How old am I?

I'm old enough to remember watching The West Wing back in the early 2000s.  A sort of hour long liberal version of Rush Limbaugh in dramatic form.  Shocking nobody, the Republicans were almost always the bad guys, and the Democrats, barring the odd personality quirk or emotional troubles, did walk in moral and intellectual perfection.  That was why the character of Sam Seaborn, played by Rob Lowe, was so essential, and his departure hurt so badly.  Because while hardly an evil bad guy, he was the show's token "Liberals are only 98% perfect" character, who often put his foot in his mouth while the rest of the West Wing walked on clouds and water.

Anyway, in addressing the big topic of the day, driving home how horrible it is when political parties attack opponents over their personal lives and values and moral failings - things that had been called upon to cease forever during the Lewinsky Scandal - there was a storyline about the character Leo McGarry, the president's Chief of Staff, being an alcoholic.  He just couldn't stop at one drink.  He couldn't imagine how anyone could.  They deftly avoided an affair or sexual assault, but rather something you might call a 'clean' problem, even one beyond his control.  He was the show's Nice Guy character who had kept his little addiction under wraps.  Until those mean, nasty, hypocritical, puritan, rightwing busybodies found out about it and threatened him.  There were several episodes devoted to that storyline, but since he wasn't forced off the show at that point, I'll assume they worked it out and defeated such inquisitorial injustices in the name of political expedience.  

I say all that because: 

Yep.  I've learned the modern Left is a lot like Ohio Weather: If you don't like what they stand for, just wait a minute.  It will change. 

I've also learned that the only thing worse than a group with bad values is a group with no values.  One can be dealt with, resisted, and perhaps even reasoned with. The other?  I think we've seen the obvious over the years.  And yes, Republicans and conservatives can play such 'here today, gone later today' games with standards as well, and it isn't good then either.  Though like so many things, what can happen to the right of center seems almost universal SOP to the left.  

We wish those Nazis would tone down the rhetoric

 Exhibit A:

Just the hilarity of the jab 'not-toned down' followed by Ethnic Cleansing!  Why can't those sexist fascists stop being so divisive and admit they're racists?  Heh.  

The number one reason I left liberalism even before I became a Christian was because I started noticing a wide chasm between what they said to others and what they did themselves.  As always, hardly the only people in the world to do so.  But among the left, especially over the decades, it has become the universal defining characteristic of modern progressivism.  Standards for thee, but not for me.  

That age old progressive trick

 

Note the assumption.  The assumption is that these 'white men' have been threatened by the gains of women and minorities.  Now, is this what these white men have said?  Have they said their complaints are based on feeling so threatened?  Are there any editorials by these white men stating that they feel threatened, which is why they're complaining?  I don't recall ever hearing any white man say he feels threatened by the gains of women or minorities.  Yet note the ease with which this claim is almost on par with John 3:16 in terms of its quotability in the progressive narrative. 

Fact is, preemptive assumption of bad motives and similar character defects has long been a primary weapon for progressives.  You know, a man who questions the feminist juggernaut is merely threatened by women asserting themselves or succeeding.  People who question normalizing non-heterosexual sex are accused of being homophobic bigots.  Men who questioned it were accused of being closet homosexuals themselves.  People concerned about the negative developments in our modern society are told they're only scared about losing their white privilege.  Those who wonder if a Muslim going on a killing spree in the name of Allah could have something to do with his being a Muslim are smacked down as being motivated by Islamophobic bigotry.  The point is, always assume some defect of character or morally problematic motivation for questioning anything to do with leftwing and liberal narratives or activism. 

It reminds of a CNN discussion in 2016.  Wolf Blitzer was the host.  They were discussing the whole Rise of Trump campaign as we headed into the election.  During the debate, one of the token conservatives brought up the rising suicide rates among white men in America.  Without missing a beat, one of the women on the panel simply waved him aside, insisting it's just a factor of whites upset about losing their privilege.  You know, not men who happened to be white actually struggling or suffering or such.  Nope.  Just racists sad to be losing their chance to be racists. She didn't even pretend to care.  I imagined her dismissive attitude went a long way toward showing why Trump was gaining appeal.  

