Welcome to the first Friday in March: March the sixth to be precise. It’s The Day of the Dude, celebrating the hero of the movie “The Big Lebowski“, released on this day in 1998. Here’s the trailer. And the dude abides.
It’s also Alamo Day (the battle for the structure ended badly for the Texans on this day in 1836), National Frozen Food Day, National Oreo Cookie Day (they were first sold on this day in 1912), and National White Chocoalte Cheesecake Day.
There’s a special Google Doodle today for the Paralympic Winter Games, which will run between today and March 15. Click below to see the animated page giving details:
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the March 6 Wikipedia page.
Da Nooz:
*Late breaking news:, Trump has fired Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The troubles with ICE was partly responsible, and her poor performance at Congressional hearings, She also refused to answer questions about whether she had an affair with her chief advisor Corey Lewandowski, who was given powers like the ability to sign government contracts. And she bought an expensive jet with a bedroom and 18 seats that, she claimed, was to be used for deportation of immigrants.
President Trump fired Kristi Noem as homeland security secretary on Thursday and announced plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, concluding a long-building frustration with Ms. Noem that had come to a head this week with her grilling by Republicans at congressional hearings.
Mr. Trump announced the change on social media, along with a new, and previously nonexistent, role for Ms. Noem inside the administration: special envoy for the Shield of the Americas, which he said would be a new security initiative for the Western Hemisphere.
The immediate catalyst for Ms. Noem’s firing appeared to be her answers during two congressional hearings this week, particularly her under-threat-of-perjury statements that Mr. Trump had approved of tens of millions of dollars of government ads in which she was prominently featured. Mr. Trump denied that to Reuters on Thursday, saying, “I never knew anything about it.”
Mr. Trump was shown clips of her answers before a Senate panel and was angry that she blamed him for the contentious spots, according to a person with knowledge of what happened who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. The ads were part of a $200 million-plus government-funded campaign that included a subcontractor run by the husband of Ms. Noem’s now-former spokeswoman, Tricia McLaughlin.
She’s now been accused of perjury at that hearing:
Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said on Thursday evening that he would press for a perjury investigation into Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary whom President Trump fired hours earlier.
Mr. Blumenthal said that he would call for the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to investigate whether Ms. Noem had lied under oath during a Senate hearing on Tuesday, when she said that Corey Lewandowski, one of her top advisers, did not approve contracts for the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Blumenthal said that Democrats had evidence to suggest that Mr. Lewandowski had done so, and that Ms. Noem’s removal did not protect her from an investigation.
“Her firing doesn’t absolve her or relieve her of potential liability for perjury, and we are going to pursue an investigation of the evidence that she lied, because it relates to corruption in the administration,” said Mr. Blumenthal, the top Democrat on the panel.
*The U.S. Senate rejected a resolution that would have forced Trump to end the strikes on Iran. Voting was pretty much along party lines, with one Democrat objecting (Fetterman, of course, who will not be re-elected), and one Republican (Rand Paul) signing on.
“This essentially is the vote whether to go to war or not,” Paul told reporters.
But Paul was the only Republican who voted to advance the resolution, which failed 47-53 on a procedural vote. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman (Pennsylvania) voted against it.
The vote was the latest setback in Democrats’ long-shot strategy to block Trump from ordering military strikes without authorization from Congress. They have forced votes on eight war power resolutions in the House and Senate — a record for a single Congress — since Trump returned to office in an attempt to block him from striking Venezuela, Iran and boats near Latin America suspected of smuggling drugs. All of them have failed.
Republicans in Congress broadly support Trump’s decision to strike Iran, though a few have raised concerns about Congress’s lack of involvement.
“Yes, I wish I would have been consulted,” Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said in a statement. “I wish my vote would have been asked for before this. But the President did act within his legal bounds to do what he has done.”
Curtis and other Republicans argued that ordering the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the war days after it started would send the wrong message. Sen. Todd Young (R-Indiana) said he wished in retrospect that Congress had done more to assert its authority before the strikes.
“We should’ve been holding hearings and asking probing questions and making the case to get a greater measure of unity around this operation on the front end,” Young told reporters ahead of the vote. “But here we are. We’re at war.”
Democrats countered that it was not too late to halt a war it did not authorize.
