Rachel Ray is Obviously a Terrorist

Link Stats

Added By: Scott

Added on: 05/28/2008 @ 5:32:27 PM

Link View Count: 789

All Categories >>

Rate this Link

Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.

Rachel Ray is Obviously a Terrorist

Boy am I glad that Michelle Malkin is around to point out to us when the vicious scum over at the food network are supporting the terrorists. Who specifically? None other than the vile Rachel Ray, who apparently is a supporter of Islamic terrorism because of a scarf she war in a commercial. Seriously, why do people like Michelle Malkin get by with putting this kind of thing out. This is probably the worst attempt at a character assassination I've seen in a while.
View External Link [www.boston.com]
Back to Link List

	Alex - 3619 Posts 05/28/2008 @ 06:01:44 PM
"Islamic terrorism because of a scarf she war" An interesting Freudian misspelling. I'm not sure if it always has been and I just didn't realize it or if at some point a line was crossed, but political correctness is just another form of censorship which inevitably leads to this kind of ridiculousness. The only thing more ridiculous and more troublesome then people making a stink about this, is that DD caved. Make wild eyed, unbiased, discriminating remarks about me, shame on you. Give in to the pressure, shame on me.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 05/28/2008 @ 06:07:14 PM
Wait, Alex, are you attacking the media for Malkin being attacked for not being politically correct? Or are you attacking Malkin for doing the attacking? I think DD just found it was easier to pull the ad than to fight with idiots about nothing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 05/28/2008 @ 09:07:14 PM
I'm attacking Malkin for what I presumed to be the playing of the PC card, when it was a totally ridiculous use of the PC card and I'm also questioning the fact that there even is such a thing as political correctness. It's not "nothing" though. Plus, would it really be that hard to just run the ad and ignore all the freedom suppresionists?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 05/28/2008 @ 09:29:17 PM
That's what I though. Malkin actually claims that the scarf was intentional. That it was used to stick it to the troops and everyone who does not support terrorism. She goes beyond it being politically correct. She claims that DD actually supports terrorism and used this commercial as platform to do so.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 05/29/2008 @ 03:32:23 AM
Scott Wrote - 05/28/2008 @ 09:29:17 PM That's what I though. Malkin actually claims that the scarf was intentional. That it was used to stick it to the troops and everyone who does not support terrorism. She goes beyond it being politically correct. She claims that DD actually supports terrorism and used this commercial as platform to do so. Where does she say this? From her original blog entry on the subject: "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." Both that post, and her follow up (containing her syndicated column about the situation at the bottom of the post) seem to deal mostly with the issue of people wearing these things without really knowing what they may represent (much like the popularity of Che T-shirts, which is what I thought of immediately and is noted in her follow up post). Even the article you posted never said that she accused Rachel Ray or Duncan Donuts of intentionally using the scarf for ideological purposes (though it may imply it, and is certainly not evenhanded towards Malkin, calling her "ultra-conservative" and saying that she "yowls" in her column). So, unless she said something different in another venue, I think that she made a fair, reasonable, and valid argument.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 05/29/2008 @ 11:22:36 AM
I don't think there's a similarity between wearing the scarf and wearing the Che T-shirts. The scarf is just a scarf, it's just an item of clothing, it contains no specific markings that label it as anything, or any inherent message. It would be akin to questioning whether Jon is ignorant, or knowingly giving a nod to terrorists because they also usually wear sandals. The only kinda-sorta-point is that, in general, they are also white and black, but there's no hard-and-fast rule there either, nor does it imply anything a-la "gang colors." I guess I was showing my love for terrorists a lot this winter while snow blowing the driveway. The keffiyeh is a utilitarian piece of clothing just like our scarfs, it contains no inherent symbolism. We see terrorists wear them because it's an important thing to wear there, like a hat and gloves in the winter here. All people who wear one are not terrorists, or giving a secret nod to anything. The Arafat point is stupid because it's the WAY he wore it that became the symbol, not that he wore one. This point is tantamount to saying that anyone wearing any sort of hat supports gang violence because some gang members wear their hats a specific way to denote what gang they are in.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 05/29/2008 11:25:58 am

