Our “Albert Nobbs” Moment

     Many years ago I was exposed – pardon the choice of words – to a short story titled “Albert Nobbs,” by Irish writer “George Moore.” Its title character is a woman who, for economic reasons, chooses to live as a man. It causes her a great many problems. One of the worst of these is that she becomes the romantic target of a woman who cannot understand why the attraction isn’t mutual. While her secret is not exposed until her death at a relatively advanced age, she is nevertheless compelled to live in hiding, just to make a living.

     The story, a piquant blend of irony and farce, won considerable praise in its time. Few of its adulators were aware that “George Moore” was a woman. I don’t remember when in “Moore’s” life (or afterward) that tidbit became general knowledge.

     Not that long ago, a brilliant writer penned a novelette titled “Nine Lives” about two extrasolar technicians, in a time of intense labor shortages, who found themselves confined with the sole survivor of a group of clones. The survivor’s nine clone-brethren had been killed off in a mining accident, leaving him alone in the care of two normal humans. It left him barely able to remain alive. Indeed, he wanted to die, having never in his life been apart from his nine clone-brethren. The story first appeared in Playboy in 1969. It won a great deal of critical praise for its eloquence and evocative force.

     The byline above the story read “U. K. Leguin.” That was at the insistence of Playboy’s editors. Leguin’s first name, as is well known to virtually every reader of science fiction, was Ursula.

     Mrs. Leguin might not have had to travel androgynously to get published. Indeed, her early fantasy work A Wizard of Earthsea and her brilliant multiple award-winner The Left Hand of Darkness were both published at that time under her full name, to tremendous applause and critical acclaim. But Playboy, at the time one of the most munificent of the periodical publishers, insisted that her sex be concealed if it was to publish “Nine Lives.”

     People can be funny about this stuff. Just now they’re funnier than ever.

---

     I’m currently at work upon the third of my “futanari” novels, which will appear under the title The Wise and the Mad. (The first two, Innocents and Experiences, and the “prequel” novelettes The Athene Academy Collection, are available at Amazon as paperbacks and eBooks.) They’re cockeyed explorations of the contemporary phenomenon we call transgenderism: Cockeyed, because a goodly group of the “futanari” in those stories were born that way: women in every regard, two X chromosomes in every cell, but with male genitals. They’re my attempt to examine transgenderism closely: to separate the aspects of it that can and should be tolerated from the parts that cannot and must not.

     One of the principal characters in Experiences, Holly Martinowski, was born Horace Martinowski: a normal male child in every regard. Upon reaching his majority, Horace decides that he would prefer to present and live as a woman. He takes the steps required to do so, and thus becomes internationally successful romance novelist Holly Martins.

     But Horace / Holly is a bit conflicted. He / she was raised Catholic and wants to be a full communicant in that flock. Here’s how she explains herself to the priest who hears her “returning” confession:

