Michelle Malkin » The keffiyeh kerfuffle

The keffiyeh kerfuffle

By Michelle Malkin • May 28, 2008 09:38 AM

My syndicated column today examines the keffiyeh kerfuffle with Dunkin’ Donuts and Rachael Ray that I noted on the blog last week. As you’ll recall, I linked to an item by LGF’s Charles Johnson about the scarf she wore in a recent Dunkin’ ad. Keffiyeh chic has been covered on this site and at Hot Air extensively (see here, here, and here). Anti-American fashion designers abroad and at home have mainstreamed and adapted the scarves as generic pro-Palestinian jihad or anti-war statements. Yet many folks out there remain completely oblivious to the apparel’s violent symbolism and anti-Israel overtones. Left-wing bloggers responded with complete scorn, deliberate mischaracterizations of the debate, and then outrage when Dunkin’ Donuts commendably showed sensitivity to the concerns and pulled the ad. The Boston Globe accused me of “yowling.” If you actually read my post and the column below, you’ll see no such thing.

It’s interesting how much ire the Left shows when we civilly raise pointed questions about the power of insidious symbols. These are the same folks who have nothing to say when zealots on their side of the ideological aisle go about tearing down crosses and throwing tantrums over the symbols they abhor.

Update: Pam Geller e-mails that she first reported on the story May 18.

Update: Reader Erik e-mails, “Hey, I know, we could all walk around wearing T-Shirts with the Crusaders Cross on them and pretend we didn’t know what it means.”

Update: Charles Johnson continues to receive hate mail from the see-no-evil monkeys.

Update: Reader Stu e-mails, “What you talk about here is not so different from the wearing of ‘Che Guevara’ T-shirts by people who have no clue (or choose to ignore, or even to embrace for the sake of “radical chic”) what a murdering thug Guevara was.” Very much so.

Related flashback: Cameron Diaz and her Mao bag.

***

Rachael Ray, Dunkin’ Donuts, and the keffiyeh kerfuffle
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

I’ve been a fan of Dunkin Donuts for years. Their Munchkins are heaven. Their coffee is better and cheaper than Starbucks. And the company’s management has taken a brave and lonely stand in support of immigration enforcement–refusing to hire illegal aliens and blowing the whistle on applicants with bogus Social Security numbers.

So it was with some dismay that I learned last week that Dunkin Donuts’ spokeswoman Rachael Ray, the ubiquitous TV hostess, posed for one of the company’s ads in what appeared to be a black-and-white keffiyeh.

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.

Three years ago, pop singer Ricky Martin donned a traditional red-checked keffiyeh with the phrase “Jerusalem is ours” inscribed in Arabic. Apologizing for his obliviousness, Martin said: “I had no idea that the kaffiyeh scarf presented to me contained language referring to Jerusalem, and I apologize to anyone who might think I was endorsing its message.” Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Spain’s Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, and Hollywood darlings Colin Farrell, Sienna Miller, and Kirsten Dunst, and rapper Kanye West have all been photographed in endless variations on the distinctive hate couture. So has Meghan McCain, daughter of the GOP presidential candidate, who really ought to know better given that her dad positions himself as the candidate best equipped to “confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism.”

The scarves are staples at anti-Israel rallies in San Francisco and Berkeley. Balenciaga made them chic on the runway. British retailer Top Shop sold them stamped with skull prints. Urban Outfitters turned the keffiyehs into a youth trend a few years ago and marketed them as “anti-war scarves.” Which brings us to Rachael Ray.

Ray hawked Urban Outfitters scarves on her website before appearing in the Dunkin Donuts ad. If she (or whichever stylist is dressing her) wasn’t aware of the jihad scarf controversy before she posed for the Dunkin campaign, she should have been. Urban Outfitters initially pulled the keffiyeh merchandise and apologized when Jewish customers protested, but reintroduced them with different names and colors in several global markets. This is the same company that marketed a bigotry-laced “Everyone loves a Jewish girl t-shirt” stamped with dollar signs and shopping bags. Most recently, the company halted sales of a violence-promoting t-shirt last week depicting a young Palestinian boy in a keffiyeh carrying an AK-47 assault rifle, over the word “Victimized.” The t-shirt also featured the Palestinian flag, a map of the Palestinian territories and a small white dove.

“Please understand that we do not buy items to provoke controversy or to intentionally offend,” a company spokesman pleaded. Their actions, however, speak louder than their assuaging words.

Dunkin Donuts won’t identify where Ray’s scarf was purchased, but issued this statement after blogger Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs and I, along with many other bloggers and consumers, called attention to it:

“Thank you for expressing your concern about the Dunkin’ Donuts advertisement with Rachael Ray. In the ad that you reference, Rachael is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design that was purchased at a U.S. retail store. It was selected by the stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, given the possibility of misperception, we will no longer use the commercial.”

It’s refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists. Too many of them bend over backwards in the direction of anti-American political correctness. Naturally, liberal commentators on the Internet are now up in arms over Dunkin Donut’s decision to yank the ad and mock anyone who expresses concern over the keffiyeh’s symbolism.

It’s just a scarf, the clueless keffiyeh-wearers scoff. Would they say the same of fashion designers who marketed modified Klan-style hoods in Burberry plaid as the next big thing? Fashion statements may seem insignificant, but when they lead to the mainstreaming of violence—unintentionally or not–they matter. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. In post-9/11 America, vigilance must never go out of style.

