Wow. Yesterday I learned that I had previously greatly underestimated the amount of Easter ham that I am capable of eating. My GOD, it was delicious! I was barely able to get up from the table and find my way to my computer so that I could surf the Innerwebs. But I'm glad that I did. Had I not, then I wouldn't have run across the little gem below. From the days when boardgames were everything, I present to you an original cover from the game of Battleship. Behold!
What a great game that was/is. "America's all time favorite game". I bet it was. Very wholesome and very...wait a minute. How come only the guys are playing? What are the girls doing in the background there? I need a close up. Close up!
Oh, you have GOT to be kidding me! The guys are playing the game whilst the women are in the kitchen doing the freaking dishes?! How all-American of them. Man, we could not have moved past that mindset fast enough if you're asking me. Washing dishes. For cryin' out loud...
There's a lot of sadness in today's tale. After all, what would you do if you found out that your mother had gotten rid of that which you had considered to be your life partner and you realized that you would have to go the rest of your life without that partner? Would you burn down your family's home in an attempt to kill yourself? Would you answer these questions differently if your life partner was a toy? Wait. A...toy?
Correct. A toy. What we have here is the story of a Japanese gentleman, a one 30-year old Yoshifumi Takabe. According to the Australian Broadcasting Company, Mr. Takabe and his possessions had been living with his mother. His possessions apparently included enough of his toy robot figures to fill 300 boxes to the ceiling. Now, I'm sure you're thinking that might be a little strange, but they weren't just any toy robots. No, they were "...robot toys were figures from the Gundam animated TV series, which started in the 1970s, about space wars involving giant robots." I'm sure that has you thinking just a little bit differently about him, doesn't it? (Hey, I didn't say it was for the better. I just said it was different!)
I'm all for a collection of vintage toys. (Are the 1970s considered vintage? For the sake of this argument, let's say that they are. I think it might kind of help our impression of Mr. Takabe just a shred. Or not.) But 300 boxes stacked to the ceiling? That's an awful lot of robot toys. What was the show again? Gundam? It's gotta be a Japanese thing, right? Well, even if it's not, it's definitely a Mr. Takabe thing.
This story continues with Mr. Takabe's mother throwing out some of the toys. While I understand her not being overly thrilled (or able to move) in a home with 300 boxes of robot toys, throwing out only some of them seems rather passive-aggressive if you're asking me. It's not like throwing out a box or two is going to make a dent in the enormous collection that has been amassed. She must not have known that Mr. Takabe would become "...suicidal after losing the figures" because he said they "...were partners he wanted to spend his life with." Hmm.
You know, as odd as that sounds, perhaps Mr. Takabe was simply a realist. I'm guessing that with the 300 boxes of robot toys, he was thoroughly immersed in the ways and culture of the un-layable. The toys might have been the perfect mates for him. Polygamy toy heaven. Or something like that.
Not able to deal with the prospect of living without some of his toys, Mr. Takabe set the family home on fire because "...he wanted to die with his robots in the fire." OK, then. If someone wants to die in a fire, there's really only one requirement. That would be to stay in where the fire is at. Apparently, Mr. Takabe wasn't real clear on that concept, as he managed to escape the fire unscathed.
He appeared in court and pled guilty to burning down his house and, presumably, the rest of his toys. Isn't he going to be a little devastated at this point? I mean, talk about overreacting? At least before, he had some toys and a place to live. Now he has no toys and, well, I guess he kind of has a place to live. Jail is definitely a place to live. Man, and he thought he wanted to die before. I'm guessing he won't think that he had it so bad after a little time in a Japanese jail. Then again, perhaps he could meet himself a different sort of life partner, now that his toys are gone.
As if it wasn't bad enough that a bunch of halfwits (also known as the Board of Stupidvisors Supervisors) in Santa Clara County (that's in the failing experimental utopia of Northern California) "...voted to ban toy promotions from fast food meals sold in unincorporated parts of the county". Yeah, they felt like because there was a toy in the Happy Meal it was contributing to childhood obesity. I know. I know. Wuck? (I know! This is not news to me. I have live in this clown county.) But now, a group is taking stupidicy to a whole new level along these same lines. That's right. Some asshat "watchdog group" is now threatening to sue McDonald's if they do not remove all of the toys from their Happy Meals altogether. Good Lord, what is wrong with some people?