     Ray had only just donned his stole and murmured a prayer for God’s guidance when a penitent entered the face-to-face booth and knelt. He donned a formally grave expression, looked up at his visitor, and swallowed an oath.
     “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen,” Holly Martinowski intoned. “Bless me, Father, for I have sinned.” She smiled wanly. “I’m not really sure how long it’s been since my last confession. More than fifteen years, anyway.”
     “Bless you, Holly,” Ray said. “May the Lord be in your heart and help you to confess your sins sincerely and with true contrition. What are your sins, dear?”
     “Father,” she said in a gradually strengthening voice, “I’ve been bitter and resentful. I estranged myself from my parents because they mocked me as I was and could not accept me as I am today. My bitterness has led me to resent them and wish them ill, even though none of them ever did me any injustice that went beyond a few harsh words.
     “And I may have been less than honest. Since I endeavored to transition, I’ve let everyone I met believe that I’m female. I know I have only the appearance and not the essence. I know that no surgery could make me other than cosmetically female. But I’ve chosen to live as a woman, rather than as the pitifully unmanly man I would otherwise have been. And I am happy this way. I don’t regard my masquerade as a sin, though not being candid about my origins might strike you as sinful.”
     She bowed her head over her folded hands.
     “Other than that, I’ve missed a lot of Sunday Masses. But I have not worshipped any other god. I have not blasphemed. I have not made any idols. I haven’t killed or harmed anyone, or committed adultery, or theft or fraud. I haven’t borne false witness against others. I’ve envied naturally born women their state, but only in a wistful way. And I’ve tried most sincerely, Father, to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. I love God and delight in all His works. I strive to love my neighbor as myself. And with that I subject myself to your judgment and to the mercy of God.”
     Ray was momentarily thrown out of his orbit.
     “Have you examined your conscience closely, Holly?”
     “I have, Father.”
     “And you find no other blemishes there?”
     “I have confessed all that I’ve found, Father.”
     “You don’t think it a deception to wear a female guise?”
     “I wear it for its own sake, Father. I don’t use it to deceive or defraud others. I never have.”
     “And you never will, dear?”
     That brought Holly’s head back up.
     “Only God can know the future, Father. But it’s not my intention ever to do so. What could I gain that I couldn’t get some other way?”
     Ray breathed deeply and strove to steady himself.
     “It’s not the gain or loss that matters but the intention, dear. Are you firm in your resolve?”
     “I am, Father.”
     “And truly sorry for your sins?”
     “O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because of Thy just punishment, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, who art all good and worthy of all my love. I humbly resolve with the help of Thy Grace to sin no more and to avoid the near occasions of sin. Amen.”
     He grinned despite himself. “You boned up before you came here, didn’t you?”
     She returned the grin. “A little cramming is acceptable before an exam, isn’t it, Father?”
     He chuckled. “Let’s hope so, dear, because it was one of my most regular practices back in seminary. Your penance is five Our Fathers, five Hail Marys, and five Glory Bes interleaved, to be performed in a spirit of contrition immediately upon leaving the confessional. Go to the front of the church and kneel at the old communion rail. Look upon the Presence lamp as you pray, and give thanks for the love and mercy of God.”
     “I shall, Father.”
     He raised his right hand. “God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins. Through the ministry of the Church, may God give you pardon and peace. I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
     “Amen,” she whispered.
     “Now go and sin no more.”
     She exited the confessional.

     To my mind, this is what makes Horace / Holly’s choice a tolerable one:

     “I know I have only the appearance and not the essence. I know that no surgery could make me other than cosmetically female....I wear it for its own sake, Father. I don’t use it to deceive or defraud others. I never have.”

     Horace Martinowski presents convincingly as Holly, a woman. She asks nothing of anyone except to be treated according to her presentation.

     Such “transitions” have been going on for several decades. Cosmetics and surgery have made them ever more complete and convincing. What’s changed is the sociopolitical aspect of transgenderism: the crusade by activists to compel others to kowtow to anyone who claims to be a particular sex regardless of appearances, behavior, and underlying reality.

     To be blunt, that is not tolerable and must be condemned. It tramples several important rights: rights that the transgender would miss quite as much as anyone else.

     Granted that even the tolerable aspect of the transgenderism phenomenon complicates matters quite a bit. Were Holly to be courted by a man, she’d have the same problems as “Albert Nobbs.” It would be imperative – her moral responsibility – for her to fend off such attention.

     At their foundation, the “futanari” stories are an exploration of the dividing line between what we ought to tolerate, because it’s harmless, and what we must never, ever tolerate, because it’s inherently disruptive and destructive. Today the ability to find and maintain that dividing line is being bludgeoned out of us by the shrill demands and punitive tactics of activists.

---

     Transgenderism isn’t the only phenomenon of this sort, of course. Homosexuality is another of similar cast. There are aspects of it that cannot and must not be tolerated: Homosexual evangelism toward the young, for example. But the “quiet” homosexual, who keeps what he does with his genitals to himself and those who choose him for a lover, can and should be tolerated, regardless of anyone else’s convictions or sexual preferences. He demands nothing except to be allowed to live as he pleases. How does that distinguish him from the rest of us?

     The problems created by “noisy,” demanding homosexual activists are well known to anyone who’s left his cave or turned on a television since 1970. Some of those problems fall upon the “quiet” homosexual, just as some of the problems created by “noisy,” demanding transgenderism activists would fall upon a “quiet” transgender such as Holly Martinowski. There’s a great deal of irony here; I trust I needn’t explicate it further.

     The larger point seems clear:

Some things are tolerable.
Others are not.
Good men must distinguish between them.
The distinction is critical.

     As is the awareness of when one’s own prerogatives are being infringed.

     With that, I yield the floor to my Gentle Readers.

Quickies: Not A Passing Grade

     If you want people to accept you as a woman, you had jolly well better appear and sound to them like a woman:

     This...person, who apparently wants to be accepted as female, has not put in the study or effort required to pass as female. The clerk’s reaction is quite natural. So he / she / whatever gets on his / her / whatever’s high horse about it, when all the fault properly belongs to him / her / whatever.

