Only 89 Days Left

Since it's near the end of September, that can only mean one thing (apparently). That's right! It's time for Christmas shopping!

Oh, sweet mother of God. What?!

Hey, I'm just the messenger! Don't kill the messenger! You want to be mad at someone? Try the toy companies! And not just for starting in on the whole Christmas shopping dealio in September, for cryin' out loud! You can get mad at them for other things as well. Things like having a white version of a toy/doll and also having a Hispanic version of the same toy/doll. Wait. What now?

Now, I'm not saying that all toys/dolls should be white, OK? And I can't really say that when I was a kid that I didn't notice what color the toys/dolls that I played with were, but that's just because I'm white and the toys/dolls were white also most of the time. (Wait. What was Barbie's friend, Skipper? Was she black? No, that doesn't seem right. Who's the black Barbie? Christie? Then who in the hell is Malibu Stacie?) I mean, I really didn't notice if the dolls were white or black, nor did I care. But was that because I'm white or because I didn't care? I don't know. All I know is that this paragraph is my disclaimer to the whole "I don't like it" thing not being because I'm white and therefore a racist, OK? I'm not a racist. And Barack Obama is not a Muslim. (I always feel the need to throw that in whenever I can, but now I'm all confused. Where was I? Oh, right. The Hispanic dolls.)

So Fisher Price has a Little Mommy Sweet As Me doll. They market the one below as being "With Pink Jumpsuit and Brown Hair". That's fine. Behold!

OK, she looks like a miniaturized soccer mom. Does she come with a mini van? An SUV perhaps? Where is her Starbucks cup? Let me guess. Accessories sold separately? But Fisher Price also markets the Little Mommy Sweet as Me Hispanic Doll with Hot Pink Top with Jeans and Brown Shoes. Behold!

Does she have to be the "Hispanic" Doll? Why can't she just be the Little Mommy Sweet As Me Doll with Hot Pink Top with Jeans and Brown Shoes? How come the other doll isn't Little Mommy Sweet as Me White Honky Doll with Pink Jumpsuit and Brown Hair? (As long as I'm asking questions here, why does the Hispanic doll have that flowered fanny pack on her head?) Is it assumed that those who would purchase the Hispanic doll are really interested in all of the apparel that she comes with, while those who would purchase the white doll just need to know what color hair she has? We like shoes! We loooovvve shoes! But we don't get to know about the white doll's shoes. Sad.

Another question I have about this is how come Hispanic Doll looks like she just rolled out of bed while Honky Doll is fresh as a daisy?!

But wait! It gets even more ridiculous! Another Fisher Price product is the Little Mommy Baby Ah-Choo! Doll. According to the description: "Girls will love to squeeze the doll's tummy and watch her "sneeze", then help her get better with the interactive thermometer that checks her temperature, plus "medicine", measuring spoon and a box of tissues! Baby Ah-Choo Hispanic is bilingual too!" Great. So the kid snots all over you? Dandy. I'm renaming this doll. It's now the Little Mommy Ah-Choo Swine Flu Baby Doll. Behold!

Oh, but wait. What was that? "Baby Ah-Choo Hispanic is bilingual too!" It's a baby! They don't talk! What? They can sneeze in different languages now? I don't think that they can. But they can, seemingly, be transformed from one nationality to another. Behold, Baby Swine Flu, the Hispanic Version!

Great Scott! Baby Swine Flu is none other than the Sweet as Me Honky doll! It's like she's a superhero with a secret identity! All she needs now is a cape! (Heeeyyy! Maybe that's what was on the head of the Hispanic Sweet As Me doll!)

But do you see my point (kind of) here? Admit it! That's the same damn doll only one of them has a hair clip and the other one of them has a snazzy headband with a fashionable floral accessory. My point is that they're the damn same! You don't need to go off calling one of them Hispanic and one of them, well, you don't call the other one anything now, do you?! Tell me something about the doll that isn't bilingual. I don't know what phrases they say. I mean, they're supposed to be babies after all, I don't know why they're talking in the first place and if they are talking, shouldn't they also come with a little Oprah set? (You know, because they'd totally be on her show if they were babies and could talk.) Does the doll that is not bilingual say, "I don't speak Spanish."? It should, shouldn't it? Think about it.

