Rebels and activists the world over still take inspiration from Guevara. But the image has lost something; Che’s face on a poster in 1968 isn’t quite the same thing as it is on a mousepad 40 years later. Perhaps it is precisely that loss — the shedding of Che’s radicalism and ideological rigor — that renders him so supremely marketable today. Things are not going well these days. Kids don’t want revolution so much as, um, something different.

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that L.A. artist Shepard Fairey, in his design for a Sen. Barack Obama poster, looked to Korda’s Che. Fairey’s Obama is not wearing a beret, and he’s looking left instead of right, but his face tilts at the same angle as Che’s. His jaw is set with the same willfulness and strength, and he too is gazing recognizably upward into the future (hasta la victoria siempre . . . ). Obama’s eyes, though, are filled not with righteous anger but with vague and lofty hope.

Good, good, don’t blow it…*

Che means change, if nothing else — and not necessarily Marxist or anti-imperialist or radical at all.

Aw, crap. You guys were so close.

Look, you just can’t hide from Che’s history. It’s like putting a David Duke for President bumper sticker on your car and then explaining that for you, personally, it’s just about traditional values and not about white nationalism. It’s like flying a Hezbollah flag and just claiming that you’re not for terrorism or wiping out Israel, you’re just opposed to Zionism. This swastika tattoo? Why, it’s just a Hindu/ American Indian good luck symbol, friend–not a Nazi thing at all. Shame on you for thinking so.

I think this cuts both ways–you might, say, want to wear a Confederate flag as a symbol of Southern pride. There’s actually a much better argument to be made than in the hypotheticals above that the Confederate flag has been rehabilitated–transformed into a symbol of pride in Southern heritage and divorced from its racist connotations. But you shouldn’t be surprised if it raises a few eyebrows from people who understand it as A: a flag of armed rebellion against the United States and B: the flag of a pro-slavery cause.

Even if you’re telling the truth and those things subjectively mean something totally innocuous to you, you’re an idiot for ignoring the commonly accepted symbolism as well as the historical context. You might want that Che T-shirt just to stand for “change”, or for “hey, hippie chicks, I would like to make dirty hippie love to you”, but there’s just not much getting around the fact that Che was a murdering sociopathic Commie ideologue.

Which I think is also what Michelle and Charles are saying about the keffiyeh. Maybe it’s just a cool exotic scarf to you. But there’s a very important background to it that you don’t know or are ignoring, and if you really understood what it meant to Islamic terrorists in the current, ongoing conflict, why would you possibly want to wear it?

P.S. If you just have to wear a keffiyeh, one of the dozens of links at Michelle’s post (sorry, forgot which) had the interesting idea of subverting it. Get one with American flags on it. Or Stars of David. Or the little Mohammed bomb-turban Danish cartoon.

___________
*More about that Shepard Fairey dude from me, back here.

____________________

{Post by See-Dubya}

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.

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:

The ugly lady logo wasn’t one of them, but it’s apparently got one group worked up into a frothy lather:

Seems that one person’s smut is another person’s morning latte.

A Christian group based in San Diego found grounds for outrage over the new retro-style logo for Starbucks Coffee.

The Resistance says the new image “has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute,” Mark Dice, founder of the group, said in a news release. “Need I say more? It’s extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks.”

The group, which claims more than 3,000 members nationwide and has found a place on the fringe advancing various conspiracy theories, is calling for a national boycott of the coffee-selling giant.

“Slutbucks?!”

Crikey. It’s a mermaid.

Whatevs. I’m off to Dunkin’ for a quick mid-afternoon fix…

Over the past weeks, however, Starbucks has left an increasingly bad taste.

David Boaz wrote of the company’s ridiculous policy barring gift card purchasers from customizing personalized cards with the phrase “Laissez Faire.”

Then there’s the price. A grande caramel macchiato puts you out $5. Two or three of those a week adds up. And in these times, every penny counts.

Lots of other consumers are coming to the same conclusion. Starbucks’ profits are down 28 percent.

So this weekend, I quit cold turkey.

I’m done.

I’ve always liked Dunkin’ Donuts coffee better, anyway. And as unapologetic supporters of immigration enforcement, they deserve your business and mine so much more.

Dunkin’: Tastes good, cheaper, and good for national security. Drink up!

A discrimination lawsuit filed by a Muslim Dunkin’ Donuts franchisee who was not allowed to renew his contract with the chain because of a refusal to sell pork products can proceed, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The decision reversed an Illinois federal court judge’s 2004 ruling that rejected Walid Elkhatib’s argument that Dunkin’ Donuts discriminated against him based on his race by making the sale of breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham or sausage a mandatory part of his franchise agreement.

According to court papers, Elkhatib, a Palestinian Arab, has been a Dunkin’ Donuts franchisee since 1979, before the company began selling any pork.

