Vox

I think the whole thing was PC run amuck. The first thing I thought of on seeing the picture was that it resembled a prayer shawl, hardly an anti-semitic symbol.

I also reject the notion that, because Palestinians wear black and white chequered scarves, all black and white patterns somehow show support for terrorism.

The kaffiyeh, unlike the swastika or the white hood of the Klan, is so a common an item of clothing in the Middle East it qualifies as a “symbol” only in the sense that blue-jeans qualify as a symbol for Americans, lederhosen as a symbol for Germans, and berets as a symbol for the French.

This is about you and others aping the same stupid hysteria that was endemic in the US during World War I, when German names, German dogs, and German costume were the subject of stupid boycotting campaigns. I don’t know how familiar you are with history, Vox but I can assure you those idiocies are not remembered as farsighted acts of patriotism. They are remembered with emotions ranging from embarrassment to profound shame, not just because they were stupid, but because they were part of a mindless campaign that resulted in innocent German Americans being harassed, driven from their jobs and homes, and in at least one case killed.

Threatening and/or cheering on a boycott based on hysteria about an ethnic group is no joke, and that’s precisely what Exurbanleague did.

You have already been pointed to pictures showing western military personnel wearing black and white kaffiyehs. Are you ever going to address this, or are you hoping anybody reading these exchanges have just forgotten about them?

Sarcastic? Us?

Only when we're awake.

Sarcasm is fine -- except when it's offered as an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for an argument you can't defend.

It's pretty silly for Vox to boo-hoo about not getting substantive arguments from liberals, then duck and cover when a *gasp!* liberal actually shows up with some honest-to-God arguments.

Pam -

First, ExLg never threatened or cheered on a boycott, but I'm not surprised you missed or ignored the facts. What they said was that they are fond of DD, though they don't buy them often because they are mostly unavailable in this market In fact, I think he said that if he gets to a town that has them, that is where he will get his breakfast.

I never threatened/cheered/encouraged a boycott, either. Besides thinking boycotts are generally ridiculous and ineffective, I thought AND WROTE that I thought it was an over-reaction to this situation - on both sides.

Second, it seems you are unfamiliar with how this blogging thing works; if I was wanting my readers to "forget" something you brought up, I could just delete your comment. I don't work that way, though I am about at my boredom breaking point with this subject..and most definitely with you.

I have never boo-hoo'd about not getting substantive arguments from liberals, I laugh about it. I certainly have no need to "duck & cover" - particularly from you.(I see you resorted to calling me "idiotic" over on ExLg, thus reinforcing one of my points) You still have not grasped my point, and are therefore still not presenting a substantive argument.

You do seem to have a one track mind about the pictures you linked, though. If a link to a pic of some people wearing the scarves is the be all and end all of your dissent... FWIW, yep, it looks like there are black & white kaffiyehs in a couple of the pics. I'll go you one further, I bet there are people in this country wearing them - probably at this minute - who have no ties to terrorism of any sort (other than crimes of fashion) or to the Middle East. So what? What does that have to do with the price (or marketing) of high-priced iced coffee?

You can go ahead and answer if you are so inclined - but I probably won't respond. As I said; bored, bored, bored. I wanted to say that up front, because you do seem to take it personally when I don't respond immediately to you. You may not have a life, or any other interests, but I do. You should look into it, there is a big, beautiful, wonderful world out there. Who knows, one of these days you might even crack a smile.

No, Vox, that’s not all exurban league said. exurbanleague said:

“You see Rachael donning the Palestinian kaffiyeh above, while shilling Homer Simpson's favorite toric delicacies. I must admit that the scarf pairs nicely with the Swastika earrings. I'll take one glazed, a large coffee, and death to the Jews... to go!” and “The last thing we need is for the kaffiyeh to become the next version of the ubiquitous Che T-shirts” and “according to the New York Times, this is a kaffiyeh and similar designs have drawn controversy as well.”

