Not that there was much danger of me going there in the first place, but I’ll never go to a Dunkin’ Donuts again.
Why not?
Honestly. Michelle Malkin couldn’t make a logical conclusion if it were beamed into her brain with a 40 megawatt laser. If you’re going to pull an ad over her ravings, then you don’t deserve my coin. Instead, stick up for your principles, say publicly and loudly that there is a section of the populace that clearly is a razor’s edge from insanity, and then use the publicity to sell more product. I’ll be first in line.
Sheesh. I can’t keep giving advice out like this for free.
Although I had heard that Malkin was frothing over this ad, I didn’t know it had been pulled until I saw it at John Scalzi’s blog, so tip o’ the kiffiyeh to him… and he said it pretty well there too. And for the inevitable commenters who will complain about this post: it’s this type of bad thinking and poor decision making and craven behavior that allow antiscience to flourish, so not only is this perfectly in line with the goals of this blog, it would be wrong of me not to point it out.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
So, companies we have to boycott for crazy pandering to the insane so far this week:
Ford
Dunkin Donuts
We’ve got 4 more days to go, who else is going to lose my money?
May 28th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
You’re right on target. Science and cvilization depend on knowledge and rational though. Malkin traffics in bigotry, deception, and willful ignorance.
As for Dunkin Donuts…. let’s all go to Winchell’s.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Wow. That’s pretty ridiculous.
I’ve never been to Dunkin’ Donuts, and I wasn’t planning on starting, so I’ll do my part by planning my routes so that I never drive past them.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
ugh
May 28th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Maybe you are missing the point here. By pulling that ad for this idiotic reason they got much more publicity. Would I read a post about Dunkin’ Donuts here if that ad weren’t pulled?
May 28th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Wow…that’s rich. I’m sure Michelle Malkin has *never* offended *anybody*, so we certainly need to bow down in deference to her offence over a freaking scarf.
Maybe we need to be on the lookout for Michelle Malkin wearing some insignificant piece of clothing that might have been worn by any member of a group–no matter how insignificant–that’s rained hate and destruction on people.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
What do you expect from someone who frequents FOX News. Sanity? Living in reality?
Everyone there is a joke.
I say we all go and buy a dozen donuts, wrap them in an *actual* kiffiyeh, and send them to Malkin. And make sure they are powdered donuts, so she can immediately think that the they are tainted with anthrax.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Well, OK, I won’t go to Duncan Do”Nuts”! Of course I wasn’t going to in the first place since I think their donuts taste like sugar coated cardboard and their coffee is, if I may borrow (usurp?) a page from religion, a mortal sin. I will however inform my office mates – somebody always brings in donuts on Friday.
I’d say that I’d boycott Malkin’s show but I can’t even wrap my head around the idea of willingly watching it in the first place. However, given the choice of watching Malkin’s crap or getting a root canal sans novocaine… well, I’m off to the dentist. It’s gotta be less painful.
Sarcasm: It beats killing people.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Rimantas, that’s a legit point, but they did it wrong. If they had done it the way I said in this post, I would have posted congratulating them and urging people to go there.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
It’s hard not to applaud DD for pulling *any* ad with that annoying Racheal Ray. They shouldn’t have stopped at just the one!
I guess the author isn’t a regular, because if he is he wouldn’t be so quick to boycott. Seriously, “time to make the donuts guy” could kill a man and I’d still be there every morning. They must sprinkle crack into their coffee – I’ll even admit it’s not even the best tasting coffee I’ve had, but I can’t shake the feeling of wrongness that I get when I don’t start my day with a medium regulah
May 28th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
What the…
That’s just… weird. And messed up.
Well, not that DD got my ducats when I lived in the States. But it does make me appreciate Tim Hortons that much more. Heh.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I agree with your thoughts, so I wrote Dunkin’ Donuts to tell them so. How else will they know?
Bob
May 28th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Who cares why they pulled it, any attempt to reduce the on air time of Rachel Ray is a step in the right direction. I will boycott Dunkin’ Donuts just for hiring her as a spokesperson.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
This reminds me of a Christmas story a few years ago where a town went nuts because someone put up a generic wintery snowflake sign had a little star that looked like a filled-in Magen David, and complained until they took them down.
To be honest, I’d still drink that town’s coffee though.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Anyone dumb enough to act on anything said by Michelle Malkin is by definition an idiot.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Tempest in a tea pot… #1. Who cares what RR has to say about coffee? #2. Who cares what MM has to say about DD and RR and a scarf? #3. Why would you waste your time to write about this? #4. Why did I waste my time reading about this and then making this response?
Answer to all above – Who knows or gives a (insert explitive of your choice)! Oh, wait a minute… that’s another question not an answer. Never mind…
May 28th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Pop: read the fine print in the post please.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
So a scarf with frilly bits around the edge is hate couture? And I was worried my ninja-star-cross armbands were making people uncomfortable.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Ah, and this knee-jerk reaction is precisely what I’d expect from a non-scientist. Not one who should be able to wade through the crap on the internet.
Malkin didn’t threaten a boycott. She just noticed that the scarf looked like a kiffiyeh (which it does, even though it isn’t one).
I guess the BA isn’t smart enough to dig deeper than the surface to understand the point Malkin was making.
Yah, what a shame BA is *just another dumb lefty* going into rant mode. What a shame.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Alan:
Seems to me she’s already a member of a religion, culture, and country that’s rained hate and destruction on people.
Aaugh! The stupid! It burns!
May 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
*sigh* It is time like this I really do weep for “civilisation”.
I found the last paragraph to be really disturbing:
“In her column, Malkin also noted that it could appear at times that actor Colin Farrell, rapper Kanye West and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have been photographed in similar scarves that were “distinctive hate couture.”
I guess the saying is true: “Clothes maketh the man”. And all this time I have judging people by their merits and virtues. Well, my eyes are opened thanks to you Mrs Malkin. From now on I shall judge other by the clothes they wear, and also by their race:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/images/indefenseofinternment.jpg
To others, I say welcome back to the Olden Days. Grab them torches and pitchforks boys, time for a good ole fasioned witch hunt!
(end sarcasm)
Seriously though, I honestly wonder if she would have written such a book if the Asian populace were the ones being stereotyped and forcibly incarcerated for no other reason than “they look like a terrorist”. Strange how one can promote intolerance when one isn’t subjected to it themselves.
Oh, as an aside: I do have to wonder about the phrase “distinctive hate couture”. I did have to look up the word couture, and it turns out that it does not mean what she is thinks it means. The closest definition from dictionary.com I found was “the clothes and related articles designed by such designers”, so is she saying that there is a fashion design house call “Distinctive Hate”? Actually, that isn’t a bad sounding name for a fashion label… Hmmm…
May 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
So a scarf with frilly bits around the edge is hate couture?
It is when it glorifies terrorism. Malkin happens to be dead right in this case. What next, t-shirts with pictures of mass murderers (a.k.a Che) on them?
Phil, you’re wrong in this case. Much as I usually applaud what you say and write, you’re wrong on this one.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Well, whether it’s illogical thinking, or anti-science, or just “stoopid” it still is a waste of time to acknowledge the utterences of something so trivial. Yeh, I know, each little encroachment of logic and science weakens the intelligent world. But your time is better spent on bringing the light of knowledge to us rather than publicly noting people and their aberant minds. Bring us more excitement over things astronomical.
Yes, I know it your blog and you can write on anything you chose, and yes, I don’t have to read your blog, but you’re like a drug – highly addictive drug – I just can’t stop. But please don’t drop to their level. Keep it highly educational.
BTW, I like posting to your blog. I’m too cheap to start my own so you provide me an outlet. Thanks!
May 28th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I sent an email to Dunkin earlier asking if they were getting rid of the donuts with pink frosting because they were to gay.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Dang. I hoped this would be about the recent universe-is-toroidal news.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Mark, don’t be such an elitist.
Dave, I’m sorry but frilly scarves are in. Go to your local yarn store and see the samples that they make up or go to the mall and see. It’s just a frickin’ scarf, geez.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
To pull an ad for that! Are Americans now afraid of their own shadow?
May 28th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
No Arabs or Keffiyeh’s allowed on TV. Demz r teh bad.
Actually, I think I saw James Bond strangle someone with a scarf once.
Yup, they’re dangerous. No scarf on TV from now on.
Actually, he did strangle someone with their own bikini…
May 28th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Wow, the xenophobia present in American society today is rather startling. First of all, that is clearly not a kiffiyeh to anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge of other cultures. Secondly, and more importantly, THE KIFFIYEH IS NOT A SYMBOL OF TERRORISM. Seriously, this is so unbelievably racist. If any of you truly think this has ANYTHING to do with terrorism, please go educate yourself and stop embarrassing us (the United States) in front of the rest of the world.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Dave, I’m sorry but frilly scarves are in. Go to your local yarn store and see the samples that they make up or go to the mall and see. It’s just a frickin’ scarf, geez.
I grew up in Northern Ireland. Sometimes there is no such thing as a “frickin’ scarf”.
What’s just as offensive however as the scarf is them using Rachel Ray. I mean Rachel bloody Ray. Come on? Even I’ve heard tell of that woman from across the fond, and I tell you, she is evil. Positively evil. She deserves strangling with that scarf for the crimes she’s commited against food!
May 28th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Oh, and after rereading the fine print I want to add: Good Job Phil.
Yes, this is a rather minor situation but we should fight this sort of nonsense and intollerance where ever it pops up.
I do the same at work – I will point out some issue when it is minor if only to highlight that it can be used as precedence for larger transgressions. Granted, I am usually told to sit down and shut up, but I do love having the right to turn around and say “Told Ya So” when that molehill becomes a mountain.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Dave -
Show me exactly how a white woman, wearing a scarf, in an add for iced coffee glorifies terrorism. I mean really, don’t you think this is a little thin?
Heck knows I’m not one to defend religion or it’s silly accoutrements in any way… but calling the kiffiyeh a terrorist garment is ridiculous. There are millions of muslim’s and non-muslim arabs who wear the kiffiyeh. A tiny fraction of them are terrorists. Heck, you might as well call the cross a “hate couture” item – after all the US’ home grown terrorists all seem to favor those with either tattoos or one around their necks! See Timothy McVeigh for a prime example.
Now, I haven’t seen the add so I suppose it’s possible that Rachael Ray was standing there with a kiffiyeh on, an AK47 over one shoulder, the koran in one hand, and a Duncan Donuts iced coffee in the other… in which case, sure – that’s glorifying terrorism. Somehow I doubt that is the case though.
Sarcasm: It beats killing people.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
THE KIFFIYEH IS NOT A SYMBOL OF TERRORISM
Oh, it is. But blame Arafat for turning a scarf into something much more sinister.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Heck, you might as well call the cross a “hate couture” item
Oh, it is, but that’s another story for another post. *grins*.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
(ahem)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keffiyeh#Controversial_symbol
Now how many people complained when they watched Transformers?
Come on, be honest.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
The maker of that scarf should launch an advertising campaign: Announcing the “Hated by Malkin” line! Followed up with the statement: “We’re proud to present this line of beautiful scarves that symbolize the spirit of American freedom and independence in defiance of irrational right-wing haters of Democracy.”