Once breakfast sandwiches were introduced in 1984, Elkhatib’s Chicago-area Dunkin’ Donuts outlets sold them without bacon, ham or sausage for nearly 20 years. The company did not object, even providing him with a sign that said “Meat Products Not Available.”

In 2002, however, Elkhatib was told he would not be able to relocate a store or renew his franchisee agreements due to his failure to carry the full product line.

Elkhatib sued Dunkin’ Donuts and its former parent company, Allied Domecq, later that year, claiming that the chain’s refusal to renew his franchises constituted racial discrimination.

In an opinion Tuesday, U.S. Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner wrote that because three other Dunkin’ Donuts franchisees in the area were allowed to continue operating without selling breakfast sandwiches for reasons other than the owners’ religious views such as space or lease restrictions, that there was sufficient evidence to take the suit to trial.

Walter Olson and his legal eagle commenters at Overlawyered take a closer look at the suit. A sample:

I’m not really commenting on the case overall, just the argument that because he was allowed to avoid serving pork in the past, that he should be treated the same now.

I find the argument ludicrous. The donut business is hitting hard times, people are not buying and eating donuts like they used to. Heck, even the mighty Krispy Kreme is having major problems.

To solve this downturn the donut business has been diversifying, e.g., selling iced coffees, bagels, sandwiches and soups.

Businesses do not operate in a fixed time. They have to be free to adapt to changing situations. To freeze a business in time makes absolutely no sense.

Posted by: Ima Fish | July 11, 2007 01:08 PM

I’m a bit confused by some of this legal discussion. As I understand the article, the current contract has run out and they needed t enter into a new one. DD felt that the previous allowance that they made to permit the exclusion of pork was no longer a profitable one for them to make.

I don’t know how long these franchise contracts run but DD has certainly stepped up the marketing of their non-pastry product since 2000. Is there evidence that they have since allowed this for other franchises where space was not a consideration?

If not, then it seems that the case is being made that you cannot change your mind about making an accommodation. This will certainly produce the result that far fewer will be made in the first place.

Posted by: OBQuiet | July 11, 2007 01:19 PM

But nevertheless, the pork is in the contract. While DD might have allowed this franchise to escape meeting its duty at some point in time, it does not mean that DD must allow this franchise to fail to meet contractual obligation for all time.

If we interpret contracts so strictly, that any deviation of the terms automatically and forever becomes new terms, then like other ‘zero tollerance’ policies, contracts will be enforced with an iron fist even if it is bad business for both parties, lest a new contract is written for them by the courts.

Getting away with violation of contract terms shouldn’t permit one to the right to get away with the same in perpetuity.

Posted by: nevins | July 11, 2007 01:32 PM

This commenter looks at the bigger picture:

I’ve been a student of Islam for some years now, and I’ve never understood the prohibition on eating pig products to extend to selling them. Handling them, yes, but contributing to others handling them, no.

He may have a right to sue, but this is an example of the creeping extremization of Islamic Law. It’s not like the pharmacists not wanting to sell plan B, where they could reasonably argue they’d be abetting a mortal sin if they did so. This is abetting nonbelievers doing something that’s not a sin by virtue of their being nonbelievers.

Posted by: jb | July 11, 2007 08:38 AM

***

This has nothing to do with the Dunkin Donuts lawsuit, but it’s food-related, so I’m tacking it on: The WSJ reports that the co-founder of Whole Foods Market used a sock puppet to diss his main competitor and tout his good looks:

In January 2005, someone using the name “Rahodeb” went online to a Yahoo stock-market forum and posted this opinion: No company would want to buy Wild Oats Markets Inc., a natural-foods grocer, at its price then of about $8 a share.

“Would Whole Foods buy OATS?” Rahodeb asked, using Wild Oats’ stock symbol. “Almost surely not at current prices. What would they gain? OATS locations are too small.” Rahodeb speculated that Wild Oats eventually would be sold after sliding into bankruptcy or when its stock fell below $5. A month later, Rahodeb wrote that Wild Oats management “clearly doesn’t know what it is doing …. OATS has no value and no future.”

The comments were typical of banter on Internet message boards for stocks, but the writer’s identity was anything but. Rahodeb was an online pseudonym of John Mackey, co-founder and chief executive of Whole Foods Market Inc. Earlier this year, his company agreed to buy Wild Oats for $565 million, or $18.50 a share.
[John Mackey]

For about eight years until last August, the company confirms, Mr. Mackey posted numerous messages on Yahoo Finance stock forums as Rahodeb. It’s an anagram of Deborah, Mr. Mackey’s wife’s name. Rahodeb cheered Whole Foods’ financial results, trumpeted his gains on the stock and bashed Wild Oats. Rahodeb even defended Mr. Mackey’s haircut when another user poked fun at a photo in the annual report. “I like Mackey’s haircut,” Rahodeb said. “I think he looks cute!”