In short, Exurbanleague equated a very common scarf in the middle east, one that’s worn by countless people who have no connection at all to either anti-semitism or terrorism, with genocidal anti-Semitism and violence. After DD cravenly pulled the ad, Exurban league posted a self-congratulatory announcement “After thousands of hits and scads of comments, it appears like the attention made a difference… Behold the power of ExLg! (Oh yeah, and the power of that much, much larger blog)” and observed that DD’s cave-in was “very well handled.”

Nor did you just say that you thought it was an “over-reaction” on both sides. You described the kaffiyeh as “a piece of clothing closely associated with terrorists” and compared wearing it to wearing a swastika or klan robes (thus showing your profound ignorance of the Middle East, where the kaffiyeh is about as omnipresent as jeans are here -- and about as dependable a method of gauging the wearer’s politics.)

I have a one-track mind about reality. As I suspect you are aware, the pictures I posted of western military personnel in black and white kaffiyehs pretty much discredit your claim about the kaffiyeh being the Middle Eastern anti-semite’s equivalent to the swastika.

And yes, complaining that all the “moonbats” “sole argument seems to be a variation on ‘you're an idiot NYAH NYAH NYAH’ as opposed to something substantive to the actual issue at hand” does qualify as boo-hooing about not getting any substantive arguments. You DID post that, right? I mean, I’m looking at it right now on my screen, on your blog.

No, I don’t take it personally when someone doesn’t respond immediately to me. I’ve been online too many decades for that. I do notice when they post a response that ignores a point. And I have no doubt that to someone unused to substantive argument, anything other than a slagging match is probably “boring.”

That’s a pity. I’m not bored at all by effortlessly batting around a tyro in a debate. It makes me smile. Crunching the bones of bad arguments keep my teeth ever so white and sharp.

bk,
I almost missed your comment - it was so short and to the point.

I think, had it been a tallit, the agency would have been well advised to avoid using it, also. It would be one thing if Rachael Ray were Jewish and wearing a Star of David. But throwing a random religious symbol in there makes no more sense than a random cultural one. Whether it was or was not a "black & white kaffiyeh", the ad agency should have been able to predict a potential PR misstep.

Wow, Pam, you responded to my comment right away - you must have been waiting all weekend for me to come back. How sweet. All those visits and refreshes are gonna make my adsense revenue ROCK this month. I'll have to start looking for things to post that piss you off.

1) Your reading comprehension skills, like your humor, are sorely lacking.

2) I never said that was "all" ExLg had written - it would have made absolutely no sense if that was all they said, and it wouldn't have been nearly as funny. I said they never threatened or cheered a boycott. As far as claiming victory, that sentence was so loaded with sarcasm and self-effacement a third-grader would have recognized it.

3) I absolutely said it was an over-reaction on both sides. I think even a first-grader could understand the phrase, "a definite over-reaction"

4) I didn't compare wearing a kaffiyeh to wearing klan robes, I compared putting one divisive piece of clothing vs another in an ad.

5) You really should read what you are writing about. The paragraph you claim was "boo-hooing about not receiving substantive arguments" was EXACTLY the opposite. You may have had to make it to the fifth-grade to get the overwhelming nuance in that one. (BTW, that was sarcasm) It wasn't saying anything about what type of comments I get. I said that ExLg generally gets civil arguments and I was surprised that what brought out the moonbats was a scarf in a coffee ad. In essence, it was pointing out the dearth of poor comments they get. You and your buddies have changed that.

6) You surpassed the paragraph count predicted by ExLg - sorry, there is no prize.

7) Moonbat is a phrase I clearly defined. I even said I thought you had mostly avoided "moonbattery". However, you have slipped there several times - if the phrase fits....

8) You keep repeating the same thing over and over - but you have yet to acknowledge you get my point, let alone offer a counterpoint. I am reasonably certain you will disagree with me if you ever figure it out, and I am fine with it. It's a freakin' scarf in a stupid ad, for goodness sake. Speaking of ignoring a point - did you even read this post or are you just throwing crap out there 'cause you know I said something about DD, RR and a scarf?