I don't like this whole deal of having the Hispanic doll and the "other" doll for the reason pointed out when comparing the two dolls above. They're the same! People are the same! That's right! We're all people. I don't give a fat rat's ass if you're white or black or brown or purple or green. I do give a fat rat's ass as to whether or not you're a moron or not. But as for what color moron you are or are not? I could not care any less about that and I really don't think that I'm in the minority in that way of thinking.

If you're going to get all race-specific with toys or whatever else, all I'm asking is that you get race-specific with the white ones as well. If you're doing it with the Hispanic dolls and no one is complaining, then it must be fine, so why can't you do it with the white dolls as well? Does that thought make you uncomfortable? Listen, I'm the one theoretically advocating it here and it makes me uncomfortable! What say we don't label any of them of any race and see who gravitates toward what? We're smart. We'll figure out what we want to buy for ourselves without a label defining race playing into it. To answer the question, I'm pretty sure that we can all get along.

Sphere: Related Content

Liar, Liar

(Side note: The next time you hear about a business failing "because of the economy" or "because of the recession", just realize that could easily be translated to "Too freaking stupid to have survived as long as they have and it's a miracle they didn't exit the economy, recessed or not, sooner." I say that because it just boggles my mind that an ISP provider which shall remain nameless (Covad. Covad. Covad. It's COVAD!!!) seems to be able to figure out how to get all of those tubes and pipes and things from house to house and make the Internet go like it's supposed to, but cannot fathom how to let people know when "scheduled maintenance" is going to be and instead simply surprise them with said "maintenance" at the most inopportune of times. You people could not be a "victim of the economy" too soon for me, thank you very much. Their logo over there reads "The Internet as it should be." Really? You guys don't seem to be doing a very good job up holding that motto because in my opinion, the way that the "Internet should be" is ON!! I should probably apologize to the tech from India, "Jimmy" (who sounded remarkably like Apu from "The Simpsons", for my slight conniption fit over the situation and the length of time said "maintenance" was going to take. But, then again, he kept insisting his name was "Jimmy" and he kept calling me "sir", neither of which is correct and thus, no apology. Whew! Well, that's out. I'm still pissed, but at least it's known why this post was late.)

In what is quite possibly the worst attempt ever at trying to discredit the obvious, the folks over there at TY are leading the pack. TY, as you may or may not choose to remember, is the maker of the Beanie Baby stuffed toys that were once a "must have" item for everyone in the country and now sit in bags, stowed away into attics across America. They have a new line of toys/dolls/Beanies out. And it's a change! (Do you not see where this is going? Really?)

TY has a line of dolls which they have called the TY Girlz. The "Z", of course, is to make sure that you know that they're cool AND so you don't mistake them with regular "girls". That would be just awkward. Well, there are two new additions to the Girlz line of must have toys. (Remember, those little Beanie Baby animal toy things turned people into lunatics. It was like the day after Thanksgiving sales and with all of the trampling to get these things when they came out. People paid hundreds of dollars for a single little cloth sack full of beans. Some even sold the family cow for a handful of beans. Wait. That was something different. Never mind. Carry on.) And contrary to what TY has said, I'm sure that they can't wait to be part of the newest fad sweeping the country. The fad....of change. Behold! The TY Marvelous Malia and Sweet Sasha Girlz dolls!

Huh. Interesting. So, they're obviously designed with the Obama girls in mind, right? Oh, no! No, no, no! Not according to TY! According to TY, Malia Obama and Sasha Obama had nothing to do with the inspiration for these two dolls which were just released. Really?? Uh, I kinda think that they did.

