Michelle Malkin [click the link; it's worth it] is crazy. As much as right-wingers claim that liberals want to remove religion from every aspect of our public lives (not true), they engage in foolish conduct to get people outraged about the silliest, meaningless things.
From what is, in my opinion, a completely innocuous advertisement for Dunkin Donuts, Mrs. Malkin has blown up a tempest in a teacup. She defends against the boston.com‘s allegation that she was “yowling”. Although she (or her defenders) claim she didn’t make any accusations, she clearly wrote statements such as “hate couture” while trying to decide whether the choice of scarves is a result of ignorance or ideology.
Further, Mrs. Malkin asks, “Is Ray’s blunder worth boycotting DD over?” Of course, this question does not literally suggest or support a boycott of Dunkin’ Donuts coffee. However, it does two things: 1) It actually raises the issue of a boycott and 2) it actually assumes the the choice to wear a certain piece of clothing is a blunder . That’s spinning the story.
Oh. You haven’t heard about this issue. Okay. The issue is: Dunkin’ Donuts has abruptly canceled an ad in which the domestic diva wears a scarf that looks like a keffiyeh, a traditional headdress worn by Arab men.
After Malkin and other bloggers suggested that the scarf worn by Ms. Ray in the advertisement indicated Dunkin’ Donuts’ and Ms. Ray’s support of terrorism Dunkin’ Donut decided to pull the ad. The scarf is – or resembles – the keffiyeh worn by many Arabs and, most importantly, Yasser Arafat. She indicates that the keffiyeh was “popularized” by the former Palestine leader. However, she ignores that the scarves have been used by many over the years. Indeed, according to the Wikipedia entry, British soldiers were wearing keffiyeh at least as early as World War II.
She queries: “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?” This foolish comparison ignores at least a couple things: 1) Klan hoods were are not fashion statements; they were primarily intended to hide the faces of their wearers, 2) the white hoods were symbolic of Klansmen’s beliefs in white supremacy, and 3) a “Klan-style hood in Burberry plaid would not have the same significance as a white hood – at all.
She even goes so far as to conclude that, “Fashion statements may seem insignificant, but when they lead to the mainstreaming of violence — unintentionally or not — they matter.” Has the Dunkin’ Donuts’ ad led to the mainstreaming of violence? She hasn’t offered any proof of that. She didn’t even write that conditionally (i.e., “when the could lead to the mainstreaming of violence”). She leaps from wearing a scarf to existing mainstreaming of violence with no bridge between the two.
Indeed, Malkin is as good as GWB in mischaracterizing those with she disagrees. For example, she writes:
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 backward in the direction of anti-American political correctness. Naturally, liberal commentators on the Internet are now up in arms over Dunkin’ Donuts’ decision to yank the ad and mock anyone who expresses concern over the keffiyeh’s symbolism.
Specifically, “[n]aturally, liberal commentators on the Internet are now up in arms over Dunkin’ Donuts’ decision to yank the ad and mock anyone who expresses concern over the keffiyeh’s symbolism.” I don’t think anyone is criticizing Dunkin’ Donuts. I think they are criticizing Mrs. Malkin and those who created this issue from nothing. The keffiyeh’s symbolism? You’re kidding, right?
She, like GWB, has managed to relate the most innocuous of things to terrorism. Maybe Malkin is bucking to replace Condi Rice this January should McCain win. It’s possible.
So, if I choose to wear a scarf made of fleece rather than wool, I must be anti-sheep farmers, right? Or worse, I must hate all Australians? It couldn’t be that I am allergic to wool or that fleece is about, oh, a million times more comfortable than wool.
Similarly, if I choose to buy a Japanese car I must be anti-union? Oh wait. I am. Unions have done nothing more than pay workers more to make more expensive, lesser-quality American automobiles. But it doesn’t make me anti-American. I just think I am entitled to get the best quality for my money.
I guess if we can have “reverse discrimination,” we can have “reverse political correctness,” too. Malkin has ably shown that in her posts.
This issue is such a non-issue I can’t believe I have spent as much time on this post as I have. This is a foolish issue.
[Incidentally, it is my understanding that real keffiyeh do not have fringe-y tassels.]