Seriously, with brainless criticisms of lapel flag pins and now scarves, the far-right is really getting disparate.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Phil,
I really enjoyed your blog and you amazing insights into the world around us and above us. That you so much for that. I am unfortunately removing your blog from my RSS reader and will discontinue reading because of your amazing insensitivity towards other people. My brother was seriously hurt by a terrorist whose ‘freedom fighting’ terrorist principles are symbolized by this kaffiyeh. There is nothing peaceful or chic or trendy about it. Good luck with your career and blog, and I hope you don’t further alienate and hurt too many readers.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
“disparate” (broken) and “desperate” (frustrated)
May 28th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Scarves are dangerous. Just ask Isadora Duncan.
Dave said:
I grew up in Northern Ireland. Sometimes there is no such thing as a “frickin’ scarf”.
Dave, I’m not familiar with the use of scarves as signifiers by any of the factions in Northern Ireland. But your comment immediately made me think of the use of football scarves in England and Ireland as ways of expressing loyalty to one team or another, and as helpful indicators of who to attact and not attact during a brawl. This is not an item of fan clothing often worn in the U.S., so our sports rowdies have to use other ways of determining who to beat up.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
“attact”? Geez, I must be tired. That should say “attack”.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
All of you who posted your thoughts about Dunkin’ Donuts and Winchell’s are just jealous because you don’t live where you can get fresh-made, still-hot Krispy Kremes . . .
May 28th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Phil I read the small text. Are you now going to get involved with every weird problem out there? Perhaps rally the troops everytime you see something you don’t like. Encourage your readers to boycott products based on your opinion of what their opinion on the world is?
I know you read Fark, so you must see a sizable amount of this stuff every day. What made Michelle special? Was it the involvement of a corporation? Was it the donuts? Or are you just playing at the culture wars game and encouraging (yes, ENCOURAGING) dragging everyone into the mud pit? It wont end with boycotts, no, you gotta get into the schools, the libraries, the hospitals perhaps.
And because you’re doing it, they can do it without seeming out of place..and round and round it goes….until eventually everything is about belief and opinion. Moon landings, national policy, age of the Earth…everything becomes equal. Either you’re with Michelle, or you’re with Phil.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
It’s a pity that Dunkin’ Donuts didn’t borrow a leaf from Penny Arcade’s playbook…
http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/05/penny-arcade-ba.html
… and incorporate the malicious, attention-grabbing slander into their advertising campaign as a deliberate “and the horse you rode in on, buddy” gesture. The more people reward this kind of behaviour, the more of this kind of behaviour we’ll see.
— Steve
May 28th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Eh. If they want to pull the ad, let them, I say. If they weren’t forced to do it, I don’t see a problem with them voluntarily deciding that they want to waste the money they spent on the ad in the first place in exchange for not having to deal with a stupid association made by a Fox pundit. Seriously, they’re in the business to make money and sell more iced coffee, not to crusade for freedom of speech. I could see practically any other company make the same decision, if they decided that the potential risk to their bottom line was threatened. Although, I could also see a reasonable company decide not to pull the ad, but in either case it’s hard to work myself up to care enough.
Now, if we were talking about a situation where a court order forced them to pull it, then you’d get my indignation. Or if we were talking about an individual that was accused of terrorist links due to a scarf. Or something like that. Since it was voluntary, no precedent was set where it matters: in the courtroom.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
>>>”terrorist principles are symbolized by this kaffiyeh. There is nothing peaceful or chic or trendy about it.”
The principle of the Keffiyeh is to protect from heat and sand.
Does Arab mean terrorist? If some terrorists are Arabs, does that mean all Arabs are terrorists?
Does Irish mean terrorist? If some terrorists are Irish, does that mean all Irish are terrorists?
May 28th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Fox…
Sigh. No comments. Paranoid people they are. IT’S A SCARF! GET OVER IT!
May 28th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Oh and one thing to the guys that say Phil is wrong:
Should I stop wearing my beautiful trenchcoat because of Columbine? Heck no.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Any person who would judge another by the type of scarf they wear (at least here in the states) is also the same kind of person who thinks that patriotism is defined by a lapel pin.
Any person who get this worked up over what kind of scarf someone is wearing is not looking to make the world around them a better place. They are inherently a negative bitter person who is probably so upset that others in the world are not negative and bitter that they’ve made it their personal crusade to bring the rest of the world down.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Phil. I will make sure that this person’s voice never is used to influence any idea I might have.
Truly, Michelle Malkin is in possession of weapons grade stupidity.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
>>”Phil,
I really enjoyed your blog and you amazing insights into the world around us and above us. That you so much for that. I am unfortunately removing your blog from my RSS reader and will discontinue reading because of your amazing insensitivity towards other people. My brother was seriously hurt by a terrorist whose ‘freedom fighting’ terrorist principles are symbolized by this kaffiyeh. There is nothing peaceful or chic or trendy about it. Good luck with your career and blog, and I hope you don’t further alienate and hurt too many readers.”<<
I am sorry for your brother’s pain, however Phil hit the nail on the head here. Google her, see what other bullsh*t she has stirred up in the past. Who cares if that is what the scarf is? Seriously, what this is, is a case of a well known media attention w**** creating controversy out of thin air to get on television. That is MM’s specialty, in fact, thats all she really knows how to do.
For extra lulz, try to find the youtube videos where she is dressed up as a cheerleader to cheer the Republican party to victory in either 2004 or 2006.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I have several non muslim friends who wear those scarves. Normal sane people will think “gee, she must have been to the Middle East”, Like my friends have……but not Ms. Malkin…..*sigh*
Hate wear? Like Ms. Malkin is sooooo full of love for everyone
May 28th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
A Michelle Malkin analogy:
During WWII the engineers who designed the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter for the Luftwaffe at first mounted the new jet engines within the wings, (or next to the fuselage as the then secret British Gloster Meteor and American Airacomet early jet planes had done.) However, Messerschmitt instead decided to place the engines in nacelles slung under the wings mainly for ease of maintenance in the field since early jet engines only lasted about 45 minutes before having to be rebuilt.
Today, though engines are greatly improved and last much longer, many jet airlines also mount the engines in nacelles under the wings in the same manor as an efficient design element.
Therefore, using Michelle Malkin’s weird, oddball illogic, based on appearances: everyone who rides in a modern jet airline is a Nazi.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
The funny thing is that right-wingers always mock left-wingers about getting their knickers in a twist (panties in a wad) about any symbolism that’s the least bit “politically incorrect” (sometimes deservedly so), but then they’re mortally offended by anything that’s strikes them as the slightest bit unpatriotic (which is what’s at the root of this kerfuffle.
Really, for all their macho posturing and faux muscular patriotism, they’re all just a bunch of cry-babies underneath.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Well, unless they were actively beheading customers in the ads, I’m not sure I see what all the fuss is about.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Why is Rachel Ray wearing a freakin’ scarf anyway? It’s almost June!
May 28th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
A white hood is sinister. A scarf is… a scarf. Yasser did indeed wear one. The last I heard he ended up the President of the Palestinian nation. Have a look at any meeting of Middle Eastern dignitaries. You’ll find that many or most of them will be wearing the kiffiyeh. To North Africans and Arabs they’re like tartan to a Scot. Travel around Africa and the Middle East you can pick them up anywhere as souvenirs.
They’re cool and they’re great for keeping the sun off the back of your neck when you’re trekkin’.
If you read anything else into a scarf you’re… delusional.
Me, I go into paroxysms when I see nylon stockings because of the associations with the Boston strangler.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
regarding Sailor’s comment:
Just as we have Godwin’s law of reducing any argument into comparing it to Nazism, we need a name for this all too frequent and rather annoying practice of someone not from America taking an incident that happens in America and assigning its ownership to all Americans.
I’m really about sick of it.
/rant
May 28th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
WAY, way OT here, but I just happened to look down at the footer of the blog and noticed that Dave’s Spam Karma has eaten 77777 spams and counting.
No way that can be just coincidence… I’m heading out to play the lottery! woo-hoo!
May 28th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Anton P. Nym says: “It’s a pity that Dunkin’ Donuts didn’t borrow a leaf from Penny Arcade’s playbook and incorporate the malicious, attention-grabbing slander into their advertising campaign as a deliberate “and the horse you rode in on, buddy” gesture.”
One of my brothers works for Clorox so I get the occasional glimpse into the cutthroat world of the household products industry. This tactic is used occasionally by S.C. Johnson (aka “Johnson Wax”) company. They put out advertising saying, for example, that their product is 47% better than the equivalent Clorox product. The ads are so outrageously wrong that Clorox has to call them on it and get a “cease and desist” restraining order against them. SCJ goes ahead and pulls the ad, but even if they are forced by a court order to publish a retraction and apology, the damage is done. All the consumers remember is the original ad, and they “couldn’t print it if it wasn’t true,” right?
- Jack
May 28th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Start the topic with an insult to a woman who actually is quite intellegent and expresses herself beautifully. And then use the most un-flattering pic you can find of her to really display your dislike/disdain of her…..just in case the catty remark didn’t do the trick.
But then again, you are the man who once stated that he had to pour Clorox onto his keyboard after he’d read a blurb on the Fox News website.
……good grief…..such open-mindedness……………from a man of science…
MM wrote: “The keffiyeh has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad”
re: The Keffiyeh
I think the first person (that I’m aware of) to popularize that scarf was Yasser Arafat, a/k/a the ‘father of terrorism’. A man who should’ve been shot as soon as he appeared on the scene all those years ago. Over the past few decades it has become standard issue for those who carry out terrorist acts (also known as……terrorists…!). For anyone to simply refer to it as ‘just a scarf’ is…….dumb. It may not have been created specifically for terrorists, but – let’s be honest – it has become strongly associated with terrorists, hijackers, etc. You do have to take into consideration: “Where have I seen that scarf before….?….It looks real familiar……”
For Dunkin Donuts, or Rachel Ray, to display a Keffiyeh in their ad was just plain stupid. People see it……….and they make the same connection the rest of us who’ve watched the news and know the history of the middle east have made: “….Uh…..isn’t that what…..terrorists and ‘Death to America’ whackjobs wear….?…”
Do I think DD or RR are related to terrorism? Of course not. But they’re both dumb as dirt to wonder why some would be offended.
And Phil, those who are closely associated with that scarf would have very little use for a ‘man of science’ such as yourself.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
By the way Phil, great photo of Malkin for this blog article of yours. I know that’s an ad Hominen attack by me, but it works so well for this lady and her tenuous arguments. Seriously, we’re having this little, trivial witch-hunt over that fact that some people where a piece of clothing as a fashion statment? Will there be a Congressional investigation and committee to setup American fashion guidelines…. what not to wear in the Spring in order to stay out of Gitmo for the fall fashions in Milan, perhaps?
Geraldo Rivera, whether you like him or not, went after Michelle Malkin a few months ago. Apparently, the attack was so strong and profound in the Fox “faux” News company that Michelle was kicked off the Bill O’Reilly Show. There were rumors that Michelle Malkin would be the next person to take over for O’Reilly when he got old or when they needed to start a new show centered around her. She was the Jay Leno to O’Reilly’s Johnny Carson, so to speak. The next big thing for the “fair and balanced” (cough) news network.
Which makes me wonder….. will there really be a Fox News channel in 10 years? I mean, who is gonna follow this ideology and news programming by then? And really, hasn’t the current Bush government killed off any chance of there being a new generation of people that think like them? But I digress too much.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Maybe I’m being obtuse here, but I think there’s an important distinction that needs to be made. According to the article Phil linked to, it stated that the scarf resembled a kiffyeh… not that it was in fact one. I’m not an expert, so I don’t know… but it it in fact a kiffiyeh she’s wearing?… and doesn’t that make a difference? Or is it not the actual kiffiyeh we should be offended by, but all frilly, similarly patterned neckware? Just asking…
May 28th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Jeeze!
