Tim Wise’s Strange Apology to Andrew Breitbart by A.R. Ward 22 Jun 2011 post a comment Share This: Tim Wise posted a bewildering response to Breitbart’s tweets regarding the cross-burning libel. The most embarrassing thing about Wise’s response was that it was written as if Breitbart said Wise was accusing him of burning the cross in front of his Tulane frat house. Wise spends the majority of his piece dismantling an argument that was never made. But importantly, Wise did manage to work in an apology to Breitbart: I said some unkind things, about wanting to see him destroyed (politically of course), and lose credibility to such an extent that he was reduced to begging on the street. Was that nice of me? No, and truthfully, I don’t really want to see anyone homeless and starving, as I intemperately suggested; so for the tone of those suggestions, and their content, I actually am sorry. A touching apology, but why did he leave out the statement that most irritated Breitbart: that he wants his family to suffer? Probably because you can’t say “only kidding” for comments like that. It takes a deranged person to say such a thing, and Wise had no excuse for it, so he left it out. In regard to the cross-burning accusations, Wise takes the line of reasoning that he was only making a comment about Breitbart’s low standard of proof: I referenced the cross-burning in a Facebook update, in which I jokingly suggested that given Breitbart’s own standard of proof and evidence (as in the James O’Keefe ACORN videos, or the Shirley Sherrod case), we should just go ahead and pronounce him guilty of the cross-burning, even though I noted that there was NO evidence of his involvement. So Wise’s main point was that he doesn’t understand Breitbart’s involvement in the Shirley Sherrod incident, and he doesn’t understand what happened with ACORN or the legitimate claims against them. I find it hard to believe Wise was only making a statement about Breitbart’s low standard of proof. If that was true why would he make comments like this: “We had a press conference at the time, and he could have come to add his voice to the condemnation but he didn't, so as far as I'm concerned he's a guilty as whoever burned it...” I’m sorry but it just doesn’t make any sense to bring up a story about cross-burning to make a point about standards of proof, and then go on to wish his family to suffer. It would make much more sense if Wise was serious about his accusations about Breitbart’s approval of the cross-burning. Remarkably, Wise then proved my point by adding an update to his post saying that he in fact checked his sources and Breitbart didn’t condemn the attack at the press-conference. This accusation is so patently absurd it’s hard to believe. According to Wise because Breitbart didn’t publicly condemn the cross burning, directed at Breitbart and his friend, during Wise’s press conference then Breitbart is just as morally “culpable as whoever actually did the deed.” Of course Breitbart condemned the cross burning that was directed at him and his friend. Why Wise believes that the only way to condemn the act was to speak at Wise’s press conference is anyone’s guess, and is no reason to stir up more unfounded hatred toward Breitbart. As I said in a previous post, Wise has a history of verbally attacking people. This isn’t just an isolated incident that can be brushed aside with a “just joking.” His latest racial slur of Herman Cain shows he hasn't changed his ways. Wise has a lot more apologizing to do, and even then, why is anyone taking this man seriously, let alone having him be a part of our college curriculum?