According to the still very respectable when other daily newspapers are going to crap LA Times, the "...Center for Science in the Public Interest said that the plastic promotions lure children into McDonald's restaurants where they are then likely to order food that is too high in calories, fat and salt." What the dimwits over at the Center for Science in the Public Interest fail to explain is how those children are actually lured there. I was at a McDonald's just today and I didn't see any Happy Meals on sticks that were luring in unsuspecting children. Nor did I see any children who had (allegedly) been lured driving themselves to the McDonald's in order to get their unhealthy meal/toy combo pack of death. Oh, that's right. Because children have parents! And it's parents that should be making these choices. I knew there was something vital that was missing from the whole "luring" argument.
According to a one Stephen Gardner, Head Asshat the litigation director for this group (who looks just about how you'd picture him to look), "McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children. McDonald's use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children's developmental immaturity." Yeah, there's some immaturity going on here, but I don't think that it's the young children. What does he mean that McDonald's is the stranger? McDonald's isn't a stranger to anyone! It's that friendly clown! With burgers! And fries!
I'm failing to understand why taking care of a kid is no longer the responsibility of the parent. If the kid whines and cries that he wants McDonald's, the parent can say no, right? Right. If you can't handle saying "no" to your kid every time they want McDonald's, then you should probably just put your kid up for adoption right now. It's only going to get worse.
I also find it interesting that the commercials that McDonald's puts out these days are far less kid friendly than the commercials that they used to put out. The commercials used to have all of the characters and their wacky 30-second antics. There was Mayor McCheese (who must have been forced into retirement, as I almost never see or hear from him anymore) and his big burger head. There was that chicken-like bird thing with the goggles that flew around. There was that crafty Hamburglar who was always burgling the ham. The extremely rotund and purple Grimace (who is likely banned from all advertising due to his plumpness and rotund nature). They even had puppets of all of the food with eyes and mouths on them! (The burger even had a little bow tie!) Those were pretty awesome. Those guys were extremely kid friendly. What are the commercials now? A bunch of homies playing loud music and showing off their bling because they're lovin' it. Not kid friendly. Homey friendly, perhaps. But not kid friendly. So how come we weren't hearing these arguments back then? Oh, right. Because parents had the guts to say "no" to their kid. That's right. I knew it was something.
It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit turns out. Oh, I know that they've only threatened to sue if McDonald's doesn't comply and remove all of the Happy Meal toys. (It's a move that is oddly reminiscent of blackmail.) But you know McDonald's isn't going to do that. Why would they? Actually, the more important question here is why should they? What happened to capitalism and the free market? What happened to the land of the free? I don't think that our free land needs to have its children's meals regulated by some self-serving, feel good group which seems to operate on pollyanna principles. Grow a spine! Parent your kids! And gimme my Happy Meal with a Shrek toy, please. (That's right. I've been lured!)
We're doomed. Doomed. Once again, leave it to a county in California to be introduced a bill that "If it is passed, this would be the first such legislation in the nation." California: Leading the way to making sure that no one is responsible for themselves anymore. And we're going to be pushed further down that path by making sure that there is not, of all things, a toy in a child's fast food meal. Of course. No, wait. What now?
Correct. According to the fine folks over there at KGO-TV, "A Santa Clara County lawmaker will introduce legislation to stop restaurants from handing out toys with fast food menu items geared toward children." OK, then. Almost all I have to say is that this guy had better not be a SCC lawmaker for very much longer. Are you freaking kidding me?!
Let's hear the lame ass justification for this waste of time and money effort, shall we? According to a one Ken Yeager, the apparent dip ass behind this measure, "One in three kids are overweight or are obese, and we're finding out more and more that if you're obese as a child, you're going to have health problems your entire life." Hmm. I don't disagree with that statement, but I kind of doubt that we're "just finding out" that a fat kid is going to make for an unhealthy adult. That seems to be a stretch. I also highly doubt that the one in three kids that is overweight is in that condition because they received a little plastic R2D2 with their burger. I highly doubt that.
