Thinking Meat

Wow, talk about credulous reporting:

Teachers staged their 11th strike on Tuesday since the start of the academic year in September and were already considering fresh action on June 12, timed to coincide with the start of France's high school leaving exam, the baccalaureat.

Teachers are concerned Raffarin's plans to decentralise power will harm education by handing over responsibility for hiring some staff to regional authorities.

No scare quotes, no "claim to be concerned," no alternative viewpoint: CNN completely credits and broadcasts the idea that teachers who have denied their students an education eleven times since September are concerned about "harm" done to that same education, as opposed to, say, the harm done to their paychecks and generous benefits.

(For those wanting to read more about the strikes in France, Steven Den Beste has a bunch of stuff.)

So much of this AP article on the Sultaana Freeman decision is cringe-worthy, I barely know where to start:

A Florida judge ruled Friday that a Muslim woman cannot wear a veil in her driver license photo, agreeing with state authorities that the practice could help terrorists conceal their identities.

While true, this seems like a pretty dumb reason. Why is everything about terrorism, anyway? What about perfectly ordinary concerns, like the inability to actually ensure that the person presenting the driver's license is, in fact, the same person licensed to drive?

Freeman, 35, had obtained a license in 2001 that showed her veiled with only her eyes visible through a slit.

What??!? Can she make up a fake name, too?

Freeman sued the state of Florida, saying it would violate her Islamic beliefs to show her face publicly. Her case was taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union, which saw the case as a test of religious freedom.

It's cases like this that make me glad I'm not an ACLU member. Since when is it an infringement of "religious freedom" to require people to take a photograph in exchange for the privilege of being allowed to operate a vehicle on a public road? If Ms. Freeman won't show her face in public, the state certainly shouldn't compel her -- it should simply withhold her driver's license, and point her to the nearest bus stop. The ACLU's position seems to be that driving is now a civil right. It isn't: driving is a privilege, though one routinely granted. The state certainly shouldn't base its decision on whom to license based on religion -- but they do have to meet basic requirements, and getting a photo ID is one of them. I mean, really, what if tomorrow I declare that my "religion" prohibits me from following "infidel" speed limits and using turn signals -- would the ACLU have the state issue me a special dispensation, or are we going to start having official certification as to what is and isn't a religion? (Better yet, what is and isn't really Islam -- since millions of Muslims, women and men, drive on American roads with their faces uncovered.) What the hell was the ACLU thinking?

Conservative commentators ridiculed the case, saying it would be absurd to allow people to obscure their faces in ID photos.

Nice little bit of editorializing by Mr. Branom -- as if a huge number of people from all over the political spectrum didn't find this case absurd. Naturally, no one else in this story gets painted with a wide political brush. Only those "conservative commentators" ridiculed a case in which a woman wants to have her ID photo consist of a black cloth.

Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail had argued that Islamic law has exceptions that allow women to expose their faces if it serves a public good...

Oh great, now we have theological arguments from a Florida bureaucrat, in a public court. What was Mr. Vail's point, anyway? What if Ms. Freeman's beliefs disagree with those teachings of Islam? Is he seriously going to make an argument that Ms. Freeman is misinterpreting the word of Allah? That sounds like just the issue for a court of law -- in Saudi Arabia.

...and that arrangements could be made to have Freeman photographed with only women present to allay her concerns about modesty.

Surely the man jests. What happens if this woman gets pulled over, and the policeman is male? Does he have to call a female officer to match the driver's license? What if it happens on a city street -- will the street have to be cleared to protect this woman's "modesty"? If she ever gets arrested, will the ACLU be up in arms because she was touched by a male stranger, or taken away from male relatives, in violation of her religion?

The ACLU of Florida said it was disappointed in Thorpe's statement that while Freeman "most likely poses no threat to national security," others may take advantage of a ruling in her favor to threaten lives. "So we have to infringe on Freeman's religious beliefs because of what someone else might do," ACLU legal director Randall Marshall said. "It seems to be a funny kind of interpretation on how the law should apply."