     This is not what I would call a compelling advertisement for the necessary tolerance of those “whom the finger of Allah hath touched.”

     Tolerance can only extend so far.

Ugly Mascots

     This past Sunday, the city of Toronto experienced a mass shooting. From the reports, the shooter fired a handgun into a number of restaurants and cafes in a spree that lasted for several minutes. He killed two people, one of them a ten year old girl, and injured at least thirteen others. His rampage ended when he was killed by Toronto police.

     Toronto Mayor John Tory immediately announced that the shooter’s motive was “unknown.”

     On Monday the shooter’s identity was released to the press: Faisal Hussain, a 29 year old Muslim. His family was quoted as saying he suffered “severe mental health challenges:”

     Our son had severe mental health challenges, struggling with psychosis and depression his entire life. The interventions of professionals were unsuccessful. Medications and therapy were unable to treat him. While we did our best to seek help for him throughout his life of struggle and pain, we could never imagine that this would be his devastating and destructive end.

     I have not yet learned what sort of mosque Faisal Hussain attended, or what literature has been found in his room, or what sort of statements he’d recently made to other Muslims. But I have my suspicions. And I do know this: Canadian law makes it a felony for someone diagnosed as mentally ill to acquire or possess a gun. So what was its provenance? And the extra, fully loaded clips for that gun, and the rounds in them: where did he get those?

     The silence is deafening.

---

     Traditionally, a mascot was an animal whose adoption was supposed to confer good luck upon its adopters. However, that’s not the function of a political mascot. That sort is intended to display the adopter’s “good intentions.” The Left has made mascots out of the most repulsive groups in our country:

• Muslims
• Criminals
• Psychotics
• Drag queens
• The “homeless”
• Disease carriers
• Militant feminists
• Violent street gangs

     Moreover, it’s probed ever deeper into realms of repulsion and savagery. Most recently, its balloon has floated toward the embrace of pedophiles. Perhaps the Left is consumed by an overpowering need to emphasize its unequaled “tolerance.”

     Or could it be that the prime qualification to become a mascot-group of the Left is a hatred of Western civilization and its norms? That would be consistent with its vilification and steadily intensifying assaults on we in the Right, whose mission is to conserve those norms.

     The evidence points toward one firm conclusion: Ugliness, dysfunction, depravity, and danger are no bar to winning the Left’s affection. They might even help.

---

     In his landmark work The Vision of the Anointed, Thomas Sowell declaims as follows:

     The ideals of “a government of laws and not of men” and “equal protection of the law” are at the heart of American constitutional law and the democratic process. Yet, increasingly government has come to be seen as a way of benefitting particular groups adopted as mascots, often without much regard for what that does to other groups or to the integrity of the system as a whole. Groups disliked, distrusted, or feared by the general public are particularly eligible to symbolize the superior wisdom and virtue of the anointed.

     He cites a truly horrifying case later on:

     A classic case of the rights of particular mascot groups overriding the rights of others are cases involving people with contagious diseases, including fatal contagious diseases. The landmark Supreme Court case in this area involved an elementary school teacher with active tuberculosis, who was fired because of fears that she might infect the children she taught. The teacher sued, charging discrimination against the handicapped, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
     A majority of the Supreme Court ruled that it was indeed discrimination because tuberculosis could be considered a handicap.

     Here is the majority opinion in the case, written by left-liberal Associate Justice William Brennan:

     We do not agree with petitioners that, in defining a handicapped individual under Section 504, the contagious effects of a disease can be meaningfully distinguished from the disease’s physical effects on a claimant in a case such as this. Arline’s contagiousness and her physical impairment each resulted from the same underlying condition, tuberculosis. It would be unfair to allow an employer to seize upon the distinction between the effects of a disease on others and the effects of a disease on a patient and use that distinction to justify discriminatory treatment....
     Allowing discrimination based on the contagious effects of a physical impairment would be inconsistent with the basic purpose of Section 504, which is to ensure that handicapped individuals are not denied jobs or other benefits because of the prejudiced attitudes or the ignorance of others.

     What does this sort of “reasoning” say about the rights of children, their parents, and their associates to avoid infection by a deadly disease? What does it say about the reach of “anti-discrimination” law? What does it say about the cavalier attitude toward the rights and well-being of others the Left displays by its choice of mascot groups?