Yeager claims that "Ten out of 12 meals that are associated with the promotional toys are the high-caloric, high-fat, high-sodium meals." First of all, which 12 meals are we talking about here? There aren't 12 meals with toys that are available at just one chain, so what is he talking about? Sadly, due to extremely poor reporting, this question isn't answered.
Also, how many meals that are not associated with a promotional toy (ie, the ones that aren't "for children") are "high-caloric, high-fat, high-sodium" meals? At a fast food place? I'm guessing most of them or at the very least, half of them. It's fast food, for cryin' out loud. But again, sadly, due to poor reporting, this aspect is not further explored.
Supervisor Yeager wants his proposed ordinance to regulate "...fast food restaurants' ability to offer toys or other incentives with kids' meals." Um..."other incentives"? What are "other incentives" when you're buying a sack of toy-laden fast food? What other incentives would their be? NOT being hungry when you're done? That's an incentive, all right, but regulating "an end to hunger" seems odd. What other incentives could he be referring to? Hookers? Can they give out hookers? That'd be an incentive, but probably not for children. Hmm. This is a head scratcher, all right.
Wait! I just came up with one! When I buy Coca-Cola products, there is a little code inside of the 12-pack that will give me My Coke Rewards Points when I enter the codes online. If I save up enough points, I can buy a Coke logo emblazoned yacht or something similar from the Coca-Cola store. I guess those points would be considered an "incentive" to buy Coca-Cola products (that and a really strong desire for the unattainable goal of purchasing a Coke yacht). And since regular sodas are filled with at least one five pound bag of sugar per 12 ounce can (so I've heard from the anti-soda groups), those points are making kids who drink those products obese. Is Mr. Yeager proposing not allowing the sale of any products from various carbonated beverage manufacturers who use promotional gimmicks to sell us their "liquid death"? Of course he isn't. Has he suggested such a measure? Of course he hasn't. You know why? Because it would be idiotic, that is correct. (My words, not his. Given that he wants the "no toy" ban to be in effect, he'll probably consider this scenario next.)
Of course, this must make sense to Mr. Yeager because, as we all know, if a child wants something, it is the duty of the parent to immediately purchase that which the child wants immediately. Thus, if the child wants the high calorie, high fat, high sodium, very tasty meal with a toy in it, well, the parent will have to buy that child the meal, no questions asked! And we also all know that you must take your children to have fast food all of the time when they are little. That must be the case because, if kids are as fat as Mr. Yeager says that they are and that the meals with toys are to blame, then those kids must be eating that stuff morning, noon and night. It's a shame, really. (God, what a moron.)
Let me just briefly summarize what this Yeager fellow thinks is a good idea, OK? He thinks that it's a good idea for the government to tell companies that they cannot put a toy in with a kid's meal. That's right. A toy. He believes this to be the solution to childhood obesity, for some reason. So rather than let parents regulate the food intake of their own children, Mr. Yeager believes it is best if the government takes AWAY choices from people in order to get them to make what the government believes to be the right choice. Sure, that sounds like the America I know.
Mr. Yeager, I'm going to present you with an alternative. How about, instead of taking out the toy, you let the fast food companies leave the toy in. But instead of just handing the food to the child (or the parent, wherever they are in this scenario. From what I can tell, these fast food places are in some sort of Lord of the Flies scenario, as good parenting versus bad parenting doesn't seem to be a factor), how about you have the kid run around the restaurant three times before he can get his food? The parent places the order at the drive-thru speaker, pulls up to the first window and then lets the kids out of the car. The kids then sprint around some sort of Olympic sized track and when they finally make it to the finish line (assuming that they do), they get their meal AND their toy handed to them for them to enjoy. It seems reasonable. They'll have gotten some exercise (which we all know they don't get enough of) and they'll still get fed. It'll balance out. The yin and the yang. I can support installing Olympic sized running tracks around all of the McDonald's in the county. THAT I could support. Banning companies from putting a toy in the meals for kids? You've gotta be dry shavin' me.