Posted in: Dunkin Donuts

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (197)

trackbacks (89)

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]

#101

On May 28th, 2008 at 11:57 am, sonofdy said:

Anyway, supersean aside, this scarf is a symbol of Islamic terrorsim today. It is correct to link the two TODAY. In 10 years islam may have thrown off its burden like the russians did with the ussr, but untill than I will view islam as part of the problem based on:
1/ thier own actions.
2/ thier own words.
3/ thier selective reading of thier own holy book.
4/ thier world wide support of such actions. (way over 50%)
5/ the images they present to the world (ever see a hamas rally?)
6/ news reports from all sources.
#102

On May 28th, 2008 at 11:57 am, supersean said:

#95

Thank you for the response and I agree with your point. Being able to articular ones position goes a long way!
#103

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pm, Barry F. said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 11:53 am, SHoward said:

I do have to add, as food for thought:

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar….

Doesn’t that depend on the meaning of the word “is”?
#104

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:04 pm, radio relay said:

Arafat made the black checkered, Italian table cloth (keffiyeh, aka guhtra) into a symbol of Palestinian terrorism. During the years I lived in the middle east, I never saw anyone wearing them for utilitarian purposes (like keeping the dust out of your nose, or to keep cool). It’s more akin to a fashionable sun bonnet.

I’m glad Arafat decided to forgo the other standard arab male garment, i.e. the white night gown (thobe). Howard Dean, would look pretty stupid surfing the internet in a white night gown and Italian table cloth.

I hear that the well dressed liberal never leaves home without accessorizing his/her che t-shirt with a multi-colored keffiyeh.
#105

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:07 pm, Barry F. said:

I hear that the well dressed liberal never leaves home without accessorizing his/her che t-shirt with a multi-colored keffiyeh.

I hear it’s all the rage.
#106

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:14 pm, pressto said:

Wearing the keffiyeh is not the same as wearing a swatstika. Wearing something with the logo of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or other terror group would be.

Are you really that clueless to not understand that this is a logo and symbol of the terrorist groups?

So let me see if I understand your “logic” anyone who wears the keffiyeh is a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer…

Yes it is that simple.
#107

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pm, dave_r said:

Count me among the clueless then, Michelle. How can you tell if it’s a keffiyeh or if it’s just a scarf? If it doesn’t actually have printed on it anything like “Jerusalem is ours” or that pattern Arafat always wore, couldn’t it maybe be just a scarf?

Course, I’m a guy, so I don’t have that fashion-sense.
#108

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:20 pm, Texas Tiger said:

Shemagh? Isn’t that Ted Kennedy’s term for a hermaphrodite?
#109

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pm, Texas Tiger said:

Ditch the kaffiyeh, Rachel. This look will sell many more donuts than a dish towel around the shoulders.
#110

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:27 pm, SHoward said:

Doesn’t that depend on the meaning of the word “is”?

Yeah, and that doesn’t sound any better me having brought up cigars, either….

“I did ~~not~~ inhale..”

Good catch Barry, good catch.
#111

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:32 pm, gribble said:

Michelle, you are so correct. It’s what a person wears (a scarf, a flag pin) that really counts, not words and deeds.

This upcoming election will (rightly) be decided by fashion accessories and not by silly statements like “they have weapons of mass destruction” or “we’re making progress” or even “walking thru Baghdad is just like being in an Indiana martket”.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just Anti-American and should (rightly) have their patriotism questioned.
#112

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:35 pm, Joy said:

Wow. I wouldn’t have seen it anything but a scarf. But will know better from now on.

I don’t have a TV and don’t keep up with fashions or watch anything ‘movie star’ so sometimes I’m just not up with things like this. Now I know.

A clueless convert
#113

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pm, traveler49 said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:32 pm, gribble said:
Michelle, you are so correct. It’s what a person wears (a scarf, a flag pin) that really counts, not words and deeds.

This upcoming election will (rightly) be decided by fashion accessories and not by silly statements like “they have weapons of mass destruction” or “we’re making progress” or even “walking thru Baghdad is just like being in an Indiana martket”.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just Anti-American and should (rightly) have their patriotism questioned.

You’re right Gribble, this election will indeed be decided on fashion accessories and not silly statements. Take note of the many gaffes (silly statements) by Obama that will be ignored by the MSM in favor of his style and platitudes. I wish you libs would pay more attention to the silly statements (appeasement of Iran), when added up makes for a clueless candidate.
#114

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:51 pm, RaisedRight said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:32 pm, gribble said:

Yep gribble, because that is exactly what’s being said here. You clearly have excellent reasoning skills…

I wonder, does your handle reflect any relation to Dale Gribble of King of the Hill… because you demonstrate about as much ability to think clearly and reasonably discuss issues as that conspiracy-theorist character.
#115

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:52 pm, wayiwalk said:

I can’t help but to think (fear) that with this sort of underhanded and manipulative marketing of the plight of the Palestinians, we’re going to be looking at a continued growth of support in this country of the Palestinian terroisists, a la the support of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa back in the 80’s (I’m not weighing in on that movement, just drawing a parallel).
#116

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:57 pm, MNUSMCDavid said:

I’ve had a visceral response to this piece of clothing ever since 1967. One can use whatever excuse they may about it’s proper use or whatever, but it is connected, fairly or not, to a culture that wants me dead. I will expect that culture to change it’s practices towards people like me before I change my attitude.
#117

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pm, nyk said:

#82 wrote:

The poor oppressed, affirmative action, educated knucklehead, mentions klan and swastikas.

You mean Rinoalert? Or Michelle M?

Would they say the same of fashion designers who marketed modified Klan-style hoods in Burberry plaid as the next big thing?

Or a swastika lapel pin?

You’ll have to take that up with them, rooster.
#118

On May 28th, 2008 at 1:02 pm, max said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 11:08 am, supersean said:
sonofdy,

Your argument shows your ignorance to the issues at hand. Religion is one but not the only cause of terrorism. Hatred of the Jews for whatever reason and hatred of religions different than theirs (much like your and others here position) is what drives the terrorists and they use what is written in their “holy book” to justify it.

