Michelle Malkin » Of donuts and dumb celebrities

Of donuts and dumb celebrities

By Michelle Malkin • May 23, 2008 12:50 PM

Sigh. You all know I’ve been a fan of Dunkin Donuts for quite some time–and have touted their strong position in favor of immigration enforcement.

Charles Johnson notes, and many readers have e-mailed about, 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.

Is Ray’s blunder worth boycotting DD over? I’ll be interested to hear the company’s take. At this point, I’m going to give the management the benefit of the doubt. They have braved boycott threats and attacks over their lonely, principled stance against illegal immigration. Given their pro-rule of law, America first position, I highly doubt the executive offices are filled with moonbats who endorse Ray’s keffiyeh chic.

While we’re on the subject of donuts, I highly recommend a visit to The Fractured Prune if you’re lucky enough to have one in your neighborhood. (Check here.) I took my newly-minted preschool graduate to the one in Towson to celebrate this morning.

They specialize in hot, hand-dipped, made-to-order donuts that are pure heaven.

Yummmmmm.

No politics. Just sticky, sweet goodness fresh from the oven:

***

Commenter John Ansell writes: “DD should just bring the one fat guy back to do their ads.”

Here’s the classic ad for old time’s sake:

Posted in: Dunkin Donuts

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (213)

trackbacks (94)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]

#201

On May 26th, 2008 at 6:44 am, aironlater said:

It would seem that, according to aironlater, those of us that post here are required to verbally rebuff our hostess if she says something that may or may not be silly. Why is this so?

I heard the very same logic from my seasoned citizen parents when they commented once about Condi Rice not standing up to George Bush.. you know, her boss? They felt that what Bush was doing was wrong so Condi should have rebuffed him.

Is there a reason Libs think we conservative should turn on our own? I hear that quite a bit, but it makes less and less sense each time I hear it.

So, are you saying that you would sit by with guarded tongue if Malkin said something - anything - that was so remarkably insane simply because she is a ‘conservative’.

Here is a woman who claims to represent ‘you’ and ‘your cause’ and - for some reason beyond my own comprehension - you honestly believe that if you call her out on her hysteria that you a ‘turning on your own’. It’s almost sad to think that people within the conservative movement are so easily duped into thinking that they are not allowed to express any indivduality, as that would surely mean that they are ‘tearing their party apart’.

Though this particular subject that Malkin has chosen is pretty small-time in comparison to others, It is still quite telling that so many of her ‘followers’ seem to be saying more-or-less “eh, it’s no big deal” and then falling over themselves when Barack Obama calls a town by a different name.
#202

On May 26th, 2008 at 8:57 am, Southeast Jones said:

I ran the image through PSP and enhanced it enough to identify the scarf as being of Indo-Persian design. This design predates Islam by several centuries. Sorry, I read a lot of history books.
#203

On May 26th, 2008 at 7:02 pm, Joy said:

aironlater - why isn’t it enough that the majority of responders said it was no big deal? She asked for our input and we gave it honestly.

Why isn’t that enough for you? Just because leftists eat their own for no reason, doesn’t mean conservatives do. We have to have darn good reason, like if one of them is caught cuddling with Pelosi on a couch babbling about ManBearPig Warming.
#204

On May 27th, 2008 at 7:40 am, aironlater said:

On May 26th, 2008 at 7:02 pm, Joy said:
aironlater - why isn’t it enough that the majority of responders said it was no big deal? She asked for our input and we gave it honestly.

Why isn’t that enough for you? Just because leftists eat their own for no reason, doesn’t mean conservatives do. We have to have darn good reason, like if one of them is caught cuddling with Pelosi on a couch babbling about ManBearPig Warming.

You see, here is something about the conservative movement that I will never understand - their ability to simply push something like this aside and say, “oh well, that’s not big deal”.

This is Malkin’s bread-and-butter: conjecture, fear, relying on speculation rather than fact.

When someone is taken to task for their idiocy, it’s hardly ‘eaing your own’ as you put it. It’s a nice turn of phrase in order to rally your base, your fellow commentors here that agree with you, but it is hardly what you make it appear to be.
#205

On May 27th, 2008 at 11:19 am, SHoward said:

Aironlater,

Before you condemn us conservatives of pushing something aside, (something that is no big deal) you should put on your history hat and recall the attitude of the left when slick perjured himself under oath, and suborned perjury in someone else to protect his own backside.

These things were actual crimes, committed by the President of the United States while in office. Were they no big deal?

The leftists sure thought so.

Ergo, you really need to stop badgering commenters here for not jumping on Michelle with both feet over this relatively minor posting.

As for whether or not people survive as commenters when they disagree with our hostess, you apparently have never read lgm, Rusty, Dakine, Dark Knight, or any number of others that have openly disagreed with her yet remain welcome commenters on this site.
#206

On May 27th, 2008 at 12:19 pm, aironlater said:

Before you condemn us conservatives of pushing something aside, (something that is no big deal) you should put on your history hat and recall the attitude of the left when slick perjured himself under oath, and suborned perjury in someone else to protect his own backside.

These things were actual crimes, committed by the President of the United States while in office. Were they no big deal?