9) Slagging? Really, Pam, is that what you're doing? Won't you go blind?

10) Moonbats have teeth? Oooh, scary.

You really are tightly wound. I would recommend a funny movie, but I have no idea what you might actually find amusing. Perhaps you could start with the collected works of Bill Murray; if Stripes doesn't get a chuckle out of you, there is no hope.

I was not saying that it was a tallit, but that the, purely secular, scarf more closely resembled a tallit than a kaffiyeh.
When I first saw the picture on the news, before the talking heads told me why it was controversial, I thought it was going to be Arabs complaining about a pro-Israeli symbol. That would have been equally silly, of course.

Intolerance makes me tetchy, whether from the left or the right.

I wasn't suggesting you actually thought it was a tallit, but noting that you had that interpretation.

It was just one more possible interpretation that made it a poor marketing decision.

"tetchy" - love that word

V: As far as claiming victory, that sentence was so loaded with sarcasm and self-effacement a third-grader would have recognized it.

Sorry, but there is not so much self-effacement and “sarcasm” in declaring “Behold the power of ExLg! (Oh yeah, and the power of that much, much larger blog.)” and telling DD that their quick and craven removal of the ad was “very well handled” that it negates Exurbanleagues obvious support of the “she’s wearing a KAFFIYEH” nonsense.

What you’re doing here is trying to rewrite the history of the conversation, possibly because you’ve begun to notice how stupid that whole thing was.

V: I didn't compare wearing a kaffiyeh to wearing klan robes, I compared putting one divisive piece of clothing vs another in an ad.

LOL! And that “divisive piece of clothing” you compared wearing a kaffiyeh to was…?

V: Moonbat is a phrase I clearly defined. I even said I thought you had mostly avoided "moonbattery". However, you have slipped there several times - if the phrase fits....

You cited something I had said in the course of explaining your definition of “moonbat,” Vox.

V: It's a freakin' scarf in a stupid ad, for goodness sake.

Yep. And right-wing bloggers decided to make an issue of it to the point where the company felt it had to withdraw the ad.

That is worth examining.

v: You really are tightly wound. I would recommend a funny movie, but I have no idea what you might actually find amusing.

Here are a few recs.

http://paft.livejournal.com/?skip=20#entry_6380
http://paft.livejournal.com/?skip=40#entry_2326
http://www.culturevulture.net/Movies/Shaun.htm
http://www.culturevulture.net/Movies/ScaryMovie3.htm
http://fest07.sffs.org/films/film_details.php?id=68

I am certainly not trying to "rewrite the history of this conversation" - it is all there in black & white. My readers are quite smart enough to read, and follow, all the threads - should they be bored and have time to kill.

Yes, I mentioned something you wrote in my definition of "Moonbat", it was a particularly moonbatty thing to have said. But, I also said, "I should say that Pamela has, for the most part, avoided full-on moon-battery. Other than the occasional slip, I get the feeling she is honestly trying to present her case logically."

OK, since you can't seem to follow the simple sentence structure, I'll try again: I didn't compare wearing a kaffiyeh to wearing klan robes, I compared putting one divisive piece of clothing (i.e. the perceived kaffiyeh) vs another (e.g. klan robes) in an ad.

I loved Shaun of the Dead - classic & laugh out loud.
Never saw the old Thirteen Ghosts, though it sounds interesting. I enjoyed the new version, though it was not a good movie - but, you put Tony Shaloub in anything and I will probably be a fan.
Can't imagine sitting through Scary Movie 3, but then I could hardly stomach Scary Movie 2 (never saw 1).
I saw Palm Beach Story at the dollar store the other day, I may just have to go back and pick it up.
Mukhsin is probably available via Netflix, may have to check it out - though it doesn't sound very funny.....

Thanks for the suggestions, I love a good movie, and I am particularly fond of the older ones. I've done a couple of reviews over at The Word of Mouth Scale, a blog that mostly languishes.