I didn’t know there WAS such a thing as “hate fashion!” I have been wearing these on and off for the past 20 years: it is rather practical.
Not only that, but a lot of troops “over there” wear them as dust scarves, helmet liners, etc. I wonder if MM is going to start calling us terrorists too.
Funny thing-no ones really ever said much to me about it either. And if they did, I would probably laugh it off.
So what’s next on the paranoia list?
May 28th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Yes, she is quite cute to look at, and I agree that showing that photo of her is simply stooping to the level of any number of right-wing blowhards who have used unflattering photos for years. Shame on BA for that.
I have no doubt that she’s intelligent too, but to assign her bloviating hatred of anything to the left of Genghis Khan as eloquent is going a little too far.
She’s a step up from Anne Coulter, sure, but it’s a step any mouse could easily take.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
“Hate couture” that’s a new one. You have to give crazy credit where it’s due, it certainly has a nice ring!
The idea that an article of clothing could itself symbolize terrorism is crazy. I get the earlier point about KKK outfits, the difference is that the KKK created their outfits as part of their program of terror in order to hide their indentities from those they terrorize. These “scarves” have nothing like that history. They started as practical desert garments and continue to serve that purpose, although I understand they can also be used to represent tribe, clan, and even political affiliations today. But none of those things has anything to do with terrorism.
To extend the Klan line of thought, it would be like saying that the christian cross is a symbol of terrorism just because some people set them alight to terrorize others. Or that people were once crucified on them, or that they are a symbol of crusades and the sometimes indiscrimant slaughter those brought, OH! and inquisitions (and all that goes with those like torture, burning at the stake, ethnic cleansing, etc.), or the nearly 200 years of inter-demoninational warfare following the reformation… wow, now that I think of it you could make a great argument against the christian cross… if one we inclined to silly generalizations about religious and cultural symbols, let alone an article of clothing.
BTW – Anyone who defends MM is by default several laps behind on the human decency track. The woman is a hate- and fear-monger and spouts demonstrably refutable and false information at nearly every turn. A detailed examination of her record shows that this has to be intentional lies and distortions; she has repeatedly proven herself to be rather beneath contempt to the point that she is among those who if they said the sky was blue I would be certain to go outside and check for myself.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Well, I figured there’d be some unhinged responses to this.
First, Ms. Ray is wearing a scarf. It’s a scarf. Some people might associate that sort of style with a kiffiyeh, but that doesn’t make it one. And even if it’s based on a kiffiyeh, get over it. If the terrorists have subsumed it as a symbol, that doesn’t mean anyone wearing it supports terrorism.
Second, look around on the web. McCain’s daughter wore one as well. Is she supporting the intifadah too? Where are you on that? Where is Ms. Malkin?
Third, the picture I chose of Ms. Malkin was deliberate. Duh. There are very nice pictures of her on the web, but it wouldn’t have been funny to put donuts around those.
Fourth, I’m sorry to anyone who has had friends or loved ones hurt by terrorists. But this has nothing to do with that. Michelle Malkin wants nothing more than to stir up trouble and get attention for it, and that’s all this is about. It’s a ridiculous accusation by her, as dumb as the ones about Obama not wearing a flag pin, as if that means he doesn’t love America. Wearing a flag pin doesn’t mean you love America. In most cases I’ve seen it means you care more about looking patriotic.
Try to figure this out, folks. Sometimes symbols are just that: symbols. Sometimes they mean less, and sometimes they’re more. Life has nuance, life has depth, and it’s people like Ms. Malkin who try to collapse that depth and make it either/or, black/white, right/wrong.
Some people have the depth of mind to see the depth of life. Some don’t.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Please tell me this is a spoof for I know it can’t be an April fool’s joke. Are some Americans so fearful of teh other that they see terrorist threats or promotion in everything and everywhere.
Celtic_Evolution: note I said some and unfortunately it is not a disease limited to the US, for we have our equally nutty brand of right wing, and even some left wing, feartards in the UK.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Didn’t the London Tube bombers wear anoraks and backpacks? The September 11 bombers wore, shock horror, “western” clothes. I can’t open boxes any more because the 9/11 guys used “box cutters”. Irish accents are sinister because that is how the IRA speak. I have to restrain a shudder every time I walk into an airport, catch a plane, go to a coffee shop, a pub, catch a bus, enter a skyscraper… um… is there anything or anywhere that hasn’t been used or attacked by some terrorist at some point.
The scarf thing is ridiculous. Fair dinkum, teh stooopid… it hurts.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I try to never judge people by what they wear.
http://www.windypundit.com/archives/2006/images/MalkinBikini_500×380.jpg
Of course, in this instance I will make an exception.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
time to stop buying the donuts!
May 28th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Witch hunt? Congressional investigations? You must be joking . . .
She’s a news commentator, everybody. This is what she (they) do. She’s over the top, because it’s her job.
Ever watch Keith Olbermann? Read DailyKos? Listen to Air America? How ’bout those nice folks over at Moveon.org? Is their rhetoric any less vitriolic or offensive?
Or is it because she’s on the other side of the issue?
May 28th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Oh, there will always be a market for what Fox News is peddling. It is interesting that MSNBC may have finally woken up to the fact that there could actually be an appetite for a left-leaning version of Fox News — Keith Olbermann has been bringing in the ratings and now often beats O’Reilly in certain key demographics — O’Reilly is still way ahead in raw numbers but his audience skews much older.
So after years of trying to emulate Fox with pundits like Buchanan, Carlson, and Scarborough (they even tried out that raving right-wing loon Alan Keyes for a while!) they might actually give more left-wingers a go — specifically the excellent Rachel Maddow might be in line for a show.
It is funny after all the right-wing pundits they have used over the years, that MSNBC is reported to be queasy about doing the leftward move. They are right to be concerned that political biases of the pundits should not get in the way of their news reporting, but then why doesn’t CNN worry about Glenn Beck’s raving antics or Lou Dobbs’ one-note (and hopelessly one-sided) immigration coverage?
Frankly, I think MSNBC should just go for it. It’s hopeless trying to find just about any balanced reporting of any substance on any of the news channels. So why let Fox News be the only one to get away with shameless bias, day in, day out.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
And if this is the kind of thinking that allows antiscience to flourish, what does that say about a man who quietly listened to Rev. Wright for so long?
May 28th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
And if this is the kind of thinking that allows antiscience to flourish, what does that say about the man who sat quietly in Rev. Wright’s church for so long? I haven’t seen too many posts about that brand of antiscience here.
Why?
May 28th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
The kaffiyeh is NOT a terrorism symbol, FFS. Were the Clash terrorists? The Ramones? Fish? Nena Hagen? Klaus Meine? Joe Elliot? Anthony Bourdain? Ewan McGregor? Jeremy Clarkson? That’s just a short list of celeb types off the top of my head that I can remember seeing wear one.
Oh, and one more:
http://gawker.com/5003288/mccain-daughter-dons-islamic-terror-scarf
(Some links from there appear NSFW, but this page looks ok at a glance)
Maybe daddy needs to toss her in Gitmo? Then again, I hear that an awful lot of our troops have taken to wearing them as well. Seems they’re good at keeping the sun off of you and keeping the dust out of your mouth and nose. Who woulda thunk it?
Sheesh, when I was in Germany in the late 80’s, I swear everybody had one, almost as if you got it free with every leather and denim jacket sold in Europe at the time.
Yishai, I’m terribly sorry about your brother, but you’re allowing your pain to cloud your judgement in much the same way his attacker’s was. Remind me never to wear a brown shirt around you. Judging people by their clothing is not an effective way to evaluate their ideology. My parents, grandparents, and many of their friends and neighbors suffered under the Nazis and Soviets. Yet I can differentiate between Buddhist or Hindu use of a swastika and a neo-nazi’s. Hell, using your criteria, I should have gone absolutely ballistic back when Soviet chic was big and everybody had sickles or Cyrillic writing on their clothes. (Instead, I usually laughed because most of them made no sense or proudly proclaimed: “Chicken!” or some such.)
Take a moment to stop and do what Malkin didn’t… think.
P.S. If all the people that threatened to quit visiting here actually did, this place would be tumbleweeds and cobwebs.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
David, so Obama’s no better than any of the others on this issue.
Your point?
May 28th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Quit spamming, gibsy. (BA, you should add this surfurl site to your spam list).
May 28th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Semi? I thought I said no bikini’s! They’re dangerous, dammit!
Kudos to Rich, BA and shane.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
@tacitus
My point is I’m not sure that the host of this blog would agree with you.
All about who’s ox is gored.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
David D: “You don’t like? Don’t go to DD. Don’t listen to or read what MM has to say.”
So following your own advice: Since you don’t like what Phil said, there’s no reason for you to read his blog or comment on it.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Dunkin Donuts is an excellent source of sugar though. You say that now, but you’ll be back for more frosted creme donuts.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
A Scarf!!!
Oh really, now the fashion police are on terror alert.!!
Not enough chlorine in the gene pool.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
# David Don 28 May 2008 at 8:26 pm
And if this is the kind of thinking that allows antiscience to flourish, what does that say about the man who sat quietly in Rev. Wright’s church for so long? I haven’t seen too many posts about that brand of antiscience here.
Why?
Because everyone knows that Obama is a secret muslim. There are probably pictures of him wearing scarves just like Rachel Ray’s out there somewhere, the liberal media is just suppressing them. Whatever Rev. Wright has said for twenty years has fallen on deaf ears. He’s under cover you see, waiting until he becomes president so that he can do whatever nastiness an Islamofascist president is supposed to do.
I do so hope that the Poes are out in force here…
May 28th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
The issue, as I see it, is that Malkin drew an inference where none was projected. It was a black and white scarf. My mother used to wear them to Mass on Sundays and cover her head. My mother never supported terrorism. The hysteria over this scarf is quite ridiculous and silly, but also and indication of the anti-Arab racism that has been rampant among the conservatives ever since 9/11.
They are good and raising the level of fear and hate against all Arabs, and assume that they are all terrorists, whether they are actually Muslim or not. Better to be safe and attack them before they do any more damage.
It’s a black and white scarf.
For those of you that think that Dr. Plait could be writing about something else, get your own blog. Nothing irritates me more than people trying to direct a blogger. I have noticed Phil actually puts headlines on his posts, so that people can skip the articles they aren’t interested in.
Blogging is free. Use wordpress, or blogger or something, but no one impresses me as a reader with stupid comments telling the Bad Astronomer should stick to a certain subject. Get a freakin’ life and move on.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Whoa, skippy the bush kangaroo posted a comment here! W00t!
May 28th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
BA,
Judging by the comments perhaps the post title refers to more than just Ms. Malkin.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
thats ok, i never did like dunkin dougnuts, i perfer krispie kreme
May 28th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Geez, David D, you sure are a one-trick pony.
First off, I have taken Obama to task for some of his stands. And second, he has said that he doesn’t agree with everything Wright says. It’s possible, wouldn’t you say, that because you go to one church you may not necessarily agree with everything said on the pulpit?
And remember, McCain sought out Hagee. He pursued that endorsement for a solid year… and then only dropped it when it came out that Hagee was saying something positive about Hitler (well, kinda, but that’s how the story played out).
That’s the difference between a man of substance and a man of tissue paper. One blows in the wind, while the other has the fortitude to take a stand.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Chip–
You miss my point. You can protest, and make your opinions known about this keffiyeh kerfuffle by boycotting DD, or MM, or better yet, calling DD corporate headquarters and demanding that they run the stupid ad.
