I'll head over to Dunkin Donuts today to show my support!
might go out and pick up a dozen this weekend just because.. now..
They will lose about 0 customers.
Lol, like they eat at Dunkin' Donuts anyway. I wouldn't be shocked to find a few Muslim owners though. We seem to get alot of that here in Detroit anyway.
I see. So the same people who were ridiculing Michelle Malkin for making a stink out of Rachel Ray's kaffiyeh are now making a stink that it was pulled. Oh, I see how this works now.
We'll be getting Munchkin's this weekend, maybe a some bagels too.
I agree with armpit. Unless Dunkin' has started selling tofu doughnuts I don't think the Birkenstock shoe, tinfoil hat crowd eats doughnuts. Doughnuts are for us knuckle-draggers.
I agree with Saint, they will lose 0 customers. Commies don't eat donuts or drink DD coffee, they spend the fruits of their complicity in the bourgeois capitalist system on scones at Starbucks.
There goes my diet.
No doubt Dunkin Donuts has better tasting coffee than Starbucks.
Yeah, like libs go to DD in the first place. DD uses styrofoam cups, thats a no no these days.
I am going to find a dunkin donuts and eat there ASAP
"No doubt Dunkin Donuts has better tasting coffee than Starbucks."
Really? I might just have to give them a try.
I like the coffee at DD, but the expresso is better at Starbucks. Plus expresso is the only decently priced item on the menu. I would still probably go to DD if there was one within 5mi or work but there are none.
Uh-oh, ANSWER goin' head-to-head with the UFO-CIA?
Gonna grab my EEEEEEEVIL Jooooo Bayastid buddy and go to Dunkin Donuts!!
Just looked, there's no DD near me. CRAP! Me & Ira Finklestein will have to go to the grocery store and buy a sack of beans and home brew DD coffee! That's what we get for living out here in Hooterville!
DD will always have the one thing Starbuck doesn't--- A DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW!!
Dunno where you live, Mrs Abe, but lots of Starbuck's have drive through windows.
But I agree with the bulk of the commentators here who suggest that an ANSWER boycott of DD will result in zero loss of business.
I don't think people should necessarily boycott Dunkin' Donuts because they pulled the ad, but I can say that I've lost my interest in patronizing them since they so easily give up the free speech that so many have fought to defend.
Dunkin' Donuts is the most popular coffee place where I live; my wife and I were using their products every day prior to this story. Now I'm just disappointed that they respond to such ridiculous criticism over a scarf.
I don't need ANSWER to tell me how I feel about their products, but the comments on this blog saying liberals don't patronize Dunkin' Donuts are ridiculous. Have you never been to Rhode Island or Massachusetts? There's a DD on every flippin street corner here.
Cheers.
All this talk of a boycott makes me hungry. Donut anyone?
"ridiculous criticism over a scarf."
Would it have been different if She had worn a white hood or a swaz armband?
That's about as fair as asking "Would it have been different if she were McCain's daughter?" But I understand why you asked it. Let me first handle the subject at hand before changing it.
She's wearing a scarf that some people mistook for a kaffiyeh that's intended to support a specific cause. Instead of giving the benefit of the doubt (which I think would make sense in this case), they ran with it to gain attention. I know what you're thinking -- what possible benefit could Michelle Malkin get from all that attention? (OK, I apologize for the sarcasm.)
There is no evidence to show that Dunkin' Donuts intended to mainstream terrorism. There is no evidence to back up the idea that the scarf Rachael Ray was wearing benefits Hamas in any way. This is why I think they deserved the benefit of the doubt. But they didn't get it.
Of course manufactured outrage is not specific to the right wing. So you have some fun with it - no big deal. Everyone enjoys getting a little hot and bothered. But people came together to make a corporation afraid to let a woman wear a scarf in a commercial. That's no longer just fun. Dictating woman's fashion through intimidation; that sounds awfully familiar. That's why I think this one went a little too far.
I know many people who agree with Michelle Malkin and are reading this are probably just going to get mad at me and dismiss my point of view. But I hope a few people who read this really think about having that sort of accomplishment under your belt. I hope at least some of you feel something telling you it's not the proudest moment. It's political correctness run amok, worse, even then when ignorant busybodies objected to the use of the word "niggardly."