     Never mind all that, the Left’s luminaries would say; it’s the principle that counts! Discrimination is evil! Thou shalt not discriminate! All the best people say so. But then, the “best people” tend to live in gated communities guarded by men with guns...guns they don’t want the rest of us to have.

---

     If normal people animated by normal convictions and healthful preferences are against it, the Left is for it. If often seems that no other consideration matters. The key shibboleths are “discrimination” and “oppression.” Moreover, the Left will champion it with “pride” parades and other sorts of spectacle. The accumulated evidence is unambiguous.

     In light of the Left’s demonstrated intolerance toward conservative, libertarian, and patriotic sentiments, its repeated proclamations of an obligation to “tolerate” all manner of disruption, destruction, and disease ring tinnily in the ear. The accelerating recognition of this contradiction is powering a wave of disaffiliation from the Left and the Democrat Party, best expressed in the burgeoning “#WalkAway” movement the Left has been at such pains to dismiss.

     At the base it’s fairly simple: you cannot repeatedly violate the rights or sensibilities of others in the name of a non-principle such as “non-discrimination” or “oppression” without reaping the consequences. Clinging to the belief that it’s possible has already cost the Left electorally. I predict that it will do them even further damage in 2018. Should present trends in their leadership continue, that will only fuel their efforts to find other forces and villains on which to blame their setbacks.

“Whom The Finger Of Allah Hath Touched”

     Excuse me? Why yes, my quote key has been getting a lot of exercise lately. But then, I’ve always liked quotes. They’re a way to express your sentiments through the mouths of others better known and (hopefully) better respected. Of course, they can be overdone. For example, we have this famous statement by Ralph Waldo Emerson: “I hate quotation. Tell me what you know.” Legend has it that Socrates replied to the hyper-opinionated Transcendentalist that “A man with two ears and one mouth should speak half as much as he listens,” but I’m inclined to distrust that. Remember what Abraham Lincoln said: “There’s an awful lot of made-up shit on the Internet.”

     The title phrase was at one time used by Middle Eastern Muslims to describe the mentally disturbed. Such unfortunates were accorded a semi-sacred status in medieval Muslim societies. They were protected against predation by social custom, and were often treated as holy mendicants, fed and clothed by the charity of the sane. Some even achieved the status of oracles or prophets. That should tell you a lot about Islam, if you think about it.

     I have no idea how many such persons could be found in a typical ninth or tenth century Arabian village, but it couldn’t have been a great many, else an informal “thinning of the numbers” would surely have taken place. It was probably a bit like the more recent phenomenon of the “village idiot.” One such would lend a town a charitable aspect and a certain quaint appeal. The other villagers would see to it that he was cared for and came to no harm. However, a town besieged by persons desirous of the post would quickly adopt defensive measures.

     If you’re wondering where this is going, Gentle Reader, I’m sure you’re not alone. The overarching subject has been much on my mind for months. It’s only now coming into acceptably clear focus.

---

     The defining conceptual shift of our most recent decades is the blurring of the boundary between tolerable and intolerable. I could present examples of phenomena that have “crossed the border” in either direction, but it hardly seems necessary. Suffice it to say that many behaviors – verbal behaviors included – that were once regarded as entirely tolerable are now deemed heinous enough to make one a pariah: unemployable, shunned by “decent folks,” and generally relegated to the alleys where the bums and drunkards sleep. Conversely, behaviors once widely regarded as intolerable now proclaim their “pride” and hold regular parades, notably in San Francisco. This has been the cause of a lot of social discord.

     When I paused to assess the words tolerable and intolerable in a sober frame of mind, and I measured them against the behaviors to which they’ve been applied, I came to a conclusion I didn’t expect. It’s striking enough to be only tentatively held, but it’s worth extensive consideration even so:

In the preponderance of cases, tolerable is about percentages.

     Percentages meaning:

1. Frequency of occurrence in the general population;
2. Fraction of the involved persons’ behavior;
3. Imposition of disruptive, offensive, or dangerous characteristics or behavior upon unwilling others.

     Let’s return to the “village idiot” of the opening segment. Call him Smith. (Surprise, surprise.) If the village numbers some hundreds of persons, and Smith is its only idiot, he’ll probably be regarded as tolerable by criterion 1. If Smith’s idiocy manifests solely in sitting on a fence and dribbling nonsensically on good-weather days, he’ll probably be regarded as tolerable by criterion 2. Finally, if Smith doesn’t demand a village-idiots’ representative on the village council, doesn’t randomly lie down in front of traffic or run naked through restaurants and retail establishments, and doesn’t assault passers-by, he’ll probably be regarded as tolerable by criterion 3. The other villagers won’t insist on confining or killing him. They might even look upon him with a certain affection.