I don’t necessarily agree with Phil’s politics (duh!), and if I didn’t find this site so otherwise entertaining, I could choose to not read or post here.
In no way was I suggesting that you should be silent if you disagree with someone.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Well, I hadn’t heard of what Malkin said until now. Probably would have missed it. The whole thing is pretty silly. Dunkin Donuts is overreacting. But I will still go there. I like their donuts and I don’t really think the impact of this decision affects me.
And back off Rachel Ray!
May 28th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
So, companies we have to boycott for crazy pandering to the insane so far this week: Dunkin’ Donuts, Ford
I really can’t blame the companies. Businesses have to be SUPER conservative (the practical definition of conservative, not the political one). They just don’t want the bother. It’s not worth it in an age when tiny woos can be amplified to global issues by the Intertoobs.
So they get boycotted for running the ad or now boycotted for pulling it. Can you see the impossible situation they are in? Would you like to be in that situation? Geez, give ‘em a break and place the hate on the one who sdtarted it: Malkin.
It’s really easy to say “FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT” when it’s not actually *you* doing the fighting. I also suspect that many of you, in the same situation, where you had a business and employees and shareholders to concern yourself with, would do the same exact thing.
Besides, Dunkin’ Donuts hasn’t dominated Southern California yet, and I already about a Mustang GT back in 2005.
My goodness, though, when I go to New England for work occasionally, there’s a Dunkin’ Donuts every 500 feet. I think it’s a zoning requirement or something.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
As for Dunkin Donuts…. let’s all go to Winchell’s.
Are they still around? They seem to vanish from Southern California about the time Krispy Kreme began their rise to power in the donut empire.
KK is good, but I find the donuts at my local Pavilions grocery store kick the butt of any from the donut specialty shops. Cheaper, too.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Are some Americans so fearful of teh other that they see terrorist threats or promotion in everything and everywhere.
No, you’ve completely misunderstood what happened.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Tacitus–
I rest my case. Though if BA wants to think that he’s treating Obama and McCain the same on antiscience issues–well, I haven’t seen it, but it is his blog.
It really isn’t clear to what extent Obama and his pastor disagree, and exactly on what issues–well, kinda, but that’s how the story is playing out.
I’m pretty sure that McCain is not made out of tissue paper, but out of something pretty solid, being he spent some time in a Vietnamese prison cell for a few years way back when. You can disagree with his politics all you want. but I think it is a little beneath you to refer to him that way.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
What an idiot. And I don’t use that term lightly: I believe everyone deserves a fair go and that we all make mistakes etc. etc.
This, however, is different. It makes Americans look like a group of overanalysing, overzealous alarmists that ’see a sniper behind every tree’.
It’s a scarf for chrissakes!
May 28th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Demonizing a scarf. New McCarthyism. Conservative manifesto: we take care of semiotics so you don’t have to.
My sister, the world traveler, collects cultural garments. We though it was cute and were lead to believe it was love couture. When she came back from India, she wore a sari for a week. We though it livened up her library slideshow. When she returned from the Peruvian Andes with an authentic Poncho, we thought it was nice that they she showed off her garment collection for local schoolchildren. But when she came back from the Nubian desert with a keffiyeh, which was used to protect her challenging camel trek, we recognized the signs: she had allied with a destructive terrorist organization. We promptly turned her over to Homeland Security. I used to love her but she obviously hates America.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
How about this:
Who the heck is Michelle Malkin?
I’ve never even heard of her
Is she related to Malkin of the Pittsburgh Penguins?
Just a Canuck who honestly doesn’t have a clue who you’re referring to
Pete
May 28th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
“And Phil, those who are closely associated with that scarf would have very little use for a ‘man of science’ such as yourself.”
Religious nations still need scientists if they want to have a military at all, love.
Anyone offended by a piece of clothing like this is a racist, and thus they are bad people. How about I complain because someone on a commercial was wearing a necklace with a cross on it, because Christians have caused the most wars in our history? Or because Christians have wronged Pagans (past and present), homosexuals, scientists, and anyone with a single rational thought in their head? Would that be okay with you racists out there?
May 28th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Dunkin D’s has awesome coffee.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
A keffiyeh is worn over there as commonly as a baseball cap over here.
See, for instance, this usage
Saying that it symbolizes terrorism doesn’t make it so.
Saying that it symbolizes terrorism reveals some cultural ignorance.
And a scarf is not a kefiyeh.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
But you are ignoring the fact that Mrs. Ray is also wearing shoes in the ad!!!
Obviously an homage to Richard Reid!
Wait a second… R.R., and R.R., NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
May 28th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
To JoeShmo:
Dude, you fail to forget that your nation was founded on an act of “freedom fighting” just like YA started back then.
He’s by no means the “Grandfather of Terrorist” and if you know your history, both Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon of Israel were both Haganah terrorists back before Israel started was formed, a group that carried out numerous attacks, including the beheading of two British soldiers and the bombing of a hotel, far before the PLO etc were around.
If you don’t believe me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah
Im sure many of those involved in the Haganah etc wore skullcaps, does that make the skullcap a piece of “hate fashion”? Should everyone who wears one be feared? What if they’re carrying a bible?
After all, Im sure in your world anyone carrying a copy of the Koran and wearing a headscarf is a terrorist, so surely anyone wearing a skull cap and carrying a copy of the Torah is one too, yes? Or wearing a cross, like the Oklahoma bomber?
Just because a person belongs to the same country or religion as others who were/are fighting an imperialist oppressor doesn’t mean they’re a terrorist….after all Im Irish, but would never or could never be described as a terrorist, although back in 1916 I would have gladly laid down my life to kick out the English….would I have been considered a terrorist then? By the imperial English oppressors, yes, defiantly. But by the rest of the world, probably not.
In your narrow minded Fox new created world anyone who lives outside your borders is a terrorist “anti-American whack job”….. Ever start to wonder: why, maybe?
Its cos of closed minded people like you that the States has such a bad reputation…… I’ve known 8 year olds with a greater understanding of current international politics.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
@David D.
Oh God! The McCain was a Vietnamese Prisoner argument. Yeah he was when he was much younger. Not to mention that there have been some accusations (thats all I am calling them) that he was selling out other prisoners for better treatment.
What is the truly interesting bit about his prison time, is that he refuses to release any psychological records he has, which I am sure he does. All the records that recount how he has had cancer several times and is likely to have it again? Thats fine and good, but anything saying, “Yeah spending time as a prisoner of war seriously ****ed him up” is bad.
Considering McCain is a notorious hothead, I wonder if they are related? Just a question of course.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
“How about this:
Who the heck is Michelle Malkin?
I’ve never even heard of her
Is she related to Malkin of the Pittsburgh Penguins?”
-Peter Eldgergillon
My sentiments exactly, and I’m American.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Well I guess a whole generation, that went to school in the early 80’s in Denmark, can be labelled as terrorists sympathisers. Everybody wore those scarfs including the boys.
I must admit that they indeed are weapons of terror, if you roll the scarf up tightly diagonally and lick one of the resulting tips, it makes a great cracking whip that leaves blue marks on whoever that happen to be on the receiving end.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:41 am
You know…I could made a lot of money by writing right wing clap trap. But I chose to be honest and poor instead.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:52 am
bad astronomer,
i heart bad astronomy blog!
May 29th, 2008 at 1:57 am
I recall, back in the 60’s and 70’s, when the Gablers were ‘reviewing’ textbooks in Texas. In one case, an American History text was objectionable because it had *horror* a RED cover! (Red = Commie).
@ Jack, Your point is very well thought, after all, the difference between ‘terrorist’ and ‘freedom fighter’ tends to be determined by which side wins. (Check the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for Thomas Paine sometime – IIRC, it lists him as a traitor)
May 29th, 2008 at 2:17 am
Hah, PWNED! Yes, they totally pwned themselves by pulling that one.
Conclusion and verdict for that coffee shop that I’ve never even heard of, licking the lower back og some TV persontardity that I’ve never heard of either: U FAIL – HA HA!!!111
May 29th, 2008 at 4:06 am
Anti-science ? How did you manage to fit that word into this subject ? *laugh*
May 29th, 2008 at 4:09 am
What’s wrong with the Scarf? British troops get one issued when they fight in the Desert, I guess the Ministry of Defence is in league with the Terrorists.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:10 am
I can’t stand Malkin. She’s yet another amen-corner neocon, who believes Israel’s interests are the reason the U.S. exists. It’s people like her who do not care how many Americans die in the Middle East so long as we fight wars at the behest of AIPAC.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:44 am
“Because everyone knows that Obama is a secret muslim. There are probably pictures of him wearing scarves just like Rachel Ray’s out there somewhere, the liberal media is just suppressing them. Whatever Rev. Wright has said for twenty years has fallen on deaf ears. He’s under cover you see, waiting until he becomes president so that he can do whatever nastiness an Islamofascist president is supposed to do.”
^^
I sincerely hope this is intended as sarcasm… if not, consider a full frontal lobotomy, it certainly couldn’t hurt.
May 29th, 2008 at 5:43 am
I can believe the insensitivity shown by everyone (at least the men) wearing pants on FOX, *just like the insurgents*.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Phil sure does have a knack for drawing the wingnuts out of the woodwork.
Malkin has always been a wrong-headed loon, and those commenting in support of her are no less crazy.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:43 am
According to skippy’s blog, the pattern is actually paisley. I couldn’t really tell from the pic; it didn’t look too much like what was on MY pyjamas when I was a kid, but, if it IS then it’s a big “DOH” moment.
Come to think of it, scratch that. I’d say paisley is a terrorist attack on my retinas. They were right to pull it off the air.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:54 am
NO! NO! NO!
Krispy Kremes are not real donuts, they are glazed air. They are a miserable excuse for donuthood. I live in their marketing area, and was really dismayed when the good donuts my store used to sell were replaced by those insubstantial disappointments.
Now, on topic, an item of clothing may be a symbol, but when it becomes fashionable, it ceases to be a symbol. Just ask Smashmouth:
May 29th, 2008 at 7:30 am
@baldape: You know, I think you are a mutant. Only a mutant will disagree that Krispy Kreme is awesome.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Wow, over 115 posts on donuts…Homer Simpson must be smiling! Seems to me that both sides got what they wanted, DD got more publicity, and MM got everyone riled up.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:34 am
@Celtic_Evolution
Just as we have Godwin’s law of reducing any argument into comparing it to Nazism, we need a name for this all too frequent and rather annoying practice of someone not from America taking an incident that happens in America and assigning its ownership to all Americans.
Since Godwin’s law is named after some one, maybe we could call it the Celtic Evolution of the discussion. Or the Celtic Evolution Law, abbreviated CEL or KEL which KELs the discussion.
Or maybe I’ll just go back to watching the Cincinnati Redlegs and eating my freedom fries and hot dogs with liberty cabbage. If I can find a waitron.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Dude, you fail to forget that your nation was founded on an act of “freedom fighting” just like YA started back then.
He’s by no means the “Grandfather of Terrorist”…
Depending on how you do your maths, that could just as easily be George Washington. Sneaking across a river on Christmas Eve to visit death and destruction upon the representatives of lawfully constituted authority? Yeppers, terrorism is as American as apple pie and baseball.
It’s a freakin’ scarf. Malkin is frothingly insane. Nice job, Phil, and please please please continue to blog about whatever it suits you to blog about. Sheesh.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:03 am
“Malkin has always been a wrong-headed loon, and those commenting in support of her are no less crazy.”
