Thinking Meat

Another day, another bomb...

The Arab-Israeli conflict continues to be a mix of the tragic and the comical. To wit, this AP report:

JERUSALEM - Four Palestinian militants died late Sunday, apparently when a bomb they were planting went off in northern Gaza.

There's that word militants again, as though these guys simply had very strong feelings on the subject. I mean, really -- they died making a freaking bomb. Would calling them terrorists really be such an editorial stretch? Well, at least it's not Reuters -- they would have called the bombers "activists."

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Israel could still build Jewish settlements in defiance of a U.S.-backed peace plan.

In defiance of. Those uppity Israelis, not bowing to American authority. ...What? The U.S. has no authority? So where's the "defiance" part?

At first, Palestinian security officials said Israeli tanks fired at a group of militants from the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, affiliated with the Yasser Arafat's mainstream Fatah, killing three men and wounding four others, in the northeast Gaza town of Beit Hanoun. Another died later in a hospital, doctors said.

Well, if Palestinian security officials say it, it's gotta be true, right? Oh, oops, no:

Later, however, loudspeaker trucks drove through the area saying that the four died while "fulfilling their national duty," a phrase used in the past to announce accidental deaths.

I don't suppose this will cause the various news-gathering outfits in the PA to be a little more skeptical of PLO pronouncements in the future? ...didn't think so.

Also, love that bit about "fulfilling their national duty." Apparently, the people in the trucks consider it Palestinians' national duty to die stupidly and uselessly. Well, no surprise there.

Sharon adviser Raanan Gissin said Israel would continue construction in built-up areas of settlements. Asked about the required freeze, he noted that the Cabinet, in voting on the plan, attached objections.

I don't suppose anyone asked about the "required" cessation of violence that the Palestinians were supposed to deliver last month? Who the hell "requires" these things, anyway?

Mideast mediators, meanwhile, expressed concern over Israel's killing of Abdullah Kawasme, a local leader of the Hamas militant group in the West Bank city of Hebron.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said the killing Saturday could set back peace efforts, but stopped short of directly criticizing it.

Oh brother -- look, I know that Powell needs to say these things to appear "even-handed" and all, but really: Hamas has rejected this vaunted road map pretty unequivocally. They have refused to cease violence, simply because they are not yet defeated. They have told both Abbas and Egyptians to shove it. They have planned and carried out murderous attacks. So how exactly is killing one of their most red-handed leaders going to "set back the peace process"?!

The Quartet is trying to rescue the peace plan, buffeted by Mideast violence since its launch by President Bush on June 4.

I don't suppose the author even realizes how ironic this sounds. "Yeah, they have a nice peace plan, only the violence keeps getting in the way." Naturally, the word violence is used neutrally: Arabs kill bus passengers, Israelis kill Arabs that kill bus passengers, both sides equally at fault.

The statement did not refer to Israel's extrajudicial killings of wanted Palestinians, which have emerged as an obstacle to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas' efforts to persuade militant groups to halt attacks. The armed groups have said they will agree to a truce only if Israel halts military strikes, including such killings.

Oh, please! One might imagine that, had an Israeli court found these terrorist scum guilty before their "extrajudicial killings," Hamas and Islamic Jihad would be just fine with it. They want paperwork, dang it! And I believe Hamas has made it quite clear that they won't agree to a cease-fire, much less any kind of real peace, under any circumstances short of a mass Israeli suicide.

The Israeli military said troops tried to arrest Kawasme, and that he was killed after he did not heed calls to stop. The wanted man was armed, the military said.

A Palestinian witness, Mohammed Nasser Eddin, said Kawasme was unarmed and tried to run from soldiers encircling him in three vans outside a mosque in Hebron.

Well, since we can't possibly discount the tale of one "witness" living in the middle of Arafatistan, I guess we'll just have to believe that the Israelis were lying, and Kawasme was the only jihadi to fight against the evil usurper Zionists "unarmed."

Palestinian officials accused Israel of trying to undermine truce efforts.

Offered without comment.

The "road map" starts with a halt to violence, a crackdown on militant groups, the dismantling of settlement outposts and leads through three stages to a Palestinian state in 2005.

And we can expect the halt to "violence" and a crackdown on militant groups any time now. ...aaaaaany time now.... aaaany time...

Palestinians charge that Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are a major obstacle to a peace agreement because they encroach on land the Palestinians claim for a state.

I wonder if anyone asked the Israelis whether Palestinian mass murders of Israeli civilians and Hamas's calls for an Islamic state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean are "a major obstacle to a peace agreement."

Nah. Their opinion doesn't count. They are just Jews. And probably Zionists, too.

McDonald's vs. Lunch Ladies; no contest

The eeevvviillll Yankee hamburger-peddlers at McDonald's are destroying France yet again, this time acting as scabs.

The cafeteria staff at Robespierre (!) middle school in Epinay-sur-Seine went on strike, figuring they'd use the hungry students as leverage. So the school management ordered out at McDonald's.

I've got to say -- either the food at French school cafeterias is vastly superior to that of the U.S., or the Lunch Ladies of Labor were vastly overestimating the impact of their strike.

Two words: mashed peas.

June's Atlantic Monthly has a fascinating article into the investigation of just who shot Mohammed al-Dura. They throw light on a lot of physical evidence that seems to indicate that al-Dura wasn't shot by Israeli troops, but rather by the Palestinians looking to create a child martyr. It would seem highly implausible, except for the numerous well-documented efforts by Palestinians to militarize their children. Conclusions seem to vary widely, from the unquestioning belief that the boy was killed by Israeli bullets (prevalent in the Muslim world), to the Israelis' innocence, to the theory that the whole thing was a well-staged Palestinian conspiracy. At any rate, The Atlantic does a good job outlining physical evidence that Israeli troops couldn't have shot the boy, and several good diagrams are given -- though, unfortunately, those are only available in the paper version.

The paper version also has an article on suicide terrorism, and what Americans will have to learn from Israelis.

It doesn't suprise me that Mark Morford has penned yet another effluent, rambling piece. (Honestly, the whole e.e. cummings style is really passé, and rarely worked for people who weren't e.e. cummings.) It doesn't surprise me that he admires Dennis Kucinich, the "Vegan Holistic President." What does surprise me, just a little, is the endorsement given to Kucinich's Department of Peace. I guess Orwell references are lost on some people.

Oh, and don't miss this brilliant essay, either: apparently, Morford had quite the crush on Clinton, but finds Bush to be, like, totally dweeby. Or something like that; I'm not sure what the point is, but it makes for fun reading.

Update: As Laura points out in the comments, Morford's lack of admiration for Bush & Co. is hardly universal. In fact, as Lisa Schiffren writes in an OpinionJournal Taste column, many women are quite fond of Rumsfeld, Bush, et al., though admittedly they don't display quite the same level of squealing-schoolgirl enthusiasm that Morford pours out on Clinton. Well, all's for the best, I suppose: I doubt Bush or Rumsfeld would have cared much for Morfords ecstatic rambling run on sentences that are ever so wonderful oh my gosh my golly they sure are sweet aren't they?

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.