     Smith becomes a problem for the village if he violates any one of those criteria. He’ll probably be confined to some pleasant institution with padded walls, to be cared for (and kept out of others’ hair) by the “professionally kind:” well-compensated persons in white uniforms who are unlikely to have a shred of genuine kindness – to say nothing of the spirit of Christian charity – in their bodies. But then, when they “whom the finger of Allah hath touched” seriously disrupt the lives of the decent and self-supporting, that’s the only reaction imaginable, regardless of how it might look to an uninformed outsider. Life must go on.

     The borderlands around tolerable are like that: gray, murky, and dangerous to explore.

---

     That quaint old phrase “village idiot” is immensely useful. The second of its words should be regarded as a wildcard, to be replaced by any of a wide range of other deviancies from normal deportment and / or self-support. I have no doubt that my Gentle Readers can come up with a number of socially significant replacements all by themselves.

     These past forty years have seen an explosion in the varieties and populations of “village idiots.” It’s been accompanied by their dismissal of the bounds on acceptable idiocies and their adoption of increasingly disruptive and predatory tactics to get what they want. They’ve received substantial help from the Main Stream Media, which are always eager to assist an aberration along if it will provide them with “news” – or even better, a cause to which other aberrants and professional promoters of discord can attach themselves, and thus create even more “news.”

     My point is this: There have always been “village idiots.” However, before our time they “whom the finger of Allah hath touched” were far fewer in number. They lived quietly, without disturbing normal persons or the prevailing public order. They didn’t demand special accommodations to their particular brand of idiocy or deem themselves above the laws that bind the rest of us. Before the social dislocations of the Sixties they were, by the percentages criteria, tolerable. That is not the case today.

     Remember the wildcard character of the word “idiot.” And ponder just what might happen should the normal persons of these United States decide they’ve had enough.

     (For the curious: This essay was, in part, stimulated by the reactions to President Trump’s announcement that the transgendered shall no longer be permitted to serve in the U.S. military...but only in part.)

The Strangest Entitlement

     No, not the kind paid out with Treasury Department checks. I have another in mind today – possibly one that’s irked you for a while.

     Start here: “Everyone is entitled to...” Complete the sentence with some tangible good or service. Is the result defensible?

     Note that I didn’t write “Is the result true?” The formulation I used is a circumlocution for one of my favorite words: should. In the state of nature, no one can claim any good or service of any kind by right. Therefore, no one can claim any good or service by right under any other condition, real or imagined. Rights are like that.

     “Is the result defensible?” is quite a different question. It averts the matter of rights in favor of a quite different condition: symmetry. “If Smith can have benefit X, why can’t Jones?” All other things being equal, of course. If we eschew consideration of material things (including money), what’s left?

     Exactly. You’re sharp this morning!

---

     Nevertheless, in the inexplicable universal votings and debatings of these Ages, an idea or rather a dumb presumption to the contrary has gone idly abroad, and at this day, over extensive tracts of the world, poor human beings are to be found, whose practical belief it is that if we "vote" this or that, so this or that will thenceforth be. Practically men have come to imagine that the Laws of this Universe, like the laws of constitutional countries, are decided by voting. It is an idle fancy. The Laws of this Universe, of which if the Laws of England are not an exact transcript, they should passionately study to become, are fixed by the everlasting congruity of things, and are not fixable or changeable by voting! -- Author unknown

     Men’s opinions and attitudes are beyond the powers of legislation. They cannot be effectively compelled or prohibited. No statute, even if passed unanimously, could make me approve of intoxication, rap “music,” or the Boston Red Sox. (As I’m sure there are drug fans, rap fans, and Red Sox fans who would feel he same about my allegiance to sobriety, actual music, and the New York Yankees, it’s a damned good thing that our laws recognize a right to life.)

     However, that doesn’t mean no one’s out there trying to do that very thing.

     It started – of course! – with the “civil rights” laws, which purport to forbid “discrimination.” That so many persons should fail to understand that such a law undercuts a basic human right – the right to choose one’s own associates – is a devastating commentary on the habitual thoughtlessness of men.