I should mention that this sort of rhetorical claptrap prompted an early step that turned me from my proud days as a self-proclaimed liberal agnostic.  In a winter quarter class in 1988, we were assigned to give a speech before the class touching on a hot button social issue.  I chose an issue that was making waves then, a pushback against Affirmative Action driven by white business contractors losing their bids purely because they were white.  It was my early encounter with the term 'reverse discrimination'.  

As a liberal I supported Affirmative Action, but I also believed that any discrimination because of gender or race was wrong, never caring for the term 'reverse' discrimination.  To me it was just discrimination based on accident of birth, and so wrong.  I said in my speech there was a kernel of truth to the objections and if not acknowledged, it could eventually end up bringing down the whole of Affirmative Action.  

Wow.  You'd think I praised the Holocaust.  One girl even got up and joked she's sitting on the other side of the classroom away from me (to much laughter of course).  The only one who defended me was an older African American woman who said she wouldn't want to think her sex or race was why she got where she wanted to go.  Certainly my very white professor didn't defend me.  Though I got a decent grade (a B of sorts if I recall), she wrote something across the top of my paper that stunned me: "Why are you so afraid of women and minorities?"  I was more than offended, and spent an hour after class arguing with her, eventually asking her if she's so worried about minorities why doesn't she leave her cushy tenured position and give it to a minority?  FWIW, it was then that I first thought of what I've come to call the Left's cherished Proxy Martyrdom - hang your righteousness on causes that only cost other people and never yourself.  I also learned it's the wise student who keeps his mouth shut when he's nothing more than a schmuck student.  Though that lesson was forgotten once I went back to seminary and graduate school some years later.  

Anyhoo, I left there more than a little ticked off and for the first time (but not the last), began to rethink the assumption I had been given in our 80s culture that progressive was the way to be because liberals were always the open minded free thinking ones.  Which blew up in my face that day.  I should point out that the problem wasn't that they said I was factually wrong, or my reasoning was bad, my arguments were poor, or it was a bad speech.  No.  Those I could believe.  It was the accusation that I was - afraid.  Scared you know.  That they negatively judged what motivated my concern with nothing to go by other than I dared think outside of the progressive box.  I chaffed at that then, and have never stopped as I came to realize just how universal this leftwing tactic is.  As the good Ms. Lipman demonstrates all too well with its causal use in that opening sentence of her little rant.  

I'll let others dissect the implication that somehow white men have no business complaining because they are white men, gender and ethnicity being all important for modern liberals in determining who can do what. For me, it was a reminder of a grave moral defect that has defined so much of the progressive discourse.  A defect I've witnessed since I began paying attention on that cold winter day all those years ago. 

A warning on this Feast of St. Stephen

Whether Left or Right, beware those who try to kit-bash the history of the Jewish and Christian faith into a cable news talking point:

I'm sure the second list isn't trying to be serious (thought a case could be made).  It's making a point. Those on the Left, who once roasted the 'Religious Right' for trying to mold Christianity into the political Right, are worse when they do the same with the political Left.  Because they add hypocrisy. 

Not that we shouldn't take the Scriptural record and apply it to our times today.  But mostly in the sense of saying 'if God asks something of me, will I say yes?'.  Or 'do I believe God is at work in my life?'.  Or, 'do I believe the events of the Bible are true and that Christ is the savior of the world?'.  Or, 'am I following the expectations that God has of me as proclaimed through the prophets and the apostles?'.  And on and on.  Not, 'If I ignore this Himalayan pile of verses and historical fact, I can make Jesus into a socio-political puppet!'. 

Again, we certainly can try to understand modern events in biblical terms, but never should the conclusion align point by point with an editorial from a political campaign.  My sons - as usual my guides in navigating the mindset of young Americans today - once said we are the generation that finally proves an education is not enough.  Unlike days or yore, when people tried to follow the truth where it led, we begin with the assumption that we are the truth and work backwards.  This approach to the Faith shows that the faithful are not immune to this development.  I see little in our present age to suggest that assumption is working. 