I think it may be because those on the extreme right—in order to ignore the disastrous results of Republican rule—literally have to demonize their political opponents. Something along the lines of, “We have practically destroyed the country, but look how much worse Democrats are.” And Michelle Malkin excels at that.
On the other hand, maybe they really are just stupid. I can see both arguments.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I had to post on this as well. Thanks for sharing your views.
Its amazing to me how Fox News and cronies are not afraid to keep using fear tactics, aka McCarthyism, to divide the American people. They act like they are whistle-blowers but in fact they are just lying to get their way.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Boycotting for pulling an ad? That does come off as a little silly. Yeah I get annoyed when companies pull ads because some group gets offended, but really it isn’t enough of a reason never to buy their products. Ads are pulled all the time, really it is the quality of the product and it’s price that concerns me, not their marketing department’s ad policies.
Personally I see college kids wear kiffiyehs all the time, especially at local protests or gatherings and have no idea the cultural, or historical significance of it, which also really annoys me, to them it is just some “rebel” fashion statement.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Good on you Phil for bringing this to light. This is a typical knee-jerk reaction by a company who is listening to much to an idiot with some very daft views. It takes one overactive imagination to link donuts = scarf = terrorist iconology. (I actually think Rey looks quite nice in the scarf, does that make me an extremist sympathiser? I think not.)
Unfortunately in the hyper-sensitve media world, it is the not-so-well-informed individuals that have the greatest clout as they are more likely to speak their opinion than an educated, moderate people of the US. Strange times…
May 29th, 2008 at 8:43 am
And yet no one complained when Dunkin Donuts advertised Himan Plu Cento on the menu of a fictional competitor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2y_GwKzxck It’s at 9 seconds.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Holee Moses-Smell the roses! Talk about much ado about nada!
It’s been said many times on this thread, and I agree: it’s a scarf.
Moreover, as Phil hinted at earlier, so what? I have news: Terrorists don’t have a monopoly on the use of scarfs (or the kiffiyeh). Those of us in Canada have to wear scarfs all the time during our 11.5 months of winter! Sometime our scarfs are frilly at the end….are we supposed to say ‘death to America’ when we wear them? I’d rather say ‘I don’t know what you’re talking aboot’
Some of us have to wear a bale-klava….should that be inaporpriate because its what bank-robbers and rapists wear when they commit their nefarious deeds? Is it a symbol of violence? No….it’s a symbol of a warm face in a cold climate.
Same goes for the scarf/kiffiyeh debate/debacle. Lotsa terrorists do lotsa things, but that doesn’t mean they own the cultural copyright to it. Frilly scarfs in the west are a fashion statement (albeit a rather silly one). If you’re going to take Rachel Ray (RACHEL RAY?? Lets gain some perspective people! She’s not exactly a state senator or anything!) to task for wearing something that you have arbitrarily decided bears too much resemblance to something Yasser Arafat wore, then you also have to admonish everyone on the planet who ever wore a turban (like Bin Laden), a big-bushy mustache (like Hussein), or is Tom Cruise.
Lets try to gain some perspective here:
1) It’s a silly, frilly scarf….in a DONUT commercial!
2) It’s Rachel-30-minute-meals-Ray, not a meaningful figure in any way.
3) It’s Michelle Malkin! She has discovered the fountain of racist-duh years ago and has exploited it at every turn.
Talk about much ado about nada.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:02 am
One more thing that I forgot to mention:
Pulling ads in response to cultural threats sets precedent. I, for one think that this is one snow-ball of self-righteous indignation that we do not want to start rolling. Or Rick-rolling.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Tyler Durden, you have won the irony award. If you finished reading that post, you would have seen “I do so hope that the Poes are out in force here…”
Poe’s Law can almost be stated as “I sincerely hope this is intended as sarcasm… if not, consider a full frontal lobotomy, it certainly couldn’t hurt.”, kinda sorta.
(Hint: it was sarcasm. So is this.)
May 29th, 2008 at 9:20 am
[...] 29, 2008 by Copache First things first: YOU stole MY story, I’m stealing YOURS! (I know it wasn’t the same subject matter in Ray Comfort’s case, but I was actually [...]
May 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
This is an opinion of a European that studied in America for 4 years: loves the US and made many friends in that country:
You guys need to stop the fanatics on both fringes. Dissent is one things, other is pure paranoia and fear mongering. And that is on both sides of the political spectrum, from the left (ex: folding in the cartoon controversy), to the right (ex: where anything is a menace to the “American way”).
Rational Americans need to start organizing and put and end to all this silliness.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Never heard about this , then I read it here and it won’t change anything. In the Boston area there is a DD’s at almost every conner and I good coffee every time I go. If Rush Limba or Bill Clinton were spokes people for DD it wouldn’t stop people from going. I do wish there were more Tim Horton in the states.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Stop buying DD because of something a FOX commentator blithered? No.
I’ll keep buying delicious, reasonably priced doghnuts and coffee from wherever I damn well please, than you very much.
What I WILL stop doing is using the products of anyone who sponsor’s Milkin’s show. And I’ll also send FOX a peice of my mind, via e-mail.
Don’t hate some company just because they tried to avoid contoversy… they’re in the business of pleasing the freakin’ customers. No, place it squarely on the problem itself: irrational right wing nutjob commentators… and the PEOPLE WHO SPONSOR THEM.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Good work, Phil. I’ll buy you a Tim Horton’s doughnut when you’re in Toronto next. They’re Terror-Free ™.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:39 am
For extra lulz, try to find the youtube videos where she is dressed up as a cheerleader to cheer the Republican party to victory in either 2004 or 2006.
It is worth watching with the volume all the way down, she is pretty cute as a cheerleader, even if she is poor at it. :}
May 29th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Eh, no.
The phenomenon of sports-associated violence (e.g. “soccer hooliganism”) is totally unknown in Ireland. There has been exactly one incident in Ireland: when some English “fans” went on the rampage in Dublin after an international soccer match.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:40 am
OMG! Terrorists might wear… clothes!!! Ban them! Terrorists might drive cars!!! Ban them! Terrorists might use video cameras to record their propoganda… Ban them! Terrorists use the Internet… Ban it!
While some might deride BA for bothering to waste space on something so silly, I applaud him. If we don’t stand up now, when it’s something so seemingly trivial like a scarf that *looks like, but is not* the same type of scarf that some terrorists wore once, next time it might not be so trivial.
On a related note, the goal of terrorism is terror. Since the mere thought of Rachael Ray terrorizes me, maybe they had a point
‘mute
May 29th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Dave:
So, Dave. Do you have a list of all apparel on “terrorism glorification” list? I do try and stay up with the trends and I certainly wouldn’t want to be seen in such clothing, at least, before the fall terrorism cocktail party season. I would image there is a list for the beach, casual outings, and more formal occasions, as well.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I have to admit that if I saw that advertisement, I would have thought it looked like a PLO scarf. Pretty much due to personal interest in military history.
But, Phil, I think boycotting Dunkin Donuts is simply punishing the victim. They are in the business of making donuts (sweet delicious ones I might add). So when some chucklehead spouts on NATIONAL TV (I didn’t see her, so I’m going from what’s said here), OF Course they are going to pull the add. We may WANT them to fight stupidity, but they have their own personal (business) interest to think of. It would be stupid and irresponsible for them to fight something like this. How could they win?? Whatever they do, some people are going to now make a connection when they see that add that DD “doesn’t care if they look like terrorists”. However stupid you want to call people that are doing that…its still going to hurt DD in the long run.
It comes down to Michelle having nothing of substance to talk about, so she finds a nothing story to blow up and a target to make a “Bad Guy”. I’m guessing she’s at least savy enough to know that DD would just drop the add rather than fight an already lost cause. SHE is the lone bad guy in all of this. (Not including the terrorists of course!)
And as far as symbolism in general, some people will feel pain from certain symbols regardless of whether they, or anyone else, thinks its irrational. People are human, not computers. I don’t see any issue with the general idea of not ‘advertising’ certain things just to avoid annoying/hurting people.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Thanks for posting about this, BA. Seriously, there is too much “news reporting” going on, and not enough news to fill it (or maybe the important stories are being ignored?) so that things like this scarf gets talked about as “news” by the likes of Malkin. TV news has turned into more of an entertainment industry than anything… it’s no longer journalism. Let’s go beyond simple scarves… I’m a belly dancer. Am I supporting terrorism by performing Arabic and Arabic-inspired dance?
Anyway, Bodo’s bagels over Dunkin Donuts ANY day!
May 29th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Keds. Worn by level-headed christians.
I’m reminded of that SNL skit in this situation. I find it odd that clothing is used to identify groups still as well. For example – trenchcoats after Columbine. Even though it was a false connection there was still a cultural stigma afterwards. Now a scarf send a bat-…stuff.. crazy woman on a rant and a major company backpedals with its tail between its fried-dough legs.
Like Phil I would like to have seen DD stand up for sanity. In fact I’d like to see them go one step further and have a popular muslim in traditional clothing do their next ad. They sell *donuts*. Not missles. Although a two-week old jelly-filled is a wonderful weapon.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I have to disagree with the people who say, “It’s just a scarf.” That reduces the issue to silliness. A tougher question is, what if it really was a keffiyeh, or rather the similar headscarf often seen worn by Middle Eastern women? The Wikipedia article cited above says the keffiyeh is specifically worn by men. If so, a middle-eastern scarf worn by a woman would not even be a keffiyeh. Therefore to associate the wearing of the scarf with terrorism is categorically racism, deliberately implying that all Middle Easterners or all Arabs support terrorism. Dunkin Donuts should not have given any respect to the allegation, no matter what their concern for the bottom line.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:16 am
For the Malkins and their ilk, rationality and critical thinking aren’t something they know how to do. These are the people that think Iraq attacked us on 9/11, and that George Bush is the greatest president ever.
From global warming, to evolution, to the rationale for the war in Iraq, these people are wrong every step of the way. They reject reality in favor of a world view that doesn’t deviate from their opinions. These people wave declared war on reality itself. The fact that anyone that cares about science and truth could make excuses for them is beyond me.
It’s also a display of racism. They suggest that every Arab person in the world is a terrorist waiting to strike, and that anyone with a scarf on their neck is to be casted aside as an appeaser. It’s the height of racist stupidity.
The fact that DD pulled the ad based on what these fringe lunatics write about on their websites is fairly surprising. It makes me wonder what type of right-winger runs that company.
Keep posting about this sort of thing BA. There are people who will make excuses and get angry with you, but those are people who support a faction of American politics that rejects reality itself. Their opinions are worth as much as Malkin’s, and if they feel that passionately about it, they can go post on her website where they’ll be with their own type of people.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I think you have it backwards. Demonizing opponents and exaggerating threats is how Carl Rove and his ilk have captured so many supporters. Then they watch Faux News and becoem scared about almost everything.
And Michelle, I find that the more popular something is, the less likely I am to like it. That’s what gets me so mad. Everybody else decides they just love some crappy new fad, and all of the manufacturers emulate the crap. I don’t begrudge others their glazed air if that floats their boat, but I want a real donut.
And don’t get me started about “lite” beer.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:34 am
To those of you admonshing Phil for stating that he would boycott DD over this silliness… a couple of points:
First, I didn’t read anywhere in his post where he advocates or suggests that we should do the same… it was simply his personal decision, and he gives his reason why.