     It was a simple progression. First the flacks had to persuade us, mainly by repetition and public disapproval, that “discrimination” is bad. Then they had to persuade us, without explicitly saying so, that what’s bad “should be” illegal. From there it was a single step to legislation that forbids it.

     Each of those three steps was and is irrational in the extreme. Forcing people to “tolerate” one another merely exacerbates the tensions between them. Over time, the reasons they have for disliking one another, if they’re grounded in reality, will advance rather than recede. But no exercise of logic or demonstration from history will persuade someone who wants to believe that legislation is omnipotent. Consider the insistence of the warmistas that we really need a law against bad weather.

     But “discrimination” is a lame turkey, far too easy to shoot. There’s another shibboleth of the Left that’s more on my mind this beautiful spring morning: tolerance.

---

     “Tolerance,” for the Left, isn’t a well-formed concept but a political club to be used against its adversaries. We’ve been flailed with it repeatedly: over adultery, over illegitimacy, over homosexuality; over race, creed, ethnicity, and “culture;” and so on. At each occasion normal people have been told that we must learn to “tolerate” others...including, most notably, others who have no intention of tolerating us.

     The Ace kicker lies in this: the Left’s notion of “tolerance” includes the requirement that we accept behavior from others that we wouldn’t accept from one of “our own.” That acceptance has recently come to include commercial settings; an employer is required to give equal consideration to all applicants for employment regardless of the foreseeable effect any particular applicant would have on the workplace or his other employees. This is a destructive force of unappreciated power. It commands the unwilling to accept deviancies of varieties that are actively dangerous.

     Consider a hypothetical case: Smith, an applicant for employment at Acme Corp., loves durians. He has one at lunch every day. When pressed, he asserts “a right to eat what I want.” What are the foreseeable effects of Smith’s culinary preference on other employees who must use the same lunch room? Were you in charge of hiring at Acme, would you willingly hire someone like Smith?

     The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would require you to give Smith an “equal opportunity” to become an Acme employee. Not to do so would be “intolerant.” Smith’s intolerance for his coworkers’ prerogatives and preferences would be summarily dismissed. The same applies to other offensive characteristics or behaviors, for the EEOC is unconcerned with the effects of its “tolerance” mandate upon your business.

---

     Just now, the worship of the false god of “tolerance” is corrupting Western society in two highly visible ways: Islam and the machinations of the violent Left.

     Islam is staking a claim to a special position under the law: a position that exempts Muslims from conformance to laws and practices their creed opposes. We’ve all read the stories about Muslims in the workplace demanding special privileges. Those privileges have been both “positive” – a “right” to be excused from work several times per day for a prayer interval, and to have a special place set aside for those prayers – and “negative” – a “right” not to be commanded to work with (or be near to) things or practices Islam deems haram. Given those proclivities, a sensible American employer would decline to hire Muslims. The dictum of “tolerance” for others’ “religions” has been used to countervail that rational preference. Note that that dictum is accorded no weight when invoked by a Catholic employer whose religion forbids abortion and homosexuality.

     The reverse of the coin is being portrayed in our streets, as “Antifa” and “Black Bloc” use violence to suppress freedom of expression. Weren’t we supposed to have a right to free expression and freedom of (peaceable) assembly? I think it’s mentioned in some old document or other. But not to the violent Left! Any opinion they dislike is deemed “hate speech” and “intolerant.” Federal legislators are slowly aligning themselves with this madness. The American tradition of freedom for the expression of opposing views gets no shrift whatsoever.

     I could go on, but I think the point has been made.

---

     To say that A has a right to B’s approval is to say that B has no right to his own opinion. – Thomas Sowell

     Much of the lunacy that afflicts us today descends from the notion that legislation can compel attitudes. It is not so; it has never been so; and it will never be so. That won’t keep activists and the legislators they favor from trying.

     You’d think the madness rampant among:

• Black racialists who demand reparations,
• Muslim agitators who demand tolerance of polygamy and sharia courts;
• Homosexual activists campaigning for the repeal of public-decency and age-of-consent laws;
• Leftists who claim a “right” to shut down the assemblies of conservatives and speakers with conservative views;

     ...would have taught us something. No nation can withstand such battering from within. It’s a demonstration of the imperative of discrimination, at the national level: the incontestable privilege of a sovereign nation to decree who may enter, who must be denied admittance, and who must be confined or expelled as not compatible with the nation’s laws and norms of public conduct. Yet we ignore the evidence before us.

     Any bets on when the next Catholic church will be constructed in Saudi Arabia?