02x11 - Fashion

[bunniefuu]

[theme music playing]

Welcome, welcome, welcome
to Last Week Tonight!

I'm John Oliver.
Thank you for being with us.

We just have time
for a quick recap of the week,

and we're going to begin
with Armenia.

Now on Friday, they marked
the solemn 100th anniversary

of the beginning
of the Armenian Genocide,

when as many
as 1.5 million people died.

You probably heard
about this story already

because it's been
all over the news
for an unexpected reason.

Reporter:
The Kardashians
are reportedly in the country

to tape their reality show

and pay tribute to victims
of Armenian genocide.

Male reporter:
Kim and Kanye did spend time
commemorating

the 100th anniversary
of the Armenian Genocide.

What is important in Armenia
this month?

What--
what's the significance?

I mean, I know
it's the genocide thing
that's happening, but--

How do you know that?
How do you know that?

Because of the Kardashians.
Exactly!

[laughing, crying]
Oh, God.

Look, look, look,
to be fair,

the only reason
I know about chemical
warfare in Syria

is because
of Vanderpump Rules.

And that's only because
I happened to Google

"Is there anything worse
than Vanderpump Rules?"

and it was the only thing
that came up.

The Armenian Genocide
is a controversial subject,

especially in Turkey,
where the government
firmly believes

the actions
of Ottoman Turks

do not merit
the term "genocide."

However,
not only do historians
and at least 25 countries

believe it to be a genocide,

but so does
an unlikely coalition.

Turkey has condemned
the Russian president
Vladimir Putin

for calling
the Armenian m*ssacre
"genocide."

Reporter:
The pope called it
a genocide.

George Clooney called it
a genocide.

Wow.

Putin, the pope, and Clooney.

Okay, okay,
for a start,

k*ll, marry, f*ck,
respectively.

That-- that's
the easiest round
of that game

I've ever played.
That was very easy.

Secondly,
if all those people

say it is a genocide,
who says it isn't?

Reporter:
The White House has called it
a "mass atrocity,"

but President Obama
has stopped short of using
the word "genocide."

Okay, and if you're wondering
why he stopped slightly short,

it's because Turkey
is an absolutely vital ally,

so to avoid upsetting them,

the president had to consult
his Diplomatic Thesaurus.

"Uh, 'genocide'--
can't say that.

"SNAFU-- that's too glib.

"Uh, big, big m*rder party--
that's warmer.

"Armenia's terrible, horrible,
no-good, very-bad day?

Let's just go with that
and hope they don't notice."

Still, President Obama
being afraid of the "G" word

is a little surprising,
especially because
Senator Obama

was pretty
comfortable with it.

"Uh, and apparently,
one of those other deniers

"is myself from the future.

"I know that because
he came back and told me.

"I told him
what he was saying
made no sense.

"He just said, 'Benghazi'
and left!

I don't know
what any of it meant."

The president has even tried
to come up

with a semantic work-around.

On Thursday, he put out
a statement reading,

"I have consistently stated
my own view

"of what occurred
in 1915,

and my view
has not changed."

And he's released
the same statement,

almost word for word,

on every anniversary
of the Armenian
"geno-trocity."

It's like--
it's like every year,

he's playing a game
where the secret word
is always "genocide."

It's like
the most depressing episode

of Pee Wee's Playhouse ever.

But let's--
so let's move on
to New Zealand,

the country whose major form
of transportation

is bungee jumping.

Their prime minister,
John Key,

has had a spectacular week.

Peter, a very unusual story
breaking here this morning.

It involves
the prime minister,

a ponytail,
and some pinot noir.

That is the single greatest
news tease I've ever heard.

Just take a moment
right now at home

and imagine a story
in which those three things
come together,

and I guarantee you
what you've just come up with

is a lot less weird
than what actually happened.

John Key has apologized
to an Auckland waitress

who says he behaved
like a bully

by repeatedly
pulling her ponytail

when he came to the place
where she worked.

To give you a sense
of the detail of what
she describes,

she says,
"He'd come up behind me

"when I was ordering
at the terminal,

tug on my hair
and then pretend

that his wife Bronagh
had done it."

She says that, "He rounded
the corner behind me

"and commented one time,
'That's a very tantalizing
ponytail.'"

Ugh!

If you are
a full-grown adult male,

there's a very short list
of things

that you can describe
as tantalizing

without creeping out
everyone.

There is steak,
and that is absolutely it.

