Alarming News

May 29, 2008

Eat this

If you’d think there is no way to get into a flame war on a food blog, you’d be wrong.

Posted by Karol at 01:08 PM |
Technorati Tags:

where’s my via?

Posted by: Not Dawn Summers at May 29, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Shouldn’t it be a flambe war?
It’s just a scarf, for flip’s sake. Does the fact that Yasser Arafat wore it make it taboo now? Please. However, you are entitled to your sartorial opinion. Weren’t some of those posters scary (left and right)?

Posted by: bryan at May 29, 2008 at 2:58 pm

“Does the fact that Yasser Arafat wore it make it taboo now?”
Well…yeah. He devoted his entire adult life to killing Israelis. The white hood is a fashion no-no because another group of hate-mongers chose it for their marker. Same with swastikas (prince harry notwithstanding). And as far as scary posters? As a whole, conservatives are nothing compared to the progresssive left when it comes to hate. That post was a perfect example.

Posted by: Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at May 29, 2008 at 3:18 pm has lots of flame wars. However, they’re pretty unoriginal. Yawnsville.

Posted by: chsw at May 29, 2008 at 5:51 pm

I am not up to speed on the specifics of the scarves worn by other culture: is it just that Rachael wore a scarf from that region in the first place? Or did she pick the same color scheme as Yasser? Or the not just the same scarf in the same color, but the exact same pattern, too?
Where’s the line regarding how specific and distinct something has to be to be taboo?
And I don’t mean this rhetorically in any way. I am really thinking just thinking aloud here.
Is not being conscious of the evil connotation of an object enough to make it socially acceptable? For example, that if a recent immigrant simply has no idea his Jain symbol (swastica) upsets others? Clearly he at least gets one free pass, right?
However, what about after he is told why he has angry mobs following him – is he then required to stop using the symbol now? or can he keep using it in an attempt to “take it back” and change the symbols evil association with Hitler back into a good association with his religion?
Regardless, it’s a moot point. One should already be boycotting both Rachael Ray Rachel and Dunkin Doughnuts for other reasons: Ray is annoying and Dunkin Doughnuts’ food sucks and the coffee is way overrated.

Posted by: E5 at May 29, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Contrary to some of the leftist buffons, this is not a right-left issue. I posted Malkin’s piece at Free Republic and many people vehemently disagreed.
It would be useful to see the scarf in question. However, those who assume that clothing is clothing, don’t understand propaganda.

Posted by: RonL at May 29, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Karol with a K (and two missing): congrats with being promoted to a zionazi.
Ugh. I thought I’m the only one to be provoked enough to get into flame wars. E tu!
Which is kind of pleasing, actually. Yeah, I feel better now. (the flame war I stepped in is in Russian – and on the topic of religion. Yes, I’m that foolish)

Posted by: Tatyana at May 29, 2008 at 9:34 pm

“Well…yeah. He devoted his entire adult life to killing Israelis.” What, even when he was signing the peace accords?
I thought it was the ‘liberals’ who had the market cornered on paranoid, oversenstive, seeing-insult-when-none-was-intended outrage? Or at least that’s a common theme on some right-blogs.

Posted by: bryan at May 29, 2008 at 9:37 pm

The tolerance of the left on display. Their ignorance of the symbolism is amazing. Especially the one who tries to argue a Che shirt is innocent. Morons.

Posted by: StB at May 29, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Dear Bryan;
Yes, even when he was signing the peace accords. The PLO was and continues to be a terrorist organisation, and I won’t trust anyone of them within throwing distance of me, a Christian, much less any Jew, even an unobservant one.
You must understand. Look at Hamas. They want a 10-year truce with Israel – only to build up weaponry and destroy the place. Look at the so-called Palestinian Authority. Look at the crap they put on their version of Children’s Television Workshop and Sesame Street. Then come and tell me he was serious when signing ‘peace accords’. You must be joking! What bloody peace?
I’m not even American and this is clear to me. Do you actually have to be blown up before you will admit there is not one single Middle Eastern power that wants Israel on the map? Not even Israel itself, seemingly, the way Ehud Olmert is acting, and is that not scary?
You have not begun to see Jews make war yet. The 6 Day War? Those were pikers. Joshua had a bunch of trumpeters bring down the walls of Jericho. David used a rock. A rock, for crying out loud. Moses? Didn’t even lift a finger. The Angel of Death did it for him. The last thing I want to do is piss off a majority of observant Jews whose blood cries out to YHWH. Regardless of whether they will be accounted righteous before the L-rd (different issue altogether), The Holy One will not leave His children alone. Really, it’s amazing how forbearing Israelis are.

