“Do as I say, not as I do.”

The Golden Globes happened last week, and what happens there is usually a pretty good indicator of what will happen at the next month’s Oscars ceremony.

In this instance, I’m not talking about awards; I’m talking about self-righteous speeches.

You’ll have already seen the footage.

Meryl Streep received a Lifetime Achievement award, and chose to use her platform not to thank the public for making her rich, but to feel sorry for herself, mock regular people and attack the president-elect.

And the milquetoast celebrities in the audience (with a few exceptions) lapped it up like good girls and boys.

She began her half-baked protest by claiming that people in Hollywood are among “the most vilified segments of American society right now.”

That’s hard to take at the best of times, but when it’s croaked out by a millionaire in a room full of other millionaires, some of whom are wearing clothes that cost more than any of us make in a year, it’s downright ludicrous.

Undaunted, and with a trembling lip, she went on to tell the other fabulously wealthy victims about how profoundly disturbed she was by something Donald Trump did. She said:

“There were many powerful performances this year that did breathtaking, compassionate work. But there was one performance that stunned me. It sank it hooks in my heart, not because it was good — there’s nothing good about it. But it was effective and it did its job. It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter. Someone he outranked in privilege and power and the capacity to fight back.”

Not only is this fantastically melodramatic (good job Meryl, you’ve still got it!), it’s also incorrect.

She’s referring to an incident in 2015 where Donald Trump is alleged to have mocked a disabled reporter, doing an impression of him failing to answer a question and waving his hands about.

Were Streep to step out of her bubble, and do a little more thinking and a little more reading, she’d quickly come across examples of Trump doing exactly the same thing when impersonating other figures… generals, politicians, businessmen. What he’s doing is an exaggerated impression of someone flailing while trying to dodge a question.

It’s not terribly presidential, but nor is it ridiculing a disabled man.

Furthermore, this Pulitzer-prize winning journalist at the New York Times is hardly someone with “no capacity to fight back.”

If dear Meryl was truly concerned with the treatment of disabled people in America, her Golden Globes grumble would have addressed the recent horrifying kidnap and torture of a mentally handicapped man, for the “crime” of being white and supporting Donald Trump.

But that would mean being non-partisan, and actually making a statement that contained an ounce of self-awareness, and on a night that’s all about attention, that simply wouldn’t do.

Meryl, bless her, tried to frame her complaint as a plea for balance and compassion,

That’s a dangerous game to play though, because it means what you’ve said and done in the past is fair game.

So when we look back to the 2003 Oscars when she gave child rapist Roman Polanski a standing ovation, it seems a little hypocritical to attack someone else’s alleged moral failings.

Meryl Streep leapt to her feet to applaud a man who raped a child.

Towards the end of her speech, Streep moved onto the press. Apparently they’ll “need [actors] to safeguard the truth.”

The only members of the press who need actors, are entertainment journalists. I’m quite sure the war reporters, political commentators and sports writers will cope just fine should Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin’s watchful eyes disappear from active service.

And where was her concern at any other time between 2009 and now, for example when President Obama worked to jail whistleblowers who uncovered government crimes?

Not happy to deploy her idiot bullets at political targets, she also chose to poke fun at Americans who enjoy football and mixed martial arts (pretty much everyone). It’s not just snobbish, it’s also shockingly shortsighted. Denouncing the majority of the population isn’t going to make them well-disposed to your next product.

Far from preaching tolerance and equality, all Streep did was widen the gulf between regular people and millionaires who are paid obscene amounts of money to play make-believe on camera.

I can’t quite fathom the kind of confidence it takes to smugly stand in front of a bank of cameras and tell everyone they’re wrong and you’re the one with the answers, two months after the whole country rejected a candidate who courted celebrities and opted for a loudmouth who helpfully pointed out the emperor’s lack of clothes.

The simple fact is, Meryl Streep was heavily in the tank for Hillary Clinton.

She backed the wrong horse, and she’s still sulking, but instead of doing what’s truly best and calling for reconciliation, she’s using *her* privileged position to whine in a place where no-one will challenge her rank hypocrisy.