That's it.
That's the only thing.

And the crazy thing here is,

it turns out this has been
going on for a while.

Reporter:
The woman, who has not
been identified,

says it began in November.
She told him to stop in March,

but he continued to do it.

Reporter #2:
She tried to avoid him,
even telling his security

she was "sick of having
my hair pulled,

and one day I'll snap
and I'll punch him
in the face."

And why do I get the feeling

that his security guard's
reaction was,

"Oh, please do.
That would be awesome.

We're not allowed to,
but we want to."

But-- but wait.
Just wait

until you hear
his explanation
for a grown man

pulling a waitress's hair.

There's always horsing--
lots of horsing around

and sort of practical jokes.

And, look, that's really
all there is to it.

I realized
she had taken offense,

'cause it was all
in the context of a bit
of banter that was going on.

And so I,
obviously, immediately
apologized for that.

I gave her some wine
and she thanked me for that.

Said, "Well, thanks.
All fine. No drama."

Look, "no drama"?

You can't-- you can't just
pull someone's hair for months,

then make it all good
with a bottle of wine.

You're the prime minister
of New Zealand,

not a real housewife
of New Jersey.

But amazingly, this story
gets one step weirder

because then people went back
and found other clips of him

randomly touching
strangers' hair,

including this one of him
pulling a child's ponytail.

Okay, that's good.
That's very sweet.

Do you know
who this man is?

Yeah.
Who is he?

Prime minister.

Reporter:
The ponytail-pulling
prime minister right there.

What are you doing?

John Key can't pass
any dangling hair

without pawing at it.

He's more cat
than prime minister
at this point.

And the problem is,
this completely undermines
his authority

during any
diplomatic negotiations.

"Uh, we'd very much like you
to end the sanctions."

"Yeah, we're not
going to do that,
and I'll tell you why.

You're a creepy individual
who pulls women's hair."

"Aw, yeah?
That's a fair point.
Makes sense.

I'll show myself out.
Bit of banter, no drama."

And finally,

finally this week,

a quick update
on Dr. Oz.

You may recall that last year,
we covered his propensity

for recommending
dubious supplements.

Reporter:
Over the past five seasons
of his syndicated show,

Dr. Mehmet Oz has touted
a series of exotic diet aides.

I want you to write it down--
Garcinia cambogia.

Raspberry ketone.

It's called yacón syrup.

Sea buckthorn.

Blueberry Elbows.

Acorn Semen.

Pricklebush Tickletush.
Write it down.

Write all those things down.

Dr. Oz has had a rough year,
from being grilled by
a Senate committee

to having a major
medical journal claim

that "evidence supported
less than half

of the recommendations
on his show,"

to having one of his guests,
celebrity nutritionist
Lindsey Duncan,

pay $9 million
to settle a lawsuit
with the FTC

for misleading claims,
which was hardly surprising.

The only job title
more meaningless than
"celebrity nutritionist"

is "sloth wrangler,"
because they're very,
very slow.

You don't need
professional experience

to wrangle that.

That's basically
an inanimate object.

That's not a job.

You're picking up
a stationary thing

and putting it
somewhere else.

But anyway,

the point is,
just last week,

Dr. Oz found himself
under attack yet again.

Dr. Oz is being accused
of promoting "quack treatments"

by some top physicians
who want to get him fired

from his job
at Columbia University.

Yes, nine out of 10
doctors agree

that that 10th doctor
has got to go.

Well, on Thursday,
Dr. Oz responded.

Narrator:
You've seen the headlines.

You've heard the controversy.

Now Dr. Oz fires back.

Coming up next,

Dr. Oz
breaks his silence.

Holy shit!

They make it sound like
he's about to enter
the Thunderdome.

"Two doctors enter,
one doctor leaves,

because he was paged!"

Dr. Oz spent
much of the episode

attacking the doctors who'd
called for his resignation,

arguing that industry ties
were behind their criticism,

which might be true--
may well be true.

But none of that answers
the substance

of the accusations
that he's a quack

who serves viewers horseshit
dressed up as medicine.

And his response to that
has been pathetic.

It's called The Dr. Oz Show.

We very purposely
on the logo have "Oz"
as the middle

and "Dr." is actually
up in a little bar,
for a reason.

I want folks to realize
that I'm a doctor,

and I'm coming
into their lives to be
supportive of them,

but it's not a medical show.

What's he talking about?

It's not a medical show
because the word
"Dr." is small.

