Breibart

Normally I try to take the high road when it comes to the passing of someone on the republican side of things. We're all human beings, with very differing points of view, but in the end - we're all sailing on the same sea of life. Andrew Breibart was a die hard Republican who was very unapologetic about his views. He would say angry, hateful things because - he could. He felt he was right, justified and otherwise morally superior to attack any democrat or liberal that stood in front of his view.

When someone wants to project themselves in such a manner - it makes him look weaker, less informed and even dense. To be so dismissive while being incredibly antagonistic, hateful and blind to their actions and speech. I've always marveled at how these folks can live with themselves when harboring such ill-will towards anyone that presents a complete argument that is morally stronger than the one they hold. Breibart made his living capitalizing on the morally gray area of what is considered true. Between he, Murdoch and Limbaugh ... the lines of truth get skewed behind a plethora of money that backs corporate media propaganda.

So when I heard about his passing this week - I admit I was conflicted for the first few minutes. I was sad for his family and close friends ... and then I began to take the high road - pointing out differences of viewpoints. Unfortunately, I stopped feeling badly for him when I recalled all of the angry, hateful things he did in the name of politics. The vitriol, the condemnation, the lack of respect, the absence of responsibility - while focused on the stories he wanted to tell - vs. - being truthful.

I was prepared to let his abysmal behavior slide .... until ....

The Fox fake tears, the "warrior tributes," and the enormous outpouring for someone they defend as a champion to their cause.

Cause?

What cause would that be?

Republicans would say that it's the the cause of "taking back their country." As though having control for 8 years didn't do enough harm that got us into this mess to begin with. They of course don't see it that way because they consistently buy into the buffet line that Breibart, Murdoch and Drudge keep dishing out. What Republicans don't seem to understand is how isolated these outlets have kept them. Republican buy into the fact that they have a "fair and balanced" view because that's what the keepers keep telling them...

It all keeps coming back to the irrational perception folks have about their sources of information. That's why I laugh at the notion that Andrew was some sort of warrior for their cause.

That's not what journalism was ever meant to be about. I don't care if it's left, right, libertarian, socialism, or whatever -ism you choose to subscribe to. Journalism is controlled by the media overlords ... and if you want to keep your job - you have to write the stories in a way that's going to satisfy them.

That's why I felt that by trying to push off Breibart's death as some sort of national loss demonstrates the ineptness of the "crusade" he led. When hate, misinformation, deceit and propaganda replace truth, compassion, and unification ... then I hate to say this, but his death probably did more good for the nation than his did being alive.

I understand that there are those that will mourn his loss ... and it disappoints me that I won't be one of them. However, I won't be celebrating in the streets either. I won't be firing off guns as though I've been liberated. But feeling sorry for someone who would wish that a liberal like me die ... no ... I will feel sorry that he wasted his life in such pursuits and has such disdain about him. I will feel sorry for those that mourn the passing of someone consumed with such vile and hate. I will feel sorry for those that believed the stories crafted under the guise of journalism. I will continue to feel sorry for those that operate with a close mind when they think they are open to the world.

Those are things worthy of feeling sad for ... not the passing of some self-absorbed, corporately consumed egomaniac who relished in the downfall of someone if they happened to be ideologically different than he was.