Inquiring minds: So Wick Allison, publisher of D magazine, in defense of decency and virtue ordered 70,000 copies of his magazine destroyed before they reached readers because D inadvertently accepted a pair of "obscene" ads, The Dallas Morning News reported.

Uh-huh. That's nice, and we're sure his mother, if she's alive, is proud and all, but let's get down to brass tacks: What were the offending ads and where can you get your sweaty little hands on them? (You know you want to.) Well, you can thank Buzz and our supporting cast, who may have found out what the Morning News couldn't. Sources tell Buzz that the ads were for the fashion house Gucci, whose name apparently is Italian for "pee pee."

One of the ads is a desert scene featuring a surly looking, lightly clothed female model kneeling at the feet of a shirtless man who, judging by the version we saw in this month's Vogue, was A) "going commando" and B) glad to see her, if you get our meaning.

Which leads to a question that has long troubled Buzz: What are fashion models so pissed off about? They always look surly. Are they hungry? They sure look hungry. Or does someone think that the ideal of feminine beauty involves women who look like they're about to spit on you?

But we digress from whatever our point was. Lessee...oh, the ads.

The other Gucci ad apparently pictures a different lightly clothed surly woman lying in the desert and showing more flesh than is proper for D, which never exposes anything. (Bada-boom!) We say "apparently" because our source says that the woman in the D ad exposed a nipple. Several male volunteers in our office examined a similar Vogue ad very, very carefully. The consensus was that the right nippular area in Vogue was airbrushed, so it might be the one that offended Allison.

We called a Gucci publicist in New York City, who said that she hadn't heard of any ads being canceled in Dallas. Not being what you might call fashion-conscious, we asked her what, exactly, the glad-to-see-you ad was selling. The "Gucci look," she said. The clothes, the shoes, the everything. Given how much skin these women were exposing in the desert, that look likely has another name: melanoma.

Oddly enough, even people in our office found the ads a touch offensive, and we called Allison to tell him so. He didn't call back, of course, and that's a shame. We wanted to give him our support and commendation and ask him: Why on earth do you print 70,000 copies of D?

Leave 'em snarling: Dallas school board member Jose Plata may want to rethink his plan not to seek re-election next May. He may want to duck out a bit earlier.

Plata last week managed to rile nearly every PTA president in the school district when he suggested to moms and dads gathered for a question-and-answer session with six trustees that, in his opinion, they didn't care enough about their children.

"By the way, there have been very few questions about your children and their curriculum," he admonished 80 or so parents present, according to one who was there. "You all are so interested in what's going on downtown."

Sitting in the audience was Sandra Looney, PTA president at Woodrow Wilson High. "I thought, 'Am I hearing this guy right?' I felt a rage, heat coming up to my face."

In his defense, Buzz thinks Plata was at least partly right. After all, how often does what happens downtown at DISD headquarters have to do with children?

--Compiled by Patrick Williams

from staff reports

KEEP THE DALLAS OBSERVER FREE... Since we started the Dallas Observer, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Dallas, and we'd like to keep it that way. With local media under siege, it's more important than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" program, allowing us to keep offering readers access to our incisive coverage of local news, food and culture with no paywalls.
Patrick Williams is editor-in-chief of the Dallas Observer.
Contact: Patrick Williams