We have a winner: Stupidest post evah! Congrats to “StupidSean!”
#119

On May 28th, 2008 at 1:02 pm, coldfront said:

& wearing a swastika during KristalNacht wasn’t a big deal either……o , how they laugh at our lack of discernment when it comes to FASHION…..& candidates for POTUS! Taquia…hmmmm…….purposeful lying for religious (…ie…the father of all LIES!!!) purposes!
this is what they are up against….& no, I am not kidding / AMERICA ROCKS!& islums can pound: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urAPYqbQXUo
#120

On May 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pm, undrseige247 said:

You mean Rinoalert? Or Michelle M?

No the snooty lib who went to the “excellent school.”
#121

On May 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pm, AlohaGuy said:

I’m obviously no fan of terrorists, but squinting at that little picture it looks like a scarf to me…but I’m not the last word in fashion.

Howard Dean should know better, he’s up to his eyeballs in politics, but I really doubt RR was making a political statement…
#122

On May 28th, 2008 at 1:20 pm, undrseige247 said:

I think RR made the same blunder as Cameron Diaz who wore communist attire to Peru. Of course, she never realized the Marxists killed thousands in Peru.
#123

On May 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm, supersean said:

Oh Max,

Thank you for the acknowledgment I did not think you cared so much!

Using the cover of religious justification for terror is common practice by extremists in all faiths. Does the Rabin assassination ring a bell? How about Waco? Maybe you’ve heard of the Westboro Baptist Church?
#124

On May 28th, 2008 at 1:23 pm, RaisedRight said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pm, Texas Tiger said:

Texas Tiger - Whoa! I had not seen that picture before, but maybe DD threw that “scarf” on her to prevent a repeat.
#125

On May 28th, 2008 at 1:27 pm, Bob in Myrtle Beach said:

Rachael Ray could wear a burlap bag n’ I’d buy her donuts! What a cutie!

There’s just too much thin skin around here…it ain’t the clothes that make the man, but rather the heart that beats within.
I brought back a rug from Saudi after the Gulf War and used it in my hallway at home. Then someone mentioned that it was a prayer rug and it’s wrong to use it that way…IT’S A FREAKIN THROW RUG!

If you’re going to get all balled up over some clothing, it ought to be over boys who think it’s cool to walk around with pants down to the knees and young girls wearing the latest hooker look.

Why is it that some wear clothing to make a statement when wearing no clothing makes the biggest statement of all?
#126

On May 28th, 2008 at 1:31 pm, Ahh a Lion! said:

Re: gribble

It takes some balls to post a sarcastic comment regarding the triviality of not only a single post, but of a mini-crusade of this website’s namesake blogger.

The thing is, I agree with you. Sympathizing with terrorists is an important topic, US leaders going to terror-supporting countries and then wearing native symbols associated with evil deeds (in an obvious effort to capitulate to their hosts) is an important topic. Boycotting Dunkin Donuts over a black and white neck scarf, that may or may not have been worn by Rachel Ray (A television chef) as some sort of statement, which could be interpreted by some as anti-American, is asinine. Sorry about the run-on sentences, but this is stupid, and is making conservatives look foolish. Fortunately some conservative bloggers aren’t getting caught up in this idiocy.

Please stop reporting on this Michelle, it’s embarrassing.
#127

On May 28th, 2008 at 1:34 pm, AlturaCt said:

I confess, at first, I thought this was much ado about nothing but I agree wholeheartly with this statemtent. Good work Michelle!

These are the same folks who have nothing to say when zealots on their side of the ideological aisle go about tearing down crosses and throwing tantrums over the symbols they abhor.
#128

On May 28th, 2008 at 1:51 pm, sonofdy said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm, supersean said:
Oh Max,

Thank you for the acknowledgment I did not think you cared so much!

Using the cover of religious justification for terror is common practice by extremists in all faiths. Does the Rabin assassination ring a bell? How about Waco? Maybe you’ve heard of the Westboro Baptist Church?

How many religously based jewish attacks are there a week? christian? hindu? shinto? Well gooly gosh supersean, right now 99% of terrorist attacks world wide are ISLAMIC religously based terrorist attacks.
#129

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:07 pm, Barry F. said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pm, Texas Tiger said:

Ditch the kaffiyeh, Rachel. This look will sell many more donuts than a dish towel around the shoulders.

Personally, Tiger, I liked the FHM spread (no pun intended) that RR did.
#130

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:07 pm, corona said:

OK .. let’s talk about “Klan hoods”.
Do you realize that “Klan hoods” have been worn in Spain for centuries before there was a Ku Klux Klan?
#131

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pm, jroberts said:

There’s nothing political or religious about the keffiyeh, no more so than there’s somethign political about pants. It’s strictly cultural and practical, given the weather, to wear keffiyehs in the near east. The klan-hood isn’t the appropriate comparison, because the klan-hood is never something worn in public (that’s its point as a hood, it conceals the wearer’s face, which the keffiyeh doesn’t typically do). A better comparison would be pants; suitable for the weather and culture of european males, but without any other particular significance, worn across national, political and confessional lines.

Hitler wore pants, just like Arafat wore a keffiyeh. Should we boycott pants? Aren’t there real things to be angry about?
#132

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pm, Charles Martel said:

Just to let anyone who cares knows - the alleged “crusader cross” isn’t actually a “crusader cross.” It is a very old Christian cross configuration (wow, accidental alliteration) and has nothing to do with the Christian crusades (as opposed to the Muslim crusades, which took place centuries before the Latins responded).

the sinner,

Charles
#133

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pm, olympian2008 said:

Another “controversy” created out of absolutely nothing. What Rachel Ray is wearing has nothing to do with Arabs. Wow Michelle… another column that has a foundation set in quicksand. I guess this can be chalked up to bitter conservative face, over the fact that you are ticked that McCain is the nominee. So here you go again crying wolf over something where there isn’t a shred of evidence to back it up. By the way, both of Rachel Ray’s shows on the Food Channel are excellent.
#134

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:24 pm, sonofdy said:

jroberts,

of course there is no link

rolls eyes.
#135

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:28 pm, jungatheart said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:07 pm, Barry F. said:
Personally, Tiger, I liked the FHM spread (no pun intended) that RR did.