Even Democratic Presidents, including Biden, Obama, and Clinton, have struck the Middle East without asking for Congressional approval. And, in this case when the element of surprise was so important, I think it was risky to put this before Congress in advance, for fear of leaking. Do we trust, say, members of The Squad not to leak a strike to Iran (you know who I’m talking about)? Given the precedents by Democratic Presidents, it’s not evenhanded for Democrats to make a big deal of this now. The horse is out of the barn.
*An archived article in the Financial Times shows how Israel managed to track down and kill Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It’s devilishly clever (h/t Jez):
When the highly trained, loyal bodyguards and drivers of senior Iranian officials came to work near Pasteur Street in Tehran — where Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in an Israeli air strike on Saturday — the Israelis were watching.
Nearly all the traffic cameras in Tehran had been hacked for years, their images encrypted and transmitted to servers in Tel Aviv and southern Israel, according to two people familiar with the matter.
One camera had an angle that proved particularly useful, said one of the people, allowing them to determine where the men liked to park their personal cars and providing a window into the workings of a mundane part of the closely guarded compound.
Complex algorithms added details to dossiers on members of these security guards that included their addresses, hours of duty, routes they took to work and, most importantly, who they were usually assigned to protect and transport — building what intelligence officers call a “pattern of life”.
The capabilities were part of a years-long intelligence campaign that helped pave the way for the ayatollah’s assassination. This source of real-time data — one of hundreds of different streams of intelligence — was not the only way Israel and the CIA were able to determine exactly what time 86-year-old Khamenei would be in his offices this fateful Saturday morning and who would be joining him.
The capabilities were part of a years-long intelligence campaign that helped pave the way for the ayatollah’s assassination. This source of real-time data — one of hundreds of different streams of intelligence — was not the only way Israel and the CIA were able to determine exactly what time 86-year-old Khamenei would be in his offices this fateful Saturday morning and who would be joining him.
Long before the bombs fell, “we knew Tehran like we know Jerusalem”, said one current Israeli intelligence official. “And when you know [a place] as well as you know the street you grew up on, you notice a single thing that’s out of place.”
This is again the doing of Mossad, and ranks up there with Beepergate (and the Entebbe rescue) as one of the great feats of Israeli intelligence. It was dumb of the Iranian government to put so many higher-ups in one place at one time. Don’t they have Zoom calls there?
*At the NYT, Bret Stephens and Frank Bruni clash in a conversation about Iran.(article archived here). You already know what sides they’re on. A few snippets of the conversation:
Bret Stephens: They were among the motivations. A democratic Iran that represented the will of its people would not have spent the past 47 years waging war against the Big and Little Satans — that is, the United States and Israel. It would not have squandered its national treasure financing and arming groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, too. It would not have courted global sanctions through its secretive nuclear program.
That said, if what this war accomplishes isn’t quite regime change — which, I think, has perhaps a 30 percent chance of succeeding — but what might be called “regime modification,” then that also will count as success. By that, I mean an outcome that gets the Iranians to verifiably and irreversibly divest themselves of their nuclear and long-range missile programs and to stop supporting terrorist proxies.
Frank: Accomplishes “regime modification” at what price? And how modified a regime? And why, with all due respect, do I feel that those promoting and defending this war are spreading out a buffet of reasons and goals and asking us skeptics to pick the dish that most appeals to us? You want roast chicken? There’s a wing and a drumstick over here! Oh, no, you craved penne alla vodka? Behold these noodles! I have intellectual and moral indigestion. And a diminishing, not growing, appetite.
Bret: No question President Trump did a terrible job explaining himself. Americans have a right to know why he’s putting service members in harm’s way. But I don’t think the justifications are quite the smorgasbord you suggest.
I’d boil it down to one paragraph:
Iran has been waging a “forever war” against us ever since this regime came to power in 1979. These strikes are an attempt finally to put an end to that war, not to start a new one. We need to do it because the regime has flatly refused to curb its most threatening behavior, even after last June’s war. And we need to do it now for the same reason you try to deal with cancer at Stage 1 rather than Stage 4: Because waiting till they reconstitute their nuclear programs and manufacture thousands of missiles a year would make stopping them in the future much costlier. That they are close allies of Russia and China raises the geopolitical stakes. That they just slaughtered thousands of their own people raises the moral stakes.
To me, that’s a coherent case.