Posted by: Gregory at May 29, 2008 at 10:56 pm

I’m in line with E5 on this. This is yet another case of someone turning out the light in the room and seeing everyday objects casting monstrous shadows.

Posted by: Shawn at May 29, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Gregory, scaaaary poster. Perhaps I’d better stop shaking that tree.

Posted by: bryan at May 30, 2008 at 6:07 am

I have no doubt that the scarf on Ray is merely a feminine touch, but a good ad agency and stylist should have already been on the alert for what looks can be misinterpreted, even if the scarf was paisley and wasn’t on Ray’s head.
I wish DD had put up a stonger defense, too. It reminds me when I got turned away from a club because my hat made me “look like a gang member”. My hat was made of green suede. I argued my case but then the arguing kept me out.
I wish Malkin hadn’t misinterpreted and started yelling Boycott, we don’t need our good people getting carried away like this. It reminds me of Sunday school teachers who see subliminal images in liquor ads.

Posted by: michael parker at May 30, 2008 at 6:59 am

“I wish Malkin hadn’t misinterpreted and started yelling Boycott”
What? Did you even bother to read MM’s posts on this? Here is what she said:
“Is Ray

Posted by: PattyAnn at May 30, 2008 at 7:37 am

Patty Ann
Oops. No. I got that from the quote at the site linked above. and eww – it was a Boston Globe quote I read and swallowed. My bad.
Thanks for pointing that out. I’m back on track.

Posted by: michael parker at May 30, 2008 at 7:46 am

Bryan, 9/11 was an inside job, wasn’t it? You know, the Joooos, up to their usual antics? Controlling Hollywood, the Dow-Jones and earthquakes, etc.

Posted by: Snoop Diggity-DANG-Dawg at May 30, 2008 at 8:12 am

Snoops comment reminds me of the classic joke about the 2 retired Jews down in Florida reading newspapers.
Stop me if you’ve heard it.
So one of them is reading the NY Times, the other one is reading some racist newsletter.
The Times reader turns to the other one and asks:
“How could you read such racist crap? To know that such antisemitism still thrives in this day and age depresses me.”
To which the other guy responds:
“THIS depresses you!?!?! YOU’RE the one reading the depressing paper. According to what you’re reading, we’re merely 2 retired Jews living in Florida. I’m reading the best news of my life: apparently I control Hollywood, the Dow Jones, the weather…”

Posted by: E6 at May 30, 2008 at 8:50 am

Snoop, wtf are you on about. Perhaps you have some old vinyl records you need to play backwards to hear messages from. You carry on projecting your strange paranoia. You don’t know me, and suggesting I hate jews is proof. Tool.

Posted by: bryan at May 30, 2008 at 9:53 am

I’m sorry, but this is one time I just have to disagree with both Michelle and you, Karol.
The scarf is a scarf. It’s incredibly popular as a stylish accessory, and honestly I didn’t even make the connection between the basic frayed appearance of it around her neck, and the keffiyah that is such a prevalent part of Middle Eastern culture. I feel this is a case of overreaction.
I wear pashminas almost every day. Does that mean I support the Islamic Kashmirs in their ongoing attempts to destroy the Hindu Kashmirs? No. It means that I’ve found a way to keep my arms out of the sun, even in the middle of summer when I’m in short sleeves.
Sometimes a scarf is just a scarf. There are enough real-world battles to be fought, we don’t have to go making them up.

Posted by: Kat at May 30, 2008 at 9:54 am

Just checkin’, Bryan. And I’m sorry, but the keffiyeh is not just a fashion accessory. It’s a political statement. Ask any Palestinian who wears one what it means to them. The answer invariably revolves around hating/maimimg/killing Jewish people.
I appreciate that some folks like RR wear one the same way Cameron Diaz wears a Che’ t-shirt, with zero understanding of who he was, but I don’t accept ignorance as a valid plea.

Posted by: Snoop Diggity-DANG-Dawg at May 30, 2008 at 2:30 pm

But it’s not a keffiyeh. It’s a scarf with a paisley pattern and some frayed bits. I don’t see the resemblance between the two objects.
I’ve seen similar scarves at Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, and several boutique stores on Newbury Street. Not exactly Islam Central.

Posted by: Kat at May 30, 2008 at 5:00 pm

I just think there are more important things to be wound up about.

Posted by: bryan at May 30, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Post a comment