And second, I think it’s absolutely prudent to take such a stand against the advertisor… you can make the case that DD is simply “avoiding a controversy” or trying to best serve the public, but in pulling the add DD is not only pandering to fear-mongering, they are lending credence to Malkin’s insanity and in doing so conveying a sense of power to her. Where does it stop? Will Malkin now define what’s acceptible for the rest of us? Having the power to cause a major corporation like DD to pander to your insanity is a dangerous thing, and can (and likely will) be easily abused. And as a consumer, the only way we have to combat that sort of behavior by a DD is to publicly state your intentions to boycott the product if such behavior continues. I see no problem with that whatsoever.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:38 am
@ BaldApe
Ahh! Yet another contrarian in our midst…
May 29th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Good point there Celtic_Evolution. DD just gives into racism by doing this.
I won’t ever go there again either.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:50 am
One last post and then I’m done with this thread…
To say that associating articles of clothing with particular groups is wrong or racist, is wrong in itself. If a group of people wear a certain type of clothing or wear certain symbols, that apparel will become a symbol of that group for that time era. If a group of people make it there mission to kill innocent people and they are fairly uniform in their appearance, then that will become their uniform so to speak. (It also applies to the good guys, too but that’s not the focus here.) This is true for modern terrorists as well as recent history (Columbine type killers or Survivalists Anti-Federal Government folks all decked out in camo) as well as more historical types such as Nazis (who made the swastika and brownshirts the symbol of death – before the Nazis swastikas were often “good” symbols and by no means were everyone who wore a brown shirt bad). It so happens that the type of scarf mentioned in this blow up has become associated with modern terrorists. Its now their symbol. Does it mean that everyone in the world who wears that scarf is evil? No. But it has become the terrorists’ symbol and is treated as such. Just like if Rachel Ray showed up with a swastika on her shirt (admittedly extreme example) or a confederate flag or some other infamous groups symbol/clothing on her shirt. The simple fact is that a groups common characteristics become their symbols. Thats not racist or wrong. It becomes the pattern that identifies them.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Ironically, BA is more of a nutter than he claims Malkin is.
She didn’t say she’d boycott or urge people to boycott, but BA is.
Awesome. Sorry BA, I’m done with your blog.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Yes, David D, McCain spent time in the Hanoi Hilton. I have a lot of respect for someone who comes out of that and can function in society afterwards.
But you know what? That’s not enough to make me want to elect him President. He needs to actually have some sort of plank.
But he has shown very clearly that he will flip-flop, brown-nose, misrepresent, hold back information, turn whichever way the conservative wind is blowing, and generally just shill his way through this election.
I used to respect him, just a few years ago, but he has done everything he can to take that respect and stomp it into the ground.
And Mark: bye! Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:06 am
From the AP article that pretty much sums it up for me.
Amahl Bishara, an anthropology lecturer at the University of Chicago who specializes in media matters relating to the Middle East, said complaints about the scarf’s use in the ad demonstrate misunderstandings of Arab culture and the multiple meanings that symbols can take on depending on someone’s perspective.
“I think that a right-wing blogger making an association between a kaffiyeh and terrorism is just an example of how so much of the complexity of Arab culture has been reduced to a very narrow vision of the Arab world on the part of some people in the U.S.,” Bishara said in a phone interview. “Kaffiyehs are worn every day on the street by Palestinians and other people in the Middle East – by people going to work, going to school, taking care of their families, and just trying to keep warm.”
While some extremists and terrorists may wear kaffiyehs, “To reduce their meaning to support for terrorism has a tacit racist tone to it,” Bishara said.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:09 am
@ Mark
Actually, if you read Malkin’s own article, she states the following:
Even you should be clever enough to read between those lines, bub… her advocacy of boycotting DD hinges specifically on their response to her insane outcry.
At any rate… since I’m sure you’re done with this blog for good over this, of all posts, you won’t be seeing this anyhow. You’ll be missed. Terribly.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Hey Mark, if you think it’s nutty to boycott a company that gives into racism, then good riddance.
Since when was boycotting racism a nutty idea? That’s exactly what this is. Was the Montgomery Bus Boycott nutty as well?
RL: Sometimes a scarf is just a scarf, and your comparisons fail to make sense. She had a scarf on, not a suicide belt…
May 29th, 2008 at 11:16 am
This from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keffiyeh
“For some years, the wearing of the keffiyeh has been almost ubiquitous amongst British soldiers, who now, almost exclusively, refer to them as shemaghs”
How many of those who claim the keffiyeh is a terrorist symbol are going to so as much face to face with a British soldier ? Johann, you willing to do it, show us how manly you are ? I am sure if you go to some Hereford pubs and start claiming that the SAS by wearing them are supporting terrorists you will get a good reception.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:21 am
This is so dumb. I don’t think its D&D’s fault. I am sure a ton of people complained about this because most Americans are whiny racist idiots. What D&D should do is poison all there coffee and clean up this cesspool of a country.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:23 am
“What D&D should do is poison all there coffee and clean up this cesspool of a country”
I have been in one D&D. Their coffee tasted like they had already decided to poison it. That or they think dishwater is a coffee blend.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:26 am
As a rabid Democrat, would you have anything positive to say about Michelle Malkin? Somehow, I doubt it. And therefore, logic and reason aren’t in the equation here.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:38 am
There is inherent comedy in watching racist minorities rant. It just shows that stupid is an equal opportunity employer.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:38 am
You show an uncharacteristic callousness to us Hebrews (Jews if you prefer), and remarkable insensitivity regarding the signs and symbols deployed by those who espouse a 7th Century c.e. hatred of our very existence that keeps them in a perpetual murderous frenzy intent on removing us from this plane of existence.
Mafish Falastin!
May 29th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Andrea Jones wrote:
Religious nations still need scientists if they want to have a military at all, love.
Actually, those countries in the Middle East can get pretty much anything they want for money, which they get by selling oil to the rest of us. So they don’t necessarily have to have scientists to design their weapons: either they buy them from weapons manufacturers in other countries (and the US is at the top of the list of countries which manufacture weapons and sell them to other countries) or they can hire scientists and engineers from other countries to work for them.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:49 am
If you’re not happy about this, let the company know. The Dunkin Brands PR site lists Michelle King (michelle.king@dunkinbrands.com) as their contact.
They also announced in January that Ms. Cirabel Lardizabal Olson was hired as “Senior Director, Community Relations & Multicultural Initiatives.” You might question how much they actually care about “multicultural initiatives.”
Of course, if anyone sends an email, you should be polite. Abuse just shuts the door.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:51 am
@ Matt Garrett
Was there a point relevant to this topic or discussion in there somewhere? Looking again… nope… doesn’t appear to be. Was that a defense of Malkin, or were you just being disagreeable just to be disagreeable? Please clarify.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Prometheo, are you going to take the British Army to task as well ? Only you should, unless you want to be consider a bit of a hypocrit. It will be brave of you.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Matt Garrett, is there any issue you can’t misdirect? First, I am not a rabid democrat. And second, this isn’t a Republican versus Democrat issue. It’s simply an issue of Michelle Malkin being a racist, irrational, paranoid hate-monger, and Dunkin Donuts not standing up to her.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
God forbid that clothing should veer us from our course of rejecticating all things terrorist… I mean they must be quakifying in their boots… their fiendish plot to infiltrationicize western neck fashion has been defeaticized… BWAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
I hear they are planerating an all out assaults on our cookifying habits by getting IHOP to serve flatbread instead of pancakes… BRING IT ON, YOU CULINARY TERRORIST SCUM!!!
May 29th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Nancy Reagan often wears red. She must be a Maoist.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Guys, this bit of cloth the woman is wearing isn’t even a kaffiyeh…it just resembles one. The fact that DD folded to this paranoid idiocy is a very bad symptom of the bizarre paranoia and inability to reason that has come to promenence in the US recently.
Yes, Malkin is an idiot. Yes, the “controversy” is stupid. The fact that such stupidity had such a strong effect on a national business is worse.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“You know, I think you are a mutant. Only a mutant will disagree that Krispy Kreme is awesome”
He’s talking about the boxed KK’s at the grocery store – a different product entirely. It’s like comparing fresh White Castle sliders to the frozen ones in the grocery store.
(fwiw Malkin hasn’t terrorized KK…yet)
May 29th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Prometheo… you crack me up! Have you ever set foot in Israel? I’m assuming not. Last time I was in Tel Aviv (1997) and I looked around I saw a fair number of kiffeyeh like scarves being worn. They seemed to be a fashionable and useful item. I picked up a couple as gifts for family members from a shop there. There certainly didn’t seem to be any stigma or issue with the locals wearing them – especially teens and 20 somethings. Now, it has been a decade since then and I’ll admit that could have changed… but, really, I doubt it.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
@Those who think a kiffiyeh=terrorism,
These have been a traditional part of desert wear for at least hundreds, if not thousands of years. Regionally, the pattern differs (a red houndstooth-esque pattern for the Arabian Peninsula, a red fishnet-ish motif for Jordanians, and a black fishnet-ish pattern the Palestinians wear. How this is a natural “symbol” of anything but the incredibly oppressive heat in the region is beyond me. A number of people have chosen to wear the last pattern in solidarity with the Palestinians, both in peaceful, apathetic, and belligerent contexts. Kiffiyeh (with the particular pattern described) = Palestinian. Period. If people want to associate “Palestinian” with “terrorist”, then they’re pretty much beyond help.
@prometheo.”Mafish Falastin!” (For those of you who don’t speak the lingo: There is no Palestine!)
Last time I checked, all the lines on my maps are imaginary. When it comes to political geography, if it exists in the minds of many, it exists, even if there is a conflicting illusion in other people’s heads. No amount of artificial law, mutual recognition, or abject force will make one illusion superior to the other. The sooner people get to understanding that, the better.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Matt Garrett, While definitely a liberal, I do have many conservative friends and co-workers. Discussing this ludicrous episode has revealed that they all think Malkin is batcrap insane as well. It’s not about left/right, it’s about character and reason.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Wow. There are no words to describe this whole disaster – from the idiocy of MM to the breathtaking ignorance in some of the comments. I swore off the comments in this otherwise excellent blog, but when i saw over 100 comments on donuts, I thought “Hey, how bad can it be?” Now I know.
There are not enough O’s in stoopid for MM’s reaction. But to those in this comment thread that believe that clothing and symbols do not play a huge role in propoganda and identification, I don’t know what to say to you. Sometimes a cigar is really just a cigar.
For the record, in the Palestinian community the color and stripe of the kefiya most certainly does identify what faction you belong to and there are definitely agressive uses of the kefiya as a terror symbol – it is purposeful. And effective. Arafat was very clear about this. Fatah uses a black and white check and there is no mistaking it. Its purpose is not to make desert travel easier, regardless of its origin. That argument is spurious anyway: it is like saying that my Emmerson Fittipaldi baseball hat does not really represent a race driver since the origin of the cap is baseball. Symbols are approproiated all the time.
But to think that Rachel Ray, RACHEL FREAKING RAY, a person who is purely a vapid celebrity would wear one and that we cannot distinguish Rachel Ray from a terrorist – words fail me.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
From global warming, to evolution, to the rationale for the war in Iraq, these people are wrong every step of the way. They reject reality in favor of a world view that doesn’t deviate from their opinions. These people wave declared war on reality itself. The fact that anyone that cares about science and truth could make excuses for them is beyond me.
Beelzebud, I supported the liberation of Iraq, I would have voted for Bush in 2004 if I were American, and I’m skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. I also think Malkin is right more times than she is wrong, and Phil would no dount call me a “neocon”. Yet I’m a contributer to talkorigins.org (the Supernova FAQ actually), and fiercely opposed to theism and superstition (whither it comes from left or right), and a long time adversary of cretinists.
