Malkin Spreads Teh St00pid — UPDATED
by tgirschJune 9th, 2008
Via SayUncle, Dunkin’ Donuts has pulled a Rachael Ray TV ad because she had the gall to wear a black-and-white paisley scarf which — if you’re a pants-wettingly-hysterical right wing blogger like Michelle Malkin, and you squint at it just right — could be construed as a keffiyeh, which, of course, makes Rachael Ray (and, by extension, Dunkin’ Donuts) pro-terrorist. Got all that? Good. Apparently, DD rightly defended the ad at first, but the noise from the right-wing echo chamber (motto: “Don’t think, just repeat”) became more trouble than it was worth.
And these dumb fucks have the gall to lecture liberals about so-called “PC bullshit?” Give me a damn break.
As I side note, I’m a little disappointed that this didn’t warrant an Xrlq “non-liberal morons” post…
UPDATE: Xrlq belatedly takes requests:
Charles Johnson and Michelle Malkin also caught Rachael Ray red-handed … wearing a scarf during a massive heat wave on the East Coast in an ad intended to promote doughnuts not manufactured by Krispy Kreme. And in this case, the dextrosphere got results; at great expense to Non-Krispy Kreme, Non-Krispy ended up pulling that vile and disgusting ad that implied that it’s OK to wear scarves in 100 degree heat to promote doughnuts not made by Krispy Kreme. Or for Rachael Ray to appear in an ad without revealing her entire neck, or more skin in general, or something like that. She certainly wouldn’t look good in a burka, so maybe that’s where they’re going with this. “m [sic] not sure exactly what their objection was, but in any event, hey, it must have been good ‘cuz they got a buzz inside the blogosphere and obtained results outside it. All hail the new media.
Categories: News & Current Events, Terrorism |
Let’s make a deal, Malkin. I’ll support your cry against the DD commercial (for no good reason, I can’t stand Rachael Ray anyway). In turn, you allow me to treat “hipsters” as a nebulous, splinter terrorist group.
You really have to suspend all logic and thought to take Malkin’s column as supporting any kind of action against DD. Your reading comprehension is lacking. Your usual kneejerk (with an emphasis on “jerk”) is not surprising.
Then apparently conservatives all over the country really suspended all logic and thought — they made so much noise that DD had to pull the ad. Sorry, but we’re not the ones who did any knee-jerking on this. I didn’t report it (nor did the conservative-leaning site from which I linked it) until after DD was forced to pull the ad.
Well, they chose to bow to pressure from those baiting them as opposed to stand up to their ignorance. Granted, it was calculated business decision, and not an ideological one. But, then again, that’s often part of the problem in these situations.
In any case, it’s not about Malkin or any other individual pundit calling for any specific action per se. It’s the ignorant insistence that their racist noise is signal.
Forget about the call for action, look at the conclusions being drawn. But, whatever, Michele Malkin advocates my child being forced to work in a sweatshop. For reals, I seen the bitch in a pair of Air Maxes!
Come on now, we all know that if an American woman wears a scarf, the terrorists have won.
I will say this, Malkin’s absurd reaction to this is about on par with the uproar over Huckabee’s Christmas greeting that had a subliminal cross/bookcase in it. Fear the symbol!
“they made so much noise that DD had to pull the ad.”
So now it is “they” instead of Malkin. What was in the column by Malkin that asks DD to do anything? How can one respond to your blogs when you keep changing the goalposts?
Morris, you are right, one can not respond to the blog, so why don’t you stop?
On a side note, you ask: “What was in the column by Malkin that asks DD to do anything?” Answer: nothing. My question to you: where in Tgirsch’s blog was there any indication that MM asked anyone to do anything? Answer, nowhere. You have fabricated a strawman. Tgirsch said Malkin though the scarf looked like a keffiyeh. This is exactly correct. Spin your way out of that.
I get it now. The purpose of Malkin’s post was to let people know what was happening. That was bad. Tg spreads the same info and that is good. Thanks for the clarification. I’m sorry I didn’t see that a first.
Unfortunately for you, I can remember what you wrote a couple hours ago - not to mention it is sitting there in plain view for everyone to read. Nice try at changing your position though. (Which is funny, because that is what you claimed Tg was doing, and it is clear he did not.) I honestly don’t know how you can keep posting here since you make a fool of yourself virtually every time.