Great Cheesecake, thanks.
#136

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:31 pm, RaisedRight said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pm, jroberts said:
There’s nothing political or religious about the keffiyeh, no more so than there’s somethign political about pants.

jroberts - You clearly either did not read or simply chose to ignore the numerous previous posts refuting your theory.

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pm, olympian2008 said:
Another “controversy” created out of absolutely nothing… [yadda yadda yadda!]

olympian2008 - I am surprised that you did not find a way this time to parlay your indignation into a defense of the Obamas like you usually do…
#137

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm, SHoward said:

I just now perused some pictures of a recent demonstration here in Socal in favor of the Palestinians. Various assorted persons waving signs and demonstrating on behalf of those poor, trampled terrorists were wearing their appropriately colored keffiyehs. (White with black checks, just like Yasser’s.) One young chap (punk) had it over his face bank-robber style (terrorist style).

They weren’t out in the desert. They were on city streets. They were wearing those things as a symbol.

One day the numb-nuts among us that think nothing means anything are going to wake up and small the camel dung.
#138

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:35 pm, Texas Tiger said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 1:23 pm, RaisedRight said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pm, Texas Tiger said:

Texas Tiger - Whoa! I had not seen that picture before, but maybe DD threw that “scarf” on her to prevent a repeat.

I respect and share your appreciation for…um, workplace safety. If one of those got loose, it could put an eye out.

Barry F:
Mmmmmmmm…apple pie!
#139

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:38 pm, KaosKlerik said:

Tempest in a teapot.

Should it have stood unchallenged that she was wearing what many perceive as a garb of terrorists?

No.

Should DD have pulled the commercial?

Probably. A quick review of past Anti-Israel/Iraq War/Bush gathers over at zombietime.com will show it to be a fashion accessory of choice for that crowd. Intentional or not it sent a message that DD did not want to project.

Do I think RR did it to show solidarity with the PLO or islamic terrorist?

Doubt it.

Has this been blown WAYYYYYYY out of proportion by certain people on both sides of this?

Definately.

That said I have to give the best one-liner to cmnh over at DKos - “Rachael, enticing suicide bombers with a promise of 72 EVOOs in Paradise.”

EVOO is RR shorthand for Extra Virgin Olive Oil
#140

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:40 pm, Texas Tiger said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pm, jroberts said:

Hitler wore pants, just like Arafat wore a keffiyeh. Should we boycott pants?

Naw. Muslims beat us to that too.
#141

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:45 pm, AlohaGuy said:

Ditch the kaffiyeh, Rachel. This look will sell many more donuts than a dish towel around the shoulders.

Whoa, can’t we get Martha Stewart to knit her some undies? Come to think of it, nevermind.

Where’s my EVOO?
#142

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:49 pm, Right_Wired said:

I just saw an Episode of RR’s new show on the Food Network and she was wearing the EXACT same scarf.

It’s not “paisley”, but kudos to DD for removing the ad.
#143

On May 28th, 2008 at 3:30 pm, SHoward said:

The fella in this picture shows the proper way for an American to wear a keffiyeh…..
#144

On May 28th, 2008 at 3:31 pm, max said:

stupa-sean said:
Using the cover of religious justification for terror is common practice by extremists in all faiths. Does the Rabin assassination ring a bell? How about Waco? Maybe you’ve heard of the Westboro Baptist Church?

your moral relativism argument is so tiresome…
show me a list that approach even a scintilla of this and i’ll listen to your claptrap… the quantitative difference makes it a qualitative difference….

http://ballyblog.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/terrorists-are-muslims-list-of-islamic-terrorist-attacks/
#145

On May 28th, 2008 at 3:35 pm, Mark Jaquith said:

I don’t see the harm. I wore one when I was in Israel. It’s great for keeping the sand out of your nose and mouth and protecting your scalp from the sun. It’s comfortable, flattering, and utilitarian. Obviously if it has writing on it claiming ownership of Jerusalem, that’s a different thing.

many folks out there remain completely oblivious to the apparel’s violent symbolism

That’s a minority opinion. Many more would call the traditional black and white spider-web kaffiyeh (specifically) a symbol of Palestinian solidarity, but not a support of violence. And to claim that kaffiyehs in general are a symbol of violence? That’s simply not true.

It is worn by millions upon millions of people in the region — not just Muslims or supporters of Palestinian violence. What about all the Christians in Jordan who wear the kaffiyeh? What about the Christians in Palestine who wear the kaffiyeh for that matter?

And Rachel Ray’s kaffiyeh? It’s not even a Palestinian kaffiyeh… it’s a Jordanian kaffiyeh.
#146

On May 28th, 2008 at 3:38 pm, SHoward said:

I’m sorry folks, but I think I’m starting to get a little pi**ed with some of the leftists tripe showing up around this scarf.

Let me state right now: I think the thing around Miss Rachel’s neck is merely a fashion device, probably put there by an art director or wardrobe designer.

BUT…

History has shown us that really bad guys have routinely adopted previously common items as symbols for what turn out to be quite sinister causes.

Commenters have already pointed some that the swastika was merely a pagan religious symbol once upon a time. The white pointed hood is still worn by some Spanish Catholics in rituals. I pointed out that the hammer and the sickle are both in wide use (duh…).