Care to comment? Or am I meant to fit into one of your oh-so-conveniently-handy pigeon-holes?
May 29th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Phil, I just wanna say I disagree with you and I’m so upset that I’m gonna walk out on you! Right now! (sob) I know we’re not married or anything and maybe we don’t know each other all that well, but I still demand that you be just as upset as I am and take this seriously! I mean, how could you? (whimper) After all these years and you go and foist yet another argument onto my poor burdened shoulders? (sniff) Well, I’m just not taking it anymore! That’s why I’m here to tell you that I’m going! For good! And nothing you do or say now will make me change my mind about this! So I’m leaving. For good. So this is me, telling you that I’m leaving. Because I can’t take it anymore! Goodbye!
(De-activating mocking mode)
May 29th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
I’m going to do my part as a patriotic American and go nude from now on. As far as I know, no acts of terrorism have ever been committed by the naked.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
As far as I know, no acts of terrorism have ever been committed by the naked.
The right honourable gentleman is gravely mistaken. I refer him to this (Scene 6 in particular) as evidence of the crimes of the naked.
Anyway, to get back to the point at hand, here is the money quote by a left-wing Israeli on the subject (scroll down for the 1.22pm comment):
“Whenever I see one of the hundreds of ignorant, fashion-victim-faux-anarchist-hipsters (or “real” anarchist-hipsters for that matter) wearing one of these things, I think to myself, “What a f***king retard.” And that seems about enough as far as an appropriate reaction goes.
These scarves symbolizing Pan-Arab Nationalism and the methods used to attain it “by any means necessary” are in the same category with Che T-shirts: things worn by f**king idiots who think they are edgy but are really shallow, reflexive trend followers implicitly mainstreaming a symbol of murder. But whatever. Symbols don’t need to mean anything anymore, and nihilism is the new black, or something.“
May 29th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Say, what’s that on your chair, Mrs. Malkin?
May 29th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
[...] Who owns a blog? Well, the person that goes to the trouble of blogging. Not the readers. Not the commenters. Before I get back to Stephanie’s post on Greg Laden’s Blog, I want you to read an example of the sort of commenter I am referring to, at the Bad Astronomy Blog: [...]
May 29th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
>>>”As far as I know, no acts of terrorism have ever been committed by the naked.”
You ain’t seen me naked – yet.
>>>”Say, what’s that on your chair, Mrs. Malkin?”
Another one of my Grandma’s tea-towels!
>:-(
May 29th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
The picture of RR in question was taken in front of a backdrop photo of the Oregon State Capitol building in Salem, Oregon.
Does it strike no one as odd that there were witch trials in Salem, Mass.?
Is RR a Witch? And a terrorist symp?
Burn her! Its the only way to make sure…
Thanks MM, for showing us the way to make America great again. Not.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:11 am
@Jeffersonian:
That’s why I was careful to specify Krispy Kremes obtained from one of their stores where they had just been baked . . .
May 30th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Granting for the moment the ludicrous notion that Rachel Ray’s scarf should be construed as a terrorist symbol, her public display of it would only serve to dilute its meaning. If I were the leader of a terrorist movement whose symbol was the paisley scarf, I’d howl with rage at the thought of a vapid American TV personality wearing it out in public. Think for a moment about all of the teenagers who wear Che Guevara t-shirts without knowing who he was, who couldn’t explain what he stood for, or what he did. They like the image and, as iconic as it is, it doesn’t really mean anything to the popular mindset.
Again granting that the scarf really is a terrorist symbol, I’m all for its complete trivialization. Let’s ruin all of their sane choices for clothing symbols. When they have to wear day-glo orange capri pants to know one another, I’ll say we’ve won..
That said, it’s a scarf not a kaffiyeh, in black and white paisley, which I can say with reasonable assurance the PLO never adopted. That this has caused a stir leads me to believe that we’re still more willing to live with irrational fears than we are to turn on the rational part of our brains and actually start using it.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:20 am
@Dave:
I was not aware that Woody Allen was naked when he wrote the screenplay and produced and directed that film (and if he was I’d just as soon not know . . . )
May 30th, 2008 at 1:53 am
BA :
Now there’s a good experiment to try!
40 mega-watt laser … through theyeballs ..turning Michelle Malkin’s grey matter (what little of it there is) to vapour & causing herugly racist head to expode!
Yep. Let’s try that!
… & if her head doesn’t explode the first time (perhaps through its utter emptiness? Or conversely its sheer denseness?) lets up the wattage until it does!
May 30th, 2008 at 2:13 am
@ “Prometho” the fool : Mafish Falastin! ( = There is no Palestine! Thanks The Chemist .)
well Mafish Medinat Yis’rael </em
or “There is NO Israel!”
Right back at you!
Despite all your hatred, racism, persecution and lies to the contrary :
There most certainly is a Palestinean people and there will be a Palestinean nation.
The future of your racist apartheid military fundamentaluist Jewish theocracy on the hand would seem far more grim.
One day the USA will wake up to the axiomatic fact that Israel’s interetsts are the reverse of America’s – and indeed the worlds and that theyhave been manipulated and used to its ends at their expense in lives, cash and national interest.
One day the world will finally tell Israel : ENOUGH!!!
Enough & now get lost! Get out of that land that never was yours! Go back to Europe or better yet go to jail for the eviuls you’ve committed, and the wrongs you’ve committed & the lives you’ve wrecked.
I really look forward to that day … & I bet you’re sweating broken glass at the thought of it. Well its coming .. Hopefully sonner rather than later!
Isreal has been intermittant. Palestine is forever!
May 30th, 2008 at 2:32 am
“You guys need to stop the fanatics on both fringes. Dissent is one things, other is pure paranoia and fear mongering. And that is on both sides of the political spectrum, from the left (ex: folding in the cartoon controversy), to the right (ex: where anything is a menace to the “American way”).
Rational Americans need to start organizing and put and end to all this silliness.”
Sorry to tell you this, but there really are no prominent fringes in American politics right now. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich both got almost no votes in the primaries–and their politics actually aren’t all that far out into the fringes either.
This sort of stuff is the mainstream in America. We like to pretend that its not, but why do such things keep recurring? Why is so much of our normal political discourse so broken? We try to pretend that these are just fringe loonies, but they occupy some very important space in the popular consciousness of America. Granted, Malkin is only a junior member of the loony of bin… but she’s very loud too.
There are plenty of rational Americans, but there are also plenty of people who mindlessly repeat everything they hear and go with the party line. I know some very smart people who have become unthinking in their support of certain politicians or parties. This is especially true now, in a major election year. It’s very disheartening.
The fringe is no longer the problem, for it has infiltrated the mainstream.
May 30th, 2008 at 2:52 am
Oh yes & I suppose I’m going to be blasted now because I’m Palestinean & your “inalienable human rights” incl. freedom of expresion aren’t supposed to be applied to “niggers” and scapegoats like us.
Well sod you, to those ignorant racist Yanks & Jews who cannot accept our equal humanity with your humanity -or as case may be inhumanity..
Palestineans are as human and as good and bad as anybody else.
To quote Shakespeares words :
“We’re far more sinned against than sinning.”
&
“Prick us and we bleed, wrong us & we will revenge.”
We have been very, very, very badly wronged …
Words cannot express how badly.
Military empires & muscle never lasts.
Empires (& their colonial outposts) fade and vanish.
The Palestinean people have samoud.
We will survive.
Despite all you do to us we will survive – for we are not the “terrorists” or the “bad guys” here as you paint us. The villains here are you.
If you want proof of that look who is oppressing and attacking and invading who.
Palestine did not try to take over Israel. *
Palestine is not Occupying Israel and oppressing its people.
Palestine did not invade Lebanon or Eygpt or Jordan or Syria or Iraq.
Israel is the guilty party, the real villian here – and all the Jewish lobbies many big lies and massive wealth and disproportionate brutality and political thuggery cannot change that fact.
One day the United States of America will realise how just how badly the Jews (incl. the neo-cons and Christian Zionists) have decieved and exploited them – and how terrible a price they’ve been made to pay.
When they do, I think that such grotesque and evil exploitation and lies will result in terrible consequences for the Jews. Because they will one day be held accountable for what they’ve done – to us Palestineans and you American’s and to all the other Humans a.k.a. goyim / gentiles on the planet alike.
—————————————–
* Yes, yes, I know all about the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948 (the Nakbah or Catastrophe / “war of independence”, 1967 “6-day -war” & 1973 (Yom Kippur” -those were not depsite the lies told to the contrary wars of aggression by Arabs to crush the democratic (not!) underdog (not!) Zionist state. Rather the “Arabs” – & Palestineans have always been defending ourselves against the completely wrong and unjust imposition by force of someone stealing their land and trying to evict them from it. Its like having a robber kick you out of your home and bringing the police in to stop you fighting to get them out of it. That simple really.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:06 am
Oh & you think I feel angry & upset – well d’uh! Of course I do!
Just try to imagine – & you can’t – how it is to be a Palestinean.
And to have to listen to the BS, the hatred and intolerance directed your way by the Jews and ignorant Americans who think that money and power and brute force makes them right.
Well, as I said above : we Palestineans have samoud – meaning ’steadfastness’ or ‘persistence’ although also more than those.
We will survive and one day the USA will wake up to the reality most of the planet already acknowledges :
that the Jews (& they should know better than to do what they’ve done – more than anyone else on Earth!) are totally in the wrong and what they’re doing in “Israel” or rather Occupied Palestine is utterly evil and abhorrent. One day they’ll be held to account by the world – & that day will come perhaps sooner than you realise.
————————-
(&, sigh, NO that is not a “terrorist” threat – or any sort of threat really. Not at all. Nor are the people “terrorists” that you think are. You want to see terrorism, Mr Average Amercian and esp. Mr Jew? Look in a mirror for the true terrorist of the world is you.)
May 30th, 2008 at 5:12 am
I can’t be the only one who thinks the rants of “Palestines Avenging Ghosts” would sound more coherent in the original Nazi…
Anyway, @Ronn, I was making an ironic reference to the Attack of the Giant Killer Boob scene in said film. Maybe my humour was a tad understated (or British, as we like to call it *grins*)
And also to anyone who still denies that the scarf is a terrorist symbol, then they could perhaps take a look at this press release from the Simon Wisenthal Centre.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
In defense of Dunkin Donuts, let’s not forget how Procter & Gamble tried to fight a similar lie for well over a decade, and how it just kept getting worse. Indeed, given the fact that so many Republicans are mental defectives with a penchant for violence, DD probably had to do this to protect the lives of their Moslem (and Sikh and Jain and Hindu and Rastafarian, for all I know) employees.
This does not, of course, alter the fact that Michelle Malkin is a stinking traitor who will freeze for all eternity in Cocytus.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnL-7×4n4d8
Germans can be funny
May 30th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Although it appers to be in the UK
May 30th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
And furthermore, Arabs themselves admit that it is >a href=”http://www.thestar.com/living/article/433754″>more than a scarf (my emphasis):
“The kaffiyeh is a visual extension of our struggle</b?, a way to be a thorn in the silence,” says Ahmad Habib, Iraqi refugee and a member of the Arab Cultural Resistance music group. “Everywhere, from the Arab world to Toronto, people dress up to paint the world with conformity and indifference. The kaffiyeh stands in the way of that.”
The transition of the kaffiyeh from the Middle Eastern version of a baseball cap to a symbol of solidarity came with the occupation of Palestinian land. The kaffiyeh became a symbol of national identity for Palestinians. From the ‘60s on, Palestine Liberation Organization officials and members, such Yasser Arafat, wore the kaffiyeh everywhere they went.
