Sometimes people are abominably silly:
A Christian group called “The Resistance,” having solved all other God-related problems in the world, has turned its considerable ire toward Starbucks, which recently re-introduced its original logo from 1971 as part of an attempt to …. well, I don’t know what, really. I assume it’s to make people nostalgic when they walk in and think they’re not paying $4 for a cup of coffee. Anyway, this guy Mark Dice had this to say about the old logo …
“The Starbucks logo has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute. Need I say more? It’s extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks.“
In addition, “The Resistance” is apparently calling for a Starbucks boycott
It appears to me that it’s a topless mermaid, holding the ends of her fins, which look somewhat like fried shrimp (mmmmmmm …..). Does anybody besides Dice look at this and see something that looks like a “prostitute”? I mean, it’s a friggin’ mermaid. The entire point of a mermaid is that she doesn’t, ya know, have legs and, thus, is incapable of spreading them. She also appears to be some sort of queen mermaid, considering that crown on her head. Either that, or she just came from Burger King and is looking for her post-Whopper frappuccino.
But can this guy possibly be serious? And is anybody buying it? And does anybody else think the mermaid actually has legs to spread? And does anybody else think the mermaid is hot?
For what its worth, I thought I saw pineapples before I saw fried shrimp.