I DVRC U lol

A few days ago, we were reading about the 13-year old girl who sent over 10,000 text messages in one month to the tune of about $4,800. Once again, a texting story makes the news, only this time it's because of some bass-ackwards form of Islamic Sharia law which essentially allowed a man to divorce his wife by texting her. Wait. Wut?

Correct. A man in Saudi Arabia has divorced his wife via text message. That's according to Arab News ("The Middle East's Leading English Language Daily", doncha know.) in an article (which doesn't give nearly enough information) titled "Shariah court approves SMS divorce". Nice.

Apparently, the husband was "...in Iraq to participate in what he described as 'jihad' " So basically, he's heading off to fight against the Iraqi forces and the US troops over there. Can't let something as pesky as a little marriage get in the way of your jihad!

The man was already in Iraq (getting ready to get all jihad-y) when he sent his wife, er, now ex-wife a text message that basically told her that they were no longer married. After sending her the text, he then used his phone to phone two of his friends "...who witnessed his marriage and told them that he had divorced his wife." So his wife gets a text saying "I divorce U" or some crap like that, but his buddies actually get a phone call from him where he just tells them that he divorced her. By text message. All rightee then.

It was after that unexpected event that "The woman had approached the court and asked for an official document proving she was divorced." You think?! I'd probably do the same thing. I'd be in front of the judge with my cell phone that had Lame-o's text on it and say, "Would you look at this sh*t?! Can he do that?! What's that? He can? Really? Oh." I'm sure it probably went something similar to that as it was.

See, now if that were in the US or any other civilized part of the globe, those on the receiving end of the "I just divorced what's her name by text, dude" phone call as the comedic ramblings of a fellow who was overly intoxicated at the time. That would be the normal response to a phone call like that. But not in Saudi Arabia! Nope. There it's all fine and good that he sent what's her name a text and was divorced. How does that work again?

Well, in Saudi Arabia (where the Islamic clerics are the equivalent of a judge in US courts and preside over the hearings) under the bass-ackward and rather strict form of Islamic Sharia law, a man can divorce his wife by saying "I divorce you" three times. It doesn't say if he has to say all three directly to the woman, or if he has to say at least one to her and the other two to other people. I'm guessing that other people have to be notified of his intention because the "...court in (the city of) Jeddah summoned two relatives who had received telephone calls from the man confirming his wish." Once they had confirmation of that "The judge approved the divorce and told the woman that she did not have to go through the iddah (the post-divorce waiting period stipulated by the Sharia) as the marriage was not consummated." Hold on a minute. They didn't make soup and so that's why the divorce was granted? Oh, wait. That's consomme. Never mind. Carry on.

The article doesn't say just how long they were married. I'm guessing not very long, if all of the consummating hadn't taken place. (Around here, for something like that to happen, or to not happen, you'd be looking at a time frame of about an hour. Max.) I would like to know more about what their deal was, however. Why did they get married in the first place? Why can't he go all jihad over in Iraq and still be married? Why would she still want to be married to him? So many questions.

I really don't think I'd have too much of a problem with this whole procedure if it worked both ways. If the woman was allowed to say "I divorce you, you jackass" (I sort of tweaked the original version. What do you think? Can you tell?) and be divorced, then I think I'd be all for it. It would certainly save a lot of time and money that's being spent in divorce court these days. But under Sharia law, woman have little to no rights to do anything. They are basically seen as property (if that) and their own well-being would be at risk if they were to step up to the keypad and text their divorce away.

But seriously, what the heck is going on over there? Who makes this crap up? The part about how they have to say it three times? How hokey is that? It's like a witch's spell or something. "Eye of newt, tongue of frog, I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you! Abracadabra! POOF!" And then they're divorced! But wait! Is there a magic lamp involved as well? Did he fly over to Iraq on his magic carpet? Was the woman Barbara Eden? Again, so soooo many questions.

Sphere: Related Content

The Possibility of the Misperception of Scarves

What in the hell is wrong with people? You can't even have a chick in a scarf eating a donut without it bearing the underlying message of terrorism?! WTF?! Allow me to ridicule the ridiculous for you. Ahem...

Dunkin' Donuts had apparently ran an ad with perky, perky Rachael Ray. In the ad she is seen standing in front of trees with pink blossoms on them, smiling broadly (surprise) and clutching an iced coffee in one hand. She appears to be wearing a short sleeved shirt that looks to be dark gray and has a brown leather purse over the shoulder opposite of the iced coffee. She is also wearing what looks to me to be a tattered dishrag, but it is apparently a scarf. (I guess scarves are in again? Were they ever really in? Can't they stay out?) The scarf looks to be of some sort of whitish, off gray-ish color maybe? (I know you're wondering why I am rambling on about her fashion choices here. It's one instance that it's not my normal reason for rambling, but it will become apparent later on.) And although it looks that way to me, it apparently sports some sort of paisley pattern. I guess it matches the rest of her ensemble. (You're really asking the wrong person. A lot of the time I look like I got dressed in the dark.) So what's wrong with that, you ask? Geez! Do I have to explain everything to you?! For crying out loud, anyone can see that it promotes terrorism! Wait. What?

