Today, words mean whatever leftists decide they mean, and those meanings are subject to change without notice, a la 1984.
For instance: during the Bush Administration, “dissent” was “the highest form of patriotism” (a quotation commonly granted the unimpeachable imprimatur of that otherwise “evil slave owner” and “dead white male” Thomas Jefferson, but which was actually uttered by, er, Marxist “historian” Howard Zinn.)
Suddenly though, what with all those huge conservative protests sweeping America, we’ve been solemnly informed that “dissent” is now the “lowest form of racism.”
These revised definitions are handed down from on high from people who call themselves “progressives.” But have you ever noticed how stubbornly these forward-thinking agents of change cling to an often mythical past?
We’ll leave aside the embarrassing fact that a single share of NYT stock was recently trading at about the same price as a copy of the paper. Media Matters’ Jamison Foser enthuses this morning that, “Six years after hyping a trend, NYT finally examines its downside.”
Foser congratulates a former NYT reporter at Tina Brown’s The Daily Beast for breaking this earth-shattering story:
Guess what The New York Times has just discovered? Women who quit their careers to stay home can face financial challenges if a recession hits and their husbands lose their jobs! (…)
The front page of Saturday’s business section … featured this startling news in a lengthy story under the headline “Back to the Grind: Recession Drives Some Women to Return to Work.”
In this case, however, the paper of record bears an unusual responsibility for setting the record straight — something it has taken an extraordinarily long time to do. Six years ago the Times published a Sunday magazine cover story that discovered what it deemed a happy new trend among affluent women and coined a catchy phrase — the Opt-Out Revolution — to describe the cushy lives of women who quit their careers to become full-time mothers…
Ha! Let that be a lesson to the millions of “happy” women who turned their lives upside down after reading a single fluffy “lifestyle” piece in the New York Times Sunday magazine six years ago! Take that, everyone who adopted the “catchy phrase” “Opt-Out Revolution” — boy, I know how sick I am of hearing that expression everywhere I go!
Oh wait. None of that actually happened.
Six years ago, the economy was different than it is now, so some women felt they could afford to stay home with their kids (which was not a familial arrangement invented out of the blue in 2000 by the sinister Times editorial board, by the way).
The horror! The nerve of the New York Times for printing a now-forgotten article about what a tiny handful of women were doing in 2000! And then never apologizing for it!
There’s something sad about the staff at Media Matters, the George Soros Steno Pool, panning the past for teeny nuggets for gold, then proudly posting their pathetic little pieces of pyrite on the web. You’d almost think Media Matters was a sweatshop, with staffers getting paid for piecework.
Doesn’t sound very “progressive” to me.