Thanksgiving (or, as some of you refer to it, Thursday) is over and it's time to think about Christmas shopping, right? Oh, Good Lord, now? Yes (apparently), now. But here's a little twist. Instead of talking about everything that everyone is clamoring to buy for Christmas, let's chat about some of the things that I'm hoping you'll avoid buying for Christmas. Now, you're going to have to pay attention because some are cleverly marketed to make you think either a) you really want this item or b) it's really cool and someone else will want this item. Neither of those things are true. Both are blatantly false. Lies. They're also known as lies. And the products below are also known as crap.
Here we have the first item to avoid buying this Christmas. Like Spider-Man? Like the beach? Well now you can have the best of both worlds with a beach going Spider-Man! Behold!
Oh, what the hell is that?! That, of course, is Spider-Man at the beach. See, he has his Spidey arms all exposed to maximize his tan (Watch out for melanoma, Spider-Man! Use sunblock, Spider-Man!), but they have left him with his Spidey gloves minus the fingers. That's a head scratcher even for me to come up with a reason as to why it is. But he also has his Spidey beach ball, his Spidey ball cap AND just in case someone is drowning and Pam Anderson or David Hasselhoff isn't around, he has one of those plastic orange things that we always saw them running with on Baywatch, but never actually saw them used. (NO one knows what the heck they do anyway. Do they work? Do they not? No one has ever tried them to find out!)
That little gem is brought to us by a company called Toy Biz which is apparently the toy division of Marvel Entertainment. It would appear, judging from Beach Spidey there, that in order to be an employee of Toy Biz, you must smoke incredible amount of marijuana each day at work, in or out of your cubicle. (I'm also guessing that they have a very lax policy on wearing pants as well, but that's an entirely different post.)
But wait! Beach Time Spidey not for you?! Prefer something a little more rugged? A little more adventurous? Something sans beach ball, perhaps? Well, the, maybe Safari Spider-Man is for you! Behold!
Good Lord, it keeps getting worse, doesn't it? It would appear that Safari Spidey has inadvertently bumped into some voodoo tribe deep within his jungle adventures and ended up with a shrunken head the size of a thimble! What happened Spider-Man?! What happened to your head?! Safari Spidey comes with a field camera, a safari hat for his teeny, tiny little noggin there, and "safari gear". I don't know what "safari gear" is, I only know that Spider-Man should not be having any of it!
And to round out the Stupid Spidey Trifecta, if you've got him at the beach and you've got him in the jungle, of course the next completely unnatural and absolutely hysterical outfit to have him in would be that of a firefighter! Behold!
OK, after seeing that I'm guessing they just give new hires at Toy Biz a big ol' joint to blaze down the first hour that they're on the job. Firefighter, Spidey? Are you kidding me? Shouldn't he be using his Spidey ability to scale the walls of that inferno and save some folks from a crispy, crispy doom instead of aiming his hose somewhere? The caption should be "Having been at the beach and thus missing all of the excitement on September 11, 2001, Spider-Man shows up on September 12, really jealous and ready for action!"
I have just realized during my search for all of the Spidey idiocy, that there is a whole line of ridiculous Spider-Man action figures. I cannot mock them all in this one post, as that would leave me no time to do justice to other hidden nuggets of glee such as this item:
That would be what is calledLightning Reaction Extreme. That's right. Not just your regular ol' Lightning Reaction! No, this one is extreme. Personally, I think the whole 'game' is a bit extreme. Here's the way it works: Everyone grabs one of those trigger looking things there and gets ready for loads of fun! It would seem that the game starts and music plays. While the music is playing, there is an illuminated red light in the center of the thing. When the music stops and the light turns to green, you're supposed to hit your trigger as fast as you can. Speed is important in this game as if you are not the fastest one and do not hit your trigger first, you receive an electrical shock via your controller! What the hell?!