In a nutshell

 

The motto of the Left could easily be summed up as 'How dare you apply our standards to us.'  

Of what does the modern Left remind me?

 This scene from the late 1990s miniseries Hornblower:

Yep.  Well done fellow.  You cheat, and then when you miss hitting Horatio, you try to end the duel. Then when you're told Horatio can fire in his turn, you drop to your knees and beg like a baby to be spared.  I thought of Midshipmen Simpson acting this way when I heard a snippet about how horrible it is that people keep dragging President Biden through the mud because of his age.  Since apparently it's always bad to be snide about someone who is older: 

Yep.  That was the 80s, when liberals and critics of then President Reagan pulled out all the stops to drag him through the mud because of his age.   And that video was among some of the nicer appraisals of Reagan I heard and saw back in the day. 

Not that such naked double standards and hypocrisy are unique to the Left.  But again, they are almost universal among the Left.  Because those who should call out such mendacity - like our educational, media, and journalistic institutions - have vested interests in looking the other way, it only gets worse, never better.

The badge of membership for belonging to the modern Left. 

Remember, when your go-to tactic is acting like a spoiled child, it might be time to rethink your alliances. 

FWIW, I do not go after Biden because of his age or his cognitive abilities.  Despite being a liberal and agnostic in my college days, I came to despise the ugly and hateful things said about Reagan regarding things he couldn't help.  Having two parents who ended up with Alzheimer's and Dementia has not softened me on that resolution.  

Like so many other things, I'm simply ahead of the liberal curve.  I was pledging not to make fun of elderly people because of their age back when it was the hip liberal thing to do.  A bit like how I didn't like Donald Trump back when liberals and democrats loved the guy and couldn't wait to party with him.  I suppose that's just me.  I don't wait for liberals to catch up to their next principle. 

Bwa ha ha ha!

That anyone would take corporate moralizing seriously these days is a testimony to the gullibility of fallen man:

Uh oh

Looks like that ad campaign you might have seen, the "He Gets Us" campaign about Jesus, is going to show on the Superbowl.  CNN has the scoop here. 

What's the problem?  Apparently the donors and individuals behind the campaign might not be leftists, that's what.  It's a Jesus that might not be in full lockstep with the Left.  Sure, some of the ads have shown Jesus as an immigrant, an oppressed refugee, a women's rights activists, a social rebel, and that's all fine and good.

And the ad for the Superbowl might not even aim anywhere close to below the waistline or any such cherished avenue for the Left.  And yet, we find they might be evangelicals.  They might be conservative.  They might not think like those on  the left demand they think, especially about sex stuff.  

And we all know Christians are seen by so many as hypocritical, judgmental and discriminatory.  Says so right there in the article. That's unlike the good people complaining who obviously just want people to think the way they think or else.  

Yeah.  It's that nauseating.  In a world in which something called journalism existed, the naked hypocrisy displayed in the article, as well as the obvious lies about diversity and inclusion, would be front page news.  As it is, they can actually say with a straight face that they are merely against the hate that demonstrates itself by failing to conform to leftist tolerance.  

UPDATE:  In case you cared, here is some web news thing that talks of this - from a clearly anti-Christian perspective.  Some of the Twitter posts it chooses to display are funny,  but also telling.  

Humor clever and stupid

For more unintentional hilarity, consider this:

Yeah.  Liars and cheaters make bad opponents.  When you literally call someone a Nazi for doing what so many you support proudly and openly did themselves, all hope for rational discourse and good will is officially lost.  