According to the folks over there at CNN (who are masters at stating the obvious, so they should have no trouble at all with this story) who talked to the spokeswoman for TY, they were told, "Information concerning the development of our products and how we come up with names, how we select them, how we trademark -- that's considered as proprietary. I can't go any further with that question." That is apparently what they were actually told that by a one Senior Vice President of Sales, Tania Lundeen. This is the point where the person from CNN presumably shouted, "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!"

She continued to pull excuses out of her ass by saying, "Sasha and Malia are beautiful names that worked very well with the dolls we were making." Well, yes, of course they did. Sasha and Malia are very beautiful names and definitely do work very well with the dolls that you were making....to look like the Obama girls, Malia and Sasha! Funny how that worked out, eh?

She also said that "The dolls follow 'the exact patterns' used for the other Ty Girlz dolls, so we did not make the dolls to physically resemble either of the Obama girls." Um, wait. So you didn't do ANYTHING differently to these two dolls than you had done to the other dolls that you make? Nothing?? Nothing that would unintentionally mislead a consumer to believe that the dolls, Malia and Sasha, are intended to represent the other Malia and Sasha? Of the White House Malia and Sasha? Huh. Interesting. Let's compare, shall we?

Here are the Marvelous Malia Not Obama doll and the Sweet Sasha Not Obama doll:

Here are ten other TY Girlz dolls:

Yeah, they're the same all right. Can't see how anyone would get a crazy notion in their head that Marvelous Malia and Sweet Sasha were inspired by the Obama girls. Nope. You're right, Miss Vice President of Sales and Lying, we're all crazy. Let's look at some more of the Girlz dolls.

Yeah, we're nuts. WE the consumers are the ones that are reading too much into this whole thing. Any more dolls we can look at, just to make sure that our misinterpretation is etched in stone? Oh, good! More dolls! Behold!

She continued to spout forth falsehoods when she said that her, "...company avoids naming dolls for "any particular living individual" because it might interfere with how kids use their imaginations to play with them." Well, they certainly didn't avoid it this time! She also didn't avoid a slight slip up when she said, "Malia and Sasha are two adorable dolls, or Sweet Sasha and Marvelous Malia, forgive me." Forgive you for....calling the dolls by their names? Sans cutesy adjectives? I don't know if that's forgivable, ma'am. Perhaps if you stop lying we'll consider it.

What exactly does that mean? That they don't want to "...interfere with how kids use their imaginations to play with them?" Any doll is going to look like something. And that something is going to probably play a role in how the child plays with the doll. Any name that you give a doll could relate to a specific individual; it just depends on the child. But why is that a bad thing again? What are they afraid will happen with the Malia and Sasha dolls? That children will have the dolls watch their dad become the first half-white President of the United States? Yeah, that would be tragic, all right. What is wrong with people?

She also pointed out, "There's nothing on the dolls that refers to the Obama girls. It would not be fair to say they are exact replications of these girls. They are not." Um, your toys are made out of cloth and some sort of polyfiber filling which resemble small beans (hence, the name). How much of an "exact replication" do you expect to get with cloth and fiberfill? Not much! Does it HAVE to be an "exact replication" to know what you're implying? I don't think it does! Ma'am. And I'm getting a bit irritated with your insistence that one has nothing to do with the other when they both clearly do!

This is a blatant example of a disturbing and annoying trend that has become more and more prevalent in the past couple of years. It's the trend where a reason or an explanation is given for an occurrence and even though the reason is ridiculous, improbable, impossible or all three, it is expected that it will be accepted as how things are because "they said so". That doesn't cut it. There's a difference between "explaining" and "lying". But for some reason, if you're "lying" and trying to make it come across as "explaining", well then, that's OK. It's really not. Ever.

The Ty folks must be worried about litigation or something like that because I can't figure out why one would be so blatantly untruthful about the obvious. And if you're that worried about litigation, you probably shouldn't have done whatever it is that you did in the first place if your only defense against any sort of accusation is going to be "Nuh-uh!"

Sphere: Related Content