otherwise dismiss as "leftist garbage."

And i am sorry, but sending me to an article by a man with a professional axe to grind (as evidenced in his own stated grievances at the end of his post) is about as credible as your repeated attempts to continue the assault on Shirley Sherrod.

{BTW, Wilkins is clearly an accomplished man, but that doesnt mean he is the final, unbiased word on a heated issue which involves him as a major contender.

Thats why CONTEXT (something breitbart repeatedly ignored, and which is chronically absent from any of your "evidence" -AGAIN-) is such an important element here.}

Finally, the sequence of events that has brought you to HATE Ms Sherrod with such a blind and meaningless rage makes it obvious why neither you, nor Breitbart, nor the conservative blogosphere which you are pointlessly parroting, can lay claim to ANY credibility.

Let me spell it out for you,---

First, Andrew Breitbart decided to single out Ms Sherrod for smearing, in an unconvincing attempt to paint her and the NAACP as racists.

He fumbled the ball by posting deceptively edited video, which proved to be such upon later inspection.

Then, when called out on this deception by the Spooner family, he promptly denied they existed, and insisted that they were paid by CNN to cover for Sherrod.

Well, that failed.

So, burnt by his own negligence, and without any apology for calling her a racist, or getting her fired on the basis of that, Breitbart then collaborated with Lee Stranahan and Rep. Steve King to try and save face through launching the Pigford conspiracy.

(...oh, and FWI, that close collaboration between a government official and private media in order to foment slander for a political agenda IS, in fact, the very picture of what Big government really looks like... just so you know.)

Well, that was a big botch, and the settlement went through.

So now, after ALL that, you guys are sticking your hands deep into your collective arse, and searching every swollen rectal pocket for something... ANYTHING... that you might be able to use to try to smear Ms Sherrod again.

Its clear that, no matter what happens, you will look high and low for something... ANYTHING... that you can use to try and make her look bad.

You'll search for probable antagonists in every strata, even among people and organizations which you hate, distrust and regularly vilify, just so you can say "Well look, they hate her too... so we MUST be right."

But your desperation betrays you. It betrays you in those pathetically transparent way

Its just so obvious that you'll take anything you can get your grimey hands on to try and smear Ms Sherrod.

Its just so obvious that your only reason for doing so is to vindicate breitbarts mistake.

And each time you guys do it, it becomes less and less convincing.

Like an image passed too many times through a photocopier, so that it fades to nothing but a white sheet, each anxious, disparate attempt to slander Ms Sherrod fades in its senseless repetition, and reveals the true venom at its source.

You just want to save breitbarts face, at any cost.

But the only thing ms Sherrod is guilty of, was being a bad target for Breitbart to go after with such poor ecidence. And you mad fanatics want to punish her ruthlessly for that.

Much like your deceased master, honesty and integrity are of no value to you in this matter.

But in your attack by 1000 cuts, you have wound up falling on your sword over and over again.

Now get a life, and stop hitting a woman you dont know over matters which you know nothing about, and that are completely outside your frame of reference.

LMK @81--

Here's my problem with describing Breitbart as a "true" other, a psychopath fundamentally different from the rest of us--it conjures an image/sense/feeling of Breitbart existing in a vacuum. Living as a weird, somewhat less than human, being amongst US who really had nothing to do with HIM and so, of course, for whom we need take/feel no responsibility as a society or culture or country.

If he was a psychopath, he was a psychopath given a national stage as a CREDIBLE witness by HBO, Current News, the New York Times, etc.

If he was a psychopath, he was a psychopath who both houses of the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States took as a credible witness, AGREED with, and following his lead destroyed ACORN, one of the most powerful agents for empowerment that existed for the poor in this country.

"Psychopath" Breitbart didn't do all that from the lonely confines of his asylum cell separate from the rest of us. He did it in the clear light of day with the whole country bearing witness and following his lead. If he's a psychopathic pied piper, who are we?

In my view, your take is too easy and does too little to help us avoid the same sort of group enabling dysfunction when the next activist hatemonger comes along.

And how does one differentiate on some sort of sane/moral/goodness scale between Breitbart's brand of sociopathy and a President who is behind an unlawful, amoral assassination program? Who is constantly in violation of the UN Charter by threatening Iran? Who gently mocks a brave woman who cries out not to go to war with Iran, like she's the one who's off course?

I picked the President as juxtaposition but feel free to fill in the blank for the politician or pundit or crazy widely supported policy of your choice.

It's all about connection. As uncomfortable as it is we need to see what connects us to that crazy, unhappy man. In my opinion we need to be looking to be evermore creative in finding ways of countering his kind of unchecked madness with love, sense, and reality. Cuz he has a helluva lot of company from both sides of the aisle in pursuing courses of incoherency and thoughtless destruction. He was perhaps just more obvious about it.

David, I think your reference to the "asylum cell" hints at where our differences lie. People mistakenly hear the word psychopath and think serial killers and imprisoned mental patients. However, amid my admittedly somewhat long post I made reference to "snakes in suits." That's an actual book title about SUCCESSFUL psychopaths that debunks the myth of the lone psycho who is ultimately caught and separated from society.

Reality is much more nuanced than that. Successful psychopaths have been with us forever and they integrate easily into our society and our institutions through their abilities to manipulate others. The media does not expose them, rather the media often lauds them for their achievements. Yes, non-psychopaths are complicit in the success psychopaths enjoy in our society. There is an ever-expanding field of research on this (do a search on the recent studies in the financial and banking industries). We must lose the "serial killer" images and focus on the "Gordon Gekko psychopaths".

Do not lump Breitbart in with the unsuccessful, incarcerated/institutionalized psychopaths; recognize he was one of the many successful ones who avoid such fates. We must not lose sight of the distinction between the two.