Making the Pathological Liar seem seem credible

Really.  Read and weep, laugh, gasp, whatever.  An actual attempt to say America has no violence problem, only Republicans do.  This is accomplished by simply ignoring the manifold examples of leftists who have engaged in violence, assaults, and destruction.  Nothing about Antifa.  Nothing about assaults on GOP pols.  Nothing about the 2020 riots.  Nothing. It's literally the old trick of saying 'well except for that, Germany was a great place for Jews to live in the 1940s'.  It's the type of lies in the service of pure falsehood that seems to define discourse among the modern Left.  Again, it's not to say no conservative or anyone else engages in such stupid duplicity.  But more and more it seems to be a necessity for those who wish to accept the narratives of the modern progressivism.  

Who not to trust on the Internet

So this came to my attention, from Mark Shea's Twitter page: 

Here was Scott Eric Alt's initial Twitter post:

So that we know it's not some strange thing Scott Eric Alt pulled out of the air - the equating Biden's student loan debt proposal to the Gospel  message - can be seen here:   

And just to make sure it's not all about equating policy to religion, we have a bold activist stating that as one who paid off his debts, he's thrilled that people's lives will be forever changed by Biden's actions. Apparently there will be no negative side effects because, well, none of these brilliant commenters seem aware that there is anything but perfection with Biden's proposal: 

There is much that is obviously wrong with all this.  The equating of a dashed off political policy to the Gospel is something right wing Christians were once accused of doing.  And if they did it, it was wrong.  As it is wrong now.  But the point is, all they are doing is defending Biden.  That's what all of this is about.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Everything else is irrelevant. 

That they elevated a controversial - from all sides - policy to the equivalent of the Christian message shows why they shouldn't be trusted to speak to things of the Faith.  That they clearly don't care about who might be hurt by this shows why none of them should be listened to regarding the needs of the hurting.  That they seem oblivious to the many criticisms of Biden's proposal from all sides shows why they shouldn't be listened to about politics. 

Facts, data, context, and basic mature and reasoned approach to the subject are as far from these posts as east is from the west.  Which is why, unless you conform to their particular brand of same-think, they probably shouldn't be listened to at all.  

Oh, and have I mentioned I wouldn't do Twitter if my life depended on it?  If you need a reason, just look at the sampling above.  I could get better from kindergarteners on a playground. 

How stupid was this?

I don't know.  It depends on what year you're talking about.  

A joke about a pregnant slave seems pretty darn stupid today, in 2022.  But you know what?  That was the gist of humor when I was young.  Push the line, be cutting edge, offend as many people as possible.  That was comedy in the 70s and 80s.  

Nonetheless, there has never been a less tolerant or more judgmental time in my life than now.  Almost every day someone is punished for saying something that offends someone.  That's quite a cultural whiplash for me, who grew up in the 70s and 80s when pushing the line and being as offensive as possible was all the rage.

I remember an old humor magazine - Cracked I believe - that did a lampoon of the old Hogan's Heroes television show.  The point was that Hogan is upset and nobody can figure out why.  Finally he blurts out that everything is wrong and the whole show needs a revamp.  What was that revamp?  In the last full page frame it shows us - they're no longer POWs, they're in a death camp!  Complete with striped issue and shaved heads, Klink is now a death camp SS commandant and everyone can finally cut loose.  The last line of the strip?  Klink, leaning on Hogan's shoulders, asks if he's finally happy.  Sure, Hogan says, you bet I am - it's a gasser!

Imagine that today. Such were liberal values, c. 1980.  Not today.  In fact, if I have to pick one reason not to trust 'progressives', it's that every day I see the Left change the values that the Left I grew up with openly endorsed.  From the fascism of banning books or art, to personal  behaviors, to the sudden insistence that we must not be color blind when, as recently as my sons' schooling, they were taught the importance of being a color blind society.  

I have little patience for a movement with a 'here today, gone later today' approach to principles.  Especially when it's also quite prepared to retroactively punish those who were foolish enough to listen to the past message now suddenly condemned. 

UPDATE:

Ah, the things you find on the Internet.  So Catherine McClarey did the digging I didn't imagine could be done and found that last page punch line:

Wow.  It was more offensive than I remembered.  And yet, perfectly fine back then, since offend and disrespect was all the rage.  I you were offended, you were the problem.  Have I mentioned that I don't care for a society that changes it's values faster than you can change the diapers on a 3 month old baby on a beans and broccoli diet? 