Frank: It’s a case, but is it or was it Trump’s? No insult intended, but your rationale matters considerably less than Trump’s — and as you say, he’s done a terrible job explaining himself. That’s because he has never carefully worked this out in his own mind, and frankly, that’s terrifying. His incoherence on this issue isn’t an asterisk; it’s a devastating tell.
Bret: The best case I’ve heard against the war boils down to one sentence: Do you really trust Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth to fight, and finish, this war? My answer is: The jury is out. But at least the military side of it seems, so far, to have been accomplished with impressive competence.
Both men agree that James Talarico’s victory in the Texas Democratic primary for a Senate seat is a good harbinger for the party, as he seems to be more charismatic and more willing to be bipartisan than other candidates, including his Democratic opponent.
*And Retraction Watch highlights a case of massive medical-reporting fraud lasting 25 years.
A Canadian journal has issued corrections on 138 case reports it published over the last 25 years to add a disclaimer: The cases described are fictional.
Paediatrics & Child Health, the journal of the Canadian Paediatric Society, has published the cases since 2000 in articles for a series for its Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program. The articles usually start with a case description followed by “learning points” that include statistics, clinical observations and data from CPSP. The peer-reviewed articles don’t state anywhere the cases described are fictional.
The corrections come following a January article in New Yorker magazine that mentioned one of the reports — “Baby boy blue,” a case published in 2010 describing an infant who showed signs of opioid exposure via breast milk while his mother was taking acetaminophen with codeine. The New Yorker article made public an admission by one of the coauthors that the case was made up.
“Based on the New Yorker article, we made the decision to add a correction notice to all 138 publications drawing attention to CPSP studies and surveys to clarify that the cases are fictional,” Joan Robinson, editor-in-chief of Paediatrics & Child Health, told Retraction Watch. “From now on, the body of the case report will specifically state that the case is fictional.”
The move came as a surprise to David Juurlink, professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of Toronto, who has spent over a decade looking into the claim that infants can receive a meaningful or even lethal dose of opioids via breast milk when their mothers take acetaminophen with codeine. The first such case, published in the Lancetin 2006 by pharmacologist Gideon Koren, was the centerpiece of the New Yorker article. (The Lancet case report now bears an expression of concern.) Koren used that case to claim for years that codeine, which gets metabolized to morphine in the body, can pose a lethal risk to breastfeeding infants.
Follow-up work by Juurlink and others has found the doses claimed in the Lancet report — as well as in two other articles, both now retracted, Koren and colleagues wrote about the case — to be pharmacologically unlikely. As the New Yorker reported, a review of the autopsy data and other evidence points to the baby having been given the pain medication directly rather than having been exposed to the drug through breast milk.
While the instructions for authors for Paediatrics & Child Health has at times indicated the case reports are fictional, that disclosure has never appeared on the journal articles themselves.
“Readers of primary source peer reviewed medical scientific journals have an absolute right to believe that the article being read is as accurate as possible, original, and factual, unless clearly specified otherwise,” said former JAMA editor George Lundberg. “‘Alternative facts,’ as popularized by Kellyanne Conway, have no place in a medical or scientific journal.”
. . . The journal decided when it first started publishing the article type “that the cases should be fictional to protect patient confidentiality,” Robinson told us. “Apart from the case that led to the recent New Yorker article, all or almost all were cases of very well recognized conditions (such as congenital syphilis, fetal alcohol syndrome, serious trauma from ATVs, hepatitis C infection) where a single case report would not generate any interest or ever be cited.”
They try to cover their butts, and it is the case that some of the vignettes were true, with only names changed. But not informing people that published details may be made up is unforgivable. Retraction Watch does science a great service.
*I’m a sucker for Democrats dispensing wisdom about how we should win elections, and this one, “Rahm Emanuel floods Democrats with criticisms and ideas. Will his party listen?” is in the WSJ. Emanuel has had a lot of experience, serving as a U.S. Representative, White House Chief of Staff, and Mayor of Chicago (people didn’t like him much here). But if he were elected, he’d be America’s first Jewish President. What advice does he have for us?
Asked at a recent fundraiser in this affluent Detroit suburb how Democrats might be able to win back the working-class voters who have defected to President Trump, Emanuel faulted his party in 2024 for being too focused on things such as transgender rights and not enough on pocketbook issues.