If-- if the size
of a word in a logo

designated its truth value,

then this would be the logo
for Pizza Hut.

Because
just 'cause some bread,
tomatoes and cheese

got blackout drunk
and f*cked each other

in an abandoned dumpster,
doesn't mean you get to

call the resulting
abomination "pizza."

But-- but out of all
Dr. Oz's flimsy pushbacks,

this was perhaps the weakest.

No matter our disagreements,

freedom of speech
is the most fundamental right

we have as Americans.

And these 10 doctors

are trying to silence
that right.

No. You are scientifically
wrong about that,

as you are
about so many things.

Let's be clear--
the First Amendment
protects Americans

from government censorship
and that's it.

It does not guarantee you
the right

to simultaneously
hold a faculty position

at a prestigious
private university

and make misleading claims
on a TV show.

It absolutely protects
your right to say whatever
you like on it,

just as it protects
my right to say what I think
about you on mine,

which is this--
you are the worst person
in scrubs

who has ever been
on television,

and I'm including
Katherine Heigl in that.

Do you have any idea
how difficult it is

to be worse
than Katherine Heigl?

You are also the admittedly
handsome ringmaster

of a middling,
mid-afternoon televised
snake-oil dispensary.

And it says something
that even when you do a show

with seven fake models
of human feces,

the biggest piece of shit
on the stage

has his name in the title.

Isn't freedom of speech great?

And now this.

Narrator:
And now, political figures
interviewing themselves.

Is there money coming
into the political process

from wealthy liberals?
The answer is yes.

Is this ideal?
And the answer is no.

Do I want to support
the president? Yes, I do.

Do I think the climate
is changing? Yeah, I think so.

Is there a clear,
comprehensive plan? Yes.

Do I think it's being
thought of? I hope so.

Do I think it
should have been done? Yes.

Do I think it will work?
I believe it will work.

Could we have
done better Friday? Yes.

And will we? Yes, we will.

Do I think that
I responded appropriately?

Do I think
they're going to do that?

Do I think we can do more?

Does it makes us safer?

What would I do?
What would I do?

What have I learned?
What have I learned?

What could I do better?
What could I have done better?

What do I think of Congress?
I don't know.

Moving on,

our main story tonight
concerns fashion,

personality you can buy.

It's what makes some people
look fun and fabulous

and what makes most men
in their 20s wear variations

of a plaid, button-up shirt
every single day.

"Listen, I've decided,
I'm not even going to try.

"I'm just going
to wear versions of this

until I'm dead.
That's it."

We buy a lot of clothes
in this country.

In 2013, Americans
purchased on average



And we're able
to do that because

clothing is incredibly
cheap these days,

as you'd know if
you've ever turned on your TV
in the morning.

The price of this dress
shocked a lot of people
in our office.

$39.99.
Blows me away!

Kohl's,
LC by Lauren Conrad, $35.

That's amazing!

This is a dress
by Norma Kamali.

It is $24 at Walmart.
Get out.

"Get out.

"Seriously, get out.
Security!

"Get her out of here.
There is no way that dress
is $24.

"Go f*ck yourself!
You're a liar!

You lied to me!"

And look, look,
for the consumer,

low prices are fantastic.

And nowadays, those clothes
will even look good,

because trendy clothing
is cheaper than ever,

and cheap clothing
is trendier than ever.

And this is largely thanks
to the rise

of so-called
"fast fashion" retailers

that produce stylish,
incredibly low-cost clothing,

like H&M, Zara,
and Forever 21,

the brand that enables
Midwestern tweens

to dress like


attending the funeral
of a Tel Aviv
nightclub owner.

And--
it's a powerful look.

And a big part
of all these brands' appeal

is that there's always
something new to buy.

Just look at H&M's rate
of turnover.

Reporter:
Stores are replenished daily.

From the streets
to the runway,

the latest trends
are scoured

and can go from a sketch
to the rack

in as little as three weeks.

We have new garments
coming into the stores
almost every day,

so if you go
to an H&M store today

and come back two days later,
you will always find
something new.

[imitating accent]
"Yes, one day maybe
you will find a shirt

"and it says,
'Rise and swag.'

"Maybe next day,
you find shirt

"with 'Pardon my swag.'

"And maybe
next day after that

you find
cocaine-dusted copy

"of Nylon magazine
in a fitting room.

"Something new
at H&M always.

Always."