Ukrainian Pride

Doesn't really exist, despite the LGBTQ community embracing and celebrating Ukrainians everywhere:

We've seen the same with the LGBTQ community and Islam. Despite the fact that all across the Islamic world, those in the LGBTQ community are marginalized at best, and outright persecuted and even executed at worst, the love is palpable. More than once the LGBTQ community has marched in solidarity with Islam over and against the nation where gay marriage is legal and almost anyone who speaks out against it can be ostracized for spreading hate. 

Does it make any sense? No.  At least it doesn't if you think this issue is about the rights of people being different genders or having a particular sexual proclivity.  Just like thinking other such social justice movements care about blacks and violence or women and sexual assault.  If you think these things matter to these movements, you'll be puzzling about such seeming contradictions until your puzzler is sore. 

If you have the nagging suspicion that none of these minority groups matter at all, however, and they are being exploited and hoisted in order to advance entirely separate agendas, you might sleep better at night.  You might not have the definitive answer about what the agendas really are.  But you'll at least be able to rest peacefully knowing what they aren't.  

Oh, and Elon Musk

So the news broke last week by an exuberant media that Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter might not go through.  Cue rejoicing in the streets.  Cue those on the Left blowing beer out their noses mocking conservatives for getting their hopes up.  It might be nothing, but I can tell the press is hoping it means the deal is void.  I've not heard any updates, so who knows what is going on. 

Here's my thing.  I know little to nothing about Musk.  I remember some years ago I got tired of hearing about him.  For a while it seemed as if every MSM outlet gushed over him.  There were times I couldn't go two days without some 'praise Musk' story.  I recall telling my wife if I see one more story gushing over Telsa I'm going to scream. Beyond that, I notice he says things that riles people on the Left. 

Other than that, no clue.  He could be Lenny the Leftist for all I know.  He might be Batman, more likely the Joker, or something in between.  Those who cling to the Gospel have been burned too many times in recent years after hitching their wagons to the latest potential superstar for conservatism. 

I do think that no matter what he has served his purpose.  The whole hysteria about Musk threatening democracy, the world and the universe if he gets Twitter showed a couple important things.   First, it showed what we all know, that double standards and naked hypocrisy are mother's milk for progressive activism.  The same ones screaming about his takeover were the ones, only a few months earlier, dismissing concerns about social media censorship and message control:  'It's just a social media outlet, get over it.  Find another one if you don't like it.'  Or so they said.  Again, it's wrong when it hurts progressives, it's right when it helps.  

But more importantly, he also showed how far we've descended into a world held by an oligarchy that has gamed the system, is tired of freedom for the little people, and makes sure the rules help only themselves.  We saw this a year ago with the Game Stop debacle.  That was about nothing other than someone outside of the official cabal daring to game the system the way the cabal no doubt does on a daily basis.  The system is only to be gamed by those who control it.  Hence the 2020 election. An election not stolen per se, but gamed. 

The problem with Musk isn't that he is some right wing radical.  It's not that he's some MAGA Trump type.  It's that he is out of the system.  He isn't in the rules and living within the rules of those who now control the rules.  He is a wild card, and that is anathema to the modern establishment.  Gates, Buffet, even Zuckerberg may occasionally run afoul or this or that leftwing dogma, but they nonetheless run within the system.  They pander to the system and exist within it. 

Musk does not.  He seems to go where he will, and most of the time the establishment doesn't seem to care.  But this is important, controlling the message.  Yet Musk wasn't trying to obtain Twitter on their behalf, or by their permission.  Someone outside the system getting hold of a major source of narrative control?  Hence the subsequent days of global outrage, calls for the government to step in, hysterics over the fall of freedom and democracy.  