It says on the box that it is not suitable for persons under the age of 15. See, I had no idea that there was a cut-off for the appropriate age to be shocked by a game that you're playing! What about people with pacemakers?! How suitable is it for them? What about the elderly? Suitable? I think not! I'm thinking that a minimum age to play this thing should be the least of people's concerns. But as I was reeling over this game, I came to realize that there are a whole slew of games out there that will shock you if you do it too slow, too fast or too wrong. There'sShock Ball: The Shocking Hot Potato Game. Don't forget theShocking Memory Game, which kind of looks like that Simon game from the 80s, but only if Simon were on crack and living in the ghetto. And what party parlor wouldn't be complete without an edition of Shocking Arm Wrestling? That's right. Put on the gloves, lay down the shock pads and have at it! According to the description over there at Amazon, this game "...will make sure your opponent knows he is the loser by giving an electrical shock." Have the rules for arm wrestling become so complicated that we no longer know when it is that we have lost? I was very well aware that when my arm hit the table, I had lost. I didn't need a jolt of electricity to run through by body in order to drive that point home. My arm on the table was sufficient, thanks.
But not all toys are as shocking as the ones above. (Yes, yes, pun intended, but I'm not proud of it.) If, for some reason that I cannot imagine, your child is interested in, but just too darn young to bone and prepare their own fish, here's a fish prep toy for just such an occasion!
I'm told that cooking toys are very popular these days. I'm looking at that fish there and I'm having a hard time believing either a) that that's true, or b) that that's really a toy. And say, what's with the little squid there? Is it so the little ones can be pretending to bone salmon steaks and make calamari at the same time? Seems a bit complex, but what do I know? I'm not the one with the fish prep toy!
If you're afraid that your little one is going to have dreams of success that are just too much for them, perhaps bringing them back down to earth with their very own little cleaning trolley. Behold!
What the what? A cleaning trolley? Trolley? Is that the right word? Or are we just using that because "cart" is offensive to some jackass? I think 'trolley' and I think streetcars, San Francisco, Rice-A-Roni, etc. I don't think 'cleaning lady' when I hear 'trolley'. Aside from that, this toy seems to have everything you'd need to play janitor all the live long day. It has a broom, a mop, a disinfectant squirter, a slop bucket, all the amenities to provide your little one with hours upon hours of enjoyment by simulating backbreaking work that will barely pay minimum wage with no benefits. And judging from the back of the package, I'm guessing that you're not going to find a "Made in U.S.A." label on this item. The back reads, collectively (and I'm not correcting for spelling, punctuation, or capitalization either. What you're reading is verbatim.):
"completely new to come in to market! top!
the best toys for the children and have a good time and keep you so clever!
Let us cleaning!"
I'm thinking maybe not so much "Let us cleaning!" and maybe a little bit more of "Let us counting!" as the front of the box says 11 pieces and the back of the box says 20 pieces. Also, this toy boasts a label that says "Girls Only". I don't know if that's the brand/label of the toy company that makes this disaster or if it intended as some sort of a guide, but if I was the type of person who got offended (and I'm not) that would do it.
And it wouldn't be a Christmas shopping season if I didn't include at least one highly inappropriate item to steer clear of. From the category of "What were they thinking?" I give to you (and consider it a gift that you have to keep) the Rad Repeatin' Tarzan. Behold!
OK, that doesn't look so bad, but you haven't seen him in action yet. Keep in mind, however, that something with the word 'rad' in the title is not going to be good. Clearly, the folks who came up with this name were not thinking things through. Oh, but if it was only just the name that they hadn't thought through enough. The video below should be enough to get across why you'll want to avoid this like the plague this year.
Uh-huh. I see. Well...it seems like Tarzan doesn't need Jane anymore. Either that or it's how Tarzan passes the time since Jane left him (probably for Safari Spidey). Whatever the scenario over there in the jungle, don't buy Rad Repeatin' Tarzan for your youngsters. Or your oldsters. Or any -sters. (And that includes oysters! No reason they should have to put up with that! Good Lord....)
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
