Laura Ingraham apologized for a rude tweet about David Hogg's inability to get into the college of his choice, and, as may be expected of someone who's demonstrated both childishness and leftism, he refused to graciously accept, opportunistically coming up instead with a counter-demand for more apologies on unrelated matters, ahead of yet another counter-demand for more groveling if Ingraham were to be naïve enough to follow that, which I trust she won't.

It was done with Hogg's full knowledge that his "friend ("asking for a friend"), who "wanted" and probably came up with the swift list of Ingraham's advertisers, had begun pulling ads from Ingraham's Fox News show.  At least a dozen of them pulled out in a show of solidarity for Hogg's hurt feelings over his inability to get into the college of his choice.

The immaturity shown here sends a signal now to the public as to why he otherwise inexplicably didn't get into the college of his choice.  Can you see how this guy would act if he didn't get the grade of his choice from his professor at one of these places if he somehow were to be allowed in?  What if he didn't get the girlfriend of his choice, or the dorm of his choice, or the honors roll of his choice, or the school paper's editor job?  It would be logical to infer that he'd be out calling for boycotts of the school from the school's donors if he didn't get the whatever of his choice.  How much easier it would be to just grow up and be a man about the whole thing, starting with the admissions rejections.  It might impress a few admissions committees.

I pity the guy because he has a losing cause: gun control has never been a winning issue with the public, and his efforts will amount to wasted energy, based on the ingrained nature of the Second Amendment and the public's disposition.  The fact that his school, which was subject to a bad school shooting, had such a high casualty count, and that casualty count was chiefly the result of a school guard, the only guy there with a gun, who refused to do his job and fight for the kids, only serves as an argument in favor of more guns in the hands of more people in the hopes that at least one of them will have courage to use it where it needs to be used.  Hogg can't win on this.

Nor is he going to win on his personally motivated boycott against Ingraham, who has been classy and contrite.  Already a counter-boycott, called #IStandWithLaura, has been launched, targeted at the advertisers Hogg got to jump through his hoops.  Some were lefties and planning to leave already and just wanted to make hay for Hogg based on their existing plans, according to this excellent piece in the American Spectator.  These counter-boycotts have been successful in the past, when similar efforts were launched against Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.  Bill O'Reilly, who was also the target of an advertiser boycott, was another sort of case in a different category: his transgressions were based not (directly) on what he said, but on his off-camera bad behavior.

Hogg has no experience of the world and wasn't even around for 9/11, so it's obvious he's being used by larger Sorosian forces.  The boycott tactic has a whiff of the smear tactics of Media Matters, and it wouldn't be surprising if it were that operation.  What that represents, as the Spectator warned, is a threat to free speech, given that smear organization's mission to silence the free press.

Let us hope the counter-boycott on this is powerful.  It's about time Media Matters got its comeuppance through exposure.