This used to be the country where we said "screw it, we're the ones who are going to say what things mean." Now we're afraid what the Palestinians and others will think when they see a scarf in a Dunkin' Donuts commercial? Are the folks with all this outrage too young to remember that spirit of freedom? It's making me feel like an old man. Winning means winning the freedoms, not winning the intimidation of a donut company.
To come back to your question, I'll consider this: How about if she'd have been wearing the full garb of a KKK grand wizard? Would that have been different? There are few, if any, other times when you see people wearing those things when they are not specifically representing the KKK (or parodying the KKK).
On the other hand, people wear scarves of all sorts all the time without referencing Palestine. People wear middle-eastern-style scarves all the time without being terrorists, or (gasp!) Muslims. There you have your difference.
Thanks for listening.
-JP Burke
James: Thx.
James -
I agree that I don't think it was on purpose; however, it is rather like wearing a scarf with a swastika-- even if that swastika is actually a "tsil no'oli'" for the Navajo, or a the Japanese manji.
When they found out what it implied, they removed it; I think DD acted honorably, as they have before.
Sides, I like the little lady. *grin*
By the way-- you REALLY crossed the line with this:
Dictating woman's fashion through intimidation; that sounds awfully familiar.
Boycotting vs stoning a woman to death for showing bodyparts...ew. That's just disgusting.
Foxfier & Fasternu, I don't think James crossed the line, by any means.
Suppression of freedom must start somewhere, and if a few folks can dictate what does or doesn't happen with a woman's selection in fashion - in my opinion, that is the beginning.
Nobody boycotted Rachel Ray - or her fashion coordinator - rather, they called an outrage against Dunkin' Donuts.
Now, to elaborate a little more on what James said about McCain's daughter - it's because she wears the same scarf, yet no one called out her or "daddy".
It's a scarf. If it were intended to be more of the kaffiyeh - wouldn't it have been on her head? And, if I'm not mistaken, wouldn't she have been required to be a man, for it to actually have the intended meaning?
But, by your indications, isn't any armband technically supporting the Nazi's?
Scarf on neck with different pattern = Kaffiyeh :: therefore :: Armband with different pattern = Nazi Armband.
James and Derek: I'm confused. Since you seem upset with DD for responding to negative reaction to an ad by pulling it mean that you support the boycott? Isn't DD free to decide what impression they want to make with advertisements they are paying to produce and run?
In the nineties, Car-Freshner ran a TV spot showing one of their "little trees" rocking while a couple apparently made love off-camera. When one of their key demographics began writing lots of letters to complain, they pulled the ad immediately. It didn't mean that Car-Freshner (not a typo, that's how they spell it) was against making love, it meant they were FOR making money.
What I'm saying here is that the decision to pull an advertisement that offends a broad segment of your market is not an issue of free speech, it's an issue of sound business judgement.
Ok, let's be honest with each other - Dunkin' Donuts primary demographics are 1) college kids at 2am & 8am 2) hangover victims 3) anyone born and raised in New England and 4) construction workers
I'm pretty well traveled through out the country, and I must say, that the people complaining most about these Dunkin' Donuts, don't have many actual Dunkin' Donuts near them, and therefore, cannot possibly be purchasing that much.
We're boycotting the boycott, effectively. As a part of the key, and primary demographic(s) of DD - I'm outraged that they would pull this ad - therefore causing me to spend less at DD - because let's face it, as someone in most of the primary demographics I mentioned, I just can't quit DD, but I most certainly can cut back.
If you want to debate me on the scarf being a negative symbol, please, I beg of you to begin by explaining why John McCain's daughter gets to wear one, and no one boycotts her dad: http://gawker.com/5003288/mccain...r-scarf-
shocker
Derek -
the guy who chose the scarf works for Dunkin Donuts. It was a DD commercial. Rachael Ray's only flaw was in not 1) knowing that the scarf was one of those idiot Urban Outfitter "anti-war" scarves (relabeled after the last time folks got outraged) and 2) not refusing to do the shoot if she had recognized them.