And just so we're clear, no amount of love will cure a psychopath. Their brains and emotions literally do not work the same as ours. Love the victims, not the psychopaths. Those who try to love psychopaths often pay a devastating price.

Finally, while you raise some interesting questions, there are some even more underlying assumptions to be questioned. You write "And how does one differentiate on some sort of sane/moral/goodness scale between Breitbart's brand of sociopathy and a President who is behind an unlawful, amoral assassination program? Who is constantly in violation of the UN Charter by threatening Iran? Who gently mocks a brave woman who cries out not to go to war with Iran, like she's the one who's off course?"

First off, what "distinctions" are you suggesting? The diagnostic markers for psychopathy are pretty clear and generally accepted. Is the person capable of empathy? Does the person have a conscience? In your examples, it's quite possible ALL are psychopaths. Which means we, as a nation, MUST confront the horror of having elected psychopaths to represent us. That is the most difficult issue of all for people to face and because of the implication there will be a great deal of denial, rationalizing and minimizing. Just so you know where I stand, my non-professional opinion is that both Cheney and Bush were psychopaths.
We are still dealing with the aftermath if our nation's failure to come to grips with that.

How To Spot a Psychopath

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30HMwEboXY4

Right now, Breitbart is doing a story as cup-reporter for The Hell News.

The Title: "Ayn Rand insists she hates Christians!!"

To Brad @70 (This time with the proper closing tags missing from #94)

First, the fact that his college records are sealed and litigated to be sealed is odd. But, I do believe the college writings of Barack Obama from the 1990's may have bearing on how he will rule as president, as they may well express his not-so nascent view of law, politics, and the exercise of power.

The records have been sealed by President Obama. Neither you nor I can say if they would or would not be relevant.

Let's say I run for president in 2016 and I refused to release any of my academic records from the Milwaukee School of Engineering (1980-1988) or the University of Milwaukee (1988-1990) and claimed that my student loans were completely paid off by 1992. I think, Brad, you would be remiss in not asking me hard questions about my academic record.

While video of me clubbing in a frilly tuxedo shirt trying to look like John Pertwee would likely not give any insight into my fitness to be president. I think video of me as a professional signature gather from the same time, or as has head of a campus political party at UWM would be relevant. Similarly, an essay written for a philosophy class entitled "Uncertainty and Dice Playing God." might give voters insight in to why there are limits to power to impose order.

Most of that material would be relevant to my fitness to be president or at least illustrative of my likely use of presidential power.

Barack Obama is seeking a second term so the fact that his academic history from the 1990's is still unknown is an issue; unlike the medical records of Clinton or the tax records of Bush the First. Since, his academic record is secret and protected by court order and FERPA, whether the writings and/or transcripts are relevant is unknowable at this time. Maybe if had we had a glimpses of his academic past we would have foreseen his the betrayal regarding the NDAA, Gitmo, whistle blowers, Libya, etc.

I think on the private life of presidential aspirants, we will have to agree to disagree. I shall persist with my view that when it comes knowing what evil lurks in the hearts of those who'd be elected Emperor, I want more people than the Shadow to know.

What a fucking joke!

David Dayen, on Breitbart's bombshell from beyond the grave:

"President Obama once saw a play about Saul Alinsky."

http://www.breitbart.com.../obama-alinsky-love-song

LMK @ 91 (and Big Dan @92)

I don't think our differences lie in any purported misconception of mine concerning psychopaths. While I haven't read Snakes in Suits I have seen the documentary The Corporation. In one segment they go through the clinical traits of a psychopath and show how clearly and commonly today's corporations embody them. I get that and think it's a pretty good description of life in 21st century America.

I think our(and possibly Big Dan is with you on this?) differences lie more in our naming of the problem.

It sounds like you(and perhaps Big Dan)view the problem as these psychopaths among us.

I'm more of the mind that we've met the psychopaths and they are us.

To me the way you describe these people(and the way they're depicted in Big Dan's video link which I only got halfway through before some psychopathic technical difficulty interrupted it)sure sounds like you're making those people into a "them."

I think that's misguided. I'm afraid that while it gets a lot right it also sorta misidentifies the problem. The problem isn't them vs us. The problem is how have we've created this society which seems to be shifting more and more psychopathic?

Part of the problem here may be an over-focus on the word psychopath. It may be more accurate to describe us as disconnected.

We evolved in relationship with the living earth. It was in that relationship that we developed our intelligence and senses. As we become more and more disconnected from our roots(mother earth), existing more in more in mediated man-made environments and distracted more and more by our contrivances, we've become more and more separated from knowing the basic facts of life--like our interconnectedness.

This could help explain why a good man, Obama, acts like he doesn't have a clue about the environmentally catastrophic path we're on...

..why fearful men, Bush and Cheney, act out their unrecognized inner demons causing incalculable suffering...

...why Breitbart behaved so unconscionably...

...why my old friend acted like I was the anti-Christ during a painful breakup years ago...

...and on and on.

I don't think these people are psychopathic, though they sure seem to display a lack of empathy over a wide range of issues. I suspect it's more that they're disconnected from cause and effect because our society is fundamentally predicated on disconnect. We've lost the original and true meaning of The Sacred. We've cut ourselves adrift and we're drifting further and further into madness.

I'm putting it in very simple terms, but that's kinda where I'm coming from. I think it matters getting the description of the problem as accurate as possible to have any chance in hell of getting outta this incredible mess we've created.

I'm not terribly hopeful that we're gonna wake up in time. But life still is miraculous and what an incredible time we live in. Change is so very much in the air.

Nice commenting with you.

So long, Andrew, don't let the door hit your ass on the way to hell.............