H&M's prices
are so competitive

that a few years back,
they put out a dress

that cost just $4.95.
Think about that.

That means you could take
a $5 bill,

Scotch-tape it
over your genitals,

and you'd be wearing
a more-expensive piece
of clothing.

I went online,
and a jar of cricket food

costs $5.

A bunch of weird orange cubes
you feed to a bug

are worth five cents more
than this dress.

That dress
is only seven cents more

than a DVD of
Ghosts of Girlfriends Past.

"Inexpensive DVD,"
raves Variety.

And yet, somehow,

fast-fashion companies
are massively profitable.

The chairman of H&M
is the 28th richest person
in the world.

And the co-founder of Zara

is the fourth-richest person
in the world.

That means people
who own oil fields

are worth less
than the guy who makes
distressed jean shorts.

Buying clothes is cheaper
and easier than ever,

and not just
at fast-fashion companies.

Traditional retailers
have lowered their
prices as well.

Which means the only way
brands make money
is through volume.

And that's why even basics
like jeans

now go through fashion cycles
with the lifespan of mayflies.

Man:
Obviously the big trend
is skinny jeans.

So for spring,
forget about the skinny jean.

Now it's all about
the flare jean.

Boyfriend jeans
are the big thing for spring.

Woman:
Jonah is wearing
the "it" jean of the season,

and that is the baggy jean.

Woman: She's marrying
these two trends

that have been
so controversial--
the culotte and denim.

We've got a denim culotte.

"Denim culotte."

Finally, an answer
to the question,

"What if an 18th century
cabin boy

was also Canadian?"

But as great
as all these stylish

cheap clothes are,
at a certain point,

it's hard not to look
at those prices and wonder,

"How does
any clothing company
make money?"

Although let's be honest,
you know the answer to that.

Half of our clothing
used to be made in
the United States,

as recently as 1990.

Man:
It's remarkable.
And today, 2%.


are made here.

That's right.
We produce clothes

almost entirely overseas,
where it's much cheaper.

And if 98% of your products
could be made abroad,

you should really start
changing your name

to reflect that fact.

So American Eagle
should really become

Bangladeshi Swamphen.

And Banana Republic
should really become--

actually, that one is fine.

They got ahead of
themselves there for once.

And-- and look.

I know you think
you've heard
this story before,

because you have.

If you remember,
in the 1990s

sweatshops were a key point
of outrage.

Companies like Gap and Nike
were protested.

And then of course,
most famously,
there was this.

Kathie Lee Gifford
said she was shocked

to learn that a clothing line
bearing her name

was manufactured
at least in part

in sweatshops
and by underage workers.

Yes, Kathie Lee's
clothing line

was caught using child labor,
which was surprising

given how kindly
she'd always treated
the small elderly boy

who co-hosted her show.

And the outcry
over sweatshops

wasn't just loud,
it got some results.

Kathie Lee even testified
in front of Congress.

We are now morally compelled
to ask, each of us,

"What can we do
to protect labor rights

in factories around the world
and right here in America?"

"And given that
it was my own neglect

"that compelled us to ask
this important moral question,

"I say to you all,
you are welcome.

"Now let's start
day drinking. Come on.

"What's wrong with you people?
It's after 9:00 AM.

"Cheers. Cheers.

Good morning."

But amazingly, and I know
this is hard to hear,

Kathie Lee
did not solve everything.

In fact,
there has been a pattern
of troubling behavior

in the garment industry
for the past 20 years.

Just look at Gap,
the nation's #1 supplier

of Polo shirts
for frat guys to vomit on.

Back in the '90s,

they were criticized
for labor abuses

at a factory
making their clothes
in El Salvador.

In response, they agreed
to start an independent
monitoring program,

which sounded pretty good
to everyone.

Besides,
they had that fun ad

where idiots
in ill-fitting khakis
swing danced,

so we kind of forgot
all about it

until five years later,

when the BBC visited
a factory making Gap
clothing in Cambodia.

Reporter:
We'd been told
there were some children here

making clothes for the Gap.

This is Suntida.

She's 12 years old.

She told the factory
she's 18.

This is Chansita.
She's 14.

She too lied
to get the job.

Monitors never questioned
either of them.

Oh, come on,
that is no excuse.

If a child gained entry
to a bar

using a Pinkberry punch card
as a fake ID,

it's the f*cking bar's fault.

"Oh, it says here
your middle name
is One Free Topping.

Cool middle name.
Have fun in there."