We as a society must be very careful and vigilant: if the worldwide terrorist movement has adopted the keffiyeh as their symbol it is no longer just a scarf.
#147

On May 28th, 2008 at 3:55 pm, dakine said:

Thanks for the reasoned and rational take Mark J. You nailed it. Much manufactured outrage about nothing.
#148

On May 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pm, grumbles said:

Sorry Michelle but this one is way to nutty for me. I will not follow you off this cliff. There is no way RR is a terrorist or supports terrorism in any way. But I do think someone should check out those Olsen twins. They look pretty shifty.
#149

On May 28th, 2008 at 4:09 pm, rightisright said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:49 pm, Right_Wired said:I just saw an Episode of RR’s new show on the Food Network and she was wearing the EXACT same scarf.
It’s not “paisley”, but kudos to DD for removing the ad.

hmmm..so was RR making a statement or just what? tells the world she had no idea of the meaning of wearing the scarf, now she wears it on a new show of hers?
#150

On May 28th, 2008 at 4:10 pm, Flarn said:

Rachael Ray is an idiot about food, so of course she’d be an idiot about this. Don’t forget, she’s on a “child obesity board” and touts Dunkin’ Donuts and gobs of fattening olive foam. Sheesh.
#151

On May 28th, 2008 at 4:14 pm, RaisedRight said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pm, grumbles said:
Sorry Michelle but this one is way to nutty for me. I will not follow you off this cliff. There is no way RR is a terrorist or supports terrorism in any way. But I do think someone should check out those Olsen twins. They look pretty shifty.

I don’t think the suggestion was made that Rachael Ray is a terrorist or terrorist supporter. My impression was that MM was suggesting that Ms. Ray is either ignorant of the connotations of the scarf or aware but unconcerned.

But the Olsen twins, shifty indeed.
#152

On May 28th, 2008 at 4:34 pm, Lockstein13 said:

Looking closely - and I mean, you really have to look closely to tell the difference - at the “scarf” that Rachel Ray is wearing in that (finger in the air, latte in the other hand) photo, it isn’t a keffiyeh…just a slight design change here and there from “the original.”

Technically, no. But in intent? Ha!
#153

On May 28th, 2008 at 4:38 pm, Mookie said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 2:49 pm, Right_Wired said:

I just saw an Episode of RR’s new show on the Food Network and she was wearing the EXACT same scarf.

It’s not “paisley”, but kudos to DD for removing the ad.

Was this episode on today? Do you remember the title?
#154

On May 28th, 2008 at 5:14 pm, Jet Jaguar said:

One way to tell for sure… have RR do a pig-on-a-spit show while wearing said scarf. Watch for any reaction from the Islamists.
#155

On May 28th, 2008 at 5:33 pm, Texas Tiger said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 5:14 pm, Jet Jaguar said:

One way to tell for sure… have RR do a pig-on-a-spit show while wearing said scarf. Watch for any reaction from the Islamists.

Why should she do a show with Geraldo? I’m sorry. I thought you wrote “a spitting pig.”
#156

On May 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm, TwoCents said:

Yes, there is a difference between a keffiyeh (which generally has the checkered or chain-link pattern) and a scarf. Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and Russia have been wearing colored and patterned light-weight scarves with fringe for decades and/or centuries (depending upon the location). Wearing a scarf does not mean you are paying homage to Arafat or are intending to wear a keffiyeh. But the wearer (and designer) does have to be aware of certain patterns and color combinations which may evoke keffiyeh associations. You clearly wouldn’t wear clothing with a swastika design just cuz it looked cool. But I won’t jump on the bandwagon that all scarves with fringe are bad.
#157

On May 28th, 2008 at 6:04 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

This just got more coverage on the front page of MSN.com and they even made mention of our hostess.
#158

On May 28th, 2008 at 6:41 pm, supersean said:

Max #1411,

Thanks again for the insult I’ll bypass that part and go straight to the discourse.

I disagree with your argument that the number of incidents of Islamic extremism outnumbers all other faiths and or causes. They get a majority of the headlines but if you look at the wars in Africa, Asia and the Americas narco-terrorism is the real terror threat as it is at an all time high. (and it is right at our front door)

I strongly believe that the terrorists in the Middle East are strongly driven by their hatred of Jews and Christians. Their extremist views have no logic and in my opinion no remedy other than military force.

However saying Islam is bad and holding all who practice Islam accountable for the actions of a minute sampling of the Islamic population is irrational and provides no resolution to the conflict at hand.

I believe that if we and our allies implement a strategy like President Uribe has in Colombia, the issue of terrorism would be a historical one not a present day one.

What would supersean do to end terror in the Middle East

1. Provide support and protection to those in countries where terror occurs a la a witness protection program

2. A joint special forces campaign (US, UK, Israel, and anyone else who wants to join in) to send the leaders of these terror organizations (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al) spiritual and military to their graves. No negotiation, no chit chat.

3. Consistent foreign policy… why do we make nice with governments (Pakistan as an example) who clearly aid terror?
#159

On May 28th, 2008 at 7:12 pm, tuffy said:

I have two lightweight scarves for use while working or walking in hot weather. They are solid colors.

There’s no need to wear a keffiyeh for sweat or heat controlling purposes. If you do so, you should be aware that there are people who will interpret it negatively.
#160

On May 28th, 2008 at 7:31 pm, Right_Wired said:

On May 28th, 2008 at 4:38 pm, Mookie said:

Was this episode on today? Do you remember the title?

It was Tasty Travels, over the weekend. Not as new as I thought. I cannot remember the episode cause I was just flipping; but the scene was set by a seashore, it looked like a sea food restaurant, and she was definitely wearing the same black and white “scarf” tied around her neck (quite tightly).

http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/show_ry/0,2677,FOOD_23076,00.html
#161

On May 28th, 2008 at 8:49 pm, Sisyphus said:

Uh oh. While I appreciate bringing informed discussion to the problem of the ambiguous propigation of other cultures commonplace symbols which have been co-opted by our enemies into the symbolic agent of intolerance and terrorist sympathises.