Only because it's "a funny kind of interpretation" of what really happened. No one infringed on Freeman's religious beliefs -- her beliefs simply happen to get in the way of what she wants to do -- namely, drive a car on Florida roads. That's too bad, but it does not obligate the state of Florida or the society at large to suspend its own (entirely sensible) rules. Plenty of people manage to get by without driving automobiles -- it is positively ludicrous to claim that refusing someone a license is a violation of anything.

And yes, all our security measures are in place "because of what someone else might do." All people in the U.S. are presumed innocent until proven otherwise -- surely an ACLU attorney understands that!

Marshall noted that a driver license can be obtained without a photo in 14 states.

Is Florida one of them? No? Then our newly pious woman is out of luck. Perhaps Mr. Marshall can forward her a list of those states, so that she may move to one and drive to her heart's content.

Freeman's lawyers argued that instead of a driver license photo, she could use other documents such as a birth certificate or Social Security card to prove her identity.

How exactly would she do that? Those normally don't come with photos.

This whole case is idiotic. Florida requires a photo in order to permit you to drive on public roads. No photo, no license. A license isn't a right. End of story.

Update: James Taranto links to an editorial in Arab News that essentially makes the same point:

In Arabia, those who choose not to have their pictures taken remain in the country and never get issued passports. Sultaana should relinquish her right to drive if she feels the same way.

Exactly. If she wants to be treated like a fundamentalist Wahhabi woman, she ought to behave like one -- i.e., stay at home and let her husband handle everything else. Imagine that: Arab News making more sense than the ACLU, attorneys for both sides, and even the judge.

Microsoft: iLoo Story Microsoft Full of ...

Microsoft now claims that the iLoo story was a hoax, apparently committed by MSN UK with the cooperation of its British and American PR firms. Yeah, right. Something about this doesn't smell right...

Update: No, no, wait a bit, Microsoft says it's real after all! Or was, anyway. Forget it. I'm just glad this didn't come from Apple. Last thing I need is Steve Jobs suggesting it's good enough to lick.

No. I won't do it. Learned my lesson the first time.

Arab News whines that its date industry (not what you might think!) is being hurt by competition from the West, including those ever-so-pernicious Zionist palm growers, and it's all the fault of the WTO. Laurence Simon is not sympathetic.

UN has the munchies

So the cafeteria staff at the UN gets into a dispute with the new contractor, and stages an unscheduled walkout. With no one to staff the canteen, it's locked. By lunchtime, UN employees and their stomachs are grumbling loudly. (Apparently, it's very tough to find food elsewhere in New York City.) A high-ranking UN official orders the cafeteria opened, without staff. At which point, the would-be arbiters of morality, guarantors of civilization, upholders of dignity, and keepers of world peace raided the cafeterias and stripped them bare.

By way of Instapundit, who quips, "Obviously, the problem is that there weren't enough U.S. Marines to maintain order."

Too... many... jokes...

Think Microsoft Bob was silly? Try the Microsoft Bog!

MSN UK is creating what Microsoft calls the world's first Internet outhouse, or iLoo, complete with flat-screen plasma display, wireless keyboard and broadband access. MSN UK spokesman Matthew Whittingham described the portable toilet as the first "WWW.C," referring to the term W.C., or water closet...

From the outside, the iLoo is little different from other portable toilets. But inside, Microsoft serves up accoutrements that might rival some iLoo users' home PC setups. A Windows XP-powered computer resides under the sink with connection to 6-channel surround audio. A flat-screen plasma display swivels out from the side of the cabin, and a waterproof wireless keyboard can be placed on the lap for comfort.

Nothing in the article says that it's a prank, and today is not April 1st, but I just can't believe this is real. Read the whole thing -- it gets more absurd with each paragraph.

Update: Seems like this thing is for real, or at least as real as any "pre-announced" product. Here's the Microsoft press release. And here's a Daily Mirror article with a diagram.