In response, Gap revoked
approval of that factory

and enhanced
their age-verification
requirements,

which sounded pretty good.

Besides,
it was the year 2000

and they had that ad campaign

where pastel morons
did the mambo,

so we kind of forgot
all about it again,

until seven years after that,

when a British newspaper
visited a workshop in India.

Reporter: According to
a published report,

these children,
age 10 to 13,

were working
as virtual slaves,

stitching embroidered shirts
for Gap Kids.

Okay, stop.

Having children make clothes
for Gap is bad enough.

Having them make clothes
for Gap Kids

is somehow worse.

"Here, make a beautiful shirt
that's exactly your size.

"We'll ship it
around the world.

"It'll be worn once
and thrown away.

Now make 1,000 more for me."

In response,
Gap said it didn't know

its clothes
were in that workshop

and demanded its supplier
make significant improvements

to its oversight
of subcontractors.

And everyone felt better.

Especially because
it was 2007

and Gap had just had
that mind-blowingly cool

Holiday in your Hood campaign
with Common.

♪ Fell into the Gap,
they rockin' the hood ♪

♪ Seein' peace in the streets
when I stopped in the 'hood ♪

♪ We gonna keep it alive
like hip hop in the 'hood. ♪

Ugh.

Look, I know we're talking
about child labor,

but that may be the saddest
that I've felt so far.

Then in 2010

a fire broke out
in a factory in Bangladesh

that produced Gap clothing,
k*lling 29 workers.

After that, Gap launched
a building-and-fire
safety plan,

which was great,
because it meant
nothing alarming

concerning Gap's presence
in Bangladesh

was every going
to happen again,

until 2013,

when Al Jazeera found this.

Reporter:
There's no fire extinguisher,
no fire exit.

It's just a shack
in someone's backyard.

How old are you?

How long have you
been working here?

[man speaking
native language]

It says "Old Navy."

Reporter:
Old Navy is owned
by Gap, Inc.

Yeah, I guess at this point,

it seems sweatshops aren't one
of those '90s problems

we got rid of
like Donnie Wahlberg.

They're more like
one of those '90s problems

we're still
very much dealing with
like Mark Wahlberg.

Now Gap says
those Old Navy jeans

were rejected products
sold without their knowledge

and never ended up
in their stores.

And look, all brands
in the industry have problems.

Gap is by no means the worst.

And if you ask Gap,
as we did,

they'll point out they've
made real improvements

and tried as hard as they can
to fix all this.

But think about that.

That means a company
trying as hard as it can

has been
not-infrequently connected

to labor violations
in multiple countries

over two decades.

And when you weigh all this up,
it seems the only situation

in which Gap could claim
to be unambiguously
helpful to people

is when someone
shits their pants

directly outside
one of their stores.

"Oh, I never
thought I'd say this,

"but thank God
Gap is here to help.

You people are angels."

And one of
the biggest problems

with holding
many brands accountable

is that deniability
seems to have been stitched
into the supply chain.

Look at Walmart.

They insist
they hold their suppliers

to high safety standards.

But CBS visited a factory
in Bangladesh

making clothes for Walmart
and found otherwise.

Reporter:
The boss at Monde Apparels,

Masudul Haq Chowdhury,
showed us an evacuation map

marking the location
of 13 fire extinguishers,

but nearly all of them
were missing.

Well, if they're not there,

then that's not a map,
it's an aspirational poster

for fire safety.

But if that factory
does not conform

to Walmart safety standards,
how were their clothes there?

Reporter: The managers
told us the factory

hasn't been approved
by Walmart for production.

But they still had an order
for a million Walmart
boxer shorts

subcontracted to them
by another factory.

I see.

So Walmart sent it
to an approved factory

and that factory sent it
to an unapproved factory

without Walmart's knowledge.

It's just a crazy,
one-in-a-million
random accident

that's only happened
multiple times over
the past few years.

Male reporter:
Walmart say their clothing
suppliers in Bangladesh

were doing business
with the factory without
their knowledge.

Reporter #2:
One of its suppliers

subcontracted
part of the order

to Tazrin
without their permission.

The order was placed
with the troubled factory
without its knowledge.

Female reporter:
It had no idea production
ever happened there.

And this is not
the first time Walmart
has been caught unaware.

No, it's not,

and they are losing the right
to act surprised.

They're like the characters
in the Hangover movies.

It's not an accident
the third time, boys.