“We weren’t very good in this last election at the kitchen table. We weren’t very good in the family room,” said the former congressman, mayor and U.S. ambassador to Japan. “The only room we occupied in the house was the bathroom—and it’s the smallest room in the house.”
Emanuel’s diagnosis is the loudest version of a soul-searching exercise playing out among a few members of the prospective 2028 Democratic presidential field, providing a window into their party’s continuing debate about how to win more broadly again.
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear implores Democrats to talk more like “normal human beings” and avoid “advocacy speak” he hears when people use phrases such as “substance-use disorder” instead of addiction and “food insecurity” instead of hunger.
Even California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has governed one of the country’s most Democratic states, has begun to distance himself from certain progressive stances, including party orthodoxy on transgender rights. He recently said Democrats need to be “culturally normal.”
In an interview, Emanuel said his party grew too complacent during Barack Obama’s presidency, assuming the demographics of a diversifying nation would favor them going forward. He also said Democrats are now too fixated on Trump and it is hurting their chances in future elections.
“We became intellectually flabby and we became intellectually lazy,” said Emanuel, Obama’s first White House chief of staff. “To gain the confidence of the American people, you cannot just be a resistance, you also have to be a renewal. One of the things I’m trying to do is lay out that agenda.”
During an appearance at the Detroit Economic Club, Emanuel said he plans to offer a lot of bluntness between now and 2028. “I don’t give a crap,” he said. “I’m going to tell you what I think we’ve got to get done. You like it, great. You don’t like it, you can join my family and not like me.”
Kelly Breen, a suburban Detroit state representative who attended the fundraiser here, said Emanuel is on her list of potential 2028 candidates, along with Newsom and Beshear, whom she is most interested in so far. “I would prefer to have a steady and knowledgeable hand,” she said.
Well, yes, many Democrats have called the party out for wokeness and for not listening to the average Joe and Jane, but it’s one thing to pinpoint a problem and another to solve it, especially when the Democratic edifice is weakened by “progressive” termites. Emanuel is starting to sound like James Carville. That’s not a bad thing, but Rahm’s Jewish, and, more than that, he’s known for being abrasive. I can’t imagine Democrats, who are growing less fond of Jews, would nominate one as their Presidential candidates. But maybe the Party will at least listen to him.
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Szaron don’t seem to like attention:
Hili: And once again we find ourselves in the spotlight.
Szaron: Sometimes the secondary characters look better.
In Polish:
Hili: I znów jesteśmy w świetle reflektorów.
Szaron: Czasem postaci drugoplanowe wyglądają lepiej.
*******************
From Stacy:
From CinEmma. more cat paws:
From Give Me a Sign, and no, I can’t guarantee this is genuine:
Lagniappe: Yesterday’s cover of Charlie Hebdo (h/t Bat). They never give up:
From Masih, now taking Elizabeth Warren to task:
I’m not just angry. I’m furious with you Elizabeth Warren.
Stop using the suffering of my people as political ammunition against Donald Trump.
You say you are grieving for those killed in this “unnecessary war.”
Really? I checked your social media. More than 20 posts… https://t.co/p47dBzIUQ3— Masih Alinejad 🏳️ (@AlinejadMasih) March 4, 2026
Some sardonic humor (with truth in it) from The Babylon Bee via Luana:
To Save Time, Iran Appoints Supreme Leader Who Is Already Dead https://t.co/XHLaudSfs5 pic.twitter.com/jKAdi0sCud
— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) March 4, 2026
From actor and comedian Rowan Atkinson via J. K. Rowling:
Yes. pic.twitter.com/u4VPW090L4
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) February 26, 2026
From Colin. No comment needed:
“Distinct patterns on her toes that indicate a kneeling activity common in men. This discovery…suggests society ‘tolerated exceptions and was already experiencing the complexity of identities.'”