International coverage of the first intifada often showed pictures of Palestinian civilians throwing stones with kaffiyehs around their faces or necks. But afterward, the kaffiyeh was popular only amongst activists and Palestinian refugees.
During the second intifada in 2000, sympathy for Palestinians began to grow and the kaffiyeh became a way of displaying solidarity.
“Ideally, I want everyone to wear the kaffiyeh,” says Habib, “but if it’s just worn for the aesthetic value, without the spirit of resistance wrapped up in every thread, then they might as well not wear it at all, and if it becomes appropriated by commercial interests, then that’s even worse.”
Perhaps all those people in this thread who claimed that the kaffiyeh is “just a scarf”, or slagged off MM will now apologise since it is abundantly clear she was right (in this instance) and they were wrong?
May 30th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
It’s fact time:
* Rachael Ray was not wearing a kaffiyeh.
* She was, however, wearing something that loosely resembled a kaffiyeh.
* The kaffiyeh, historically, has not been tied to extremism.
* Fairly recently, however, the kaffiyeh has been taken as a symbol of Palestinian identity and anti-conformity
It’s humoring time:
* Palestinian identity and anti-conformity are terrorist notions
* Wearing a kaffiyeh can promote feelings of solidarity
* Doing this can encourage terrorism
* Wearing something that even resembles a kaffiyeh could lead to such tragedies
* Therefore, we should not wear anything that even resembles a kaffiyeh
The general rule seems to be that if it’s an evil symbol, don’t wear something that even loosely resembles it. Otherwise, you risk promoting such evil.
And finally, it’s observation time:
* The Christian cross loosely resembles a swastika
I wonder how Malkin feels about people promoting Nazis. (And yes, I’m trying to invoke Godwin’s law–seriously, though, the swastika is a nod reference to people on her blog talking about this very issue, defending Malkin).
May 30th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Dave, not only is citing one dude’s opinion a poor way to support your case, but you might want to read that last paragraph of his that you quoted again too:
“Ideally, I want everyone to wear the kaffiyeh,” says Habib, “but if it’s just worn for the aesthetic value, without the spirit of resistance wrapped up in every thread, then they might as well not wear it at all, and if it becomes appropriated by commercial interests, then that’s even worse.”
So, even if it was a kaffiyah (which it wasn’t), RR wearing it as simply a convenient fashion accessory in an advertisement makes it meaningless as a symbol.
Seriously, I’m pretty sure most Arabs that wear the damn things everyday don’t give Palestine a moment’s thought when they put in on in the morning, or indeed the whole day. Many gangs have appropriated baseball caps and team colors as their symbols. So when you buy your Yankee or Raiders gear at the local mall, are you supporting gangbangers?
Palestines Avenging Ghosts (actually, Dave too) : While some truly horrific things have been inflicted on the Palestinian people, and thousands of innocents have suffered at the hands of the Israelis, it’s not like you lot are angels either. (Dave, just switch “Palestinians” and “Israelis”) Here’s the problem with any hope for peace there: both sides bear blame. Until both admit their portion AND forgive the other for theirs, that region of the planet and it’s liberals and moderates, it’s mothers, wives and children will suffer and die because arrogant leaders will not accept responsibility and sacrifice a bit of pride for peace. To both sides: grow up or die. I personally don’t give a damn. For all I care, let the U.N. take over and make the whole region some “World Park” dedicated to ancient mythology and remembering the victims of religious violence.
May 31st, 2008 at 2:21 am
Dave: Anyway, @Ronn, I was making an ironic reference to the Attack of the Giant Killer Boob scene in said film.
I was exploring the possibility that some might think the whole film was a crime . . .
Dave: Maybe my humour was a tad understated (or British, as we like to call it *grins*)
“M[in]e, too.”
May 31st, 2008 at 4:19 am
Did Malkin bother to talk to Ray or Dunkin Donut’s people before she went on a fashion police tangent? I’m guessing, no.
Unreal Dunkin Donuts. Have some corporate spine, will you? Unnecessary and uncalled for.
When we start letting an extremely vague and imaginative association to some symbolic dress code begin to rule our lives, isn’t that a sign that the bad guys are winning? I don’t believe that they are, but we can’t allow ourselves to live in such a sorry state of unreasonable fear and overreaction. When paranoia starts to infiltrate our common sense and forces us react to nothing in particular, that is the real danger to the values and spirit of this country. We have become enemies of ourselves.
If Malkin is so deeply paranoid and frightened of her own insecurities about the world she lives in, maybe she ought to go stick her head in the sand and hide. Oh, wait. Sand might be thought of as supporting…
May 31st, 2008 at 6:16 am
Dave:
Ragutis beat me to it, but I’ll second his statement, and add that if vapid viewers of “What not to wear” are wearing something because they saw it in a fashion magazine it is a symbol of nothing but their own intellectual sheep-hood.
And yes, I am a contrarian. My reaction to fashion in general is to ask “How dare you try to tell me what to wear?”
May 31st, 2008 at 10:13 am
FIDO89:
Rich:
Get edumacated. Reduce your ignorance.
Kind of sad because the companies and fashion designers selling this stuff are injecting their politics into this stuff. When really it should only be an article of clothing.
This kind of think happens all the time. Look up the history of the Scottish Kilt. More politics than true historical clothing article.
In Manhattan? I don’t think so.
These things are worn for political reasons and also by the clueless. Other people cluing you in doesn’t mean they are paranoid. Just that you are ignorant.
But why am I bothering. You are probably running around in a Che t-shirt.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:13 am
@ BaldApe
Agreed! And something you would realize immediately if you ever saw me out in public…
May 31st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
@ Brian Macker
Repeat after me… slowly so’s it’ll sink in:
She wasn’t wearing a kiffiyeh… she was wearing a scarf.
But yeah… you cracked it… you’re on to her. She was either intentionally wearing a scarf that looked like a kiffiyeh in order to impose her political viewpoint of hatred to all donut eaters everywhere. OR if she WASN’T doing it on purpose, well then she was just plain ignorant and deserves public scorn…
Thanks for the false dichotomy. Always a crowd pleaser.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
All:
Malkin is using the “guilt by association” argument in her essentially hate speech diatribe. It is a tactic not limited to the right, but employed especially effectively by the right since Nixon’s best speech writers revived it post-McCarthyism. She and her comrades (get the implication?) use this violent form of speech to suppress any kind of rational discussion. This tactic implies an association with the “enemy,” with “anti-Americanism,” racism, and even misogyny. It defines its target in the attacker’s terms, immediately putting the one against whom it is used on the defensive. It is also contrary to the principles of free and open discussion which are a part of this country’s heritage. When anyone or any corporation gives in to this kind of coercion, that heritage is diminished; as a nation, we become more susceptible to the kind of behavior which posters above have noted: blacklisting, scapegoating, etc. And I would add one other: the loss of our Constitutionally defined freedoms, as has happened when Congress signed away some of those rights when they authorized without perusal the various Patriot Acts.
May 31st, 2008 at 7:02 pm
We can’t bring water through security at an airport, and now we’re arguing over scarves. Terror FTW.
May 31st, 2008 at 7:39 pm
And here’s what Dunkin’ Donuts had to say:
>>>‘‘In a recent online ad, Rachael Ray is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design. It was selected by her stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, given the possibility of misperception, we are no longer using the commercial.’’
So it really WAS paisley. (Not that it matters even if it wasn’t)
Excuse me while I bang my head a thousand times against a ten foot armoured steel block, cook it in an oven – yes, the block as well as my head – chop it off, jump off a cliff while wearing a Homer Simpson costume and attempt to use a cocktail umbrella as a parachute and shouting “wibble, my old man’s a mushroom”, all the while listening to abba songs playing backwards so I can hear the hidden messages from Satan, in my attempt to reach the same level of STOOPID!
May 31st, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Celtic,
No that’s not what I said. In summary I quoted some admissions of ignorance. Pointed out that the real hate fashion stuff exists. Then I dismissed the idea that it’s needed to keep out blowing sand in urban settings. WTF, does Urban Outfitters mean to you? I also linked to some pictures of t-shirts with terrorists on it if the concept of symbolism was beyond your ken.
You guys expressed comments as if you were unaware that terrorish chic didn’t exist. This thing resembled this kind of political fashion crap. At no point did I say it was a kiffiyeh, nor did I say she knew anything about it. Ray is probably as ignorant about this as the next guy.
Even the original article said it resembled one, not that it was one. People can boycott what they want.
In fact it does resemble the ones being sold, frills and all. If it’s paisley that a subdesign because the checkered pattern of the kiffiyeh is pretty clear in the picture. Can’t tell if it is square like a kiffiyeh or long like a scarf from the picture.
June 1st, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I’ve been photographed in something that looks like a kaffiyeh. Oh, wait, it was a tallith, that’s considered a symbol of Jewish culture. *shrug* I still get groceries at grocery stores, even though there aren’t any in town that don’t sell homeopathic fraud. Just another way in which I’m not Michelle Malkin (no matter how much we look alike).
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:04 am
@ Brian Macker
No… that’s your interpretation. What we’ve said, repeatedly, is that in this case, it’s a scarf. Period. And saying so doesn’t make us ignorant of the concept of hateful “terrorist chic”. It simply makes us unwilling to accept stupidity, fear, and hatred dictating our ability to interpret any given item as something it isn’t.
You wanna live that way, feel free… but don’t berate the rest of us for refusing to.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Dear God, I didn’t think this would go on this long!
either I just noticed, or they got insanely more popular since I saw this blog: they are being sold in mall “fashion” stores for anywhere between 30-48$. They aren’t even made right-a little thin, and not even colored well. One could also ask whay anyone would wear one in the summer (I saw them on mannequins with beach clothes!)
But then again, we live in an age were people wear things that they can’t explain-Tibetian scarves, “tribal” tatoos, shirts with pictures of folks they don’t know the history of.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Hey Mark, if you think it’s nutty to boycott a company that gives into racism, then good riddance.
Calling for boycott is overreaction at the SAME LEVEL as Malkin’s original reaction to the ad. You’re no better than her.
Anyone boycotting DD over this needs to get a life and get over themselves.
Wow. You’re boycotting a donut shop that will probably never miss you. Way to strike a blow, folks. Way to strike at the unfortunate target of an ideological extremist.
Way to travel unerringly to the complete antipode of skepticism.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Having witnessed the arrival of Dunkin’ Donuts to New Zealand, and tasted them, I can only say: I am so very, very sorry.
Dunkin’ Donuts have mastered the seemingly impossible art of making fried, sugared dough taste BAD. It’s impressive evil food science, but wow.
I’d boycott them on that grounds alone.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
“But why am I bothering. You are probably running around in a Che t-shirt”
Boy, wou couldn’t be farther from the truth on that. I don’t even wear anything with coporate logos on them!
Yes, I do think it is dumb for someone to wear one of those, espically if it isn’t COLD (the ones I saw in the store were in Hawaii!). Again I will say this-I have been wearing a real one, on and off for 20 years, usually when it was cold.
Wearing a scarf like that (especially one of these cheesy ones) makes you as much a Terrorist the way a LAPD SWAT or Military unit Tshirt makes you a member of that unit.
As for the term “hate fashion”-I hadn’t even heard of it before this: I just thought of things like Che, Mao, and C. Manson shirts (etc) as more pop culture drivel, worn by people that were for the most part unaware of who those folks really were.