Friday, May 30, 2008
Hope:A Tale of Two Rachels
We're so fearless we'll even jump into a catfight. Rich Rachael (left) and cool Rachel (right).
OUR FAVORITE ELOISE. Michelle Malkin, bless her heart, thinks symbols and images matter. Probably because she's an evil gook bitch. Here's the current dustup as reported by Waterglass.com.
Rachel Ray [sic] in Terror Scarf Scandal
The far-out space-nut bloggers win again! Rachel Ray [sic] Dunkin’ Donuts advert pulled after bloggers complain:
The US chain Dunkin’ Donuts has pulled an advert following complaints that the scarf worn by a celebrity chef offered symbolic support for Islamic extremism. The online advert for iced coffee featured the well-known US television chef Rachael Ray. She was wearing a black-and-white checked scarf around her neck that resembled a traditional Arab keffiyeh. This fashion choice incensed at least one prominent conservative blogger, who said it evoked extremist videos. The blogger called the garment “a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos”.
The blogger is Michelle Malkin. She says of the scarf scandal:
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.
What crap, I say. Now, this past winter, early spring, living in Warsaw, Poland as I do, just about every teenager I saw walking around wore this same scarf. I noted this to my wife, saying that the kids in Warsaw are dressing like Yasir Arrafat. She saw this, too, but said that this is the style nowadays. They don’t know who Arafat was, she said. I agree. Let the kids wear the “terror scarves.” Aparently [sic] our European betters are not afraid of the terror scarf.
Hey. Waterglass. Was this cool?
But if enough people do it, and most of those people think it's cool, it's basically okay, right? That's why we wrote this post back in March of 2006. And this update. And other closely related entries.
Actually, Waterglass, it does matter. Some things are so simple they lose their impact as soon as a talented intellect goes to work on them. The obviously insane becomes somehow defensible, dismissible, no big deal.
That's why we continue to love the OTHER Rachel. The simplistic, all-cards-on-the-table, ditzy one. She knows what she thinks. Halleluiah! (Yeah, she's disregarded our ecxcellent advice about slimming down her ridgeback, but we're pretty sure she's at least mulling it over.)
For example, this is a Rachel who has written the best policy about reader comments I've ever seen on the Internet:
So: I said it in the comments and I’ll say it again: if you can’t make your argument without using insults and name-calling, then you need to shut the fuck up or take it to some other blog where they get off on that sort of behavior.
That goes for BOTH SIDES. Even if you agree with me that the won’t-vote-for-McCain folks have a bad plan, take a cue from me and refrain from calling those people whiny titty-babies or any variation thereof. They AREN’T whiny titty-babies, they are intelligent people who have made a decision based on what they think is right, and if that isn’t a good enough reason to afford them the respect of not calling them names, I don’t know what is. The plan is what I am attacking, not the people.
I’ve been doing this blog thing and reading other blogs for a long time, and there are a handful of reasons I sometimes stop reading other blogs even if I like the blogger. One of those reasons is when they let their comment sections turn into dirty fights. That repels me like almost nothing else and I simply won’t have it here on my own blog.
Also, it should go without saying since I’ve said it a hundred fucking times, but any comment that insults me or calls me any sort of unpleasant name WILL BE DELETED. I don’t give a flying turd if you want to explain how you disagree with me, which is so massively obvious if you’d just read all the other comments that very vehemently disagree with me, but I do give a flying turd about providing you the bandwidth to be an asshole to me on my own turf. This includes writing, “Rachel you’re full of shit,” or “I don’t give a shit what you think so bite me,” or “you are screeching spastically” and so on.
I don’t know how to be more clear about it: disagree all you want. Question my conclusions, my logic, my facts, whatever, but do it in a way that wouldn’t get you punched in the nuts by Rupert if you said it to my face in his presence.
There. Perfect. My guess is, she would know that Rachael Ray shouldn't be wearing a kaffiyeh to advertise an American commercial establishment and, if she did, should apologize for having done so. It's NOT complicated. It's common sense.
Like the way Rachel Lucas (the common sensical one) reacted to discovering that muslims hate dogs. She knew immediately that this was important information and probably fatal to any policy of peaceful coexistence between them (barbarians) and us (civilized people).
That's why I continue to have hope for America. Because we've got a good supply of Rachels who are better than what Waterglass calls our "our European betters." [Scoff]
We're big fans here at Instapunk, Rachel. But please do schedule an intervention for Sunny.
Now. As to the other Rachael. STOP IT. You're cute. But not THAT cute.