IT’S 2026. CAN WE STOP THIS NONSENSE PLEASE? pic.twitter.com/vCByNEZZWG
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) March 4, 2026
One from my feed, another great post from Science girl. It’s hard to imagine the evolutionary steps that resulted in this behavior:
Tailor birds construct a cradle for their nest by sewing together leaves with spider silk and plant fibres
— Science girl (@sciencegirl) March 4, 2026
One I reposted from The Auschwitz Memorial:
This Dutch Jewish boy was gassed to death as soon as he arrived at Auschwitz. He was 7 years old and, had he lived, he’d be ninety today. https://t.co/fv70HCQZuF
— Jerry Coyne (@Evolutionistrue) March 6, 2026
Two from Dr. Cobb. The first one is salacious, and I had no idea! The lyrics and even a recording is further down the thread:
Praise be! It’s the 91st anniversary of Lucile Bogan recording surely the filthiest song in history: Shave ’Em Dry. She worked in the ‘dirty blues’ genre, known for innuendo-heavy lyrics, but Lucile was the sort of person who knew writers who used innuendo, and thought they were all cowards 🧵
— Odd This Day (@oddthisday.bsky.social) 2026-03-05T09:46:20.473Z
A dad joke (click to go to original):
Thanks for highlighting the tailor bird, I saw the clip come up on eXtwitter – astonishing!
Rahm Emmanuel would be a Dem candidate I’d be concerned about because he could easily position himself as a moderate in today’s climate. Assuming he could get past his own party in the primaries. Here’s a story already about the DNCC monkeying with the process in favor of their preferred candidates. See the statement linked in the article callings for open primaries and voter-led nominations. It seems to me that the way to get voters to vote for candidates is to let them choose ones they like.
that Mr. Trump had approved of tens of millions of dollars of government ads in which she was prominently featured…
In the end, all money seems to flow to ad men. OK, ad people. If it somehow flowed to science I’d be a lot more comfortable with making political contributions.
Also, will Noem have to move from that mansion she’s been squatting in?
Bruni and like-minded critics: “Trump’s messaging is incoherent. Does that mean ongoing operations cannot be justified? Well, no, but I would like to hear a clear rationale from him. Sure, things are going well so far, which I grant means that the strikes are achieving some desirable results. But Trump is simply looking at results and claiming that’s what he wanted to do all along. I don’t believe him. Besides, war is chaotic and largely unpredictable—it could spiral fast. While we are talking about it, where is the exit timeline, the cost assessment, the expected human toll? Sure, leadership deaths create power vacuums and most of the known players have died, but what’s our vision for the future Iranian government? Who will take charge? Will we have a role? It’s unacceptable that the public must, like the Iranian leadership, analyze and reverse engineer U.S. actions to discern Trump’s intent and predict his future course of action. Anyway, whatever the answers, would you believe him? Even if you did, do you really trust Trump will successfully get us there? Really?”
Chess reporter: Magnus, what’s your desired endgame for today’s match?
Magnus: To win.
Reporter: No, I mean how do you plan to achieve that? Which pieces will you use to checkmate? On which side of the board? How long can we expect the game to last? Do you envision getting into time trouble?
Magnus: (Sets down mic. Leaves stage.)
Reporter: Magnus? Magnus?
Bruni: But Trump is not Magnus, the best endgame player in the world.
Me: True, and is that the chief objection? Would you have supported military action if it had only been explained in words acceptable to you—and ordered by a person acceptable to you? Or do you oppose it and sincerely believe that more talk and the status quo will change Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons? Or do you believe it insufficient to destroy Iran’s capacity to wage war if we cannot also fix the political problem of the regime’s will to do harm and its tyranny over its own people? If so, then what was your plan for success these last 47 years?
When the Democratic Party runs an election campaign which carefully avoids focusing on transgender rights, the Republican Party will wisely focus on transgender rights anyway — because the public will not be fooled. If this issue were really that trivial the Democrats would have no problem crossing the aisle right now and voting in favor of sex-based sports and against pediatric sex-trait modification. They’d give us good reason to believe that when they gain power they won’t immediately make “transgender rights” one of their top priorities, a hill they’d die on before they reconsider their stance and actually change their minds on whether some women produce sperm or not.
As it is, they’ll only continue to duck the questions and point out squirrels, biding their time. We’re not stupid. The problem isn’t what they’re “focusing on.” It’s about what the majority of the party believes and what they will do the minute they get the chance.
Good job.
Will be very hard for me to believe what Democrats say they might do, over what they already have done: men in women’s sports and men in women’s prisons.
“… ranks up there with Beepergate (and the Entebbe rescue) as one of the great feats of Israeli intelligence.” Intelligence in all meanings of the word. One is struck by the unintelligence constantly displayed by the Islamists, from their beepers to the behavior of Iran. But what else is to expected from the theocratic mind-set, based as it is on the elevation of holy doctrine over factuality?