Is this just making a mountain out of a molehill? When the scarf Rachael Ray was wearing is not a keffiyeh and neither Dunkin Donuts nor Ray herself appears to have intended to simulate the wearing of one in some sort of sympathy for terrorists.

Sometimes a scarf is just a scarf. Isn’t it?

But I will admitt that there is some logic that in these dangerous days and age we can not be too carefull and overlook the sensitivity to such co-opted symbols.

And given that it seems much more outragous is this example from a commentator in the other thread. Where the daughter of our Republican Presidential candidate, with our next first lady by her side, would wear a series of actual keffiyehs on the campaign bus. What knid of straight talk is this from the family of the only pro war on terroism canditate who tells us he understands what it means to stem the rising tide of global jihadists?
#162

On May 28th, 2008 at 8:54 pm, southsideironworks said:

Olbermann just gave Dunkin Donuts the “worst person in the world” award for bowing down to the Malkinites….LOLOLOL.

Ace had his money on the Purple Avenger…I think…Heh
#163

On May 28th, 2008 at 9:16 pm, SHoward said:

supersean, #155,

There is only one problem with the solutions you’ve recomended: The world is too gutless to do them.

If you read my comments above, you know we may disagree on the keffiyeh issue, but we do agree on your points. Here’s the rub: the Isrealis do take out terrorists’ homes, trying to get the terrorist leader inside, and then everyone else in the world, including the UN chastise them and they are called baby killers and so forth.

Do you really think it would be any better if we joined the tactic?

I do agree the tactic would work, probably much better than we think, but our leaders are much too “enlightened” to take such an unpopular action. (sarc device de-activated)

We also may support Isreal now, but not nearly enough. Remember, whenever they get the upper hand against Hamas, we are just as vocal in criticizing them as everyone else.

As for not supporting bad-guy governments? Two words: Saudi Arabia.

So you see, you’re right about those things. They’ll just never be done. And before you know it, the keffiyeh will be obligatory, not just a fashion statement. Because the bad guys are determined. They will kill people to get their way. And there are actually quite a lot of them.
#164

On May 28th, 2008 at 9:24 pm, ArmoredCAV said:

it is a headcovering. It is not a unique, issued and assigned symbol of terrorism. It is a head covering, and that is all. About 99.9% of the males I have seen in Iraq, Egypt and Kuwait have some form of this on their heads or around their necks. Why? Because it is very practical in the ME, just as someone alluded to earlier. It is like a ball cap in America-that is, the customary article of clothing. Terrorists happen to wear them too because they are arabs. As for why libs choose to wear them too, I can’t say. And that thing she is wearing is not paisly, it looks exactly like the one I brought home from one trip.
#165

On May 28th, 2008 at 10:16 pm, havok said:

Picture of Che…you are a dumb@ss

These scarfs…c’mon…I just don’t quite see an issue. I have a Winter scarf knitted for me by a nice old lady who was on my paper route when I was 13. It has some similar patterns (it’s thicker and for Winter) but I don’t hesitate to still wear it. No one has confused this fat bald white guy as a terrorist as of yet…
#166

On May 28th, 2008 at 11:30 pm, derel3433 said:

somewhere in heaven a holocaust victim is weeping.
#167

On May 28th, 2008 at 11:43 pm, Sean said:

Congratulations Michelle. Olbermann just gave you worst person in the world and called you a fascist. You must be doing something right.
#168

On May 29th, 2008 at 12:27 am, zeroangel said:

It is 12:27 EST, 5-29-08. This issue has now made it to the “featured” tab on the frontpage of yahoo!

Kewl. *smile*
#169

On May 29th, 2008 at 1:27 am, Jet Jaguar said:

How ’bout tying the scarves together into suspenders to hold up the pants of those guys with knee-level crotches?
#170

On May 29th, 2008 at 10:32 am, SHoward said:

How ’bout tying the scarves together into suspenders to hold up the pants of those guys with knee-level crotches?

He he he…

Good idea, and here’s how we can solve the question about whether or not the keffiyeh has meaning:

If the rage boys get all cranked up when we do it, the thing isn’t just a scarf.

Oh, wait, they do get cranked about almost anything, I guess…..never mind.
#171

On May 29th, 2008 at 12:30 pm, CleanGuy said:

Chest thumping Michelle! The AOL article is so left.

http://news.aol.com/entertainment/television/tv-news-story/ar/_a/rachael-rays-terrorist-ad-yanked/20080528145709990001?icid=aimDBDL1_link2-a
#172

On May 29th, 2008 at 1:20 pm, TheOtherSide said:

Professor Bainbridge gets it right:

…think of this bit practically every time I have an encounter with the paranoid rantings of Michelle Malkin. Examples include seeing capitulation to terrorists by the UN because they used Legos in a poster. Then she sees the Reconquista because the Texas Rangers wore “Los Rangers” jerseys on Cinco de Mayo a few years ago.

Now she is seeing terrorist capitulation because Rachel Ray wore a black and white scarf in a Dukin’ Donuts ad. No, seriously. Malkin doesn’t see a black and white scarf, she sees “hate couture” and “jihadi chic.”
#173

On May 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm, grumbles said:

Fashion statements may seem insignificant, but when they lead to the mainstreaming of violence — unintentionally or not — they matter. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. In post-9/11 America, vigilance must never go out of style.

hmmmm……..nice scarf
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/359545898_01442f19a0_m.jpg
#174

On May 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm, KaosKlerik said:

On May 29th, 2008 at 12:30 pm, CleanGuy said:
Chest thumping Michelle! The AOL article is so left.