	Matt - Ombudsman 05/29/2008 @ 12:40:55 PM
It's more similar to wearing a Che shirt than your sandals example is to the point at hand. You can argue that the keffiyeh is just a scarf without any meaning (which was/is probably true for you, me, and many other people), but that's obviously not true for everybody. Apparently its used by some not so nice groups of people as a symbol of solidarity, and I don't think that pointing that out (and/or being miffed when you see it being treated as chic) is necessarily a bad thing. That many people wear them in the middle east is not as relevant as the fact that, over here, they're not usually worn (since they're not part of western culture). If I understand correctly, they started being worn by westerners to show their solidarity with the Palestinians and some of their more militant associated groups. I don't think its wrong then, to say that even though it may not have any symbolism elsewhere, it does have symbolism here.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 05/29/2008 @ 12:54:57 PM
Also, while the symbolism of the Che shirt may be more "direct" (on account of actually having his picture on it), and more widely known than that of wearing a keffiyeh, they both are being worn by people to look "cool", many of whom are ignorant of any meaning the item might have. Therefore, I think it they are similiar.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt edited this at 05/29/2008 12:55:15 pm

	Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 05/29/2008 @ 01:33:28 PM
So when I was out walking yesterday in blue shoes, pants, and hoodie I was clearly showing my solidarity with the Crips.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 05/29/2008 @ 01:35:32 PM
Obviously. Were they Nike shoes? If so you must not be a good Christian since that's clearly implying your love for the Heaven's Gate cult.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 05/29/2008 @ 02:26:52 PM
1. Despite what Scott posted, Malkin wasn't saying that Rachel Ray or everyone who wears the thing is a terrorist sympathizer. The point was that it was introduced into western culture as a sign of solidarity with Palastinian and Islamic terrorist groups and was now spreading due to ignorance. 2. If we were back in the '80s and near Los Angeles, then I'm sure people would be concerned that Alex was supporting the Crips, whether he meant to be or not.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 05/29/2008 @ 06:31:24 PM
If this is true, why is there such a stink when people bring up the insensitivity of people flying the confederate flag. That is a much more obvious symbol that upsets more people than some pasley scarf worn by a star of the food network. I personally do not see the connection, and to point it out is more insensitive than what she is pointing out. And Yes, I do get upset about these things. And hey Michelle, I'm a Christian. I get upset when people call out Christians. I also get upset when people call out stupid things, like this. Basically, I'll state that Matt's point number 1 is a valid point. from her post: 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. 1. I'm not part of the Left, and I'm showing ire 2. I get upset when Christian's are shown lack of respect or denied their rights I still feel that Malkin was very tactless, probably doing some damage to Rachel Ray's career for something that is not even in the same ball park as what Malkin was mentioning. It isn't fair to DD. It isn't fair to Rachel Ray. Also from her post 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. They are up in arms because this was a non issue. Even if the rest of her article is valid, Rachel Ray's scarf does not even remotely resemble the scarfs that Malkin is referring to. Ray's scarf is not checkered and has no Arabic phrases on it. But now Rachel Ray will forever have to answer to people who will be asking why she hates the troops and is a terrorist sympathizer. Basically, in my opinion, Malkin just made up a fake controversy with Rachel Ray where non existed.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 05/29/2008 @ 06:50:22 PM
I very highly doubt that this will have any effect on Rachel Ray's career.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/02/2008 @ 09:38:43 AM
I wanted to take a look at the picture and see if it really did look like one, because it would be hilarious if it looked nothing like one. It does look like one. I dislike Rachel Ray, but it's not because of the scarf. I dislike her for her.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 06/02/2008 @ 12:11:10 PM
Yeah, I'll never understand how people write articles like this and don't include a picture and it happens ALL THE TIME.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/02/2008 @ 06:10:13 PM
Here's your picture. edit: try it again.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 06/02/2008 9:55:02 pm

	Carlos44ec - "Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." 06/02/2008 @ 08:16:12 PM
broken		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 06/02/2008 @ 11:51:16 PM
I ended up finding a picture after you posted this, and I wasn't talking about you, or anyone here either. I'm just so sick of people writing articles about something visual (Miley Cyrus photo controversy, articles about how bad Britney looked with the saved head, articles describing how that guy Putin poisoned looked, how cool some gadget looks, etc) and then having to go off on my own scavenger hunt if I actually want to see it for myself. TTIUWP!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.