It's a pattern
of reckless behavior
which has to be addressed.

One of you
is going to wind up dead,

probably the one
who's never on the poster.

Look, since the '90s,
we've sporadically
cared about this,

including two years ago
this week

after the Rana Plaza
building collapse.

Five days after
that deadly building collapse
in Bangladesh,

rescuers continue to pull
survivors from the rubble.

New pictures overnight
show dramatic rescues,

some using their bare hands
to free those who
are still trapped.

At least 360 people
have been k*lled,

hundreds more still missing.

That building collapse
ended up k*lling more
than 1,100 people.

Everyone was
justifiably horrified.

And that report aired
on The Today Show,

so you know
that everyone there heard it.

We then found out that brands
like Joe Fresh

and The Children's Place
had been made in Rana Plaza,

and we were horrified again.

And yet we get so blinded
by low prices

that just a few months later,

The Today Show
was doing this.

Woman:
This adorable sequined bag
is from The Children's Place.

I found it for under $10.
Woman #2: Wow!

Love that!
You don't want to spend
a ton of money

'cause you're going
to spill something on it.

I found this one,
which is a silk-poly blend
from Joe Fresh.

Touch it-- still feels
really good.

Yeah, it's very nice.

If we hadn't felt this one--


"19 bucks!
Get out! Get out!

"Get the f*ck
out of the studio

and think about
what you're doing."

Because one of the ladies
cooing over that $19
Joe Fresh blouse

is Kathie Lee Gifford.

And if she can forget
the human cost

of shockingly cheap clothing,

then that is not in that case
actually that surprising.

Her brain is basically pickled
in chardonnay at this point.

But it doesn't give you
much hope for everyone else.

Look, this is going
to keep happening
as long as we let it.

So we need
to show clothing brands

not just that we care,
but why they should.

So we have a little surprise
for the leaders

of some of these companies.

I'm talking specifically
about the heads of H&M,

of Walmart, of Gap,

of Joe Fresh,
and of The Children's Place.

I've bought all of you lunch,

which will be turning up
to your office tomorrow.

Now full disclosure--

I do not know exactly
how this food was made.

I told someone who
may have told someone else

to get the most food they could
for the cheapest price.

And they did that.
Now I do have strict
policies in place.

I told them not to spit
on that food

or to rub their balls
on that food,

and I've trusted them
to abide by that.

So I want you to look at
this suspiciously cheap food

that lands
on your desk tomorrow,

and I want you
to f*cking eat it.

And if you are thinking,
"Well, I can't do that.

"I don't know
where it came from.

What if someone
rubbed their balls on it?"

Then I don't know
what to tell you

other than, "Now do you
understand the importance

of supply-chain
management?"

But why am I telling you
about your lunch

when I can show you?

Introducing
the spring collection

of your lunch tomorrow.

First, please welcome Dave.

Dave is wearing
an Old Navy shirt and shorts.

His total outfit
cost just $23.78.

And he's carrying
the frighteningly cheap
sushi platter

that will be arriving
at your office tomorrow.

Thank you, Dave.

Let's move on
to Walmart!

Kristen is modeling
both a summer maxi dress

available for under $15

and a tray of flautas
that we got

for just $1.75 each,

which is so close
to being free,

it's literally nauseating.

Moving on to
Jo-Jo-Jo-Joe Fresh!

Austin is pairing
a sweatshirt and casual pant
that cost under $40.

How is it so cheap?
It's a mystery,

much like the contents
of that gigantic pile

of cheap dumplings
that you will be eating
tomorrow.

Thank you, Austin.

Let's move on
to our H&M collection.

We paired Hailey's sub-$20
jeans and blouse

with shrimp-and-salmon
pastry for five,

which will be
genuinely arriving

at your Stockholm offices
tomorrow.

I'm guessing
that you will smell it

before it gets
into the room.

And finally--
thank you, thank you.

Finally, please welcome
The Children's Place.

And say hello to Elliot.

She's wearing an adorable
white summer dress

which costs less
than $15.

And what's that
she's pulling?

That would be your lunch,

a selection of dirt-cheap
rotisserie chickens.

Just to reiterate,
I have no idea where
they came from

or what might have happened
to them along the way.

But Elliot sure wants you
to eat them.

Isn't that right, Elliot?

Exactly.
So eat them.

Eat-- eat them.

Eat this wagon
of mystery chickens.

That's our show!
Thank you to all our models.

We'll see you next week.
Good night!