Time to hate the donuts

At this point I am sure that just about everyone has seen the various Dunkin' Donuts commercials featuring Rachel Ray. Now I don't care how you feel about Rachel Ray, whether you think she is a bubbly culinary guru or the annoying developmentally delayed dwarf-like offspring of Alvin and the Chipmuks is immaterial to the discussion. Nor is it relevant how you feel about the ad campaign itself. The ads for the most part have been thoroughly unremarkable. One ad, however, came into fire in recent weeks from the ever embarrassing Fox "News" Network. Talking (empty) head Michelle Malkin took xenophobic umbrage at a particular ad in which Rachel Ray wore a scarf that Ms. Malkin felt resembled a keffiyeh.

"What is a keffiyeh?", one might reasonably ask. A keffiyeh is a traditional Arab headdress, or scarf, often worn by men in the middle east. 'Fantastic," that same reasonable person responds, "So explain again what the issue is? Why is this a problem?"

Well, Malkin criticizes, "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." She goes on to ask, "Is Ray's blunder worth boycotting DD over? "

So to be clear, Rachel Ray wearing a scarf that was not a keffiyeh (which is completely besides the point) but resembled one, demonstrated Dunkin' Donuts' implicit support of terrorism and Islamic Jihad and radical Muslim fundamentalism. Obviously Ms. Malkin, who is evidently going after the market of Neocons who find Ann Coulter not Asian enough for their fetishist conservative fantasy play, would be completely ignored by Dunkin' Donuts'. I mean this is a huge company that embraces diversity, right? (The affiliation with Baskin Robins alone supports that. 31 flavors? Tell me that isn't symbolic of their support for the brotherhood of man.) They wouldn't pander to the paranoid fantasies of some right wing nut job, right?

The DD response:

"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."

WTF? While I completely agree that wearing paisley in any way is almost always questionable, come on Dunkin' Donuts, grow some Munchkins, will ya?

To clarify this supposed issue, below are Malkin's "thoughts:"

"The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant and not-so-ignorant fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons." (It's nice how she allows that much of her reading audience might be clueless.)

Outside of the weird suggestion of some anti-Zionist fashion conspiracy, much of what she says is factually accurate. Arafat did wear a keffiyeh, and many Palestinian men wear it still. There have been honest to goodness terrorists that have worn them as well. However, for centuries millions of peaceful Muslim men have also worn keffiyehs all throughout the Middle East. Additionally the renowned terrorist organization, the British SAS Special Forces, also wears keffiyehs, or "Shemaghs" as they call them.

If you follow Malkin's logic though, you must presume that all men who wear keffiyehs are terrorists or at least support terrorism. Which of course is only a small jump to believing, as I am sure many of her regular readers do, that all Muslim men are terrorists.

So if Rachel Ray had worn something that resembled a Catholic priests' vestment, it would have been equally fair to charge Dunkin' Donuts with supporting pedophilia? Of course not, and it would have been incredibly offensive to Catholics to suggest so, just as it is incredibly offensive to Muslims to make an intrinsic connection to keffiyehs and terrorism. Just because bad people may sometimes wear something it does not mean all people wearing them are bad, whether it is keffiyehs, vestments or camouflage. To use another example, wearing a beret does not make you a revolutionary. (It does however make you a d-bag.)

I understand that objects take on symbolic meanings and associations that were never initially intended or expected. I doubt the inventor of the eye patch ever thought he would be so pigeonholed to the pirate demographic. But lets be clear, a keffiyeh is not a swastika (originally a symbol denoting luck or good fortune), and that is no less true regardless of how you feel about the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I do not expect Michelle Malkin to understand this. She is after all an Asian American (Filipino) who wrote a book titled "In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror." It serves her agenda to have people blindly accept the bastardized leaps in logic that she takes. Critical thinkers are not her demographic. To be fair, and we should try to be even if she is not, Malkin is not the only one to tackle the issue of Rachel Ray's neckware. She is but the loudest voice among the chorus of dozens fear-mongering ugly-American right wing dolts. To not be fair, Malkin sucks ass.

But I expect more of Dunkin' Donuts (if for no other reason than I really like the toasted coconut donut and the Early Fishin' commercial) and I expect more from my people as well. Why is it okay for companies to always cater to the lowest common denominator? Why should Dunkin' Donuts only be worried about offending idiots? Why are they not worried about offending their multitude of Muslim franchisees both in America and abroad? (Disregarding the significant percentage of Dunkin' Donuts franchises that are Muslim-owned in the U.S., Dunkin' Donuts also has franchises in largely Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Turkey, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.) Why can only the ignorant and uninformed threaten to boycott? Why isn't the fall out among the intelligent and thoughtful considered when these decisions are made? Well I am offended. I am offended by their kowtowing to the stupid and reactionary, and I am offended they didn't consider that people like me may be equally offended if not more so by the cowardly, munchkinless if you will, decision to pull the ad in response to xenophobic, if not blatantly racist, pressure. Apparently they were worried about a possible boycott, and I say that's what we give them. I for one will not be patronizing Dunkin Donuts any longer, or at least until they demonstrate that they will no longer cater to Michelle Malkin and her ilk. Who's coming with me?

Ignorance and intolerance do not become patriotism just because you wrap them in the flag.