Now the deal might not happen.  Or the deal could go through.  I dunno.  That's beyond my ability to guess one way or another.  Perhaps it was just Musk playing around.  Maybe he's snickering about all those yokels who thought he was their white knight.  Maybe he gets his kicks laughing at all those people who thought they were in control.  Again, I don't know.  I just know that no matter what, I'm not going to see us any better off if Musk does everything he's suggested he will do - when he's not doing anything else he feels like doing.  I've learned never trust people who are defined by being wild cards.  That falls under the old adage of never underestimating an enemy, but  never overestimating an ally. 

ABC News wins the award for most stunning headline in the wake of the Buffalo shooting

 Yep:

I've not seen one come close.  If the article suggested conservatives begin wearing yellow stars on their shirts, I wouldn't be shocked.  

To understand this racist and exploitive approach to human tragedy, read this political analysis by the not-at-all-right-wing journalist Glenn Greenwald here. 

A lesson in tribal hypocrisy

 Thus:

How about this:  "As Ukrainians die for freedom, Alexander S. Vindman bravely takes to Twitter to attack Republicans."

See how easy that is?  The low rung of partisanship is when you complain about those ignorant partisans over there who are talking about politics in a time like this.  Get the problem?  If that's the case, you're also talking about politics in a time like this.  

It isn't an uncommon flaw, and certainly not unique to one side of the aisle.  As always, however, those on the Left can too often insist it's only those on the Right who are being political in the wrong time and place.  This is because their alliance with the press and media culture can give them the easy impression that their political opinions and the scientifically proven God-truth happen to be one and the same. 

A tried and true tactic for progressives since I can remember

The faces of modern leftwing punditry

Act like children.  Literally, sneer and mock and make fun of and call names.  In short, act like someone a decade away from hitting puberty. 

So this story broke across several outlets.  A white woman - whose skin color will figure prominently among some criticisms of her - documented the growing intolerance in universities for dissenting opinions.  Though she insists she is no conservative, she is nonetheless bothered by the atmosphere in modern college campuses where more and more students are feeling intimidated and threatened if they voice their opinions.  Rod Dreher picked up on the story of her editorial here. 

There was an old Saturday Night Live skit I remember.  It was from the earlier days of the show.  It featured Bill Murray and Steve Martin going onto the stage, pointing toward the audience, and spending the skit going back and forth with variations of "What in the hell is that?  I know what the hell that is."  It was so absurd I actually laughed - and I seldom laughed at SNL.

That's about what most progressive/liberal discourse nowadays is, if you get down to it. A young, self-proclaimed liberal women points out what my sons have noticed - that free and open debate is becoming an endangered species in our universities.  Both because of the universities, and the increasingly hostile - sometimes in the form of physical threats - reactions from students and student groups.  In this case, the editorial is picked up by the leftwing flagship The New York Times.

The response?  Read them and follow links if you dare.  Outrage at the Times for betraying the cause, and liberal variations on 'I know what the hell that is" aimed at the young woman.  That is, variations on 'she's so lame man, and so lame man.  Can you believe she's that lame man?   And lame and a wimp man.  And dumb man.  Can you believe she's so lame and a wimp?"  And on it goes.  Note, in most responses, that's the core essence of what they're saying.

There is no engaging with her claims. There is no desire to see it from her perspective.  In some cases, her skin color torpedoes her as others replace the above 'I know what the hell that is' mantra with variations on 'skin color and race and race skin color race'.  Certainly there isn't the slightest inkling that there could be some validity to her observations.  Heck no on that.  She is an admitted leftist who has betrayed the cause and fallen from 100% obedience, so she needs to be put in her place. 

It's like watching children interacting on a playground in elementary school.  Which, to be honest, is rather unfair and unkind of me to talk about children on playgrounds that way.  When someone says they have seen something wrong, the usually decent thing to do is ask and see where they're coming from.  You know, say you sure hope this hasn't happened, and you can't believe it has.  But you'd be interested in learning more. 

Once again, however, I get the feeling those on the left are less interested in learning more about this young woman's perspective than they are smacking down anyone or anything that challenges their dogmas of diversity and inclusion.  

