Recently Harvard history professor and noted author Niall Ferguson apologized for his remarks at an investment conference's question-and-answer session.  He said:

... economist John Maynard Keynes was less invested in the future because he was gay and had no children.

Ferguson said his remarks at an earlier conference were "as stupid as they were insensitive."

Prof. Ferguson, born in Scotland, was a political supporter of Republican presidential candidates John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

All well and good that Ferguson apologized.  The remarks were harsh, and John M. Keynes is not alive to defend himself.  But, as they say in the United Kingdom, "turnabout is fair play."

In 2007, Sen. Barbara "Don't Call Me Ma'am" Boxer, shocked the confirmation hearings for   secretary of state by saying Dr. Condoleeza Rice wasn't fit for this office because she hasn't given birth to children, a condemnation Boxer wouldn't dare raise about the white Gloria Steinem, Donnna Shalala, or Janet Reno.

Although Sen. Boxer didn't apologize (for what limited good it would do after the fact), her remarks were -- in a more formal and damning setting -- a direct attack on a live person, a woman, attempting to advance to a high office.  And although Dr. Rice could have come up with an answer (several come to mind, but none I could write at this publication), she realized that she (Dr. Rice) had best let the insult go without a direct answer that would dignify a most undignified and unprovable accusation.  And I suspect that Dr. Rice knew that this rant was a last-gasp maneuver, one that would not stop her from being confirmed as secretary of state, and a sign that Boxer and the Democrats were essentially throwing in the towel after trying to play the Jim Crow Card.

But once again, was there any public outcry or introspective change of heart and/or mind on the part of Sen. Boxer that caused her to apologize to Dr. Rice for these remarks?  No.  When a liberal casts aspersions against someone, she is "advancing humanity," no matter how ugly and unfounded -- and unprovable -- the remarks.  Such a liberal speaks with the voice of God -- or with the voice that replaces God's.  Take your pick.

To use a more current example, slightly different -- but just as petty and mean -- in nature, The Daily Mail reports now that South Carolina's "Democratic Party Chairman, Dick Harpootlian, is believed to have said the party will take on the Conservative in the next gubernatorial race and send 'Nikki Haley back to wherever the hell she came from.'" *

These examples, plus Pres. Obama making fun of Special Olympics athletes on national television or his saying doctors will gladly saw off a diabetic's leg for a quick few thousand dollars -- and his own secretary of state saying of four dead Americans in Benghazi, "What difference at this point does it make?" -- are considered acceptable to liberals because the Democrats are assumed to be on the side of the angels.  Or, more accurate, the Democrats see themselves as replacing the angels, be that from a secular or a theological viewpoint.  It explains the situation whether the Democrat involved believes that God is dead or that God is Obama -- or himself.

Niall Ferguson has made his apology, whatever you think of that decision.  Perhaps now Dr. Ferguson can ask whether Sen. Boxer is ready to apologize to Dr. Condoleezza Rice and Dick Harpootlian is ready to apologize to Nikki Haley.  And I'm sure both Dr. Ferguson and the readers of this website can come up with numerous other examples of remarks worthy of an apology from the Democrats who made them.

As for Obama apologizing for anything, if we assume that Chris Mathews is widely believed among Democrats regarding his views on Obama, how can God apologize to God?

* An earlier version of this blog post identified the Democratic Party Chairman being from North Carolina. He is from South Carolina. AT regrets the error.