Andrew Breitbart says he’ll take a drug test after his anti-OWS rant goes viral

Looks like Breitbart’s little anti-Occupy Wall Street rant has more people than just me questioning his use of illicit substances – though I just wondered if he had a drinking problem.

Seems the Big Hollywood blogger-in-chief is on the defensive, if his Twitter feed says anything about it:

Notice the deflection here – as though David Brock just screamed at a bunch of protesters and had to be dragged off by security. It’s pretty much par for the course when it comes to Breitbart.

Two thoughts: First, it’s easy to beat a drug test, especially if you’re doing something like cocaine or speed – the sort of drugs that might make someone lose their head at an OWS protest. Stimulants leave the bloodstream quickly, and with a little preparation you could easily beat the test. If it’s booze, of course, this is all a moot point.

Second, who cares if he was high when he flipped out on the protesters? It’s almost more understandable if he was. If he has a substance abuse problem, I might sympathize with him a little bit. Addicts need help, not scorn.

But if this was the angry rant of a sober man? That’s much more troubling. That says something about Breitbart as a human being, deep down – about his anger and instability as a person without the use of drugs.

Follow me on Twitter or FacebookRead my Forbes blog here.


Andrew Breitbart loses his shit at CPAC, keeps screaming “behave yourself” at OWS protesters

Now, I can’t be sure about this, but last I checked running around screaming “behave yourself” at a bunch of peaceful protesters and struggling with security is not exactly behaving oneself.

It’s also remarkably stupid. There are these things called “camera phones” and another thing he may have heard of called “the internet.”

Breitbart is many things, but stupid enough to hand the left a viral video like this? It’s a head-scratcher for sure.

Occupy protesters congregated outside of CPAC, hoping to stir up some media attention and irritate conservatives in attendance. Not in a million years did they hope to get so far under Breitbart’s skin.

Do we know if he has a drinking problem? Because I just cannot for the life of me fathom what he was thinking here. Behave yourself? Seriously?

I half expected Bill Maher to show up suddenly and start making wise-cracks about how they should all go get a job, followed by a big make-out scene between the two.

Oh well. We can’t have everything. Even in an age of rapidly-shared-stupidity.

Follow me on Twitter or FacebookRead my Forbes blog here.


Bill Maher calls OWS protesters ‘douchebags’ that should ‘get a job’

I’m not sure what Occupy Wall Street did to Bill Maher – someone typically sympathetic to left-leaning causes like OWS – but he’s not happy.

“As I watch them on the news now, I find myself almost in agreement with Newt Gingrich, like, ‘You know what, get a job.’ Only because the people who originally started it, I think they went home. Now it’s just these anarchists stragglers. And this is the problem when your movement involves sleeping over in the park. You wind up attracting the people who were sleeping over in the park anyway. And I think this is where we are with the ‘Occupy movement’” Maher said.

“They did a great job of bringing up the issue of income inequality to the floor, but now it’s just a bunch of douchebags who think throwing a chair through the Starbucks window is going to bring on the revolution,” he continued.

Now, this is obviously a dickish thing to say, but peel back the hyperbole and there is some merit here.

Maher thinks the movement is just leftovers now. A once-honorable movement that brought the issue of income inequality to light devolved into douchebaggery.

The real problem isn’t that the OWS folks were against the wrong things – it’s that they were simply against things rather than evolving; that they couldn’t push past the tent-city model is a problem. Whether it’s just stragglers left over is harder to say. But the worst of the bunch will inevitably get the most attention.

Of course, I find myself in some disagreement with many in the Occupy scene over the proper role of markets and government, so perhaps I’m just biased. A sharp, clear focus on improving access to healthcare, fixing the tax code by simplifying it and making it more progressive, and working toward a less interventionist military would have been far better than the perpetually ad hoc OWS movement. Hell, I would have been happy if Occupy had morphed into a civil libertarian movement, concerned more with the plight of non-violent drug offenders (mostly minorities) locked away in our bulging prisons rather than the focus on student loan debt. (I mean – really? Student loan debt is the hill we’re going to die on here?)

(Okay, I’m being snarky here, and I realize there’s more to it than this, but still.)

I’m not a big fan of Maher, whose antipathy toward the many groups he disagrees with departs from being funny rather quickly and ends up looking like, well, douchebaggery as far as I’m concerned. But I do agree that Occupy outwore its welcome long ago, for lack of evolution. I don’t think OWS should give up, I just think that they should grow.

P.S. It is ironic that Maher would say “Get a job!” when OWS is basically complaining about a serious lack of jobs in this economy. And not ironic in a good way. I just think that the OWS model of protest, tent-cities, and so forth is seriously flawed, basically guaranteeing that the loudest and most alienating voices in the movement will have the largest megaphones.

Follow me on Twitter or FacebookRead my Forbes blog here.