“Jihadi Chic”

Cultural Context: The term used by conservative columnist, Michelle Malkin on her blog to describe a scarf worn by Rachael Ray in a recent Dunkin’ Donuts ad.  The scarf supposedly resembled a “keffiyeh” worn by Arabs which is sometimes considered a symbol of radical terrorist activity.  The ad was pulled by Dunkin’ Donuts after receiving criticism from Malkin and others.

Hmmm…

This example of “hate couture,” as Malkin calls it, is new to me. And if you believe some of the coverage of the issue, this form of so-called subversive support of radical muslim terrorism is apparently pretty widespread.  Who knew?

A question leaps to mind:  Is fringe part of the terrorist membership packet?  Because I really think I remember something resembling that scarf in my closet during high school.  In fact, I have a wrap in my bedroom right now with the very same fringe.  Of course, it’s solid purple and a little bigger, so maybe I’ve escaped an FBI file.  Maybe it’s the fabric pattern that’s the tell-tale support statement, or is it the way she’s wearing it wrapped around her neck?  Not sure.  Regardless, I guess there’s a stylist who’s applying for unemployment about right now.

Although I would love to say to Dunkin’ Donuts, “don’t cave to the politically correct pressure,” I understand why they pulled the ad.  Advertising is about selling a product.  They’ve paid boo-coodles of money to secure Ray’s sponsorship and produce the ad, not to mention the air time or cyber space or column inches for ad spots devoted to the campaign.  You don’t pay what I’m sure are significant national advertising costs so you can defend against a “terror ad,” as it’s being dubbed.  They’re trying to sell iced lattes, for crying out loud.  It’s amazing –- the public relations power of buzz words like “terror,” “boycott,” or “jihad,” that are so easily thrown around in our media-sensitive culture.

At face value, I find the concern over a scarf a little ridiculous.  However, I admit that I’m not a Jew or an Arab or a Muslim, and I haven’t done much research on the history of the “keffiyah.”  Realistically, though, if we eliminated everything from our wardrobes, our homes and our society that had some sort of negative, questionable or violent reference somewhere in the world, or somewhere in history , we would live in a completely gray concrete world.  (Wait, does using concrete lend support to mafia-style “concrete-shoes in the East River” killings?!?  Yes, sarcasm abounds.)  Have we really come to a point in our Bill of Rights-conscious culture that we can’t allow for the possibility that someone wore a scarf because they liked the color or the pattern?  If so, then 232 years have declared us just enough independence to zip up the politically correct uniform.

That said, I have another issue with one of Malkin’s posts.  It is entitled “Of donuts and dumb celebrities.”  I can’t in good conscience link to it because I’m sure the “scandal” has already boosted her hit count enough to secure another booking on the O’Reilly Factor.  My issue is the same one I have most of the time with conservative pundits.  They can’t seem to follow the simple kindergarten rule: If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. (And, I would consider myself a conservative!)

I’m sure that statement applies to “left” pundits as well, but I tend to find it most disturbing coming from “conservative” or “pro-family” or “the right” and even “christian” outlets.  Can we not express disagreement with someone’s choice of clothing or their suspected stance on various issues without name-calling? Can we really not make an argument without resorting to mean-spirited sarcasm, not at the absurdity of situations, but at the character of individuals?  In what looks like about 500-600 words, Malkin calls Rachael Ray dumb, clueless, ignorant, and there’s a reference to moonbats — I’ll have to google that one, but it doesn’t sound like a compliment.  Surely, if an issue is actually worthy of debate, it deserves more than playground-speak.