Posted on September 9th, 2007 by Gavin M.
It looks like it was another fabulous blur of a Saturday night for Megan McArdle, with the watermelon martinis flowing like liquid family annuities. Because today we find the following:
We must force you to be free!
09 Sep 2007 02:56 pm
Scott Lemieux is blogging about Quebec’s refusal to let Muslim women vote with their face uncovered:
Um. Yeah.
Go ahead, Scott, kick the football.
[Hanx! Jillian and G]
Update:
Welp, what she did was add an update saying that it was a typo, and correcting the line to read as follows:
Scott Lemieux is blogging about Quebec’s refusal to let Muslim women vote with their face covered:
Still unexplained: How this squares with Scott’s post on the ruling in Québec permitting women to vote with their faces covered in federal byelections.
It almost seems as though she’s just making stuff up…
Double Update:
We’re starting to feel bad about picking on McArdle, which means it’s probably time to make fun of someone else for awhile, at least until picking on McArdle reattains that bright, fresh, spinning-in-an-Alpine-meadow sensation, like Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music, that we have come to love so well.
Fortunately enough, Acepalooza has been formally announced, and it is indeed at this perfect location…
Update Teh Third:
McArdle corrects us, explaining that she really meant something else all along:
No, I didn’t make another error about the topic of the article. The full text reads:
The Quebec government requires everyone to vote with their faces uncovered, even if they have religious reasons for not doing so. Elections Canada has issued a ruling permitting women to vote with their faces covered in federal byelections in Quebec, although the rule will still apply in provincial elections.
i.e. the government of Quebec is refusing to let women vote in provincial elections with their faces covered, whatever their reasons for doing so.
Thanks to everyone who made my Sunday evening so entertaining!
See, this is like we were saying all along: McArdle didn’t make any errors about the topic of the article. What we’ve been saying this whole entire time (and perhaps it’s necessary to clarify) is that in some cases it’s possible for some people to link to Scott Lemieux and to represent what he’s saying in certain other ways than were perhaps what he intended — except perhaps not with this particular post.
So as you can see, we were just speculating about hypotheticals, and to be honest, we’re really not very interested in this topic anyway. Plus, why does McArdle assume we were talking about her? It’s all a bit weird if you ask us.