Hear, hear.
Ted, why do you assume that Fred isn’t actively lying? We’ve all known him long enough. Admittedly, he’s claimed that he’s too stupid to know that he’s wrong, but he most certainly has admitted to knowing that he keeps doing it.
Information on what was happening?
That’s an interesting way of spinning the spewing of intolerant, culturally ignorant, racist, paranoia.
Morris, do you have children?
“That’s an interesting way of spinning the spewing of intolerant, culturally ignorant, racist, paranoia.”
What part of Malkin’s column spewed “intolerant, culturally ignorant, racist, paranoia”
“Morris, do you have children?”
Why do you ask?
If you want to hear “intolerant, culturally ignorant, racist, paranoia” all you have to do is attend Barack Hussein Obama’s church.
Speculating that is is even a possibility that DD sympathizes with terrorist groups because Rachael Ray is wearing a scarf - that’s not, intolerant, culturally ignorant, racist, paranoia?
I wouldn’t be caught dead at Obama’s church (or anybody else’s in the absence of going to show respect at a wedding, funeral service, etc.), but thanks for the invite, Mo.
As for the kids, I’m just curious. I’m trying to learn a little more about the infinite complexity of your unique mind.
“Speculating that is is even a possibility that DD sympathizes with terrorist groups because Rachael Ray is wearing a scarf - that’s not, intolerant, culturally ignorant, racist, paranoia?”
It was very ignorant and stupid to cause a stir about Rachael Ray’s scarf. If I had seen the commercial before I read this blog, I know it would never have crossed my mind that it had anything to do with Yassar “That’s my baby(Jimmy Carter)” Arafat or any other terrorist. It is foolish and I agree with the assessment at SayUncle. DD should have told them to go jump in a very hot lake. My problem with this blog is the inclusion of Malkin in the group that was causing a stink about it. No one has said what it was that Malkin in particular said which was off-base.
BTW, I had rather have a unique conservative mind than a mushmind that follows liberal lunacy which requires no thought, only emotions.
What does having children have to do with the rightness or wrongness of a position?
Morris: “No one has said what it was that Malkin in particular said which was off-base.”
MM: “…Dunkin Donuts’ spokeswoman Rachel Ray’s clueless sporting of a jihadi chic keffiyeh in a recent DD ad campaign. I’m hoping her hate couture choice was spurred more by ignorance than ideology.”
That might not be “off-base” but it is, as the title of this thread suggests, “spreading the stupid.” How can this not be clear?
My problem with this blog is the inclusion of Malkin in the group that was causing a stink about it.
How do you suppose that “group” found out about it? It was initially reported on Charles F. Johnson’s hate-filled blog (no link to that crap — if you’re interested, you can follow Malkin’s link there), which Malkin then linked, and dozens of other right-wing blogs picked up on.
Indeed, when DD announced that they were pulling the ad, Malkin bragged that she and Johnson had “called attention to it,” and praised the company for “show[ing] sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists. ”
So, by Malkin’s own admission (one could say her boasting), the whole “kerfuffle” (her word) started because she and CFJ called attention to it. Nowhere does she condemn the people who contacted DD for overreacting, and indeed, she cheers the result — DD’s pulling of the ad. That would lead me to believe that she approved of the actions.
So, in response to the question about why Malkin was included, it’s because she, by her own admission, effectively started it.
Thanks for finally explaining it. I too think it was much ado about nothing. If Ray had been wearing a Confederate flag scarf instead of a scarf identified with one of the great terrorists, then that would have been something to complain about. Maybe next time Ray could wear a KKK hood so no one will recognize her. She could probably borrow Sen. “Sheets” Byrd’s. Better yet, Ray could wear a “I Love Barack Hussein Obama and Rev. Wright” button. That would boost the sales at DD.
“If Ray had been wearing a Confederate flag scarf instead of a scarf identified with one of the great terrorists..”
Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure Arafat never wore paisley. Also, his signature accessory was worn as head gear, not just around his neck. Other than that, sure, good point.
Google “Arafat keffiyeh scarf” and then get back to me on that.
I don’t need to. I know Arafat’s scarf was not paisley, and I know he wore it on his head.