The leftists sure thought so.

Ergo, you really need to stop badgering commenters here for not jumping on Michelle with both feet over this relatively minor posting.

As for whether or not people survive as commenters when they disagree with our hostess, you apparently have never read lgm, Rusty, Dakine, Dark Knight, or any number of others that have openly disagreed with her yet remain welcome commenters on this site.

True, the Bill Clinton perjury issue was a big deal. However, in my opinion, the circus that lead us to the moment where Clinton sat on trial was made the far larger ‘deal’ created by conservatives.

Yes, it was a pretty bad choice on the part of Clinton to do what he did, but that is an issue that could have been handled in a more expediate, proper manner. Neither side handled themselves well at all, and the issue was not resolved in any fashion that really pleased either side.

But, that all started with oral sex, this started with slapping the label of terrorist sympathizer on anything that seems ‘not right’ to people - something that is done with such ease now that it has become beyond disgusting.
#207

On May 27th, 2008 at 2:37 pm, AaronsCC said:

Keffiyeh = Swastika for the 21st Century.
#208

On May 27th, 2008 at 5:13 pm, SHoward said:

AaronsCC brings up a key point:

If the Keffiyeh is symbolic to the terrorists and their supporters, the same way the Swastika was to the Nazis in the ’30s, doesn’t that actually make this issue a little bit of a bigger deal?

I realize it is a garment used for practical purposes, but so are hammers and sicles.

Any thoughts, oh great aironlater? What sayeth the oracle of all knowledge and wisdom in the universe?
#209

On May 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am, Al in St. Lou said:

On May 23rd, 2008 at 1:08 pm, jt3151 said:

It looks like just a scarf to me; I think this is an overreaction.

That’s because it is “just a scarf.”
#210

On May 28th, 2008 at 10:53 pm, joegosox said:

Dunkin’Donut’s just lost a customer. We have a better franchise here in Rhode Island anyway, “Honey Dew Donuts”.
Bye bye Rachel.
#211

On May 30th, 2008 at 3:25 pm, aironlater said:

On May 27th, 2008 at 5:13 pm, SHoward said:
AaronsCC brings up a key point:

If the Keffiyeh is symbolic to the terrorists and their supporters, the same way the Swastika was to the Nazis in the ’30s, doesn’t that actually make this issue a little bit of a bigger deal?

I realize it is a garment used for practical purposes, but so are hammers and sicles.

Any thoughts, oh great aironlater? What sayeth the oracle of all knowledge and wisdom in the universe?

Well, the crystal-ball is a bit fuzzy this afternoon, but i will do my best to honestly address your obviously smarmy querry.

To compare the swastika and a keffiyeh ( scarf ) is a bit like compairing apples and oranges. However, they both can tell a strikingly simular story.

Whereas the keffiyeh is worn by many people in middle east for practical purposes ( shielding from sunlight and dust ) the swastika is seen throughout history in various regions of the world. It is seen primarily as religious in insignificance by the Hinidi, Buddist; in some early Christian architechture ( Gothic period ), early Kabbalistic writings, Japanese maps ( marking locations of temples ), Chinese symbolism ( the sun ) and is even seen in several Native American tribes as special symbolism.

The reason that people remember that the swastika is associated with the Nazis is the same reason that Malkin notes that the keffiyeh are worn by ‘terrorists’ - it’s easier to see the sinister in things that we don’t ( or don’t want to ) understand.

The problem occurs when you claim that ANYONE wearing the keffiyeh is supporting terrorism. Though you may not want to look at it that way, the swastika was used long before Hitler appropriated it for his own evil means. The keffiyeh may be worn by terrorist, but in this instance, it’s a scarf worn by a woman who cooks.
#212

On May 30th, 2008 at 9:39 pm, SHoward said:

I hope you’re still reading this thread, aironlater, as it is getting long in the tooth…

I would have used the term sarcastic, not smarmy. But anyway, yes, it was on purpose.

Now, about your response, I think you made my point for me without realizing it. You rightly pointed out the many uses of the swastika before Hitler and the Nazis. (Although I confess: I’ve never heard of the hinidi.)

The entire point is that no one in their right mind would wear one today, especially as a fashion statement, because of the stigma attached to it having been a symbol of the Third Reich.

My point is that if the terrorists use the keffiyeh as a symbol for themselves, then even though it is merely a practical item today, the cultural stigma of the swastika will begin to apply to the keffiyeh.

I agree that RR is no terrorist sympathizer, and in her case, as many others, a scarf is but a scarf.

Is Michelle intellectually challenged for calling our attention to it’s cultural problem? No, maybe a tad paranoid, but not at all diminished in mental capacity.

Yeah, this case maybe should have been a non-issue, but — as a lesson to us all, many people are sensitive to symbols. Sometimes it may not be justified, but sometimes it is.

See ya around the threads….
#213

On June 2nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm, limmo said:

This is really silly. Usually, it’s the left that drowns us in PC nonsense. It is just a freaking scarf, for Pete’s sake. That’s all. No biggie. Shouldn’t be any controversy. IT IS JUST A SCARF.