Apparently, Dunkin' Donuts ran an online ad with the very perky, fairly hot Rachael Ray just as she appears above and a handful of people freaked out. (Mind you these are people who are constantly overreacting to the harmless by acting as if Jihadism has just been mainstreamed as a required course for elementary school students.) The freaking out came after the blogger who started the whole fakeroversy (that would be my coined term for a fake controversy) wrote, "It was with some dismay that I learned last week that Dunkin’ Donuts’ spokeswoman Rachael Ray, the ubiquitous TV hostess, posed for one of the company’s ads in what appeared to be a black-and-white keffiyeh." She continues with, "The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad" and that "it has been “mainstreamed by ignorant and not-so-ignorant fashion designers, celebrities and left-wing icons.” Good God, where to start?

While I figure out where to start, if you're wondering if you've ever seen someone wearing a keffiyeh, I'll bet that you have. Yassir Arafat seemed to have a fondness for the keffiyeh. And that's fine because he would fit the traditional definition of who wears a kaffiyeh, that being an "Arab man". Behold! The keffiyeh wearing, non-donut dunking, Yassir Arafat.

I guess I could start by taking a closer look at the phrase "for the clueless". Now, I could be one of the clueless who are being referred to in that sentence, as I am under the impression that a scarf is a scarf. (I am also clueless as to how someone could or would want to think that it was a keffiyeh. Especially if you're going to be blogging about it. Wouldn't you just rather type 'scarf' instead of 'keffiyeh'? That's a made up word anyway, so why not just stick with 'scarf'? Especially since THAT'S WHAT IT IS! But I digress.)

Maybe that's some new blogger thing, the "for the clueless" phrase. Maybe I should try it. Let's see if I can nail the condescending tone when I try to use it in a sentence. Hmmm...how about, "For the clueless, it's a freaking SCARF!" Hey! That was easy! I wonder if I can do it again?! Let's see....."For the clueless, Rachael Ray is not an Arab MAN." Right on. OK, one more. ..."For the clueless, from the looks of it, the word 'kaffiyeh' could translate in English to "checkered tablecloth worn atop the noggin." OK, OK. NOW I get it. Now if only those who wanted to believe it wasn't a scarf would get it.

Next, if "the keffiyeh has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad" don't you think that donning one over Rachael Freaking Ray with an iced coffee in one hand and a purse over her shoulder would tone that murderous symbol down just a tad? And as I understand it, the murderous Palestinian jihad doesn't want to tone down anything. (And they haven't, believe me. Because I'll tell you, I think "jihad" and I almost never think "iced, slushy, caffeinated beverage." Almost never.)

And what exactly is being implied by insisting that the paisley scarf is really a murderous Palestinian Jihadii symbol? That Dunkin' Donuts supports those sorts of activities? I don't think they do! And I really don't think that a statement like that would be a strong selling point for donuts (or any other deep fried, dough-based treat) in this country. Nor do I think that Dunkin' Donuts was trying to corner the market on murderous Palestinians without donuts (or anything to dunk them in, for that matter). I think they dressed perky (and getting hotter by the minute) little Rachael Ray in a paisley scarf, handed her an iced coffee and said, "Here's a truckload of money. Sell this!" And she did. "Did" as in "not any more".

Here is where I twist off. So, the fakeroversy comes to light, Dunkin' Donuts gets wind of it and what do they do? Do you think that they just keep running the online ad and ignore the drama queens who are in charge of the majority of fakeroversies? Do you think that they issue a statement saying that it's a scarf and for people to get over themselves? Do you think that they started developing a marketing strategy to sell scarves in every Dunkin' Donuts across this fine land? No, they didn't do any of that. They caved. They gave in to a bunch of people who want nothing more than to stir up a bunch of crap over nothing.

Here's the statement issued by Margie Myers, a senior VP for Dunkin' Brands: "In a recent online ad, Rachael Ray is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design. It was selected by the stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, as of this past weekend, we are no longer using the online ad because the possibility of misperception detracted from its original intention to promote our iced coffee." Oh, my God.

You have GOT to be kidding me! "Because the possibility of misperception"?? Well, EVERYTHING has the possibility of misperception (especially if you're an idiot)! You can find "possibility" in EVERYTHING! Things like this are why people now have to wonder if they should say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" because of the "possibility of misperception". I don't think that there is any possibility of any misperception when I say that was weak. Weak. Spineless. Wrong. Unbelievable.

Now I'm going to have to be twisting off here, so I'm going to wrap this up. Rachael Ray was wearing a SCARF in the Dunkin' Donuts ad. That's all it was, just a scarf. So if you're going to come up with some sort of ridiculous terrorism connection between the murderous Palestinian Jihad and Dunkin' Donuts, at least leave Rachael Ray out of it. Here. Here's Fred the Baker. He looks a heck of a lot more like Arafat than Rachael does. Hey! He DOES look a lot more like Arafat than Rachael does. Hmmmm......fakeroversy? I think not! Quick! Run with it!

Sphere: Related Content