I know you think you know everything, but Arafat did wear his keffiyeh on his shoulder as well as on his head. Live and learn. Open that closed mind of yours once in a while.
Sure. He might have worn a Yankees cap on occasion as well. But my point is his signature look is headware and certainly no paisley. So, if the scarf on the commercial had been worn on the head a la Arafat, that might have been referential. Or, if the pattern had been a checkered pattern and not paisley, then it might have been referential. But since it was not his signature pattern and was not worn in his signature fashion, it was…a paisley scarf.
In your example, it would be similar likening a hooded sweatshirt to a KKK hood. Or maybe likening the US flag to the conferderate flag (they are both the same three colors and have white stars on a blue background). In other words there are similarities, but the signature elements are missing from the non-symbolic examples.
After all, someone (ou) wrote “It was very ignorant and stupid to cause a stir about Rachael Ray’s scarf. If I had seen the commercial before I read this blog, I know it would never have crossed my mind that it had anything to do with Yassar “That’s my baby(Jimmy Carter)” Arafat or any other terrorist.” But perhaps I missed the meaning of your words..
Ted:
The part you’re missing is that once we backed Morris into a corner where his only choice would have been to actually agree with us about something, that was more than he could bear, so he was forced to change his position into one that agreed with Malkin.
Tgirsch, true enough. Morris seems to have no shame. And a surprisingly short memory.
I live in Winston-Salem, home of Krispy-Kreme. Since when does anything involving that other donut company warrant any mention at all? Rest assured that if I had blogged about the issue (which I hadn’t even heard of until after the ad was pulled), I certainly would have employed the “non-liberal morons” category. I may still.
I can’t get into the Krispy Kremes — there’s something about every single donut being exactly identical that wigs me out.
Not that I’m a big fan of Dunkin, either…
Your wish is my (belated) command.
Tgirsch:
You’re disappointing me!
First of all, Krispy Kremes are amazing treasure-bombs of heavenly donutty goodness. They are really great. The creepy perfectionism is what keeps them that way. (It’s sure not their minimum-wage staff - the major drawback of the one in my old neighborhood.)
More importantly, Rachael Ray is hot. She’s the chocolate-dipped cream-filled Krispy Kreme of broadcast cooking. I don’t care what she’s wearing or what inferior, dense, leaden doughnut she’s hawking - she’s got my rapt attention.
I wasn’t aware that I had in any way disparaged Rachael Ray. She can be a bit annoying at times, and I’d say she’s more “cute” than “hot,” but I’ve got no problem with her.
As for Krispy Kremes, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. It’s not that I dislike them (I wouldn’t turn it down if you offered me one), just that they’re not my favorites. Here in Memphis, there’s a local place called Gibson’s that I strongly prefer. And (rumor has it) if you show up there drunk at 2:30 in the morning, the devil’s food chocolate donuts will be hot and fresh.
I also had some righteously good little fried cinnamon donuts that somebody was selling from a cart in the public market in downtown Seattle (Pike Street?). The cart was itself a machine that made them on the spot when you ordered them. Pretty cool.
Just for the record, I’m a Krispy Kreme virgin, never even been inside a KK location. No particular reason, just haven’t. Hear very good things though.
RR just annoys the shit outta me; don’t see the sex appeal either. But, hey, different strokes.
never even been inside a KK location
I’m worried about the implications of you being “inside a KK location”. For the record: I object.
But as for Krispy Kreme, there are at least two in Penn Station, though they’re just counters, not the real thing. There’s a good one on Third Ave at about 84th - you could drop by after visiting our mutual acquaintance on 91st. There are a couple of others as well that I can’t think of right now. Best is to get the hot ones right as they come out of the oven . . . ummmm . . .!
I also note they’re selling them in boxes now through Duane Read and grocery stores - but $5 for a half-dozen of days-old donuts is going some, even for Krispy Kreme.
righteously good little fried cinnamon donuts that somebody was selling from a cart in the public market in downtown Seattle (Pike Street?). The cart was itself a machine that made them on the spot when you ordered them. Pretty cool.
Could that be the “Dough-Nu-Matic“?
Something like the Dough-Nu-Matic, but it was a lot bigger than that. The cart essentially was the machine.