DD paid the bills, the commercial was for DD, and they CHOSE to remove it when informed that they had basically put a swastika on the gal.
As Bluto pointed out, they're pro-money. I sure wouldn't want to piss off conservatives, pro-Israelis and anti-terrorists; I can see several military bases stopping their standard orders if this got too big, as well.
Free speech means you're free to say what you want-- not that you're free from the consequences of what your speech does. DD found out that there were unexpected consequences, so they tried to minimize said results. Choosing NOT to say something is also part of free speech.
Foxfier:
Again, I will restate and elaborate:
1) Explain to me why Meghan McCain isn't at fault for wearing one.
2) Explain to me why armband is to scarf as swastika is to kaffiyeh is a valid argument.
Then I will start taking this nonsense seriously, until then:
Freedom of speech, as intended, DOES mean freedom from "consequences". You're allowed to say what you want and confidently know that you are safe to express your opinion, beliefs and feelings as you see fit.
You're using a script based rhetoric here - you're trying to imply that these people love terrorism, hate Jews and hate America all through conservatism. It's an outright farce.
If you take a look at the many Dunkin' Donuts fan sites/pages on the internet right now, you will see that most people are very upset that they decided to pull the ads.
Bluto: It offended a loud, not broad, segment of the market.
A symbol only has power if people buy into it. The swastika only means what it does by popular agreement. And there are reasons for such agreement beyond the scope of this comment area.
Should we give up black and white scarves to a group of people we disagree with? They didn't invent the scarf. Screw that.
Unaware Americans wearing scarves are a show of *strength* of this country, not a sign of weakness.
Accepting other people's symbolism is their victory, not ours.
What benefit is it to the average American if we all agree that scarves which resemble kaffiyeh are not to be worn because they belong to the Palestinians?
To others: I stand by what I said about intimidation. Sorry if you think my plain talking is over the line; I'm just trying to be honest with you. In pressuring DD you are well within your rights as Americans. That doesn't make it *right.* DD pulling the ad out of fear is within their rights. (Their stated reason mentioned "misperception" not what the scarf implied. Implication is on the side of the communicator; perception is on the other side. It's a subtle but important difference. It's not an admission of implication by any means.)
I don't call for a boycott; I just have lost my taste for their products because their response should have been "Palestinians don't get to say what this scarf means, and neither does Michelle Malkin." My reaction is disappointment at a missed opportunity, not outrage.
Derek: freedom from consequences? No, not at all. Part of the rationale for freedom of speech is that loathesome speech, like racism and bigotry, can be exposed and correctly shunned and mocked. Also remember that the Bill of Rights constrains the government, not private industry.
James: I trust DD to know their own demographic more than I do you. No offense to you, but big, national accounts pay people a lot of money to study these things.
I think the scarf was a misstep on their part, and would have been nixed if anyone had realized the potential symbolism. And frankly, I think the anti-terrorism demographic is pretty broad in this country.
The pro-babyhunter folks are fewer, but louder, and more likely to go to Starbucks anyway. That seems to be the calculation that DD has made in this case.
Derek - a purple and white checker scarf?
And one that may be the same one, but in light that turns is Israel-blue?
Come on, even the Kos kids might blush at crying to call THAT a kaffiyeh.
As for why it's fit to compare to a swastika-- you are reading this blog, right? You DO know what Islamic terrorists do, right? Please explain why trying to slaughter Jews for being Jewish is different than wanting to slaughter Israelis for...being Jewish.
Should we give up black and white scarves to a group of people we disagree with? They didn't invent the scarf. Screw that.
Make an argument that isn't equally applicable to the swastika.
I might well ask you to make an argument why a purple swastika would be OK.
Or we could argue what it looks like in the light. Worth the time?
Dunkin Donuts will probably ASK that the 'answer' types boycott their shops. The hope there were fewer shifty types who sit around milking a single coffee and ranting incoherrantly about some 'shrub' they fear.
I might well ask you to make an argument why a purple swastika would be OK.