The NYTimes found this gem:

As one might expect, Yahoo’s message boards erupted with chatter about Mr. Mackey’s secret identity.

“In light of this news, perhaps the name of the company should be changed to Whole Foods Bazaar,” JimTarHeel wrote. “What a hoot! It’s so Nixonion! Maybe he needs some animal fat in his diet. I’ve known vegans who suffered from teeth and gum disease; now we know a vegan who’s suffering from ‘foot-in-mouth’ disease.”

The company continues to be vigilant. The Star-Ledger reports today that Dunkin’ is suing franchisees that it says were knowingly employing illegal aliens:

[The company has] filed a lawsuit in federal court asking a judge to terminate the franchise agreement it has with two stores in Central Jersey, saying the owners knowingly accepted false documents, used false Social Security numbers and paid employees in cash.

The company has filed similar lawsuits seeking to sever ties with franchises in Boston, Atlanta and Florida, where it is has accused three franchises of hiring illegal immigrants.

The lawsuits come a year after Dunkin’ Donuts became the most well-known corporation to enroll in Basic Pilot, a voluntary U.S. Department of Homeland Security program that allows employers to perform electronic document checks to verify that applicants are eligible to work.

Under the Senate bill, the electronic verification program, currently used by less than 1 percent of all U.S. businesses, would become mandatory.

Dunkin’ Donuts officials declined to comment on the lawsuits.

In a written statement, company officials said that requiring its 5,100 stores to enroll in Basic Pilot “is the right thing to do for our franchisees, for Dunkin’ Brands, and most of all, for our franchisees’ workers.”

Go buy some Dunkin’ gear here. It’s the right thing to do. And yummy, too.

A local group fighting for immigrant rights is calling for a boycott of two nationally known companies. Dunkin Donuts and Applebee’s are accused of discriminating against immigrant workers whose names don’t match their social security numbers.

On the 10th anniversary of what immigration reform advocates call stringent changes to immigration laws, supports of the legalization of the undocumented are once again speaking out — only this time, they are hoping not only to mobilize their vote, but also use their buying power to force the kind of change they want.

“The social security administration says it plans to send out 8 million no match letters,” said Martino Unzuerta, Chicago Workers Collaborative.

The initial purpose of the social security administration’s ‘no match’ letter was to credit workers unclaimed social security earnings. The agency routinely sends out ‘no match’ letters to a company when employees’ names and social security numbers don’t match possibly because of a spelling error, omission of information or a unreported name change. But immigration activists say some employers are now aggressively using the letters to fire immigrant workers.

“The Bush administration wants to give the appearance that they are cracking down on undocumented immigration and workers are an easy escape goat,” said James Thindwa, Chicago Jobs with Justice.

Groups accuse several companies of the practice using ‘no match’ letters to immigrant workers who don’t have valid social security numbers. They want the public to boycott businesses, including Applebee’s and Dunkin Donuts. Neither company could be reached for comment.

What’s there to say? You can’t reason with people who cry “racism” as a response to businesses who abide by the law.

***
Previous:

I support Dunkin Donuts

Honestly, I don’t see what the big deal is over Joe Biden’s remark about Indian-Americans operating 7-11 and Dunkin’ Donut stores in Delaware. There are plenty of reasons to roll your eyes when Biden opens his mouth. This doesn’t make my list. It is a fact that a lot of Indian-Americans own such franchises (which screen employees to ensure they are here legally, by the way). No reason to get the p.c. vapors over his clumsy little crack making that basic observation.

Goes without saying, of course, that if the comments came out of a GOP senator’s mouth, the NYTimes and company would go ape.

Plus, it sure is weird how Dems are so comfortable making cracks at Indians’ expense.

Remember Hillary Clinton’s bizarre joke about Gandhi and gas stations?

***

While we’re on the subject of Dems on tape, Allah has video highlights and blow(hard)-by-blow(hard) of the Lieberman/Lamont debate.

More: Howard Mortman wonders what’s up with Joe Biden and Dunkin’ Donuts. Apu makes an appearance.

At least we both like Dunkin Donuts.

…because they support our immigration laws.

Beginning today, all 5,000 of Dunkin’ Donuts franchisees will be required to participate in a government database program to verify that workers are here legally. The company was responding to customer concerns about illegal employees. Only 6,200 out of the nation’s 8 million employers participate in the screening program, by the way. (Hat tip: Polipundit) The open-borders crowd is up in arms, of course, because enforcing the law = profiling!

All the more reason to buy a dozen chocolate sprinkleds plus a box of Munchkins on your lunch break today. Or shop Dunkin’ Donuts online here.

National security never tasted so good.