A Slight Delay

Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar, and sometimes a scarf is just a damned scarf.

As if to prove her egalitarian bona fides, Michelle Malkin has added Dunkin Donuts to the list of proposed boycotts of chains for purely idiotic reasons.* Not content with mudslinging over the left and immigration (the columnist, born in the States to parents who were here on visas, believes that children born to noncitizen parents don’t deserve citizenship; when’s she going to revoke hers?) she’s now turned her attention to the purveyor of starchy goodness and cheap, high-octane coffee. She called for like-minded Americans (pause here and let that thought sink in… terrified? Good, let’s continue) to boycott the chain because to her, it appeared as though they decked Rachel Ray out in a black and white scarf that looked like something that Yasir Arafat would wear on casual Fridays.

Call me silly, but I don’t think that Dunkin Donuts is a hotbed of jihadi fervor. I could be wrong here, but it strikes me as difficult to sneak subliminal messages into an Old Fashioned. Or to hide an ayatollah in a jelly donut. I’ve seen scarves like that on mannequins, old ladies, and the occasional snowman. Unless Al-Qaeda is getting very desperate, I don’t think we have anything to fear here. I just can’t see them recruiting Frosty. I hear those Afghan summers are pretty brutal, besides…

Anyway. Perhaps the best response to this whole thing would be to drink Dunkin Donuts coffee by the gallon, and stuff your face with Boston Creme donuts ’til you puke. Better still, the French Crullers. That’d really piss her off.

Postscript: The story’s unhappy ending: the chain caved and pulled the ad.

*see also the Starbucks Mermaid story…

I’m generally pretty neutral on Starbucks. Sure, I cringe at the thought of paying $24.75 for a tall soy mocha latte. On the other hand, I don’t think they’re the root of all evil (a distinction that clearly belongs to Wal-Mart). So I’m amused to find out that a group of supposed Christians are calling for boycotts of the chain. Their reason? Nothing to do with fair trade beans, soy milk, or snooty baristas. Apparently the coffee chain’s mermaid logo is showing too much skin for their taste.

The boycott comes from a group calling itself The Resistance Manifesto, which also devotes a fair amount of space to 9/11 “truth” screeds, and rants against celebrities. To quote from the little missive they sent out to publicize their boycott:

(San Diego, CA) Starbucks has recently introduced a new version of their logo which features a topless mermaid with her legs spread, which has caused outrage from a nation wide Christian media watchdog organization. The Resistance, with [sic] has over 3000 members nationwide, is boycotting Starbucks across the country saying their new logo is inappropriate.

“The Starbucks logo has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute,” explains Mark Dice, founder of the group. “Need I say more? It’s extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves, Slutbucks.”

Okay, I admit that I’m not up on mythical beasts, much less their mating habits. The best I can remember, though, mermaids don’t have legs. But that’s not the least of it. First off, if you think someone’s going to get their kicks off a badly-drawn cartoon mermaid, you’ve got more issues than Time magazine. Second, what next? The Coppertone logo? Products like Naked Juice, or Bear Naked granola?

And finally, with all the more pressing issues facing the world–poverty, starvation, warfare, race and class strife–the best you can do is a outrage over a fucking mermaid? Somebody’s priorities are seriously ass-backward if they think this merits a second look, much less a boycott.

On the brighter side, maybe if they get worked up enough about the mermaids, they’ll keep their mouths shut about gay marriage for a change. That would be progress.