I love the vote options.

1) COMPLETELY Deserved
or
2) COMPLETELY Ridiculous

I have my own poll.

Those choices were designed to get the most votes for the answer the poll writer wanted instead of a true read on public opinion.

1) Absolutely, 100% poll pushing and the writer should be shot.
or
2) Not even a single shred of any poll pushing whatsoever, infact the writer must have spent hours making sure the true public opinion would be captured.
#175

On May 29th, 2008 at 2:22 pm, TheOtherSide said:

On May 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm, KaosKlerik said:

Those choices were designed to get the most votes for the answer the poll writer wanted instead of a true read on public opinion.

Or maybe the majority of the public doesn’t fall for the fearmongering rhetoric or the Michelle Malkin’s of the world.
#176

On May 29th, 2008 at 2:47 pm, KaosKlerik said:

On May 29th, 2008 at 2:22 pm, TheOtherSide said:

On May 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm, KaosKlerik said:

Those choices were designed to get the most votes for the answer the poll writer wanted instead of a true read on public opinion.

Or maybe the majority of the public doesn’t fall for the fearmongering rhetoric or[sic] the Michelle Malkin’s[sic] of the world

And I thought your side hated ABSOLUTES… The answers were worded so that you had to choose between either there is nothing whatsoever to it or it’s the work of the Belgian Illuminati working for the Gnomes of Zurich with Professor Plum as an intermediary.

Since you miss my point, how about this poll?

Michelle is…

1) ALWAYS correct in everything she says.
2) ALWAYS wrong in everything she says.

Still don’t get it?

Completely(adjective) - having all necessary parts, elements, or steps.

Finally, if 92% say there was COMPLETELY nothing to it, why did 13% say they were right to pull the ad? Could it be they actually thought there might be SOMETHING to it?

I think I know what your BS response is, but I want to see if you think we’re stupid enough to believe it.
#177

On May 29th, 2008 at 3:03 pm, TheOtherSide said:

Kaos,

The absolutes apply to both answers! Most likely a number of responders didn’t feel “completely” either way but chose to respond according to which direction they leaned. Now if the question was “Completely Deserved” vs. “Not Completely Deserved” then your argument would hold water.

13%! Wow…i don’t care if it is 8% or 13%…that is still quite a small minority of those that buy into this BS.
#178

On May 29th, 2008 at 4:15 pm, KaosKlerik said:

On May 29th, 2008 at 3:03 pm, TheOtherSide said:
Kaos,

The absolutes apply to both answers! Most likely a number of responders didn’t feel “completely” either way but chose to respond according to which direction they leaned. Now if the question was “Completely Deserved” vs. “Not Completely Deserved” then your argument would hold water.

So is Michelle “Always Correct” or “Always Wrong”?

A person might say that Michelle has a valid point (albeit weak) but is forced to vote that she is COMPLETELY ridiculous. If you can’t see the bias of such constraints then you’re kool-aid soaked as I can recognize bias when it comes from my side.

If you are going to offer the polar opposite end positions then you need at least one “see both sides” option.

How about this a poll?

Code Pink, in protest of the Iraq War, wants to kick the US Marine recruiters out of the city of Berkley.
They are…
1) Completely Justified
2) Completely Ridiculous

How about this poll?

Green* is…
1) 100% Blue
2) 100% Yellow

[*For those in Rio Linda, Green is made by combining equal parts of Blue and Yellow.]
#179

On May 29th, 2008 at 4:21 pm, TheOtherSide said:

May 29th, 2008 at 4:15 pm, KaosKlerik said:

So is Michelle “Always Correct” or “Always Wrong”?

Given only those 2 choices I would pick “Always Wrong”.

Same question to you?
#180

On May 29th, 2008 at 4:41 pm, herself said:

IMAO what Rachael Ray was wearing in the advertisement was not a keffiyah. It was a scarf with a rather different kind of geometric pattern.

If it was a keffiyah I guess I have to toss a half dozen such scarves I have tucked away in a drawer from back in at least the 50s and possibly as old as the 20s. Some are silk. Some are knitted. Some are light cotton cloth. All have repeated designs no more threatening than what Rachel Ray wore. (They were my mother-in-law’s scarves rescued from the pack-rat piles of junk she had.)

Just as a point of reference I would never voluntarily get close to a man wearing a scarf with a pattern like Arafat or others typically wear over his head. I figure those scarves are best used for target practice.

{^_^} <- refuses to be stunted by politically correct thoughts and actions by either the left’s definitions or the rights definitions.
#181

On May 29th, 2008 at 4:45 pm, dwneylonsr said:

You might want to read a little history
#182

On May 29th, 2008 at 5:11 pm, m2inor said:

You really never can tell what is real and what is not.

From today’s Oregonian newspaper, we learn that the background is a stock photo of Oregon’s capital building in Salem.

Link
#183

On May 29th, 2008 at 5:14 pm, Archon said:

Wow, I leave for a few months, and when I come home, this place has all sorts of new faces….

Rachel Ray touts herself as a smart, sensible woman. If that’s the case, then she should have known the connotations of wearing a shemagh.

And for those who would compare the “stylish” wearing of a shemagh with our SOF personnel wearing them: grow up. I own several shemaghs. I wear them to keep dust and dirt out of my mouth and nose. Certain foriegn deserts can get very cold at night, and they keep the wearer warm. They also soak up sweat and act to cool the wearer down in 120 degree heat. It’s called utility….oh yeah, and it helps the wearer )when appropriately dressed) to not stand out like a sore thumb in the middle of a kadhaa.

None of those reason have to do with fashion. Our soldiers in Vietnam used towels. Soldiers in WWII used a pair of socks. It’s utility.