And in the same way, every single technical device used in their theocracies, from Tehran’s traffic cameras to its oil economy, was developed by the kaffirs of the West, not by scholars of holy doctrine in dar-al-Islam. That fact (blamed on “colonialism” by our own theocrats of wokery) is also no accident.
Cousin marriage doesn’t help either (which agreed is Islamically driven.) And I don’t mean only the genetic problems from inbreeding when first cousins marry first cousins and their children marry first cousins and their children do too. It’s the tribalism which gives priority, trust, and advancement to kindred instead of merit and iconoclasm.
(P.S. I’m going to claim that is a correct use of “advancement” which is otherwise deprecated.)
Yes Jon – the beeper thing was the most impressive military thing I’ve ever seen.
Leslie is also correct in the cousin marriage aspect on the Islam side – which has only recently been more widely known (thankfully). Further reading: Armies of Sand book which explains in detail why Arab armies consistently loose wars – to everybody.
On the other side: Israel’s advantage – one of them – is a better sorting mechanism.
With just about everybody going through the conscription system their “talent pool” is wide and deep – Mossad/IDF etc. can select the best from entire adult population (almost).
If you combine THAT with the fact that being picked, and your life thereafter is one of the most prestigious spots in their society – you’re going to get the best people and the best results. It is DEI in reverse and it works.
D.A.
NYC/CT
https://x.com/DavidandersonJd
Thanks, David, especially for the phrase “DEI in reverse”.
In a sense, everything about modernity (including our 2.3
fold increased life expectancy) reflects discoveries made through DEI in reverse. And to think that the Faithful, at the same time, kept mumbling about ad majorem gloriam DEI.
There is an elephant in the room… and it is Mossad’s failure to recognise the terror attack on Oct 7th and held them at the border. For all I know it may not have been their job but seems like it.
Were they comfortably numb at the time?
No matter which way you look at it over confidence comes to mind, shows you can’t be a clever Trevor all the time, that mistake was, (stating the obvious) costly.
For me, it should have meant only the terrorist would be dead not the innocent.
Pity.
Rights are funny things: useful fictions or guidelines for society.
The right to offend? I would not try to exercise this right unless I have found someone really annoying.
The right not to be offended … good luck with that one.
The right not to offend … well, that one seems pretty easy.
And this one:
The right to be offended … this is interesting. To have my most cherished beliefs tested and ridiculed … I’ll go for that one.
Liked your list. Only my friends would be able to offend me, but they don’t. and I do have a very self-depricating sense of humor anyway. Maybe I don’t have enough “cherished beliefs” to be tested…
A right is meaningful only if it is enforceable. If the police put me in jail without a charge and I file a habeas corpus writ, they have to let me go if my writ is successful. If they search my dwelling without a warrant, nothing they find is admissible as evidence.
Those rights are straightforward and rigid, and not fictions or mere guidelines at all…because they are enforceable. They also place no reciprocal obligations on the part of other citizens — they only limit the power of the state. The kind of rights that progressives seem to want are ones that guarantee the provision of resources to the petitioner, such as free health care, or food, or shelter, which puts a reciprocal obligation on the providers of health care, food, and shelter to provide those goods as demanded, an obligation that augments the state’s taxing and punishing power. (How much health care, food, and shelter must be provided? Can we ever say No? What if we want to go into some other line of work other than providing (free?) health care, food, and shelter? What does the rights seeker do then?)
A right not to be offended or discriminated against is this kind of right. Some other person’s freedom must be curtailed in order for the state to deliver on the right. If I am offended by being misgendered, then the state must make misgendering a crime, as the province of British Columbia has done. Similarly, there can be no right to “dignity” because this obliges everyone else to behave in an undefined “dignified” manner toward the petitioner. Good luck with that one, too.
I understand your right to be offended is exactly what we mean when we say a speaker must have the right to be heard by all who will listen, not just to speak. As Paul Viminitz says, if the police drive a speaker out into the middle of a Saskatchewan wheat farm and tell him, “OK, say your piece. We’ll return in an hour to take you back to town,” we’re denying his potential audience (in town) the chance to hear views they might disagree with but might be willing to change their minds about. So while there is a right to be offended, it’s really the right to hear the speaker that is subsumed in this right.