The color of a swastika wasn't relevant to the symbolism; here, it is-- as evidenced by Israeli companies putting out blue and white scarves with little Star-of-Davids.
Next?
Right, of course. And also it's important how bright the light is in the room.
(the real answer, BTW, is that Israeli companies aren't as uptight as you are about scarves)
Take a look at this scarf:
http://www.newsday.com/media/pho...05/
39384555.jpg
Now take a look at Arafat's Keefiyeh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keffiyeh
Then take a look at Meghan McCain's scarf:
http://gawker.com/5003288/mccain...r-scarf-
shocker
There are far more similarities between McCain's and Arafat's than Ray's.
Again, you're avoiding my analogy, and just throwing around the swastika.
How is this a valid analogy:
Armband is to scarf as swastika is to keffiyeh.
This is what you're saying: You're telling me that a scarf with a pattern that is being worn incorrectly (woman, neck) and ridiculous fringy things is the same as a keffiyeh. By this argument, clearly, an armband with a Nike logo on the forearm is the same thing as a Nazi armband on the bicep - it's just a different pattern - right?
So why isn't there a boycott of basketball? They use armbands all the time, even with some of the same colors as a Nazi armband.
Derek -
Apparently you are absolutely ignorant about the "wearing a keefiyeh in support of Palistine" fad.
Picture here of some Urban Outfitter "anti-war" scarves.
James - Oh, really?
I'm not ignorant of that, but I appreciate you still avoiding the swastika question.
That scarf is not even close to the same scarf as Rachel Ray wore.
It goes right back to the pattern analogy.
It is a fucking scarf.
Derek -
You didn't ask a question about the swastika; you tried to claim that two things which were stated as symbols were the equivalent of a non-symbolic piece of clothing.
More accurate would be if I had claimed that ALL scarves were the same as a swastika, rather than a specific style and pattern which had been put forth and sold as promoting a specific belief and/or cause.
If you're not ignorant, then you just really suck at making comparisons. I find ignorant less insulting, so I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt-- apparently, I was mistaken to do so. I most humbly apologies for expecting you to actually read up on something before blowing your top.
Well, my most humble apologies for your shitty grammar - but that's a horse of a different color.
I have asked many times for you to make a clearer statement on why Rachel Ray's scarf is analogous to the swastika. I have provided refuting evidence that it is NOT a keffiyeh, and that others sport scarves more like the keffiyeh, and are not being attacked.
You're avoiding it because you don't have an answer, you're using the same rhetoric as every other dingbat who hates scarves.
If you keep up the pace, soon winters will be hard to cope with after we boycott parkas (Russian!).
Derek -
I think I've wasted enough time repeating what I've said.
Go read up on the topic, then read what other people here have said.
I don't have time to baby-step an idiot who assumes that his misapprehensions are the fault of other folks.
Good luck with your future scarf fatwas.
Well, at least your grammar is better.
Good luck boycotting parkas, mittens, and anything plaid.
Arafat's keffiyeh has a chainlink crosshatch pattern. Rachel Ray's scarf is paisley.
PAISLEY.
For the mentally challenged, paisley is a fabric pattern invented in Scotland, in the town of Paisley.
Malkin is a clueless loudmouth. Basically she saw Ray wearing a black and white scarf, made a superficial connection to the Keffiyeh, and puked up a wad of manufactured outrage. Malkin seems to have run out of important things to worry about.
I'm sorry DD felt they needed to pull the ad, but I can't really blame them. If people stop buying your products, you go out of business. The fact that those people are halfwits doesn't really enter into it.
This is a farce. Just like freedom fries. It's positively ridiculous and conservatives are ill-served by this kind of nonsense.
And now your precious leader is an Islamo-fashion-facist, is it still analogous to a swastika?:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/20...ng-accessories/
Good lucking explaining that one, asses.
I guess Michelle Malkin would have no problem sitting on a chair decorated with swastikas.
Derek: Having left cops out of your list of DD prime customers you lose all credibility.
Der ick: The picture of Michelle shows nothing. Your response again shows nothing. You are a lefturd. Which is a nothing.
Commenting by HaloScan