And for the record, Rachel Ray makes me want to punch kittens….there, I said it.
#184

On May 29th, 2008 at 5:40 pm, SHoward said:

And for the record, Rachel Ray makes me want to punch kittens….there, I said it.

Come on man, tell us how you really feel….
#185

On May 29th, 2008 at 10:09 pm, aironlater said:

Alright, so i pretty much made my point known in the previous keffiyeh-paranoia-post, but i’d like to know what you guys and gals think of this.
#186

On May 29th, 2008 at 10:45 pm, Lanzman said:

Rachel Ray wears a scarf that looks vaguely like a keffiyeh and it leads to this? Guys, calm down. Sheesh. This is the kind of nonsense the reality-impaired on the Left get into. We make fun of them for it. Get a grip.
#187

On May 29th, 2008 at 11:08 pm, SHoward said:

Interesting pic, aironlater, but, um, what’s your point? That Michelle is sitting on a keffiyeh? (or whatever that thing is)

If the keffiyeh were a symbol to the bad guys, methinks Michelle might be insulting them there, not honoring them.
#188

On May 30th, 2008 at 1:40 am, Christian Soldier said:

Hey Michelle-Greta from FOX needs to read your entire take on the “scarf”.

She had a female on air who was allowed to “diss” you and your review of the keffiyeh. The female also took the name of our Lord Christ in vain.
#189

On May 30th, 2008 at 6:05 am, PatFox said:

Well wadda ya know, even the bbc has noticed. Cue some puzzled brits googling Michelle Malkin.
#190

On May 30th, 2008 at 8:15 am, aironlater said:

On May 29th, 2008 at 11:08 pm, SHoward said:
Interesting pic, aironlater, but, um, what’s your point? That Michelle is sitting on a keffiyeh? (or whatever that thing is)

If the keffiyeh were a symbol to the bad guys, methinks Michelle might be insulting them there, not honoring them.

My point - since you asked - is that even though many people here seem to realize that it is a SCARF and nothing more, there are still people here that seem to think that this is some sinister plot by an unseen clothing manufacturer to spread terrorist propoganda across the US through coffee advertisements.

The picture is just a simple example to show that Malkin is nothing more than a reactionary mental-case that would most likely think that anyone who wears a pair of pants is a terrorist sympathizer. After all, terrorists do wear pants.

The reason that the picture is a valid subject is that Malkin protrays herself a someone whom is keeping a watchful eye on the horizon to potential threats such as this. If that be the case, one would think that if Malkin were within the proximity of one of these potential national-security-risk pieces of cloth that she would be able to spot it with ease - especially since it is touching the part of her body where her brain apparently resides.
#191

On May 30th, 2008 at 11:03 am, SHoward said:

Malkin is nothing more than a reactionary mental-case

especially since it is touching the part of her body where her brain apparently resides.

You know, you could have just told us up front in the other thread that you really thought very little of our hostess.

I wonder what you’d be saying if it was one of your leftist heros that pointed out RR’s scarf looked culturally suspicious…..
#192

On May 30th, 2008 at 12:50 pm, aironlater said:

You know, you could have just told us up front in the other thread that you really thought very little of our hostess.

I wonder what you’d be saying if it was one of your leftist heros that pointed out RR’s scarf looked culturally suspicious…

Paranoia and idiocy know no political affiliation. It wouldn’t matter who was blathering on about this, my opinion would be the same.
#193

On May 30th, 2008 at 11:18 pm, ELINVESTI8 said:

When I was an active duty Marine in Saudi Arabia during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm I wore one of those things on my head when I was driving back and forth from Al Juybail and Al Mishab. I drove a white Ford Crown Victoria and was going for the Saudi military look so I would not get shot at. In that instance I think it was ok to do. With these liberal scum-sucking Birkenstock wearing weenies they should be flogged and I mean flogged hard.
#194

On May 31st, 2008 at 8:36 pm, greenfairie said:

Christian Soldier, I saw that on Greta. The bimbo was some celebrity lap dancer from The Star tabloid.
#195

On June 1st, 2008 at 10:20 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

Aren’t there two ways to go with a lot of these things? Lincoln used the phrase “for the people” in his Gettysburg Address but put a red star next to it and it becomes a Mao slogan for communism. Judy Garland sings “Over the Rainbow” but put a stick on one and it becomes a banner for homosexuals. However, the swastika was indeed a very direct and the unmistakable symbol selected by and for the nazi third reich, (and an imposing selection I must say). But I fail to see this scarf as any direct form of symbolism at all when it is used by so many people in so many ways and it comes in so many design varieties.

So what happens if the terrorists suddenly all started wearing scarves with a tartan pattern? Do we let them get their way and steal it the way homosexuals stole the rainbow?

How about a keffiyeh style scarf but one with little interlinked images of Piglet? Rachel can wear it while eating a bacon, egg and cheese croissant, (my favorite!). It flips the whole thing 180 as cannot be done with a swastika or the Star of David or the Cross of Jesus, etc. If it’s something easy to flip/subvert then it probably wasn’t something to have been concerned about in the first place IMO. I’m still hoping for that “keffiyeh thong” BTW …
#196

On June 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 am, BrownInfidel said:

Look at what this guy classified this particular blog post under (hint - The ‘R’ word, and see his response in of the comments):

http://uberdesi.com/blog/2008/06/02/dear-dunkin-donuts

Since my mother tongue isn’t english, I’d like to see someone post a response to his ‘campaign’.
#197

On June 4th, 2008 at 8:05 pm, Kevin W. said:

Dunkin’ Donuts should be boycotted solely on the basis of using Rachael Ray as a spokeswoman. Even if she wasn’t wearing the keffiyeh, there’d still be a reason for outrage, as that annoying harpy is still getting publicity.