“Tolerance?! I would think it’s considered homophobic just to use the word “tolerance,” which connotes minimal acceptance and little more than a willingness to refrain from discriminating or saying actively mean things. In fact, I’d suggest it is the demand to do so much more — to celebrate pride in sexual matters and to endure indoctrination sessions that force feed questionable fine points — that has made people resistant and more likely to check a less gay-friendly box on the survey.”

—Quirky but perceptive Madison, Wis. bloggress Ann Althouse, commenting on the Times’ “Americans Are Turning Against Gay People” yesterday.

Just when I am on the verge of deciding that Ann is just too eccentric and annoying with her weird obsessions ( like archaic words, Grok and men wearing shorts…) and often lazy commentary (“Let’s just throw a news story out there and let the readers do the work’) she has a day like yesterday, where her observations are dazzling and her sleuthing-out of topics remarkable.

In the post that sparked the quote above, she homed in on something I tried to explain to a trans friend last week: most people are happy to accept the trans community on its own terms without rancor and bias if they would just stop thrusting their preferences in our metaphorical faces. I believe that the rest of the alphabet sex groups are suffering by their association with that obnoxious “T” that wants to cheat at women’s sports and feign legerdemain—“PRESTO_ CHANGO POOF! I’m a woman because I say so!” Her point about “tolerate” is also sharp and not made often enough. Who just wants to be “tolerated”?

That was just one of four great ethics-related observations in Ann’s “grand slam.” (I’m thinking about baseball a lot right now because the Hall of Fame just announced its new members, and I’m thrilled that neither of the steroid cheaters—Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez—came close to getting enough votes…)

I’ll call that the first run Ann knocked home yesterday. The rest…

2. In “With stacks of papers as props, Trump endeavors to prove to the press that the first year of his second term was jam-packed with amazing accomplishments,” Althouse pointed to Trump’s two hours of patting himself on the back for an excellent and productive first year because nobody else would do it. How desperately he wants some love and credit! But the news media will not allow him to get it no matter what the President accomplishes, and his frustration is sad. It also feeds his enemies’ lust to destroy him.

The President would be far better off if he concentrated on getting the public to comprehend just one policy, the determination to remove as many illegal immigrants as possible. In fact, I don’t understand why he hasn’t devoted a national television address to that topic, especially with the rioting in Minnesota and the constant Axis lies about I.C.E. Heck, I could write the speech myself, and it could be short and irrefutable.

The problem is that Trump would be the worst one to deliver it, because he is terrible on a script and because the Trump Deranged will hate anything he says: he could sing “Imagine” and they would condemn the song. Have J.D. Vance do it. Rubio. Nicki Minaj. Me. A clear statement is urgently needed.

3. In this post, Althouse comments on a Scott Adams-bashing essay in the Times called “‘Dilbert’ Was Always MAGA” (MAGA means “bad” to Times readers.) Althouse quotes the article quoting Adams, where the recently-departed wit made a valid and perceptive observation about power and leadership. It is also one that I have been making since the Carter Administration, and repeated a great deal in the past year:

 ‘There’s no such thing as expertise. It just doesn’t exist. In these big, complicated situations, no one really knows if we have a good deal. It’s best just to negotiate from ignorance and hope the other side gives in. In the real world there is a fog. In a world where nobody knows, the loudest person is going to get the most…In your movie, there’s a big, incompetent guy [Trump] who doesn’t know the details. I’m telling you it’s the best thing possible. When President Trump acts without all the information and his facts are not accurate, he’s operating on a higher level, not a lower level. He’s operating in the real world.'”

That’s effective leadership in a nutshell, but most people don’t get it. Lincoln knew little about warfare; Jackson knew nothing about banking, Washington had never been a governor, a mayor, or a national leader, and certain;t not the a leader of the first world democracy. They all had experts telling them and the public that those Presidents didn’t know what they were doing. But those Presidents knew how to use their power, they had experience in managing people, they had excellent instincts, and they didn’t wait around for perfect answers and consensus solutions.

[Notice of a correction: I stupidly wrote originally that George had never served in elected office, when in fact he was a member of the American Colony’s first elected legislature, Virginia’s House of Burgesses. Thanks to jdkazoo for the correction.]

4. This post may be my favorite score in the grand slam. Ann highlights a WaPo Editorial Board column called “China embraced population control. The damage may be irreversible. Despite the communist government’s efforts, women won’t have more children” She notes that the Post editors wrote, “Forced abortions and sterilizations, combined with fines and propaganda, snuffed out many millions of lives. Unborn girls were particularly victimized because of sex-selective abortions.”

Abortions snuff out lives! Millions of them! Funny, that reality seems to never find its way into mainstream media discussions of abortions in the U.S. Of course, if woman choose to snuff out millions of innocent lives, that’s a good thing.

Excellent job, Ann.