Petty hypocrisy works

As long as you have the press in your pocket. 

So this:

OK, she misspoke.  In a sane world, it's funny.  But as usual, outlets like the above leftwing rag use it to tar her as an idiot.  That way they can avoid the substance of her point. 

As one who spent a good part of my adult life in a fishbowl, where regular public speaking was part of the gig, I sympathize.  Try as you might, you'll eventually botch things.  More than once I misspoke or said something in a way I regretted. 

On the other hand, sometimes it was pettiness on the part of the listeners.  I remember once a fellow in our congregation emailed me after the morning services.  He was a bit shocked and disappointed that I split an infinitive in my sermon. I kid you not.  I wanted to respond and ask if he bothered to pay attention to anything else in the sermon, like the point of the message.  But I smiled and went on with life. 

So my sympathies are usually for those doing the speaking - Democrat, Republican, Druid or otherwise.  Nonetheless, it's not hard to see the naked hypocrisy, pettiness and lunacy that often accompanies the Left in exploiting such things.  

I remember in my younger years during the 1992 presidential campaign. We called it the great Potato Crisis.  Others called it Potatogate.  That's when VP Dan Quayle misspelled the word potato during an elementary school spelling bee.  For weeks it was hammered on by comedians, in the press, among pundits.  This was before the Internet or Cable News or Talk Radio had truly taken off.  I remember many I knew, Democrat and Republican, said let it die. Yet you'd think Quayle had declared the world to be flat. 

So I sympathize with the odd mistake, and typically don't exploit it for anything other than a chuckle.  Unless, of course, there appears to be something underneath suggesting an inner motive not intended to be revealed.  I also don't go crazy when it's clear that someone has misspoken (for instance, I knew President Obama knows how many states there are in the Union).  Otherwise making more of it than it is comes off as petty, childish, and more an indictment on those trying to make a mountain out of a molehill than the gaffe maker in question. 

BTW, as if to illustrate the press's help in the childish hypocrisy, behold a sampling of the results from Googling 'M. Greene' when this story broke:

For our daily dose of double standards

 Exhibit A:

Because there is nothing that says terrorist more than calling people racist and encouraging protests in major US cities when things don't go your way.  Apparently Sean P. Dailey approves this message. 

The rise and fall of Eric Clapton

Another liberal icon mauled by leftist tolerance

Old Slowhand.  Growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, there were many different cliques to belong to.  Many different music styles to enjoy.  Many different hobbies and interests to pursue.  But there was one thing that seemed to unite all who grew up in the shadow of the 1960s: Eric Clapton epitomized awesome coolness. 

It's true.  Over the years, his story would change.  He would have ups and downs and suffer tragic loss.  But he was always respected, always admired, and always liked.  In a world filled to the brim with personalities who weren't always the most likeable, Clapton was at least respected, and often spoken well of by his industry. 

But like all that the Left must poison and destroy, that was yesterday.  Today, Clapton hath blasphemed the Leftwing narrative of Vaccine god, and thus the propaganda organs pounce.  The leftist thralls and storm troopers pounce. 

Even Catholics set aside such notions as Christian charity or reaching out to those who are hurting in the world and pounce.

I especially like Mark's definition of rebel which fits like a glove on the modern Left.  After all, the entire rise of the 21st Century Left could be be summed up by saying 'You have heard postwar liberalism say, but the Left now says.'  Which is a roundabout way of saying those principles liberals advocated were a lie.  They only supported rebels against the civilization they sought to destroy.  Now that they have power there will be no more rebels, thank you.  

Or, perhaps another way of saying it: You heard liberals once say we only want a world where all animals are equal.  The Left now says, however, that we must get used to a world where some animals are more equal than others. 

Deacon Greydanus and Mr. Shea appear to be aligning with this global force, perhaps in the hope that it will be those other animals deemed less equal and therefore worthy of the glue factory. Those of us not prepared to throw future generations under the bus would do well to resist that particular temptation.