McFreedom

Belmont Club has a characteristically excellent article on the new battlefield - the media:

It was during the Vietnam War that the Left first discovered the potential war-winning ability of media coverage. The concept itself is merely an extension of the blitzkrieg notion that the enemy command structure, not his troop masses, are the true center of gravity on the battlefield. During the campaign of 1940, Heinz Guderian's panzers bypassed many French formations, leaving them unfought, knowing that if their command structure were severed, the whole musclebound mass would fall to the ground headless. What the Left gradually discovered during the course of the Vietnam war was that Guderian had not been bold enough. Guderian still felt it necessary to win on the battlefield. He had not realized that it was possible to ignore the battlefield altogether because it was the enemy political structure, not his military capability, that was the true center of gravity of an entire campaign...

[M]odern day Jihadis have decided to create their own media outlets like Al Jazeera to shape public opinion. Moreover, they have extended proven methods of intimidating the Western media, described by CNN's Eason Jordan in his article in the New York Times to a standard operation of war. This set up a clash between two forces, one enjoying a preponderance in every area of military capability and skill but failing to recognize news coverage as a strategic weapon; and another whose military strategy was literally made for television.

Many of the soldiers in this new battle are unaware it exists, of course. Most leftists aren't aware they're fighting at all, much less on the other side. Worse, if the media causes us to snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory, it will in no small part be the State Department's fault, for failing to even take the battlefield overseas. Yet, undoubtedly, the same media that unknowingly lost the homefront war will lay blame for the foreign failures at the feet of the same military whose military successes are unparalleled in history.

There is much more in the original article worth reading and I recommend it to you highly.

Speaking of KFC, I crusied over to their website to see if they had started rebranding for "Kitchen Fresh Chicken" yet, or if it's just a trial balloon. I hadn't, in fact, realized that they'd totally dropped their old monicker, and that KFC in fact officially doesn't stand for anything. As an aside, isn't it sad when companie get envious of those with cool brand reps - like "FedEx" - and try to force them (like "Brown")?

Anyway, I quickly found this press release: "KFC Sets the Record Straight: Fried Chicken Can Be Part of a Healthy, Balanced Diet." Yeah. A very, very small part of a healthy, balanced diet. Almost invisible. They make a big deal of pointing out that a single chicken breast has fewer calories than a Whopper, which is a bit like pointing out that cutting of your hand wouldn't be as debilitating as cutting off your arm. A Whopper is kind of the gold standard in Bad For You food, so I'd be surprised if there was much out there that was worse. And, I'd bet it's probably not much better, ounce for ounce, it's just that there's a lot more Whopper in a Whopper than there is chicken on a KFC breast.

Seth Stevenson has an amusing article about KFC's recent attempts to make their initials stand for "Kitchen Fresh Chicken," after they abandoned "Kentucky Fried Chicken" some years ago because it sounded so unhealthy. Along the way he mentions a number of organizations whose names officialy doen't stand for anything, including ESPN (Entertainment and Sports Programming Network). My favorite instance of the genre is MCI; no one remembers what that stands for since, by the time anyone had heard of them, it was already an anachronism: Microwave Communications International. I did Google for that term, wondering if MCI themselves said it anywhere, and was surprised to discover only 16 pages on the whole net have that phrase on them. Well, let's make it 17...