I’M IN UR DMZ, EATIN UR CHOCOLATE

Remember when I told you about the official chocolate of the Korean DMZ?

I finally got around to scanning the boxes.





The difference is that the chocolate in the top box has a candy shell and looks like bird's eggs.

DISCLAIMER: Of course this is not the only chocolate to be found in the DMZ. I got a Crunky bar and a Ghana bar as well while I was there. But as far as I know, to get this specific chocolate, you gotta go to the DMZ. Or at least if you want it in the DMZ packaging.

Postcard inside,

This is dF

LANE BRYANT WAS BOOBQUAKE BEFORE BOOBQUAKE WAS BOOBQUAKE

This may be old to many of you, seeing as how (1) the majority of my readers are based in the US and (2) this is the sort of thing that generates ubiquitous round-the-clock coverage on American TV news channels. But it’s only just been brought to my attention. So ...

ITEM: ABC and Fox refuse to air an ad from Lane Bryant for Cacique lingerie on the grounds that it’s too sexy for prime time television.

Lane Bryant says, “Compared to what? Victoria’s Secret? Anything with Jerry Bruckheimer’s name on it?” and alleges further that the real “problem” is plus-size model Ashley Graham, who network executives think is too large for the American People.

ABC and Fox deny the decisions had anything to with Graham’s size. Fox eventually caves in (sort of), and the official documentation from ABC doesn’t specifically mention plus-size qualms. Consequently, some are suggesting Lane Bryant is hyping it up as a publicity stunt.

Maybe. But why not? Everyone knows that censorship is the best publicity there is, not least because it’s free. But I do think that if Lane Bryant decided to stoke up the controversy, the decision came up after the fact – I doubt the ad was conceived to be intentionally controversial enough to be banned, if only because the ad doesn’t really seem all that more provocative than the average VS commercial. At least not visually.

Of course, it does come with a nudge-nudge narrative. And it mentions “mom”. Maybe that’s it. Maybe they don’t want people to think about their mom’s lingerie standards.

Or maybe the ad really is too sexy for American TV Land, which has a history of freaking out from Televised Boobie Overdoses. And Janet Jackson is only a 36C. Graham’s 38D cleavage alone would probably put a third of the Midwest in the hospital.

I’m exaggerating of course. But I can testify as both a primarily heterosexual male and a connoisseur of fine lingerie that the Lane Bryant Cacique ad does way more for my pulse rate than any VS television ad I’ve seen in the last five years, let alone any "racy" scene in Desperate Housewives.

Here, I’ll prove it.

( Teh Sexy has been placed here because the cleavage probably violates yr office dress code )



See?

So, you know, point taken.

FUN FACT: If you ask Kathie Lee Gifford, BTW, the actual problem with the Lane Bryant ad is that it promotes unhealthy marital values. But then we all know about Kathie Lee.

Make a dead man come,

This is dF

YOU CAN’T WIN A WAR WITH POWERPOINT

ITEM: US military commanders are sick of PowerPoint, and in some cases have banned it.

To understand why, see this sample slide summing up the security, economic and political conditions in Afghanistan:



Choice quotes:

“It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control. Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable.” – Brigadier General H.R. McMaster

“PowerPoint makes us stupid.” – Joint Forces Commander General James N. Mattis

“When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war.” – US and NATO force commander General Stanley McChrystal

As someone who gets paid to be subjected to PowerPoint presentations on a regular basis, I'm sympathetic, of course. On the other hand, that Afghanistan Situation slide does illustrate a very important point: Afghanistan is a VERY complicated place, which is why blustering in and throwing out the Taliban was never going to be as straightforward as Team Bush always made it sound. Maybe if someone had shown them this slide, or at least shown it to the public ...

Well, ha ha, no. Who am I kidding? It wouldn't have made any difference. Someone had to go down for 9/11. Besides, you don't make a case for  war by examining the complexities and possible consequences. You make the case as simple as possible. "Taliban evil. Taliban applaud 9/11. Taliban protect bin Laden. We kill Taliban, get bin Laden. Make it happen. Leave details to Joe. God bless America."

Boom. And eight years later ... 

Progress!

Draw me a picture,

This is dF

THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED BY NINJAS

Bad enough dude,

This is dF